Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive793

IP 50.37.147.15 disruption

User:50.37.147.15 has made 29 edits to article space in one month, solely to remove {{Marriage}} usage, for which they apparently misunderstand the purpose. Having been warned twice for doing so, they've now nominated the template for deletion. While I will try to trust the process and hope enough editors will notice the proposal, I happened to see it just by accident. I'm more concerned at the strange pattern of an IP editor doing nothing more in a month than attack a particular template – not something that one expects from a newbie. Admin opinion and attention is therefore requested. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

User notified at User talk:50.37.147.15 § Notice of discussion at ANI —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

What is the template's purpose? Questions to this effect on its talk page remain unanswered. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I think I tried in my response to the TfD. The purpose is to standardize the format of marriage information, particularly for use in Infoboxes, and to add microformat tagging for non-human consumption, much like {{Birth date}}, {{Coord}}, {{URL}}, etc. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You did not. We do not use, nor need, templates "to standardize the format" of text. The template applies no "microformat tagging". If you disagree, please explain how it does so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I'm part of the same "We" that you are, as am I that templates are routinely used to standardize presentation (e.g. {{Infobox}}), as others have stated at the TfD (where this discussion belongs). The template transcludes {{event}} which is documented to emit microformats. My reason for bringing this to ANI was, as stated above, because of the IP user's strange actions. I'll note that Andy TfD'd this template 3 months ago. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes do more than "standardize the format of text". We don't use templates simply to standardize the format of text in individual template parameters. If {{Marriage}} calls {{event}} to emit a microformat; it does not do so itself. You have still not answered the questions on the template;s talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

TFD got closed as no-consensus. I've proposed modifications to the template; please see the "Removing parameters" section of Template talk:Marriage to offer input. Nyttend (talk) 02:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I've done some further work or refresh my memory and check the facts. Pages using the template emit no more microformats than those that do not. The only microformat emitted by {{event}}, from the example on its own documentation page, is that emitted by the {{Coord}} template that it calls, for the coordinates. How many marriages do we have, for each we list coordinates? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The IP user has gone silent since the 2nd. If an admin does not want to take up the issue of this possibly being a regular user that wanted to hide behind an IP for this occasion, there's nothing more to be done here. (The template is being dealt with where it belongs). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 12:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

IP Linking dates on album pages

A few months ago, I reported IPs from Guatemala that was linking dates despite repeated warnings not to do so. The IPs range was blocked, but after it has expired, the IPs are once again linking dates on the Latin album articles. I warned 190.111.10.44 (talk · contribs) not to do it and reminded the user that the IP was blocked for not listening, and gave 190.111.10.39 (talk · contribs) a final warning for ignoring my message. Let the IP is still disrupting Wikipedia by linking dates on album pages which are clearly against MOS per WP:UNLINKDATES. EDIT: 190.111.10.49 (talk · contribs) is disrupting right now and editing warring with me. Erick (talk) 02:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

As the behaviour is continuing in spite of mulitple warningbs, I have gone ahead with another range block of 190.111.10.32/27. -- Dianna (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Evan2003

Evan2003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The user, a self-described child, has changed without explanation a lot of dates in articles on politicians. A quick spot check indicates there may be some constructive contributions as well, but I have to be offline now so I don't have time to comb through them meticulously but am hesitant to mass-revert. Could someone please help with that and, if there is indeed a problem, issue a preventive block? Rivertorch (talk) 14:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Since the user is about 10 years according to his own information, I blanketed his userpage which had much private information. I think a deletion or oversighting of the page should be considered. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support ban - I've reviewed his edits and compared the dates changed with sources from Google, and it's safe to say that he is changing correct dates to incorrect one. I guess I overestimated his ability to edit maturely... YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 15:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: Let's not just slap a block template on him and call it a day. He is 10. I'm not sure his "maturity" should be questioned here. Preventative block to stop him from adding incorrect dates, fine, but someone needs to engage with him. Could be a teachable moment. Ditch ∝ 15:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• Bung him on some mentoring program and let them deal with it.--Launchballer 16:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Just checking back in for a moment . . . thanks to all who reviewed the contributions. In looking them over more carefully now, I can see a couple that may have been in good faith but were unacceptable, and the rest were vandalism of the insidious sort that we can't afford to excuse. Between that and the user's inclination to add personal info to his userpage, I think an indefinite block is warranted. If that happens, the blocking admin might leave some friendly wording that won't scare the kid off forever but leaves the door open for a "teachable moment", per Ditch, later on. Scaring him off until he's ready to contribute constructively is probably in everyone's best interests. The alternative to a block is very close monitoring, and I, for one, am not about to volunteer. Rivertorch (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Block needed - He's at it again... YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 06:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Concerned this will be archived with no action, I have filed a report at WP:AIV. (If that's forum-shopping, I plead guilty.) Rivertorch (talk)

King of Hearts has blocked him for 72hours. Blackmane (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Durham.bug

• Durham.bug (talk · contribs)

Silly thing, this, but user appears to edit primarily or purely on the basis of original research, with persistent removal of content, even when valid sources are included. Coming here to avert an edit war and request more eyes. Thanks, JNW (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

For the Sixth Form article, I feel that I have given a good enough reason as what I have stated is simply fact, plus the information is off-topic. I'm going to incorporate it into another article (Education in Scotland) where it belongs. (Durham.bug (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC))

Just trying to improve the page, I have added edit summaries as of your request. (Durham.bug (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC))

I don't think you understand. It is not your edit summaries (or the lack of) which are at issue or have been reported here, it is the repeated removal of often long-standing sourced and verifiable information with no counter-sourcing. The latter is informative and encyclopeadic; the former disruptive and vandalizing. Cheers. Basket _Feudalist 15:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Your "explanation" for obliterating an entire section was that Sixth Form is called Sixth Year and that therefore "Sixth Form" does not exist in Scotand. That's like arguing that children do not exist in Scotland because they are called "bairns", or that colour does not exist in America because it is called "color". We have redirects for terminological differences. Paul B (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Amid the multiple unexplained deletions here [1], I'm curious re: this claim [2], and whether the image does or does not belong. JNW (talk) 16:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

And while not a reliable source, here's a listing of Sixth Forms in Edinburgh [3]. JNW (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for replying Paul, I don't think you understood my edit, it is not a case of differing terminology. Sixth form in England refers to the final two years of secondary education; in Scotland "Sixth Year or S6" refers to the final year of secondary school - "Sixth Forms" do not exist in Scotland. JNW, the Edinburgh list doesn’t appear to be related to secondary education (Durham.bug (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC))

This should be discussed on the article page. Yes, I was exaggerating a bit. Of course it's a valid point that the structure of the education years is different. That fact is itself notable, and the differences need to be properly explained in the article. Just dumping useful material is not the answer. It diminishes rather than enhances the article. Paul B (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't dumping it, I am going to include the information in another article. (Durham.bug (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC))

You were dumping it from the article - an article in which it was usefully present. Paul B (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

As for the Red Hair article, I would appreciate feedback. The percentage of the world with red hair is not known and the citations for the statement do not go anywhere. (Durham.bug (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC))

Yes the citations do go to an article. Paul B (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• I made a point of correcting the link to a Washington Post article that corroborated the statement in the lede, though that, too, was reverted, as well as were a number of properly sourced sentences in an earlier deletion, as noted above. A Google search reveals a differing estimate from a Chicago Tribune article [4]; this can also be included, with the explanation that estimates vary. JNW (talk) 16:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I see the links has been changed now, the article actually states up to 2%, not "1-2%". I personally do not think this is an appropriate source but if you want an inaccurate statement left in the article I'll just leave that up to you guys then. (Durham.bug (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC))

In the Red Hair article I have read the link for citation 28 and it does not back up the statement in the wiki page. (Durham.bug (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC))

We should move these detailed discussions on sourcing etc to the relevant articles. Paul B (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Show me where Paul. (Durham.bug (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC))

I've moved the red head stuff to talk:red hair. I've made one section for the Papuan Readheads and one for the percentage debate. Also moving debate to talk:Sixth form. Paul B (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Discussion has been joined at the red hair talk page, but the rationale for this thread remains the same: the initial edits were vandalism [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]--a content dispute assumes the presence of contradicting sources, something stronger than 'I don't agree'--and subsequent discussion has not changed that impression [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. JNW (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Discussion at talk page is ongoing. This is just to remind Durham.bug that edits against consensus are likely to be reversed, and persistence in edit-warring can lead to a block. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

User:209.89.13.124

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 talk:209.89.13.124 keeps inserting boy band categories even when acts are not boy bands. Please block that IP address. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

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

IP User 209.89.13.124 adding category Boy bands indiscriminately

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.

---

is methodically adding the category Boy bands to articles about musical groups that consist entirely of males. That seems to be this user's only criteria. Almost none of the bands in question fit the definition of a boy band. Many predate the boy band concept and/or were way to old to have been considered a boy band (e.g., the Mills Brothers. Almost all the user's edits are to add this category. The user has been warned on his talk page but is ignoring the warnings. --hulmem (talk) 04:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I would be careful in labelling his edits as vandalism opposed to good faith edits that are incorrect. Wikipedia has very strict guidelines as to what constitutes as vandalism, nor does it appear any solid attempt has been made to explain why the category may not apply to certain bands whose members are all male. "Please stop! Just because a band has all male members does not make them a Boy band!" at the end of vandalism templates are likely not to be noticed nor does it really explain your position. Mkdw^talk 05:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. There is a non-templated comment on his talk page from 9 April which very clearly explains why what he is doing is wrong and which asks him to stop. The subsequent warning templates from other users may be more generic in wording but are nonetheless very conspicuous and unambiguous. The user has had sufficient warning that their edits are disruptive and sufficient opportunity to engage in discussion. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• This just seems to be a content dispute in which the issue is quite debatable. For example, the Mills Brothers mentioned above started their career quite young, when their ages were 13 to 18. The Beatles are mentioned on the user's talk page as being not a boy band but we have a book entitled Boy Bands: From the Beatles and the Jackson Five to Backstreet Boys and 'N Sync. Warden (talk) 10:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • If it's a debatable issue, then the user should be debating it with the users who disagree with him. But he has no talk space edits and seems to have continued his behaviour after at least two users tried to engage with him. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• A minor thing, but Hulmem, can you please remember that newer talkpage messages go at the bottom of the user's talkpage? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• While I agree that the user should ideally discuss, I cannot really see the problem. Wikipedia defines 'boy band' as an all-male group, often vocal but sometime playing instruments as well, that was formed when the members were teenagers or in their twenties. Under that definition, most of IP's edits would be correct. One can disagree with that definition, but I see no reason to call it vandalism.Jeppiz (talk) 11:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Which, of course, comes from Boy band (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Which isn't a reliable source anyway, and contradicts itself continuously through the article as to what a boy band is. The lede suggests they are vocal groups, then it goes on to list acts such as A-Ha (definitely not, under any definition), The Bay City Rollers and the Raspberries (who appealed to teenage girls, but that was it), and a number that are distinctly borderline. Black Kite (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Its often easier to use cultural memes that define a subject, but provides no hard context for what designates it. Boy band is one such term, while the formation and popularity of the band should be during the teen and early 20s, it is not specific and portrayal in media is the only real gauge backed by a tacit community approval that is largely silent on such topics... Because the definition cannot even be brought down, I'd not call it vandalism either, but make the template be permissible with RS naming the group as a boy band. A band of boys and a boy band are completely different, and some of it could be lost in translation as well. The users intentions are probably good, given the circumstances and confusion around the base definition, it is best to reach out about it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Here's an idea: have a discussion on the talkpage of the catgeory or in WP:MUSIC and determine what the formal paramaters are for what Wikipedia wants as the definition of the term "boy band" as it relates to categories. Once consensus is reached, you have something to point them to. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

To call the Mills Brothers a "boy" band is a racial slur. That may or may not be the intent in this instance. In any case an African-American or black male of any age is never called a "boy". It is racist and demeaning. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 07:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Now, that is nonsense. I don't necessarily agree that the Mills Brothers are a boy band, but referring to a musical group as a boy band is not racist or a racial slur, under any circumstances. Referring to anyone as a "boy" may be a racial slur, or just a slur, in general, but a boy band is not necessarily comprised of boys. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• What is going on here? There is nothing in the world to discuss, this is simple idiotic vandalism and should be dealt with appropriately. This IP editor added the "boy band" category to Nirvana of all things. Step up to the plate and swing for an WP:RBI, please. Tarc (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

This is just plain vandalism now. He did it again to The Temptations article and that has been reverted already. The IP address should be blocked. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked for 36 hours and will reblock if this person continues without discussion. Content dispute, vandalism, or disruptive editing, it's irrelevant so long as somebody refuses to communicate. --auburnpilot talk 19:58, 16 April 2013 (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.

Zombie block?

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:GoodDay is complaining that a block from August 2012 has somehow sprung back to life, preventing him from editing even though no new block has been imposed. Could someone take a look? -Rrius (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds more like an WP:AUTOBLOCK of his IP. Tarc (talk) 13:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

That is what I was thinking as well. Sounds like maybe his IP got in trouble. Although if that is the case he should have a message indicating that when he tries to edit I believe. -DJSasso (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I checked http://toolserver.org/~nakon/autoblockfinder.php?u=GoodDay and it said no autoblock was found. Does that just mean he's caught up in someone else's block or does it mean the problem isn't an autoblock at all? -Rrius (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Really we need to know the message he is getting when he tries to edit. -DJSasso (talk) 13:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that just means that if it's an autoblock it's someone else's. However he's saying that it's the block by Coren from August 2012 that has mysteriously sprung back to life - so I presume that must be the block message he's getting. If that's the case, it's got to be a bug. It might be worth throwing this at WP:VPT. Black Kite (talk) 13:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Based on the message he just posted to his talk page its because he is editing from an open proxy which was blocked by DerHexter. -DJSasso (talk) 13:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm on it. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 14:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the unblock, DerHexer. Also, thanks to everyone here & at my talkpage, for helping me out. GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Just an aside for any admins who may be perusing, incidents like this are why standard practice at WP:OP has been to no longer indef block IPs, even if they're full of proxies. Generally the upper limit is about 5 years. Sailsbystars (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2013 (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.

SergeantHippyZombie reverting valid anon IP 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.

---

I am semi-retired from Wikipedia but I do occasionally check ANI (don't ask why), and ever since the recent thread about SergeantHippyZombie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) using Twinkle to revert perfectly valid anonymous IP edits without explanation or helpful reply on his talk page, I've been occasionally checking his contributions. In under five minutes of checking this morning I found several additional problematic Twinkle edits (diffs: [15], [16], [17]) wherein SHZ is reverting the addition of perfectly valid content with no explanation.

To SHZ's credit, the majority of SHZ's reversions are of blatant vandalism, so I personally am unsure how best to proceed. I think aggressively reverting valid contributions by anonymous editors without explanation has a significant chilling effect on people new to the project, and in my opinion conceivably outweighs the positive impact of their valid anti-vandalism efforts. In any event, this pattern is disruptive and has continued unabated since the last ANI discussion, so I'm raising it again here. Ideally, SHZ would be more careful and this would amount to nothing, but given that the pattern has continued perhaps some more action is warranted. Best, ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• I feel like I diverted discussion last time so we didn't address the issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive791#Trigger happy twinkle an uncommunicative patroller. I think we need a simple ban on him using Twinkle. Ryan Vesey 15:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. Despite numerous editors contacting SHZ in this regard, they seem to pretty much regard edits by IPs as vandalism. User page comments such as "if you are an unregistered user, your house will go on fire!!!" do not inspire confidence. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• We've been down this road before with this user. Note what they have been reverting, and who (including my favorite Portuguese soccer editor)--this is totally not good. I don't know what the answer is. Pulling Twinkle isn't one, since we can't. I don't care if this user gets blocked: "vandal fighters" are a dime a dozen. Few things piss me off as badly as this kind of willy-nilly reverting, with complete disregard or complete incompetence. Drmies (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Pulling twinkle is possible in a sanction sense; although, not in a technical sense. My preference would be to say, if you use Twinkle, you'll be blocked end of discussion, no loopholes allowed. He could come back here to get permission in no sooner than a month. That being said, I think he'll end up being blocked anyways. His edits don't appear to be due to a misuse of Twinkle, they're a result of his attitude towards anons. Ryan Vesey 20:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Seriously, on the next occasion, block the editor for 31 hours to prevent further damage (reverting positive edits) and disruption (valid, good-faith contributors getting pissed on). Are they still posting that IP nonsense, by the way? Was that recent? Drmies (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Here's something recent. User:65.48.157.71 is indeed a vandal so SHZ leaves a comment I think it's blocking time! on the talk page. It's not a useful comment, but I don't think it's entirely problematic. The next comment by SHZ, however, is. After the IP was blocked, he commented we need to send wiki hate!. A comment like that would be inappropriate after the blocking of a user. It's even more inappropriate when an anon is blocked, because somewhere out there, somebody's first experience with behind the scenes Wikipedia is going to be a message that says "we need to send wiki hate!" Ryan Vesey 20:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• What do people think of the modification he made to a welcome message here? Ryan Vesey 20:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Block him now, and then start a discussion on a non-technically-implemented (at first) sanction against him using any automated reversion/warning tool in the future (including undo). gwickwire^talk_editing 20:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) This is really nothing to do with Twinkle - he could be reverting IP edits easily enough without it. I'll add a further warning to his talk page, and he should simply be blocked next time he makes one of these problematic reverts or edits (like that "wiki hate" one). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

What's going on? And am I supposed to revert the suff that has the changed height and weight tag?SHZ and don't forget to sign my guestbook!!! 22:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Height and weight tag? Huh? Uh, what's going on is explained above, and on your talk page. You are reverting valid contributions from anonymous IP users with no explanation, and it is clear that you are not bothering to check whether these contributions are valid or not before reverting them. It is one thing to make this or this kind of reversion. Those are plainly problematic edits, and you don't exactly need to check sourcing before reverting them (although you should always be careful). But the diffs I list above and on your talk page are not by any stretch of the imagination clearly problematic. You have to double-check contributions like that before reverting them, and you clearly aren't. And the problem is that this has been going on for some time now. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Move my puppet case

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

---

Can an admin please move Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Josh Rumage to the correct location? I messed up the title and am unable to move it. Pinkadelica^♣ 19:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. --auburnpilot talk 19:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Pinkadelica^♣ 20:26, 16 April 2013 (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.

Very Poor Experience with Editors Bagumba and Muboshgu

I am a Padres fan and over the past months I've tried to add detail to the "Jeff Moorad" article. The article seems to have been stripped of a great amount of detail. Not sure I understand the rationale behind this? Removing the entire Community Work section seems especially strange: almost as if there were a personal campaign against Mr. Moorad by some editors... Honestly, I am done editing this article. Over the past months I've tried to add detail to the article, much of it coming from an MLB.com biography and some from more recent news articles, etc. I feel cheated as a Wikipedia user that my edits have been stripped in the name of mere technicalities. There seems to be no protection from the tyrrany of Wikipedia editors. Pretty interesting that when the community tries to get involved in editing an article, there is this harsh a response from Wikipedia editors. Of course, I understand fully: Editors Bagumba and Muboshgu have found niches here on the baseball sections of Wikipedia, and someone trying to help with the articles would take some of their power. The editors used seemingly every tactic to remove my edits, including accusations of slanting sources, etc. Yet, it seems that the editors are slanted in the very opposite direction to which they accuse me of being. Practically every edit I made would be removed and I would receive a message directing me to the "Welcome Page." I will not study the welcome page as I do not plan to spend hours on end editing Wikipedia articles, and I don't think that Jimmy Wales' intention was to have every user known every technical detail, but rather to come together and share our knowledge and create a great resource for the world. I've tried to do that and found that I haven't been able to do so.

This is not what Wikipedia has been to me, and I'm sorry that it has had to be this way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.80.248 (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• I am sorry that you are disappointed, but at the end of the day, Bagumba and Muboshgu, who I might add are two of our most experienced sports editors, are correct that some of what you added is a copyright violation, which is unacceptable on Wikipedia. If this makes you want to leave, that is your prerogative, but I would urge you to instead read up on our policies, and then offer to work with either Bagumba or Muboshgu to build up the article Jeff Moorad with good sources, but it's up to you. Respectfully, Go Phightins! 01:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• The IP did not notify either Bagumba or Muboshgu, so I have done so. I'm not really interested in getting heavily involved here, but I doubt that anyone is acting in bad faith. I have great respect for both Bagumba and Muboshgu, and I highly doubt they are trying to cause any trouble. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 01:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• It's unfortunate the editor has chosen to tax the community's resources, as the same request was already responded to by another editor at Wikipedia:Help desk. The user's talk page, their lack of constructive involvement to discussions at Talk:Jeff Moorad, and the user's claim of being affiliated with the article and later admission that "I'm not in contact with Mr. Moorad" speaks for itself. The user is now engaged in an edit war to add plagiarized material. An admin might consider actions to prevent further trolling by 98.155.80.248.—Bagumba (talk) 01:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• If he ever reads this, in all honesty, he just may need some more explanation. Either that or they're just deliberately not listening. You'd be surprised how many people we have in #wikipedia-en-help that understand after hours of explanation, but otherwise don't. gwickwire^talk_editing 01:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Bagumba suggested to the IP on the talk page that he/she could benefit from the Teahouse. That would've been much more appropriate than this. I deleted unsourced cruft and placed various inline tags where vague detail was given. I later realized it was plagiarized from the MLB page, which is a copyright violation. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Editor(s) using accounts solely to adverstise

Section Cross was just indeffed by Daniel Case for his username only. But the editor is obviously using the account solely to advertise some alleged political party similarly named Cross Section. I'm not sure if Daniel even looked at the edits to see if the account can be indeffed totally just for the editing, but check out the post the editor made at the help desk, and the article they created. That'll make it clear what's going on. And now there's a new account that's surely the same editor... a couple minutes after the block, MitchAnth popped up as a new editor and is making the same edits. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Daniel is very accomplished in this area, 76*, I wouldn't be too concerned WRT to the spam on the indeffed user. I'll check the other situation in the event Daniel's not around. Tiderolls 21:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I was going to write Daniel directly, but apparently IPs can't post on his talk page. Sorry, but I do get concerned when I see spramming like this and articles like this being created. And then more concerned when I see an apparent block-evader with a new account doing the same things. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

My intent was to assuage your concern, not condemn it in any way. Tiderolls 22:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand. Sorry if I came across as less than appreciative. :) 76.189.111.2 (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The username was sufficient to justify the indef block. Had it been reported at UAA, I might have used {{uw-spamublock}}, but it was at AIV instead so I wasn't thinking in a username frame of mind (and I was also using my iPad from a table at a meetup while conversing and eating, to add to the distraction). Daniel Case (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Cmt: Per Wikipedia:Protection policy#User talk pages, Daniel Case should have "an unprotected user talk subpage linked conspicuously from their main talk page to allow good faith comments from non-autoconfirmed users." I would post this on his talk page, but.... ;) Rgrds. --69.95.62.119 (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I have thought about doing that, to be honest. Daniel Case (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Daniel. My concern was not the spamming in and of itself, but the editor's clearly outrageous and disruptive behavior in how s/he executed the spamming... at the help desk, with the article they created, etc. So, to me, simply saying... hey, I'm only blocking you because of your username sends the message that the edits were acceptable (because nothing was said about it). There are many nice, cooperative spammers who simply don't understand the rules until someone teaches them, but this editor crossed the line not only by his editing, but by ignoring all admonitions.. One final thought... I think registered users, especially admins, should not treat IPs like second class citizens. I have to be honest, it hurt my feelings when I came to your page and realized I couldn't write to you. And I was really surprised... I was like... wow, I can't even post a message to him. That's why I came here. I'm sure you're a great admin, but I hope you'll consider opening up your talk page to everyone. Remember, it's not just IPs who occasionally cause trouble on people's talk pages. I've seen quite a bit of very hostile talk page posting from registered users. ;) 76.189.111.2 (talk) 04:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that username blocks and softerblocks are grossly overused. In my experience, in well over 90% of cases where a user is given a block message saying "your username is the only reason for the block", the user has been using Wikipedia for promotion. Telling such a user that there is no other reason for the block than their username is unhelpful for at least three reasons. (1) It is totally unfair to that user, as it encourages them to continue with the same kind of editing, which is likely to be a waste of their time and lead to another block. (2) It is unhelpful to Wikipedia, as it results in more spam, which could have been stopped. (3) It makes it difficult for administrators who assess unblock requests. I used to frequently assess unblock request from such users, and what do you say to someone who has explicitly been told that it is perfectly all right to carry on with the same kind of editing as before, provided they make a new account, when you decline a request to be allowed to do exactly that? Now, when I check for unblock requests, whenever I see "your username is the only reason for the block", I almost always move on to another request, leaving that one, because it is likely to be just too much hassle. Judging from how long such requests tend to stay in the queue, it seems likely that a lot of other admins do the same. Finally, it is not just matter of what message is given to the user. It is also a matter of blocking without disabling account creation, which means that a new account appears, and sometimes (though not always) it is not immediately obvious that it is the same spam-only user. As far as I am concerned, if I block a promotion-only account, I make it clear to the user that promotion is part, if not all, of the reason for the block, and I disable account creation, so that they have to undertake not to spam if they want a new account. I reserve "your username is the only reason for the block" for the much rarer situations where the username really is the only reason for the block. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. In such cases I almost always use a spam username block, {{Uw-spamublock}}, which makes it clear that the promotional activity is the big problem but also covers the username problem. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Daniel, while definitely one of the good guys, is clearly on the gentler side of things (though in the past he's said he really doesn't see himself that way) compared to my position on spammers (and those who commit marketing on these pages in general). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.89.249.204 (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Daniel is a very good administrator, and I have high respect for him. However, I do tend to take a different line than him towards anyone I see as using Wikipedia for promotional purposes. Also, in response to what Boing! said Zebedee said above, some time ago I gave up using the standard "spamusername" block template, because in my experience it is too complex and confusing. It tries to cover everything relevant, rather than just the most important points, no doubt with the intention of being helpful to the blocked user. However, in practice, it is not helpful to most blocked users, because there is too much information for them to take in, which very frequently results in users making good faith unblock requests that are declined because they don't address the reasons for the block. Also, it seems to me that being confronted with such a long wall of text in a big orange box is likely to look unnecessarily intimidating to the user. Instead, I now use a much shorter and simpler message of my own. My message briefly states that the block is for promotion, explains that promotion is against Wikipedia policy, mentions that the username is also against policy, and says how to request an unblock. It is 88 words long, excluding the signature, compared with 457 words for the standard spamusername block message. I believe that my message is more user-friendly, as well as clearer and less subject to misinterpretation than the standard message. Also, in my experience, it does not lead to anywhere near so many unblock requests that completely miss the point. Maybe I should make a template of it and make it available for more general use, just in case there is some other administrator somewhere who feels as I do. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense. While the great majority of users I block like this never come back (they're mostly one-off blatant attempts to promote a company), I do see a lot of spamusername unblock appeals where the editor has not understood at all. It might be very useful to have a template version of your warning. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Trolling by 68.50.128.91

68.50.128.91 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been tying up numerous editors on Talk:Robert B. Bell with a repeated frivolous semi-protected edit request. The anon. editor wants to include unreliable information about one of the most-trolled individuals on the internet who is of no notability by wiki standards. See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_December_20#Christian_Weston_Chandler and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christian_Weston_Chandler. Despite repeated attempts to explain things to the user by at least 4 different editors, the anon persists in mis-using the template and trying to violate WP:BLP. Actually, if you look at the IPs contribs, you'll see pretty much nothing but attempts to add CWC material to Wikipedia. At this point, I'm pretty sure the IP is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but rather to spread the trolling of CWC. This list edit summary accusing me of trolling/vandalism for trying to politely explain policies is the final evidence that the account is just here to troll wiki and/or CWC. Sailsbystars (talk) 15:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith, regarding calling my actions "trolling."

You are incorrect about my user contributions; I invite anyone reading this to look through them to see the truth. If I have spent more time than I wanted to on the Bell edit request, it's because the editor above keeps trying to close it before discussion can be had on it. If the above editor finds the sources that I have posted (e.g. newspaper and magazine articles and television news reports, as well as official court documents) "unreliable" the above editor has a right to their own erroneous opinion. We can discuss it on the the talk page, or not, and we'll see what others have to say. But the above editor should not try to shut down discussion because he/she happens to disagree with the request in the first place.

In short, the above editor should handle this like an adult and let the process take its course like it's supposed to. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 02:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I closed the edit request as not done; there is obviously no consensus to implement it.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)\

There needs to be a reasonable period to discuss it, first. Obviously there can't be consensus if the discussion is shut down almost immediately in a knee-jerk way by editors such as Sailsbystars. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 02:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

You discuss and form consensus before pinging all of us who watch the template with a request. Not after. gwickwire^talk_editing 02:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Nope. I was told by an administrator on this very noticeboard to make the request due to the edit filter's false positives, as I have pointed out numerous times. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 02:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

They were assuming in good faith that you had legitimate edits to make, which you really haven't shown. In spite of badgering us on the talk page for two weeks now, where you've argued about policy, deleted people's comments, and reverted people when they disagree with you, you STILL haven't provided a reliable secondary sources. WP:BLPPRIMARY is abundantly clear that a reliable secondary source is required. Do that and I'll make the edit myself. Sailsbystars (talk) 03:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• 70.241.73.164 (talk · contribs) appears to be related to this issue, pushing for the same edits ~4 months ago. --auburnpilot talk 03:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Iyad Burnat

The Iyad Burnat article would probably benefit from semi-protection and revdel-ing all the tagged BLP violations per WP:CRD. The article appears to be under attack by ultranationalists or possibly some kind of hobby club for sociopaths, hard to tell. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Semiprotected by NawlinWiki. BLPvios are probably bad enough to warrant revdeletion, assuming the article survives AfD. —Rutebega (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Multiple IPs edit-warring in conspiracist claims

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.

---

Article on Collapse of the World Trade Center is being hit with some serious edit-warring by various IPs pushing the controlled demolition conspiracy theory. One IP was blocked, but semi-protection is clearly needed and the POV-pushing IPs should probably also be blocked. At least one belongs to a proxy server.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:03, 17 April 2013 (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.

Spain

Hi, I am currently involved in an edit war with user:LTblb because he refuses my edits (corrections) in several articles (the principal, Spain).

The issue started with user:Bashevis6920. He changed the data about the Metropolitan Areas of Spain without consensus, he removed all (MA) data from the article, and he added/introduced random and sourceless figures, as he stated the data of Bilbao and Málaga were/are wrong.

I think user:LTblb-user:Bashevis6920-user:Alex320000 are the same person (it is a kind of sockpuppet user). This user refuses to correct metro areas, typo, spelling and pronunciation because he says I haven't reached a consensus... But how can we reach a consensus if we start with lies, and there is always an antagonic actor who refuses all my edits, and edits what he wants or likes...

Can an expert help us here, please? Alburzador (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

* Here Bashevis6920 changed the previous reference for metropolitan areas in Spain - ESPON (2007) - without consensus) Alburzador (talk) 03:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It takes two to tango. By my count, You're at nine reverts while LTblb is at ten. Everyone Dies In the End warned you both at 0230 UTC. Talk:Spain is the place you should be now, not here. —Rutebega (talk) 02:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Its always amazed me that the most fractious debates on WP usually revolve around diacritics.

@Alburzador - I would cease the edit war and try to discuss the changes that you are making one-by-one on the talkpage. If you reach something that you simply can't agree on with User:LTblb, consider an WP:RfC! Good luck. NickCT (talk) 12:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Is this withdrawal of a legal threat sufficient?

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.

---

Harleyborgais (talk · contribs) has been making legal threats. I asked him to explicitly withdraw them and the response is:

"For the time being I will promise not to attempt any legal actions against anyone on this issue, even though I disagree with you. For now I will carefully ponder all of your comments and as soon as I have the time to return to this issue I will respond to all of your comments here. I will present evidence to support all of my claims, and withdrawal any that I feel you have proven me wrong on.

As I sat considering which charges I would bring, the only ones that came up were severe: Crime against humanity (for spreading false info that cause harm [injury, loss, or detriment], treason [if in the US, for giving aid and comfort to enemies of our Constitution], and potentially fraud [though I cannot see a gain on your part, unless you have interests which I find difficult to believe considering the inherent righteousness of what you actually do here]. It was never my intention to press charges that severe, as the harm does not seem severe enough to warrant the punishments these bring.

Anyways, until I have more time and am able to respond to everything, I will take NO legal actions against anyone on this issue."

This doesn't look like a withdrawal to me but statement that he may still take legal action. If you look at his talk page and his few article edits, I don't think he is going to get very far editing in any case. But on the NLT issue, does anyone see a reason not to block him? Dougweller (talk) 10:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Blocked. Even if he did mean to retract rather than just put on hold his (outrageously ridiculous) legal threats, his other recent postings show he's some kind of fringe nutter (Sovereign citizen movement-promotion and stuff), so there's nothing positive to expect from his contributions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. He's convinced he's right, that labor taxes are illegal, ditto home foreclosures, you don't need a driving licence, etc. He's in the wrong place. Dougweller (talk) 11:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank god he's not representative Basket _Feudalist 11:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Anyone else think it is rather ironic that a "sovereign citizen" nutter fringe theorist is threatening legal action, in courts that he presumably doesn't believe are legally constituted?--ukexpat (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2013 (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.

Boston Marathon bombings

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.

---

Will someone please consider semi-protecting the article pronto? Both Writ Keeper and I are somewhat involved in a content dispute, and the article keeps getting disrupted by IP editors sticking unsourced North Korean pressure cookers in it. [FWIW, the content dispute wouldn't be affected by semi-protection since it involves registered editors, but I'm not putting my head on the chopping block again.] Quickly please: it's already busy enough. Drmies (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• I had already protected it for a week, which I felt was very mild, but Zzuuzz reverted me [18] without notifying or discussing with any of us that had been involved with the protection. I don't mind being reverted, but I should have been notified (before or after) out of courtesy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• It's strange, Dennis. When you discussed this with me on the talk page, yesterday, you were adamant that the place to make requests for page protection is WP:RFPP, so that's where I went. Yet here you are asking the boys at ANI to circumvent WP:RFPP. I wonder why you would do such a thing. Then again, it looks as though the result here is a foregone conclusion, so maybe that's why you would do such a thing. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• WP:RFPP is the proper place to make a simple protection/unprotection request, but as soon as it proves controversial and appears to need discussion, this is the appropriate forum to seek consensus. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• I would also add that it is normal for an admin considering reverting another admin to discuss with him (or them), or at a minimum, notify afterwards. I found out that I had been reverted only by going through the edit history and seeing recent IP edits, then having to chase it down. Even now, I notified him and Bongwarrior of this discussion since they were previously involved. Had I and Bongwarrior been invited at WP:RFPP, it might could have been handled there instead, but now requires a full community discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• [EC]It wasn't in the least controversial. I made the request; it was discussed, left overnight, and then uprotected. It's clear from Dennis's comments on his talk page that he is peeved because he didn't get his own way, so he's come here to make sure he does. There is absolutely no reason why he couldn't have taken this request to WP:RFPP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.174.78.102 (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• It quite clearly *is* controversial - or have you not seen the section below? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• I would suggest that this was not a reversion, but an un-semi-protection. Although a time frame needs to be fixed when setting the protection, this time is not fixed as if law. We should unprotect when protection is no longer necessary, and one of the ways of doing that is by 'testing the water'. Anyway, Dennis' view on unprotection was previously made clear on the talk page. For WP:RFUP to work properly, it must take into account these views, which is something I did (as well as reviewing all edits to the article and its talk page). I maintain that unprotection was worth a try. It should be obvious that if protection is required again it should be applied again, and I will not be bothered if it is. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for two weeks semi-protection

• Support as proposer, this should make it simple. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - lots of people editing without understanding our policies, and this is understandably a hot button topic right now. Let's direct these folks to the talk page so experienced editors can guide them. LadyofShalott 16:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Voting is evil. Protection should be only for as long as necessary, not until some arbitrary date in the future. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I largely suspect you feel votes are evil when they don't go your way. NickCT (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Protection can always be reduced if a consensus finds it is no longer needed, but when protecting, you must pick a time frame. There is no "as long as needed" option. The last case like this, Sandy Hook, I took it to WP:AN and the consensus was one month, so I'm already erring on the light side here and in my previous protection. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support The North Korea has already hopped to at least one new IP to continue posting his thing, and sadly, I don't think this is going to be the last of the wild claims we hear about this. In an overabundance of caution (and with no small regret, since there are definitely constructive IP edits to that page, as well), I think this is needed. (Note: as mentioned above by Drmies, I did and still do consider myself too involved with the article (particularly in a dispute over one of the victims' name) to protect it myself). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - it's clearly going to continue to attract problematic "North Korea" IP edits for a while yet -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support: BLP violations are evil. In fact, one can make a case for full protection given the number of editors sticking in a victim's name against consensus on the talk page, against common sense, and against WP:V. Drmies (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - original protection was sensible, now even more so - no idea what zzuuzz was/is playing at. GiantSnowman 16:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support per above. Some IPs obviously want to help, but with current events like this, we tend to see first-time contributions and vandalism. —Rutebega (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose There has been very little vandalism since the page was unprotected. As soon as a vandal does pop-up there is a proposal to protect the page for 2 weeks. What vandalism there has been was removed instantaneously. The vandalism has not been an impediment to editing. There are more eyes on that article than on just about any other. It just needs a few admins to keep an eye on it and block the vandals as they crop up. By doing that you will keep the article available for all to edit. That's what WP is supposed to be about. That's what admining is supposed to be about. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, but admins aren't always around. This one is gone for now. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Well we have had about half a dozen admins show up here in the space of five minutes to vote to exclude unregistered users from the page for 2 weeks. Perhaps one or two of those would be good enough to keep an eye on it, thereby keeping the page open to all. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support - This is a high visibility page, and there is demonstrated persistent vandalism. NickCT (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support enough disruption to justify semi, not sure why it was removed, to be honest. No need to make more work for ourselves. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

  Lord no. You wouldn't want to give yourselves any more work. One reason you might have wanted to would be to make sure that this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit but ... nah. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 16:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

  Of course, yes, that's why we all become admins in the first place - to enjoy a life of avoiding having to do anything. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It's done

I've extended the semi-protection (and the full move protection) for an additional 2 weeks. There seems to be fairly strong support for such an action, which is actually not that big of a deal in the first place; we routinely use semi-protection in this manner on high-profile, controversial in-the-news topics. MastCell ^Talk 16:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) The discussion was archived just as I was gonna say my thing! Here it is anyway: Support (if my support means anything, as I'm not an admin). I personally wouldn't be upset if the page went full-protected. I doubt that's the best course of action, but I certainly wouldn't be upset. Ignatzmice•talk 17:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Me too. re:zebedee. How many admins in this 10 minute old vote? How many voting to take the lazy way out? How many voting to keep the encyclopedia open? 80.174.78.102 (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• It's not the "lazy way out" - it's what page protection is for. People died. Other people are vandalizing a sensitive topic. PP is created for just such a situation. If you don't like it, Conservapedia is somewhere else ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Or... you could just create an account. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 17:13, 17 April 2013 (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.

KahnJohn27

The user above name KahnJohn27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been committed a series a behavioral issues during a clash of reliable sources over box-office gross references as seen on this section on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard as well as this part on WP:FILM. He has been doing disruptive editing on several film articles and replace sources from Box Office Mojo with a less reputable source name Boxoffice.com on what he believes that he doesn't consider BOM (Box Office Mojo) reliable. The sole reason for this is that in some cases Box Office Mojo has not included the foreign grosses in its summary total on various films such as Red Dawn, which the foreign gross only shows n/a as well as some other films recently, including The Call, The Incredible Burt Wonderstone, Side Effects, The Man with the Iron Fists, 21 & Over and Snitch. While it seems to be good faith edit, his behavioral edits at some of our talk pages over the issue isn't really polite and friendly-community at anyway. This part of my talk page is one those examples, as well as the talk pages of MarnetteD on this part and Betty Logan as well as the two noticeboard sections above. According to many on RS/N on this issue, BOM is said to be the most reliable sources for box-office gross as seen here and get news references on Variety and The Hollywood Reporter. We don't even know if boxoffice.com gets any outside news reference in anyway. Sure, there is conflicting reports on BOM and boxoffice.com on production budget costs and box-office gross numbers on various movies, but it said that BOM is one of our most realible sources at this time. This issue was already discuss in the archeives section here. KahnJohn27 continues to stick to his opinions and rashly berates us on our talk pages and the noticeboards at us for contradicting accuracy on worldwide box-office gross and accusing most of us of such violations, not to mention he's a high-school student as well and his English grammar isn't really the best as well. We tried to be reasonable and polite with him, but he just won't stop being disruptive.

All I asking is to do something with him before this dispute with him gets any worse. BattleshipMan (talk) 07:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Notified user, which you should have done. Blackmane (talk) 10:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I have already told that they Red Dawn, Incredible Burt Wonderstone etc are not the only examples of BOM's unreliabilty. There are several other movies where this problem occurs. However I have never said that BOM should be completely discounted. Not only that I also proved that even where this so-called "n/a" problem is present, I have also proved that the total foreign box office gross is incorrect in case of many movies like Dredd and Man With the Iron Fists. And no I am not letting it go and the status of it being reliable or unreliable will be decided by the discussion. Because these users seem to be making up the same reason of BOM not updating their figures. How are we to believe what they are saying. I think until now except including some times I have been mostly civil. I've only passed one insult to you and I.already had apologised for that. If my behavior seems to be combative to you just because I do not mince words then that is a problem with your attitude not mine. I never personally attacked you and only reverted your edits at The Call and Incredible Burt Wonderstone once. Also after that I accepted it. You have forgotten that even if the consensus seems to be going in your favor reverting someone's edits still counts as edit-warring because consensus has not been reached yet. If this is a strong-arm tactic to stop me being able to discuss this matter then I'm afraid that will not work because that is not the way things work around here. Also I ask what is wrong with giving proof of innocence? You kept saying that I have combatic behavior so the only options I had was to show a proof of innocence that I didn't. Also you should know that Tenebrae deleted my comments on his talk page saying "rants of a high school user". I ask from which angle is this civil behavior? Unfortunately it's not me but you who have constantly induldged in combatic and implotic behavior. KahnJohn27 (talk) 12:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

KahnJohn27, some of us are real sick and tired of your disruptive behavior over your issue over BOM, Boxoffice.com and such. You've been bashing at us when we tried to be reasonable to you, but you continue to be disruptive and uncivil, not to mention you bully at us. You also been accusing with such violations that we never violated anything on this site, regardless of what you think. Do you think your bullying is going to help. It's not going to help out on this. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not trying to bully you. If I was trying to bully you instead of saying that everyone's opininions matters I would have said that I am right and you're wrong. Also I myself said that only by contacting the sources we can find out the truth. I don't think that is combative behavior at all. If you think my behavior is combative then it can only mean two things. Either you're misinterpreting my statements completely. MarnetteD said that anyone who says "they're trying to do.the right thing" is trying to enforce his opinion. That's a gross representation of my statement. Apart from that what you were calling as rants on his and Tenebrae's talkpage when in actual I was trying to prove myself innocent. I had particpated in a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games here ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_97#Statistic_Brain) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources here ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources/Archive_7#Statistic_Brain). They never even said anything about any disruptive behavior and they were perfectly cooperative me. Also you say that my grammar is incorrect while you have made such mistakes yourself. That is no reason for discounting someone's opinion. Tenebrae called my comments as rants of high school student. I ask what kind of behavior is that? You have been induldging in combative behavior yourself. I agree I have been rash many times but I still have shown respect towards everyone's opinion. If I really have been combative then my punishment will be decided by the admins. I assure you that I'm not bullying anyone but simply speaking the truth. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You're the reason that this dispute happened in the first place. You have been combative about the box-office issues and such. boxoffice.com is questionable at this point and I don't think it has any reliable outside online news reference that we know of. BOM has outside outline news references on The Hollywood Reporter and Variety. Don't you see? Box-office numbers and production budget costs differ in those sites, regardless of whatever it says n/a on the foreign gross and such, so we don't know whatever or not boxoffice.com is reliable and accurate, whatever it's domestic and foreign gross. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Also please note that BattleshipMan seems to have a habit of always exaggerating matters. I'm not trying to bully anyone but am saying what I see. I don't think statements like "KahnJohn27, some of us are real sick and tired of your disruptive behavior over your issue over BOM, Boxoffice." can be classified as civil. If you want to talk Boxoffice. com and BOM please talk about it on reliable sources noticenoard. Abd anyway unlike Box Office Mojo BOM doesn't have this n/a problem. Also Hollywood Reporter and Variety do not use BOM as a source for Red Dawn, Texas Chainsaw Massacare 3D and all other films where BOM has provided incorrect figures. Can you not see that? We all are trying to reach a peaceful solution and I humbly thank you for that. That's why I ask that please forget past transgressions and let's work towards making Wikipedia better. KahnJohn27 (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, the irony! "always exaggerating matters" Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 07:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Look, you may does some good faith editing, but it is not with the consensus that we should use boxoffice.com yet. You may think your not trying to bully anyone, but you are disruptive editor, whatever you realized or not and you bash us for reverting your edits on film articles. Good faith edits are not always right and no one can take someone's word for it. Sometimes someone can unintentionally cause an edit war, like you did with some of film articles and can put stress on other editors. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't wanna blame anyone but in actual it was MarnetteD and yourself who had reverted the edits at Incredible Burt Wonderstone and The Call respectively. Even though I agree that at that time consensus was not in my favor but it was already known that a clear decision still won't have been possible because it couldn't be ascertained why was this n/a problem there on BOM and the user knew also that admin intervention was to be requested. Also please note that User:MarnetteD has been accused of having combative behavior on ymy talk page. Technically I think it's more of her fault and if you think that I had participated in an edit warring then the blame for triggering it in first place should go on Marnette and you too while the discussion was going on. I hope you do not mistreat this an insult. Because this is what had really happened. Apart from that edit war means indiscriminately reverting each other's edits. However since we have reverted edits of each other 3 or 4 times I am not in favor of calling it an edit war. Also I'll like you to note about 2 of the 4 users who have said that my behavior is combative and implosive actually themselves behaved in such manner. Although user Tenebrae has ony gotten into once MarnetteD on the other hand has a much more serios combative behavior and from what I've seen on her talk page she has resorted to such behavior with multiple users and something must be done about this. I know and confirm that your's and Betty Logan behavior has been civil. That's why I request you to please ask MarnetteD to stop behaving in such a disrputive way with editors who oppose her view. I will be highly obliged. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Unrelated issue; should be in its own discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
While it neither has any interest or relevance for me to comment on any of the above, I do have a concern about the general attitude of User:MarnetteD, which I want to add here in support of KahnJohn27. My brief experience (perhaps all too brief?) with her was not too pleasant. But it need not have been that way. You can see at the end of the section of the talk page HERE I'm taking the time to try to explain something as genuinely and as clearly as possible, which subsequently gets offhandedly dismissed as a "Wall of text" (by the way a few paragraphs does not a "wall of text" make, check HERE for a REAL wall of text and see how User Acroterion has shown considerable patience and fairness beyond what I would consider the "call of duty"). Having never heard the expression "wall-of-text" before the discussion with MarnetteD, I was deeply offended, as it completely missed the points I was trying to make. The discussion ended by another user actually providing some constructive input in the form of references, which is what MarnetteD should have done from the beginning. I think user MarnetteD is impatient, inconsiderate and ill-mannered and needs some diplomacy skills. Up until now I was considering my run-in with her a personal matter that I had to deal with myself, in my own way, under the restrictive umbrella of Wikipedia, but now I see she treats others the same way. I see also she removes comments on her talk page that happen to disagree with her point of view (check the revision history of her discussions)! Its no longer a personal matter, its a civil matter, which should be of interest to Wikipedia as a whole. I was reluctant to bring this to the attention of Wikipedia admin before because I just wanted to take it on the chin and chalk it up to experience, and frankly I didn't think the "abuse" was serious enough to report. I may have been wrong, now that I see its happening elsewhere. Its not just about me any more, its about other users as well. I added a comment to her talk page as part of KahnJohn27's discussion there, and she now has removed the whole discussion! See how she compared me to an "insect" in her edit summary (see the revision history)! Ha ha! What stupendous arrogance! I was providing an opportunity for "talking" on her "talk" page, and she then resorts to personal attack! It seems she's incapable of taking any constructive criticism, let alone actually responding to it in a civilized and humane manner! As a senior editor she has a responsibility (like all editors) to be more gracious with newer editors such as myself and KahnJohn27, and not be so dismissive, since it is well accepted that newer editors can add just as much value (sometimes more, with a fresh perspective) as established editors do. Newer editors should be encouraged, not dismissed. I've only started editing in the last few months (despite having an account for 3 years), learning about policy as I go along, but not unsympathetic to those also are still learning. I would have left Wikipedia after her dismissive attitude, had it not been for the timely and more encouraging intervention of other editors. -- Jodon | Talk 15:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I have to add my voice to those with concerns about KahnJohn27's disruptive behavior, which includes passive-aggressive bullying and threats. He already made a baseless claim against me at this noticeboard, which an admin quickly closed, and now he's threatening BattleshipMan at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Box Office Mojo and Boxoffice.com ("I'm sorry to say that if you continue to display this behavior I'll have no choice else to but to report it ANI.") KahnJohn27 completely doesn't seem to understand that beating a dead horse, bludgeoning other editors with huge, rambling walls of text with poor grammar and spelling, and digging in his heels so tightly that he keeps dragging other editors to several different pages now is disruptive behavior. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Tenebrae. Beating a dead horse and bludgeoning editors with a huge amount of text and forum shopping counts as disruptive editing. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I must concur with Tenebrae's assessment of this problematic editor. To get a full understanding of what several of us have had to put up with you will need to read through this thread Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Which box office number site that should be use for references. Here are a few items that need to be pointed out

1. KahnJohn 27 first post includes this statement "I'm not gonna just sit and let two inexperienced users decide which source is reliable on the basis of some worthless reason like publication in trade sources. You don't know what a reliable source actually means." You will note the combative tone, the insult to the two editors that had already posted there and the attitude about our policy regarding WP:RSs.
2. K implies with this statement "I'm not here to discuss who is honest or not" that everyone who has posted there is being dishonest. K again implies that all who disagree with K are inexperienced and that the reason that K has used that insult is "Why does teacher sometimes insult his student. Not to actually insult him but to clearly show them their mistakes." That never worked for any students that I have been around and it certainly won't work for long time and experienced Wikipedia editors.

Please read the rest of the thread to see other examples. K was then recommended to get input from the RS noticeboard and began this thread Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Box Office Mojo and Boxoffice.com. Again you will need to read through the various posts there but it should be noted that after K was not getting the responses K wanted K went on a spree [19] of posting [20] on the individual [21] talk pages of editors who had disagreed with K. Some of us got fed up with the continued insults and removed the threads from our talk pages which we have every right to do.

In my very first post I had suggested that K not turn this situation into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. That was ignored and K's behavior since then has hit most of the items in that section of WP:ISNOT as well as several others on that policy page. MarnetteD | Talk 00:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

What do you suggest we should do at this point? BattleshipMan (talk) 04:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

More unrelated
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
An apology from MarnetteD for her dismissive attitude to me, at least, would go a long way. I don't think I'm asking too much. -- Jodon | Talk 10:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

About BattleshipMan I stand by what I said. Not only he is continuously harassing me and he himself is beating a dead horse. If he continues this harrasment then there is no choice at all left for me. Continuously blaming someone is direct bullying. Especially WP:RS noticeboard which is no place for commenting about someone's If my remarks seems to be passive bullying then I suggest all uses MarnetteD to look at her behavior first. I have read her talk page and her seems to be the most disruptive. This user is constantly bullying other editors. Apart from that I agree my behavior is rash but I don't think it is combative or either disrespectful. I am now carefully selecting my words. Apart from that the point of a debate or consensus is to take all points. After passing that inexperienced insult I haven't passed any personal or bullying remark. I would like to know BattleshipMan and Betty Logan to know that the reason I insulted them was because I really thought they were new users. I sincerely apologise for that remark. A bullying or combative user never uses words like "please", "I apologise sincerely", "I accept my mistake", "I request you to". Also as I have already said that you are always misrepresenting my statements. I ask how does "I'm only trying to do the right thing" idms enforcing opinion. Yes I am trying to do the right thing by putting forward points with concrete proof. According to rules of consensus there is nothing wrong in disproving other's statement when you have proof for it. And last but not least I sincerely ask what does poor grammar have to do anything in determining someone's behavior or that their edits are in good faith or disruptive? KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Also what users are calling as rants or wall-text or spree they are merely just proof of my innocence. There is nothing wrong with proving yourself innocent no matter how long or cubersome the proof is. Removing somebody's comments as rants is however actual combative behavior. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, KahnJohn, these editors are not beating a dead horse, but rather, trying to help you understand how policy works, and to show you that consensus is running against you. They've devoted an extraordinary amount of time and effort to doing so, long past what many editors would do in these circumstances, and yet you continue to push the issue beyond the point where there's any possibility of the resolution you demand.

I stumbled into this discussion and the one below as an outsider, and from that perspective, have real concerns about KahnJohn's ability to understand what constitutes a reliable source, and what doesn't. From my perspective, and for what that's worth, what we have here is one inexperienced editor who lacks much understanding of the basics of Wikipedia policy and so, when challenged, takes on a battleground stance on an issue. His arguments in the discussion cited by MarnetteD remind me of WP:SOUP argument; he's decided his source is right and he's going to go hunting for what he perceives as errors on the part of the established source, most easily explained, and attempts to use them to discredit the source as a whole in favor of the one he prefers. Meanwhile, he remains blind to the problems with the source he favors when they are pointed out to him. Worst, he goes through periods where he will calm down and discussion reasonably, then suddenly his rhetoric becomes aggressive and threatening (a threat couched in polite language is still a threat), which is what got us here. This user requires some decisive administrative action, perhaps a short cooling-off block and/or topic ban, and at the very least, a mentor. Otherwise, his future looks bleak, and will be littered with a succession of discussions such as this. --Drmargi (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I've already intervened on both KahnJohn's talk page and the RS noticeboard. We will not be taking administrative action at this time. Also, note that 'cool-off' blocks are not sanctioned by policy.

I'll discuss the rest of KahnJohn's comments on their talk page when I'm home from work. m.o.p 17:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

All I can say is that I am not threatning anyone and nor I have calming down or agressive periods. Repeatedly blaming someone is also a kind of bullying.Also as I have already said that my behavior has been most civil. An editor with disruptive behavior doesn't accept his mistakes. I still think that some of the editors themselves seem to have conflicting behavior and I cannot be blamed for it. It is their own responsibility. You cannot say that user caused you to become impolite. It is your own responsibility. I think the admins themselves know that I remained civil most of the time no matter how much abuse was directed to me. Apart from that I still stand by the fact that BOM hasn't been proved reliable in those cases where it's foreign gross is inaccurate or incorrect. A consensus always needs proof. A combative user doesn't respect others opinions. However I have every time even though the users complaining about me haven't sometimes. I think that's all I can say about this topic. I trust your judgment. Apart from that as I have already accepted my behavior is rash but I don't think it's combative. Last but not least I have earned praise from 4 editors including m.o.p. for my respectful and helpful nature and always standing by the truth. I am not trying boast about myself but stating the fact that I'm atleast not disruptive. After the discussion of Boxoffice.com and is over I will take a break from editing Wikipedia atleast for 3 months except grammar corrections or where I think I really need to do something. I will try to focus myself on improving my behavior and make it more polite and less rash. I can atleast promise that but I cannot guarantee the end results. I really hope you understand that. But my behavior will be somewhat more refined I can promise. I trust your judgment. Thank you very much. KahnJohn27 (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

This post above combined with this [22] response to m.o.p on K's talk page show that absolutely nothing has changed. This rather extraordinary statement "I'm sorry m.o.p. but I cant back off from this issue. I hope you understand it's not because of my pride or it is correct according to me. It's no more just about Boxoffice.com or BOM but also bringing about positive change to Wikipedia and if I alone have to do it I'll still do it.". This combined with the diatribe above fulfills almost all of the items at WP:NOTHERE and basically confirms all of the concerns expressed by most of the editors involved in this thread. The continued WP:PAs are tiresome but unlikely to stop. MarnetteD | Talk 02:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Good for you. As it can already be seen that MarnetteD has always been misrepresenting other's statements. Apart from that yes I cannot quit because of bullies like you on Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong in saying that I waNot only that the only person who in actual has combative behavior is MarnetteD. There is nothing wrong in trying to bring positive change to Wikipedia. That is the goal of every editor. And yes if I alone have to do I still will do it. As stated in WP:BOLD and near every other policy "just do it". And so you do not misrepresent that I mean to say bring the positive change and every other editor do so. Not only that yes I will try to improve my behavior. There's nothing wrong in that. Apart from that there's no reasoning with you. So I don't think there's no point in keep on trying to explain to you. Still thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

KahnJohn, do you see the irony of saying if I alone have to do I still will do it? You do understand what "consensus" means?

Added to that, BOLD is a guideline, not a policy, and clearly within the guideline it says but please be careful. In fact, right after the phrase you quote above ~ just do it ~ comes (With civility, please!), which seems to have slipped past your attention. Not that you are being specifically rude, but the walls of text, even "proving innocence", can be uncivil, and ignoring consensus, even if you believe it to be mistaken, is definitely so.

If you are utterly convinced that everyone but you is wrong, i.e. that consensus is mistaken, the answer is to work to change consensus, not to ignore it. You'll find it easier ~ not to mention more productive ~ in the long run. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 05:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

When I said I'll do it alone I wasn't at all referring to the consensus. What I have meant as even if eveyone becomes wrong and tells me to just back down by bullying me I will stand by the truth. Apart from pointing out the obvious I think that it is known by everybody that sometimes we cannot ascertain what is a user really impying. For example sometimes a praise is an insult which is a real irony. Yes I have tried to make the discussion more productive. Wikipedia policies always say to try bring a positive change which I have tried very hard to. I have not said that I will try to keep on trying to prove BOM unreliable. No I have instead said that I will support the decision of the consensus if it is fair. Honestly to say I still think it is somewhat unfair but still most of it seems to be fair to me. The statement "I'll alone do if it have to" is the same as saying "never ever give up except to convictions of honour and good sense" said by William Churchill. Also please not that he also used the word enemy but I am clearly not saying that anybody is my enemy here. KahnJohn27 (talk) 06:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

No, you really do not see the irony....let's quote this again: "....if eveyone (sic!) becomes wrong and tells me to just back down by bullying me I will stand by the truth...". Could it be that if virtually everybody else is saying you are wrong....well, that there might be some truth to it. We do not have a truth (TM), really. And telling you you might be wrong is not bullying, either. Lectonar (talk) 06:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, KahnJohn, I appreciate what you're trying to do, but you're beginning to run in circles and it's - forgive me for being blunt - a bit of a time-suck for everyone involved, including you. Where in MarnetteD's message above was your statement misrepresented? The editor merely expressed an opinion, which is perfectly acceptable.
I understand that you feel like you're being targeted, but I keep getting sent on wild goose chases through editor's contributions because you accuse them of being combative/bullying you/misrepresenting you/etc - then, in the end, nothing substantial shows up. Unless you can provide a diff of statements you think are unfair, you need to focus on more-productive things. It may sound a bit bleak, but a thicker skin is a benefit on Wikipedia. If someone makes a blatant (and I mean blatant) personal attack on you, then we can do this dance. Until then, let's stop playing "he said she said" and work on the actual content dispute.
Please don't take this personally. I am not trying to shut you down. As I've said multiple times, I understand that you're editing with Wikipedia's best interests in mind. And I'll do everything I can (within reason) to help you if you're feeling shaky about some policies or need a hand. In return, all I ask is that you tone it down a notch. And, if this is causing you real-life stress, remember that you're always welcome to step away for a while - take a Wikibreak, go for a walk. Wikipedia will still be here when you get back. m.o.p 07:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not running in any circles. Because I already said that it was not related to the discussion. Also please note that my decision to never quit inspite of difficult circumstances and sometimes bullying by other editors and always standing by truth. Apart from that I don't blame anyone for being blunt. They deserve praise. Aside from that MarnetteD clearly misrepresented my statements when she clearly knew what I meant when I said "I can't back down because somebody tells me to" that some editors(only 2 actually) tried to bully me and that's why this statement was made in the first place. Also this is not the ony time she has misrepresented my statements and she has shown agressive and rude behavior. Aside from that I sincerely thanks m.o.p. for caring. Yes I agree this discussion has put some stress to me mostly because of the direct bullying attitude of some editors and their continuous harrasment. Still I think it's better to forgive everyone no matter how wrong anyone might be. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 07:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

As I said, a thicker skin will be highly beneficial if you can manage it. If someone says something that bugs you, it's easiest to just let it go - if they continue harassing you, you may ask for help. But, in this case - and trust me, I've seen a lot of disputes over my eight years here - it isn't that big of a deal.

As for the stress, try not to let anything get to your head. At the end of the day, you are a volunteer, and you are free to step away whenever things get too hectic. Just remember; try to focus on editing, ignore any offhand remarks, do your best to discuss civilly when necessary, and you'll do just fine. m.o.p 07:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Apart from that yes I still stand by what I said about my statement because that is what I really meant. I am honest and will always stand by what I say. Ofcourse my behavior is impolite and rash which I myself accepted that but I wonder why most editors nearly always forget to mention that. I think I have said all I have to say. Apart from that I think my agreement with the consensus says everything else. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

KahnJohn, do you have some type of connection with boxoffice.com that is leading you to crusade to the last man to get it approved as a source? I can see no other basis for your position - it is not benefiting Wikipedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

No I am not connected to any source and neither biased towards any source. I only acted upon what I saw. Also MarnetteD had also represented another of my statements much earlier in this discussion. I had not noticed about this earlier. The statement was "I'm not here to discuss who is honest or not." MarnetteD said that by this statement I (KahnJohn27) was implying that everyone posting on the discussion was dishonest. However it can clearly be seen that that was not what I meant by the statement. I only said that we should'nt be discussing who is honest or not and should instead focus on trying to solve the discussion and it can be easily seen about that from the statement. I won't like to start any blame game again but it was a gross misrepresentation of my statement. KahnJohn27 (talk) 01:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Mass uploading of NFC of recently deceased by Slowking4 - possibly a POINTy violation

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

---

A discussion has been started a few days ago by B (talk · contribs) on WT:NFC on the issues of non-free images of the recently deceased. The matter is being discussed in a reasonable manner though no clear consensus has come out yet.

It has been noted that Slowking4 (talk · contribs) has started going what appears to be alphabetically through Category:2013 deaths and uploading NFC images of these people, starting shortly after the above discussion thread was started. A number of these have already been tagged as CSD or FFD, in that while deceased, the possibility of finding free media exists (this is related to the thread above). While a strict reading of NFC says that once dead we would never be able to generate free media of such people, there's other avenues of getting non-free.

I've given Slowking4 a warning (and mention about ANI), but I'm wondering if this is POINTy violation, given past issues with Slowking4 and NFC, and some of his responses in the open FFD (eg : the last bunch at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 April 16) that flaunt NFC policy. I am hesistant to outright request a block or removal of uploading priviledges at this time, as I've just now warned him, and in the long run, the actions aren't necessarily wrong - but it is exasperating the current discussion on whether we should wait to use non-free images on the recently deceased. However, at the same time, such actions are just not appropriate for a free content goal. I open the question if anything more needs to be done - pending Slowking4's response and the issue at hand. --MASEM (t) 20:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• I am currently removing images that he has uploaded where the relevant persons were public figures up until their recent deaths - for those people it is very clear that a free image may be available (and that's all NFC requires). Slowking's rationale is that "he couldn't find any free images of them on Google" - which of course due to the nature of Google being slanted towards commercial sites you almost certainly won't. I have left a few alone (for instance, a sportsman who retired 50 years ago). These are either reasonable additions or can be discussed at FFD. This is a direct violation of WP:POINT by Slowking and he needs to be clearly aware that such editing cannot be tolerated. Black Kite (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• This really should be at ANI, I believe, not at AN. I'm (obviously) involved, so I'm not going to take it upon myself to do so, but I believe it should be moved. --B (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Just a question for Masem — is it possible to prevent uploading without a block? I'm under the impression that all autoconfirmed users are always able to upload images unless they're blocked. Nyttend (talk) 01:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Besides somehow removing the autoconfirmed right, perhaps a ban on uploading might be the only solution. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 02:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• You could do it as an edit filter. Kumioko (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't think that we can un-autoconfirm someone, and an edit filter seems a bit much for just one editor. Depending on what we find out, I say we either do nothing or we issue a ban on uploading nonfree images, per Salvidrim's suggestion. Nyttend (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

If a decision were to be made for a community ban on uploading non-free images, it could be enforced just like any other topic ban. I'm not even advocating that necessarily - I think that there just needs to be some kind of meeting of the minds and an agreement not to upload fair use images in this manner. Acceptable: you're editing an article, in the course of doing so you observe the lack of a photo, you look around and try to find a free one and can't, you search flickr and don't find anything, so you upload a photo under a claim of fair use. Unacceptable: you patrol through a category of dead people and upload fair use photos in alphabetical order with no attempt whatsoever to obtain a free image. --B (talk) 03:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Any list of "acceptable" uses would get abused. I think an uploading ban is the most reasonable way to address this problem.—Kww(talk) 03:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yea, and they can still request an image to be uploaded (I think that is still around?); unless, of course, that's abused in turn. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 03:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Again I say this without having looked at his editing, but given the evidence presented, I see no reason for an uploading ban — do nothing if it's less severe, and ban from uploading non-free images if it's more severe. Nyttend (talk) 03:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at his edits pertaining to Arts on the Line.—Kww(talk) 05:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• I think he's gotten the message for now. If he resumes mass-uploading non-free images we can reconsider the ban. - King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • By "gotten the message", you mean he didn't upload anything while he was sleeping? ;) --B (talk) 13:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Continuing issue

Slowking4 has resumed uploading non-free images of deceased people. In a clear case of WP:POINT, he's now gone to people deceased a while ago (1970), but it's clear he's still not making any effort to find free images further than the usual Google search. On his talkpage, responses to other editors included

• "sorry, i ignore policy discussion, and ANI. much ado about nothing. more heat than light. what controversy? anything you try to do here is controversial: it's SOP. why do anything? this is not a bulk upload. this is the upload wizard one at a time. but now that you mention it, i should really write a bot for fair use uploads." and
• "i can see discussion is of limited utility. this playing subjunctive gaming of rules, "oh you could try harder to find a free image" is bullshit... i'm going to handle it. deal with it."

I would suggest that this probably has to be dealt with here now - this is clearly WP:IDHT, WP:BATTLE and WP:POINT given that there is currently a discussion going on at WT:NFC about the issue which Slowking4 refuses to join, and he has previous form for this type of uncollegial behaviour. I am reluctant to block him as I may be perceived as involved, but I don't think nuking all his latest contributions would be controversial. Black Kite (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• • This has to stop. He's uploading photos from commercial content providers (violates WP:NFCC#UUI #7. He's uploading photos like File:A. A. Allen.jpeg, which is from a prolific public figure who died in 1970 and public domain photos almost certainly exist. Basically all of Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 April 16 and Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 April 17 is his photos and basically all of them are inappropriate. If you're uploading fair use photos at a clip of every few minutes, then you're not making any effort whatsoever to find a free photo. Rather, fair use photos ruin our chances of obtaining a free one. Take File:A. A. Allen.jpeg. Suppose we email the successor to this guy's ministry and ask for a public domain photo or one that they own the copyright to and are willing to license under acceptable terms ... what do you think they will say? "Why should we? You're willing to use a 'fair use' image - why should we do this for you?" --B (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Since he's evidently deliberately defying the consensus here that these uploads are inappropriate, in the face of a clear consensus that sanctions against him may be necessary if he continues, I have blocked him for 48 hours to put a temporary stop on these mass uploads. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Here's another one: File:Franz Aigner.jpg. According to {{PD-Austria}}, copyright of photos expires 50 years from publication. Are we really to believe that a guy who wrestled in Austria in the 1920s didn't have a photo published of him in that time? Heck, this one might even be public domain. And regardless of whether it is, he uploaded a tiny unusable photo rather than scrolling down to the bottom of the source website and finding one of usable quality. This is the problem with these bulk uploads - he's not putting any effort into doing it right - just google, find, upload, and move on. --B (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Actually, I seems to understand that the definition of a simple photo is very narrow in Austrian law and that most photos get a full life+70 years protection. The Egyptian example that I posted at today's FFD page is better, I think. I think I've shown that free photos of A. A. Allen exist, see FFD. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
          • Okay - international copyright law is not my thing. But the point is that if you upload a really tiny image from the top of a page and don't scroll down one page view and see that there's an actually usable photo a little further down, you're engaged in way too fast of a process, rather than a serious effort to build an encyclopedia. --B (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
            • How do you know there are free photos available? I thought there was a rule against "crystal ball" conclusions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
              • Several points here: (1) WP:BALL refers to content of articles and is completely inapplicable here - I'm not writing an article about the potential for existence of a public domain photo. (2) WP:NFCCE says, "Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it for non-compliance with criterion 10c are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof." In other words, if you are seeking to retain the content, you must provide evidence that it complies with our fair use policy (ie, it's not replaceable) - it's not my job to prove it is replaceable - only to show that it reasonably might be. (3) As I said, the issue with this photo isn't just copyright - it's that Slowking4 is carelessly uploading these things. This is a tiny unusable photo and, supposing that it is legitimate fair use, there's a better one at the bottom of the page that if he had even taken the time to scroll down he would have seen. Edits to the encyclopedia - fair use photos or otherwise - should be well-thought out, not haphazard.--B (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2013 (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.

Kamarupi Prakrit and user User:Bhaskarbhagawati

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:Bhaskarbhagawati is removing a duely referenced (with page number given) sentence from the article Kamarupi Prakrit. He is insisting on a link to verify the sentence, but there isn't one (not all books are fully on the web). He has removed the sentence twice. diff) and (diff). The reason given, in his edit summary, is "Give page link for claim regarding usage of X sound"; which is strange because this sentence is not at all about phonetics, but the use of certain letters in an old language.

I request that he be prevented from removing sentences arbitrarily----instead he should ask for more evidence, if needed. Such abrasive behavior has lead to edit wars in the past, I am afraid.

Chaipau (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2013 (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.

Hello everybody! relist this please

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.

---

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bachchan family--Penssail (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, really? I'm actually impressed. Please don't clutter up ANI with requests like this. m.o.p 19:21, 17 April 2013 (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.

Provocative editor needs some action

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.

---

We've got a IP who seems to be solely involved in provocation. If you take a look at the edits to GoodDay's page here and others we get provocative and insulting comments that have nothing to do with improving any article. GoodDay looks likely to be subject to Arbcom restrictions so actively trying to wind him up and actively encouraging him to sock is especially nasty. Also editing as SixtyNineSixtySix. Would an admin please take a look? Warning at least but the behaviour seems enough for a block in my view. I suspect its one of the old B&I article sock masters. ----Snowded ^TALK 21:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Alright, alright. I'll leave off GoodDay. I guess he's a lost cause anyway. Anyway, I told him to go to Wiki News, so not really SP. Can't log in at the moment; forgotten password (will find it). 86.23.69.66 (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, you said "Just retire, have a few months off, then come back as someone else." That's sockpuppetry, and the rest of your post makes it absolutely clear you were aware of that. You also another editor's comment without permission. —Rutebega (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2013 (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.

Rangeblock on Fort Irwin National Training Center

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.

---

Fort Irwin National Training Center is getting repeated spam from a cleaning service. All the edits, among edits to other articles of exactly the same nature, are from 69.235.x.x Might it be possible to rangeblock the offending IPs for a while? Per whois they're registered to AT&T Internet Services (69.224.0.0 - 69.239.255.255). I'd try it myself but I have a feeling I'd block ¼ of the US if I got it wrong… Could someone who understands CIDR take a look? Thanks. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I have a feeling there would be a lot of collateral damage --Cameron11598 (Converse) 00:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Unregistered users blocked from editing this article for a year. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:32, 18 April 2013 (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.

Potential vandalism on Iraq attacks article

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

---

Not sure how to proceed on this, but a few minutes ago part of the intro section and background info in the 15 April 2013 Iraq attacks article was deleted by User:216.169.108.216, whose talk page features an older warning from 2010, as well as one that just now happened on the Cony High School article. I already warned him, but wanted to have this here just in case whoever is behind this account decides to act again later. Skycycle (talk) 02:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Run-of-the-mill vandalism; such cases can be reported at WP:AIV if it gets out of hand. There is no need to start an ANI thread for such cases, and at any rate the IP is already blocked. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:44, 18 April 2013 (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.

Harassing/overbearing editor

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

---

I have only reverted this editor once, yet he feels the need to post all this stuff on my talk page, accusing me of edit-warring. It's been a while since I've actively edited Wikipedia, so I don't know where to report the harassment, but I figure this is as good a place as any. Please move this to a more appropriate forum, if there is one. --C S (talk) 02:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

By my count, you have reverted twice. That is edit-warring. It's rather crass of him to warn you for it, because he's part of the problem too, but it is not harassment. Please continue to discuss the issue on the talk page and, as always, AGF. —Rutebega (talk) 02:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you point out my second revert? I reverted him once here. That's it. I also made a change later here, but that's not what I reverted earlier, nor did he make any edits in between my two edits. Well, I'm probably not disposed to view his/her actions favorably now, but that kind of behavior encourages more polite, busy people to just go do something better, as I am going to do now. So s/he wins again. --C S (talk) 03:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

[23][24]—Rutebega (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

So the first link is to the first edit I've made to the article... I saw something wrong and I made the change. That counts as a revert now? Anyway, I guess this is enough time on this. Thanks for your input. --C S (talk) 03:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I should really should stop being so surprised to see someone participate in an edit war with an edit summary of, "Please do not edit war. Seek consensus on talk". Someguy1221 (talk) 03:18, 18 April 2013 (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 war on Mehmed the Conqueror admins needed

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

---

Hi, I would like to ask the opinion of the administrators on the dispute at Mehmed the Conqueror's page. This was a 15th century Ottoman/Turkish ruler who conquered the Byzantine Empire, their capital Constantinople, and mostly struggled against other Christian powers. In short the dispute is about LGBT and rape of this ruler, whether he was LGBT/rapist or not. In the talk page it is very long discussed so I will try to explain it in short.

It is claimed by some contemporary Byzantine historians that Mehmed was trying to rape several little boys, but this is disputed by modern Turkish historians who point out that contemporary Ottoman historians do not mention any of these claims.

Before I started editing on this page, the LGBT and boy-rape stories were presented as if they were facts and there were a dozen of LGBT categories in the article. There was no criticism to these stories after all rape is a serious accusation. And I knew that Mehmed has a much different image in the works of Turkish/Ottoman historians. So I wanted to add criticism to these claims and I found sources in which modern Turkish historians, including Halil Inalcik, dispute these stories (see this and this, by pointing out that these stories do not appear in the works of contemporary Ottoman historians. I first tried to add sourced criticism, it was reverted and I was accused of promoting pro Turkish/Neo-Ottoman and Islamic agenda and being anti LGBT. In fact I was not doing this. I was only adding the other point of view, since rape is a serious accusation, but it seems they make these kind of personal accusations to silence other users. After an edit-war and long discussions on the talkpage, the criticism was accepted and the categories were removed since its not a fact and based on disputed weak sources. Then the page was protected for a while. After the protection expired an anonymous (changing) IP who might be a sock puppet and who is still violating this page (mass-removal of text) and has done this in the past, removed the criticism to present it as a fact. He is basically pushing his own POV and doesn't allow the other point of view to be added.

It is always the same IP (same location, IP numbers show small differences), who is adding and removing sourced text without discussion and who accuses everyone which he doesn't agree as "Turkish nationalist/neo-Ottoman and Islamic propaganda"

Here are some of his edits and IP's he uses:
93.133.190.75
77.4.193.214
93.133.167.212
77.4.253.60
93.134.137.144
93.133.148.229
77.4.249.210
93.134.173.227
93.133.174.169
93.133.141.203
93.134.142.91
77.4.209.24
77.4.239.146
77.4.243.235
93.133.171.31

But I reverted to the consensus but then they added more stories about boys being raped.

There was a German scholar called Franz Babinger who wrote a biography about Mehmed's life and his book is critical about Mehmed and bases this on these Byzantine historians. His book includes most of these claims including who originally came up with these stories. His book is called Mehmed the Conqueror and his time and is perceived as one of the foremost works on Mehmed in the West. Probably all other modern Western sources are based on his book. First the article stated that Mehmed was attracted to both men and women, later I added (according to Franz Babinger), they first didn't accept it but later they did. I added criticism of Turkish historians.

The boy rape was first based on 1 story:

• The execution of Loukas Notaras, a Byzantine nobleman, some Byzantine historians claim he was killed for refusing to hand over his son to the sultan, while according to all Ottoman and some Byzantine sources he was executed for treachery and bribery.

Since I added criticism to this story, the Personal Life section of Mehmed turned into the execution story of Notaras so I removed this all to the article of Notaras.

In the Personal Life secton of Mehmed I left, "According to Franz Babinger he was atracted to men and women and based this on various Byzantine historians". So I did not go into much detail but summarized it in the claim of Babinger since his book contains most of these stories. I think this is sufficient.

But then the anonymous IP added another source that Mehmed tried to rape Radu, a 15th century Wallachian prince, and added LGBT categories back.

I removed this because 1 sentence in Babingers assertion was already enough and there was no reason to go into so much detail about. Or we had to add criticism to it.

But then User:Contaldo80 completely wrote a detailed LGBT section, where some sources are mixed with the wrong sentences. I did not like this because it is again presenting these stories as facts while cherry picking sources and only mildly refuting them.

I have also tried to improve the article with the facts that really matter and which for a long time have not been expanded, because the only edits were edit wars about this LGBT. I did research and expanded the history, reign administration but User:Contaldo80 accused me of "clearly pushing a pro-Turkish/Ottoman bias".

So the rest of the edits consist of me undoing his edit and vice versa. I think we should not add so much detailed info which is disputed by historians and who are ultimately based on 15th century rumors of Byzantine historians who probably wrote this stories as slanders because Mehmed conquered their capital city Constantinople and ended their empire. Some Turkish historians think this was the reason.

So it does not seem to be neutral to devote so much space in the page to Mehmed raping little boys. I think one sentence about LGBT in the Personal Life section is enough or we have to add more criticism to each of these allegations. But I think adding so much negative info will result that the page will be full with these disputed dubious rumor stories and I think they were also added primarily by anti Mehmed users as slander.

So my first proposal is to indefinitely protect this page from anonymous IP's who are only adding above mentioned subjects, ignore discussions on the talk page and never really contribute to the article, except for slander and discredit the historical person.

My second proposal is to only add a short sentence about this LGBT, I do not think it necessary to add so much details about dubious raping stories, which make the article un-encyclopedic and I found an article with extensive criticism of Turkish historians but I didn't find it necessary to add their entire detailed criticism and so I summarized it in one sentence, otherwise I can expand that too but then the article will have too much disproportional discussions on LGBT and rape.

Can you please look at this and end this discussion about (raping boys) once and for all. And the page should be protected from IP's I don't think they are neutral, in my opinion their goal is to vandalize.

Thanks in advance.DragonTiger23 (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Is there a way to summarize the above post? An (admitingly very brief) read of the above seems to suggest this is a content dispute and should go through the usual dispute resolution process... Singularity42 (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I can summarise it quite quickly for you. Mehmed II was a 15th century military leader. A number of contemporary sources claim Mehmed sexually exploited the sons of vanquished nobles. Some editors, including myself, have tried to refer to this in the article in a relatively brief way and using mainstream academic sources. The complainant above has a problem because they argue the primary sources were written by hostile observers (whereas local - Ottoman - observers do seemingly not cover the issue). My argument is that the sources cited are good ones and we do not know for sure that the primary sources are incorrect in their claims. Nevertheless I have also made sure theat text has remained in place citing the counter-argument - ie that the primary sources are potentially open to bias. That seems a good balance to me. The complainant continues to insist this is a LGBT issue" (the term is anachronistic here). Despite their protests they are clearly pushing a pro-Turkish/ Ottoman polemic which is skewing the balance of the article. The complainant has also been personally abusive on several occasions. I have explained I am happy for them to challenge the robustness of the secondary sources, or to include mroe secondary sources which support the claim of bias; but I am not prepared to leave the whole section out on a personal whim. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

If this isn't the right place, where should I add this?DragonTiger23 (talk) 08:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

BEfore Contaldo insisted to include his own text, the only mention was about attraction to both men and women and the story of Notaras execution. But now Contaldo combined different stories as to prove it was common, he basically copied this book. In that book the execution of Notaras is deeply investigated by analysing various sources, Contaldo cherry picked the sections relating to Mehmed and used this in his text without critism. I have already explained these stories in detail on the talk page, they are controversial weak sources so I do not understand why all these stories should be added in a way which implies that they are facts and only mildly refuting. These claims are also not relevant to the article or proportional to this ruler. What Contaldo insist is to add some Byzantine slandering rumors in detail, since all these stories are already summarized in Babinger's book and Babinger's concludes that Mehmed may have been attracted to men and women. Even Babinger states that they are based on a few Byzantine sources and he himself does not find them very credible. Also can you please say that they should stop accusing me of being pro-Turkish/ Ottoman, if I am so by their logic only because I added criticism then doesn't he become anti-Turkish/Ottoman because he insist on presenting rape stories as facts? Is this normal that they are trying to discredit my User by using so cheap accusations, I have done nothing which suggest this.

I think this is sufficient information for the page.

My version:

Franz Babinger in his book Mehmed the Conqueror and his Time, asserted that he was attracted to both women and men, by basing this upon various Byzantine historians such as Doukas, Chalcocondylas. However these assertions met fierce criticism from modern Turkish historians, including Halil Inalcik pointing out that contemporary Ottoman sources do not mention this.

Contaldo adds this after the siege of Constantinople:

Several contemporary chroniclers have also written that following the fall, Mehmed deliberately spared the sons of certain noblemen from execution. These youths had apparently caught his eye and were subsequently sent to his seraglio, supposedly to be seduced. Most notable was the youngest son of Grand Duke Lucas Notaras, who numerous contemporary sources say was “snatched from the arms of his parents”. The Byzantine historian Doukas described how after the fall of Constantinople, Notaros resisted attempts to deliver his son to the “pleasures” of the sultan and was summarily executed. Leonard of Chios, related the same story in his letter to Pope Nicholas. The young Notares later escaped the harem and fled overseas.

Nor did this seem to be an isolated case. The son of Sphrantzes met the same fate; and later lost his life after a plot to kill the sultan failed. Nor were the detainees confined to Constantinople. Radu cel Frumos, (son of the duke of Wallachia), was also reported as being subject to Mehmed’s erotic advances. The academic Demetrios Chalkokondyles describe how Mehmed “proposed toasts in his honour, and invited him to his chamber”. Radu at first resisted attempts by the king to kiss him, stabbed him in the thigh and fled up a tree. Thereafter Radu submitted to become the sultan’s lover and lived with him in the palace.

The suggestion of homo-erotic impulses has met, however, fierce criticism from modern-day Turkish historians, including Halil Inalcik, noting that the events described were set out by hostile Byzantine or Greek chroniclers, and such tales are not to be found in Ottoman sources. Indeed there is a chance that the stories echoed polemic from Iberia in relation to Saint Pelagius who similarly resisted the advances of a muslim king. Also, figures such as Notaras and other Christian dignitaries in the city were likely executed for purely political reasons.DragonTiger23 (talk) 09:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• DragonTiger23, sorry no one has mentioned this yet as I can see you put a lot of time into your post, but neither WP:ANI nor administrators deal with content issues (admins have no extra say on content matters). You're looking for WP:DRN but see WP:DR for general dispute resolution practices. May I suggest that when you post to DRN you keep it brief, long posts like these tend to be ignored by many people. Good luck. Sædon^talk 09:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Unless the IPs are crossing WP:3RR and not discussing, in which case you should either request semi protection (very easy using WP:TWINKLE), or file at WP:EWN Sædon^talk 09:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

There is plenty of discussion, let me reassure you - so I don't think semiprotection is a useful approach in this case. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Then I will remove this to section to there.DragonTiger23 (talk) 09:14, 17 April 2013 (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.

AFCShandong

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.

---

AFCShandong (talk · contribs) has been editing Chinese football articles for a while and has caused more than one editor grief. See editor's talk page and User talk:Walter Görlitz/Archived Talk to 2012-12#User:AFCShandong for examples. Editor has received multiple warnings and several final warnings. Editor simply refuses to discuss, quite possibly since the editor is not a native English speaker. Today, editor has decided to go against WP:OVERLINK again and is walking through articles and linking China in its various forms (edit summaries, player talk pages, etc.). I am opening this notice in hopes that editor will start discussing, if not a short block might help. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• I attest 200% to what Walter conveyed in his message. Sadly, i'm not as hopeful as he is, this guy will NEVER talk with us unless he's blocked, not sure he will if that occurs also. --AL (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I really didn't really know complex Wikipedia editing is. I'll look up tutorials and I promise that whatever you mentioned will not happen again, such as overlinking, removing sections etc. Also when the notification came up with new messages, I ignored that because I thought it was just spam or something similar in that aspect. As I said, I'm truly sorry and I'll make sure it doesn't happen again. If I ever mess up again, just shoot me a message. AFCShandong (talk)

• So, i must also present my apologies, for saying you would not talk to anyone. Hopefully, it will be the end of the misunderstandings and we can all work together improving the articles from now on. Sorry. --AL (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Walter, are you also happy that AFCShandong has seen the error of their ways and will now be able to edit/discuss matters in a more constructive manner? If so I will close this ANI and you can all go about your business. GiantSnowman 08:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Having read what AFCShandong has written I am assuming his comments are made in good faith and I hope from now on there will be an improvement in his edits. Yours sincerely User talk:Kai Lau 23:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The issue is that the editor has been here for six months on-and-off. The first warnings arrived just over a month in and no effort was made to communicate either via talk pages or in edit summaries. I have to assume that it's a language issue and will work to communicate better and without warnings. I don't know if I'm happy, but I'm willing to close the case. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Request

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

---

Could an administrator please edit the Queue 5 for DYK and change Sugababe's to Sugababes'. Thank you in advance Till 14:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done by Yngvadottir. De728631 (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2013 (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.

Messed-up page history

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:Jasonvaidya123 recently moved User talk:Jasonvaidya123 to Wikipedia:Dhananjay prasad vaidya. I attempted to undo the changes, but the page history for User talk:Jasonvaidya123 is still at the Dhananjay prasad vaidya page. Not sure what I did wrong. Could someone please take a look and make it so that those two pages have the correct edit histories? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 06:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Something else is weird here. The talk page has entries to things like "Speedy deletion nomination of Potpie inc", but the user contributions for Jasonvaidya123 do not show him as having created or edited that page. Is this a problem? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

No, that's normal. The page was deleted, so it no longer shows up in his contributions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 06:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moreton Bay Symphony Orchestra (2nd nomination)

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.

---

without contacting a specific admin, could an admin close this as it went past 7 days. thanks. LibStar (talk) 08:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Done. There's often a small backlog at AfD, but it's been a little more recently because of problems with the toolserver meaning the "open AFDs" tool has been broken. Black Kite (talk) 08:34, 18 April 2013 (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:HGJ345

• HGJ345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 16:10 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

In February, User:HGJ345 added some problem templates to 16:10 [25]. In the ensuing discussion on the talk page, User:HGJ345 has displayed a number of signs of a tendentious editor:

• "One who ignores or refuses to answer good faith questions from other editors". It took him over a month to start responding to my requests for more information about why he thinks the article has the problems he claims it has. Until that point, all he could offer in terms of arguments were vague statements like "The sources in that section isnt reliable" [26] and "It is just a bunch of people sharing their personal opinions" [27]. Even when he finally started quoting specific parts of the article he found problematic, his arguments were weak and easily refuted as having no basis in Wikipedia's policies.

• "One who repeats the same argument without convincing people". User:HGJ345's main argument throughout the dispute has been that a number of sources report on opinions and therefore are not reliable. I've explained repeatedly that reporting on opinions isn't forbidden and sources that do so aren't inherently unreliable, as well as that this doesn't mean the article is written like an essay, but that doesn't seem to have had any effect (possible case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU).

• "One who disputes the reliability of apparently good sources". The sources which User:HGJ345 is disputing have, in the course of previous disputes, been met with editor consensus. User:HGJ345 is not only disputing a large number of sources at the same time ("Yes, all of them." [28]), he is doing so without offering even the slightest shred of evidence to support his arguments (beyond the aforementioned, demonstrably fallacious "it's just opinions"). At some point during the dispute he shifted his focus from arguing about the sources themselves to criticising the way the article uses the sources (claiming that "It is just a bunch of opinions which falsely is stated as facts" [29]), though later he returned to attacking the sources themselves again, for instance deleting one for being "written like a blog entry according to me" [30].

• "One who deletes the cited additions of others". While perhaps not 100% applicable as he hasn't exactly demanded that edits be discussed with him first, it's still relevant - as WP:TE points out, "removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption". That is exactly what User:HGJ345 has done [31] [32]. This was after User:Solarra (who joined the dispute following my 3O request) raised concerns about a couple of sources [33]. I responded to those concerns and (hopefully) allayed most of them, and User:Solarra hasn't replied yet, but nevertheless User:HGJ345 has used her comment as an excuse to go on a ref-deleting spree throughout the article (not limiting himself to the sources that User:Solarra mentioned) [34] [35] [36] [37].

Other examples of User:HGJ345's behaviour include outright deleting disputed content [38], pushing his non-consensus, POV edits into the article rather than working towards an amicable resolution, and accusing me of edit warring [39]. Also, comments such as "Me and many other 16:10 users hate 16:9 for gaming" and "I am mad at those developers who have decided to make 16:9 main stream" [40], combined with the removal of content and sources that report on positive reactions to the 16:9 aspect ratio [41], indicate a clear bias on the subject.

In short, User:HGJ345's behaviour during the dispute has been tendentious and his edits disruptive. He keeps removing relevant, reliably sourced content (a violation of WP:NPOV), invoking the "guidelines for reliable sources" [42], yet at the same time demonstrates ignorance of said guidelines by using self-published sources [43] [44]. I've tried to point him towards the relevant policies as much as possible, but he seems either unable or unwilling to cease his disruptive behaviour. As such, I feel some sort of administrative intervention is necessary. Indrek (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Quick bump before this is archived. Or if there's a better forum for me to take this issue, I'd be happy to do so, if someone points me in the right direction. Indrek (talk) 08:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

You're trying to prove long-term behaviour, which is the realm of WP:RFC/U (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if a couple of months of tendentious editing constitutes long-term behaviour (and I'm not familiar with this editor's behaviour prior to the dispute). I'm mostly just trying to get some more eyes on the issue, because User:HGJ345 is clearly not paying any attention to what I'm saying, and the only other editor who has thus far been involved (User:Solarra) seems to be inactive right now. RFC/U requires more than one editor anyway. I guess I'll try 3O again, or maybe DRN, though I'm not too optimistic as User:HGJ345 hasn't thus far demonstrated much inclination to follow established dispute resolution processes. Indrek (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Voidz

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.

---

Is User:Voidz here to help create an encyclopedia or is Voidz here to promote. Voidz has started a lot of articles on a lot of subjects. Lots have been overly promotional. Lots have been supported by bad sources. Lots have been deleted and more will be. An example of the puff Voidz creates "Although Shaun Polack has shown to be a natural talent to be successful in motorsports, he has an unorthodox view on how sponsorships and how professional drivers are portrayed by the media. This is apparent on his decision to only work with sponsors who he feels have the same views on him towards the message they are trying to convey to the public." [45]. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks to me like a professional spammer. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Strongly concur, and another non-admin editor and I were already prepping to make this case. His original articles, quite numerous for someone active only since February, are marked by strong promotional tones, general (but not complete) dubious notability, and sourcing that goes beyond being poor to being dishonest, seeming to throw in anything that has the subject's name in it, whether it contains the information being supposedly cited or even whether it contains any reference to the subject at all. (My favorite example of the latter being a reference in the article Justin Johnson (singer) for this Google Books result for a book index that happened to contain the words "Justin", "Johnson", "gospel", and "singer" on the page, albeit with no reference to a Justin Johnson, and certainly not this Justin Johnson, who was only 6 when the book was published.) Voidz does not tend to involve himself in the AFDs of his articles, although there are sometimes SPA accounts that do so (as in the Justin Johnson page), raising the question of whether some form of puppetry is at work. There may be some argument that some small portion of his contribution are not strictly promotional, but the time of other editors that he wastes by generating so much that needs policing outweighs any benefit those edits generate. User has now been warned about his edits multiple times. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Papisjap. De728631 (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Socking is very likely for an editor for hire. If SPI pans out I think the DUCK principle suggests the editor is a professional spammer rather than an overzealous fan of up and coming musicians, photographers, and entrepreneurs from all over the globe. 75.69.118.163 (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• I think spam. The plugging of this link in a series of edits of 14 April, between 21:29 and 21:34, suggest that. Drmies (talk) 03:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds about right. Previous editors-for-hire/spammers show similar patterns. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 05:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Alright, per this thread and the edit history of Voidz I've gone ahead and indeffed them as a promotion-only account. De728631 (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Voidz is clearly a spammer. When such evidence shows up I think there should be a way to Deny them the fruits of their labour. Much like we deny vandals we should deny spammers. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Frankly he's the worst PR agent I've ever encountered on Wikipedia, a significant number of his article weren't sourced and the remainder that were were poorly sourced with references that either don't support the content or are outright unreliable. It's almost as if he walked down the street asking random people whether they want a Wikipedia article on them, and later using nonsense on facetube or mytwit to support his articles. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 16:14, 18 April 2013 (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:HGJ345

• HGJ345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 16:10 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

In February, User:HGJ345 added some problem templates to 16:10 [46]. In the ensuing discussion on the talk page, User:HGJ345 has displayed a number of signs of a tendentious editor:

• "One who ignores or refuses to answer good faith questions from other editors". It took him over a month to start responding to my requests for more information about why he thinks the article has the problems he claims it has. Until that point, all he could offer in terms of arguments were vague statements like "The sources in that section isnt reliable" [47] and "It is just a bunch of people sharing their personal opinions" [48]. Even when he finally started quoting specific parts of the article he found problematic, his arguments were weak and easily refuted as having no basis in Wikipedia's policies.

• "One who repeats the same argument without convincing people". User:HGJ345's main argument throughout the dispute has been that a number of sources report on opinions and therefore are not reliable. I've explained repeatedly that reporting on opinions isn't forbidden and sources that do so aren't inherently unreliable, as well as that this doesn't mean the article is written like an essay, but that doesn't seem to have had any effect (possible case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU).

• "One who disputes the reliability of apparently good sources". The sources which User:HGJ345 is disputing have, in the course of previous disputes, been met with editor consensus. User:HGJ345 is not only disputing a large number of sources at the same time ("Yes, all of them." [49]), he is doing so without offering even the slightest shred of evidence to support his arguments (beyond the aforementioned, demonstrably fallacious "it's just opinions"). At some point during the dispute he shifted his focus from arguing about the sources themselves to criticising the way the article uses the sources (claiming that "It is just a bunch of opinions which falsely is stated as facts" [50]), though later he returned to attacking the sources themselves again, for instance deleting one for being "written like a blog entry according to me" [51].

• "One who deletes the cited additions of others". While perhaps not 100% applicable as he hasn't exactly demanded that edits be discussed with him first, it's still relevant - as WP:TE points out, "removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption". That is exactly what User:HGJ345 has done [52] [53]. This was after User:Solarra (who joined the dispute following my 3O request) raised concerns about a couple of sources [54]. I responded to those concerns and (hopefully) allayed most of them, and User:Solarra hasn't replied yet, but nevertheless User:HGJ345 has used her comment as an excuse to go on a ref-deleting spree throughout the article (not limiting himself to the sources that User:Solarra mentioned) [55] [56] [57] [58].

Other examples of User:HGJ345's behaviour include outright deleting disputed content [59], pushing his non-consensus, POV edits into the article rather than working towards an amicable resolution, and accusing me of edit warring [60]. Also, comments such as "Me and many other 16:10 users hate 16:9 for gaming" and "I am mad at those developers who have decided to make 16:9 main stream" [61], combined with the removal of content and sources that report on positive reactions to the 16:9 aspect ratio [62], indicate a clear bias on the subject.

In short, User:HGJ345's behaviour during the dispute has been tendentious and his edits disruptive. He keeps removing relevant, reliably sourced content (a violation of WP:NPOV), invoking the "guidelines for reliable sources" [63], yet at the same time demonstrates ignorance of said guidelines by using self-published sources [64] [65]. I've tried to point him towards the relevant policies as much as possible, but he seems either unable or unwilling to cease his disruptive behaviour. As such, I feel some sort of administrative intervention is necessary. Indrek (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Quick bump before this is archived. Or if there's a better forum for me to take this issue, I'd be happy to do so, if someone points me in the right direction. Indrek (talk) 08:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

You're trying to prove long-term behaviour, which is the realm of WP:RFC/U (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if a couple of months of tendentious editing constitutes long-term behaviour (and I'm not familiar with this editor's behaviour prior to the dispute). I'm mostly just trying to get some more eyes on the issue, because User:HGJ345 is clearly not paying any attention to what I'm saying, and the only other editor who has thus far been involved (User:Solarra) seems to be inactive right now. RFC/U requires more than one editor anyway. I guess I'll try 3O again, or maybe DRN, though I'm not too optimistic as User:HGJ345 hasn't thus far demonstrated much inclination to follow established dispute resolution processes. Indrek (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Voidz

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.

---

Is User:Voidz here to help create an encyclopedia or is Voidz here to promote. Voidz has started a lot of articles on a lot of subjects. Lots have been overly promotional. Lots have been supported by bad sources. Lots have been deleted and more will be. An example of the puff Voidz creates "Although Shaun Polack has shown to be a natural talent to be successful in motorsports, he has an unorthodox view on how sponsorships and how professional drivers are portrayed by the media. This is apparent on his decision to only work with sponsors who he feels have the same views on him towards the message they are trying to convey to the public." [66]. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks to me like a professional spammer. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Strongly concur, and another non-admin editor and I were already prepping to make this case. His original articles, quite numerous for someone active only since February, are marked by strong promotional tones, general (but not complete) dubious notability, and sourcing that goes beyond being poor to being dishonest, seeming to throw in anything that has the subject's name in it, whether it contains the information being supposedly cited or even whether it contains any reference to the subject at all. (My favorite example of the latter being a reference in the article Justin Johnson (singer) for this Google Books result for a book index that happened to contain the words "Justin", "Johnson", "gospel", and "singer" on the page, albeit with no reference to a Justin Johnson, and certainly not this Justin Johnson, who was only 6 when the book was published.) Voidz does not tend to involve himself in the AFDs of his articles, although there are sometimes SPA accounts that do so (as in the Justin Johnson page), raising the question of whether some form of puppetry is at work. There may be some argument that some small portion of his contribution are not strictly promotional, but the time of other editors that he wastes by generating so much that needs policing outweighs any benefit those edits generate. User has now been warned about his edits multiple times. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Papisjap. De728631 (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Socking is very likely for an editor for hire. If SPI pans out I think the DUCK principle suggests the editor is a professional spammer rather than an overzealous fan of up and coming musicians, photographers, and entrepreneurs from all over the globe. 75.69.118.163 (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• I think spam. The plugging of this link in a series of edits of 14 April, between 21:29 and 21:34, suggest that. Drmies (talk) 03:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds about right. Previous editors-for-hire/spammers show similar patterns. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 05:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Alright, per this thread and the edit history of Voidz I've gone ahead and indeffed them as a promotion-only account. De728631 (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Voidz is clearly a spammer. When such evidence shows up I think there should be a way to Deny them the fruits of their labour. Much like we deny vandals we should deny spammers. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Frankly he's the worst PR agent I've ever encountered on Wikipedia, a significant number of his article weren't sourced and the remainder that were were poorly sourced with references that either don't support the content or are outright unreliable. It's almost as if he walked down the street asking random people whether they want a Wikipedia article on them, and later using nonsense on facetube or mytwit to support his articles. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 16:14, 18 April 2013 (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 attempt to "shut down" a discussion at WT:AT

Eyes are needed at WP:AT... we were engaged in what I thought was very congenial and productive examination of why the "rules" regarding article title format were written the way they are, when suddenly people started to call for "closing" it as disruptive. From my POV, it's the attempt to shut down the conversation that is causing the disruption, not the discussion itself. Blueboar (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a MOS related issue and then because it's a subjective thing, any consensus formed on it won't have a very solid rational basis. Therefore people in favor of the present consensus feel the need to defend very strongly which is why you get these big disputes in this area. There has already been an ArbCom case about a related issue (about dashes, hypens etc.). Count Iblis (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The thing is... there was no "big dispute" in this case (at least not until people tried to "close" the discussion). Are we now at the point where we can not even discuss issues that are remotely tangential to the MOS? If so, then we have a much bigger problem than a disruptive discussion closure. Blueboar (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion was starting to heat up and was a nasty mess in the making. I closed it as an uninvolved admin, with the explicit direction in my closing comment that discussion should continue in better-defined chunks. That's not "attempting to shut down a discussion". — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps that was not your intent, Hex... but that's certainly how it came across to me. The discussion didn't seem particularly heated to me... until people started to suggest that the discussion should be "closed". Then it got heated. Blueboar (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It seemed to me that Xkcd and Rob were both getting pretty worked up from the beginning. It does seem a little unusual to close that kind of discussion, but in fairness, it wasn't really headed in a productive direction. If anyone wants to submit to the community at large a formal proposal regarding this, they can do so whenever they please. Until then, bickering doesn't solve anything. Furthermore, if the history of sentence case merits continued discussion, that can be moved to WT:Titling in sentence case.

No harm, no foul. —Rutebega (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

"it wasn't really headed in a productive direction." I disagree with you. Some of us were having a productive discussion. Others are tying to silence the discussion before consensus can begin to shift. Xkcdreader (talk) 02:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

If you want to shift consensus, open an RFC. —Rutebega (talk) 03:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

We just want to talk about the rules. Where they came from, what justification was used when they were formed. How can we make a proposal if we are not allowed to discuss first? We don't have a proposal because we dont fully understand the history, and the discussion is being silenced. Xkcdreader (talk) 03:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: In reference to "As a side note, Xkcdreader is contradicting herself by stating that No proposal was made, when this section begins with TITLES that represent names should be... which is a proposal." My personal opinion is not the same thing as a proposal. In fact, Rob made a point that changed my mind half way through. If anything, now I would ask to look into lowercasing titles, not capitalizing them. I think there is some reading between the lines and interpretation needed to jump from "TITLES that represent names should be" to "I propose the change." As far as the ANI itself, I agree with blueboar, the people who disagree with the conversation are the ones causing the disruption. Whenever I post something, the person responds first, every time. I can't get a word in without the discussion being derailed. I find it slightly offensive that our discussion is being pushed to some hidden page that wont have a wider range of voices weighing in. Xkcdreader (talk) 02:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

You seem to get confused easily. I suggested that the uncovering of the history of our use of title case be continued at WT:Titling in sentence case. What you are talking about here, looking into lowercasing titles, is a different discussion, that would be perfectly suited to continuing in a new section at WT:AT, as my closing note made clear. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why it needs to be moved to some corner that nobody sees. I see that as an attempt to silence. I don't understand why the conversation needs to be closed. If it started as an inquiry into the rules and evolved into discussion of possible changes, why can't that occur naturally, without closing it and reopening it? Are we really resorting to personal attacks on the admin noticeboard (eg: You seem to get confused easily.) From my perspective, the people trying to shut down the discussion are trying to control what other people talk about. I find that behavior dangerous and not really excusable. I also don't see why are articles currently titled in sentence case and should we look into lower case titles as "different" discussions. These arbitrary distinctions are just a way to disrupt the part of the conversation that was actually somewhat functional. Xkcdreader (talk) 13:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

You're being paranoid, and I'm done here. — Hex (❝?!❞) 13:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Case and point of disruption: Instead of having a conversation about the rules, I am having a conversation about if we are allowed to have a conversation about the rules. Since the rules are spread over 5+ pages, it is very easy to claim "this isn't appropriate here" as soon as the conversation drifts slightly off topic. The conversation is then uprooted and replanted elsewhere. This cycle repeats ad infinitum. This is turning into a trail of tears. The conversation keeps moving until people who are opposed to it occurring with any visibility have sufficiently pushed it into obscurity. To quote Peter coxhead "Why close down a discussion? If you don't want to take part, just don't." I'm not paranoid, I'm starting to get frustrated that a small handful of users are able to consistently shut down any conversation they don't agree with. This isn't the first time this has occurred. Xkcdreader (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Xkcd alleges that xhe was merely trying to find out about the reason and the history behind the MOS adoption of sentence case for titles. FALSE. Although xkcd's opening post is so titled, the post was pure rhetoric from the first sentence, predicated on overturning that principle. It slams the MOS, stating "Wikipedia is the only site I can find that does not capitalize bear in Black bear. The MOS rules are arbitrary and poorly formed.". The second paragraph goes further to boldly assert: "TITLES that represent names should be written with every word capitalized per standard English 'Title Case'". xkcd continued to trumpet the superiority of Title case. In so advocating, he seemed to be a lone voice. Xhe wasn't there to listen, but to lecture. And that's why some got worked uo about it. Further, xkcd couldn't be bothered to comb through the archives oneself for when the rule was introduced or to raise a proper RfC. So I challenged xkcd to put up or shut up. He didn't put up, so others duly acted upon it. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 15:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The MOS is not sacred doctrine. I can "slam" it. It isn't perfect. I freely admit I believe it is flawed, and we should be allowed to discuss possible flaws. "Further, xkcd couldn't be bothered to comb through the archives oneself " Yea, the answer came from 2001. How in the world would I have ever found it? There is nothing wrong with asking others if they know where an answer is. Talk pages are for talking. "xkcd continued to trumpet the superiority of Title case." That is not true, I have already modified my position since the conversation started, do to a point Rob made. "Xhe wasn't there to listen, but to lecture." I contend people who say "the mos is fine the way it is" are the people who refuse to listen to what other people have to say. Fingers are already in ears. "So I challenged xkcd to put up or shut up." Put up what? We have not reached a conclusion yet, because we were trying to have a discussion ON A TALK PAGE. If you don't like the discussion we are having, I am not forcing you to participate in it. There is WP:OWN of the TALK page going on, if you don't have a conversation the MOS supporters approve of, they close it. This is an issue. Xkcdreader (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify repression. Such must be the rule if authority is to be reconciled with freedom." Louis Brandeis, Whitney v. California. Xkcdreader (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Time for another link to WP:FREESPEECH? And it should be noted that, in the professional literature, I'm pretty sure that while bird names are capitalised, i.e. "Common Yellowthroat", other taxas' names are not, i.e. "Black bear" is the correct formatting and those other sites that do captalise it are the ones that are wrong. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I quoted an educated person who was illustrating a principle. The principle of free speech existed before the constitution, and the point I am making is that if you don't like a discussion someone is having, start your own discussion, don't silence theirs. I hope you can understand the difference between invoking the principle of free speech and the implementation of that principle by the united states government. The issue here is people preventing others from having a discussion about the rules on a talk page. This isn't the place for a bird/bear debate. (http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=black+bear%2CBlack+bear%2CBlack+Bear&year_start=1740&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=) (If you really want something to think about, substitute Black bear with "red meat".) Regardless of what the "correct" capitalization is, we should be able to discuss it on talk pages. People should not be allowed to come in and say "youre not allowed to have a discussion concerning the rules," followed by the closing of a discussion. Discussion should not be closed in the first place. Xkcdreader (talk) 04:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Knowing the right time and place to have a discussion is not an art form. For example, I'm not stupid enough to walk into a Roman Catholic church on a Sunday morning and try and have a discussion about abortion - it's common sense. However, if I did walk in to a Roman Catholic church on a Sunday morning and started to discuss abortion, I'm pretty sure I would shut up and move on as soon as a dozen people told me it was an inappropriate time and place. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Talking about the article titling policy belongs on the article titling talk page. This isn't the Roman Catholic Church, nor should we aspire to be. Xkcdreader (talk) 02:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Complaint Against Summary Deletion of "GNU C-Graph"

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 to lodge a complaint against the summary deletion of GNU C-Graph, and to request reinstatement of the deleted article “GNU C-Graph” amended and uploaded to my user sandbox (subject to such further edits as may be required by Wikipedia policy). I have declared a conflict of interest on your Conflict of Interest Noticeboard under Wikipedia's Conflicts of Interest Policy in accordance with your Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, section 3(3).

I argue that:

1. The summary deletion was contrary to Wikipedia's policy on deletion;
2. The deletion was motivated by bias; and
3. The amended article complying with Wikipedia's policies should be reinstated.

long rant collapsed

COI and Deletion I am the author of the software package "GNU C-Graph" and the author of the draft article of the same name. While Wikipedia discourages the creation and editing of articles by authors closely connected with the subject, doing so is not prohibited; nor was I aware of the relevance of the COI policy until 3 April 2013, when the newly created article was “speedily deleted” (see [[User:Talk:Visionat#April_2013| message from User:Gold Standard]]. The purported criterion for deletion stated that the article appeared “to be written like an advertisement” serving “only to promote an entity, person or product”. The Administrators' Breach of Policy was Motivated by Bias An objective reading of the deleted GNU C-Graph article would reveal that its content sought not to advertise, but to present verifiable factual information and evidence substantiating assertions that define the history of the software (typical software articles in Wikipedia devote a section to history). Rather than being promotional, the description of the software seeks to underscore its technical significance in the field as recommended in Wikipedia:NSOFTWARE. As I pointed out in the ensuing deletion discussion, Wikipedia's articles on software are all inherently promotional. Accordingly, the stated deletion criterion of promotion/advertising gives the appearance of bias. The conduct of the administrators, which demonstrated (among other things) a lack of competence in matters of law, gave priority to responses comporting with bias: threats to block me for “a good long time”, disparaging remarks such as “soapboxing” and “boogeyman” claims. They failed to articulate what I have identified as the only breach of policy in the article – that although information likely to be challenged cited documents distributed by public authorities and public officials, the definition of “published” within the meaning of Wikipedia policy on verifiability pertains to sources distributed and accessible by the general public, not just individuals (see Wikipedia's definition of published in Wikipedia:Published, section 1.1. It is evident from the amended draft article that under Wikipedia's Policy on Deletion, the administrators were obliged to first consider alternatives to deletion, and could simply have edited the article to remove proscribed content: “If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion.” I submit that the administrators' breach of policy was motivated by a root contention that the evidence of racial discrimination exposed in the deleted article (particularly under the section “Theft Apartheid and Obstruction of Justice”) publicized the theft of rights in respect of software authored by a black woman. The summary deletion of the article for reasons pertaining only to ancillary background content corroborates the showing of bias already made apparent by the criterion noted for speedy deletion. The Amended draft article I've now had an opportunity to peruse Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, conflict of interest, and neutral point of view, with which I believe the amended draft article complies: Notability GNU C-Graph is part of Fedora 18. C-Graph was designed for purposes of instruction in universities and colleges. As noted in the article, statistics from ftp.gnu.org point to a growing worldwide user base in the tens of thousands. See the guideline on notability, section 3: ”Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article”. Verifiability and No Original Research The engineering theory illustrated in the article is verified by the 6 independent, third party secondary, reliable sources listed under "References". There is consensus that the majority of these academic and text book sources are among the best in the field. See the guideline on verifiability section 2.1. WP:V section 1, “Burden of Evidence”: ”[A]ny material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source ...” Accordingly, all material citing secondary sources falling outside Wikipedia's definition of “published” has been removed. With regard to any primary source material included in the draft article, I have noted the following policy elements: WP:PRIMARY:”A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge”. Wikipedia:IS#Summary:”Material available from sources that are self-published, or primary sources, or biased because of a conflict of interest can play a role in writing an article ...”

I look forward to your comments - and action.

Sincerely
Adrienne Gaye Thompson Visionat (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:TLDR. You don't seem to have discussed this with the deleting admin; you also haven't notified them of this discussion. I will do so now. GiantSnowman 16:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Didn't discuss for reasons I'll post later, but I did notify the admin in question.Visionat (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The place to ask for this is at WP:Deletion Review. You are likely to get a better result if your request there is somewhat shorter than this one: many WP have short attention spans, and there is no need to quote policy . The people here, and at Deletion Review, generally know the basics, and if in doubt about the wording, can check it. DGG ( talk ) 16:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• This is a matter for Wikipedia:Deletion review, not for here. In addition, I would suggest you make your complaint much more terser. [Sorry for saying the same thing, DGG--but it may not hurt to hear the right thing twice.) Drmies (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Visionat, you have already been told, when you recently took this issue to the Conflict of interest noticeboard, that Wikipedia:Deletion review was the right place for complaining about deletions, plus some other good advice, none of which included taking it to ANI.[67] There was a previous ANI discussion of this matter in early April, which should be taken into account by readers here. I seem to spend all my time linking to it. Bishonen | talk 17:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC).

I'll be the judge of what I consider to be "good advice". Part his advice appeared to be without merit so I disregarded the rest of it.Visionat (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• • (edit conflict) This was discussed here a few weeks ago and there is a thread at WP:COIN at the moment as well. I've been ignoring that as I wanted others to voice their opinions, but since I got a note alerting me to this: I have no problem with the draft being moved to the mainspace since it doesn't have the problems that the previous version did. But as several people have already pointed out to Visionat, there is no evidence that the software is notable, so if it were moved to mainspace, I would likely nominate it for deletion via WP:AFD to clear it up once and for all. SmartSE (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
    • It should be noted as well that the author of the article is still continuing their unfounded accusations of bad faith and racism with regard to the article's deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:26, 18 April 2013 (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.

Problem with Administrator

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

---

I am having trouble with an administrator, Fut.Perf., who I believe is acting unduly harsh and unfair, and not within the NPOV guidelines. I am here in an attempt to resolve two issues that seem to be crossing the line:

Note: Here is a link to my attempt to discuss this with the user: [[68]]. I have not received a reply.

1) Fut.Perf. is not acting within the guidelines and policies set by the ArbCom committee.[[69]], [[70]]

• FP has repeatedly applied overly harsh discretionary sanctions toward myself and "certain editors" (links below), while ignoring the behavior of other editors who are supposed to be under the same sanctions (ex- a barrage ending with "Now if you can be still long enough we might get some more opinions, but with you crapping up the boards with your hysterics I doubt it."[[71]] and statements like "Are you going to shut up and let some outside editors comment on this or are you going to drone on ad nauseum as you usually do during these discussions? "[[72]], and numerous references to animal dung...[[73]].
• FP has made repeated discretionary sanctions without issuing the required warning.[[74]], [[75]], only commenting after the fact, with no opportunity given to provide diffs or discuss any perceived or real behavioral problems.

2) I also question the classification of Fut.Perf. as an "uninvolved editor" when acting as an administrator over pages related to the Shakespeare Authorship Question.

• FP has participated several times on the Authorship talk pages, most recently saying "If that's the case, the claim is so extravagant and far-fetched we'd really need a clearer reference for it." - sounding just like one of the partisan involved editors on the page. [[76]]
• FP banned another SAQ editor prior to the ArbCom case being resolved, rendering his own judgement before the ArbCom rulings were complete.[[77]]
• FP has taken an extreme interest in this case, and has banned more editors than all other Administrators combined.[[78]]

ArbCom guidelines[[79]] were rarely followed in these cases, as well. At the same time, FP has not warned or sanctioned any of the 3 primary editors, in spite of a clear flaunting of several principals cited by ArbCom, including Casting aspersions & Conduct and decorum.[[80]](see small sampling of links above)

Proposed Resolution

1) * A review of Perfect Sunset's actions over myself and other SAQ editors to determine if guidelines applying to discretionary sanctions have been followed, and proper warnings given;

2) * A redaction of the two invalid "topic bans" that I received without the required warnings & links. ("Discretionary sanctions may be imposed by any uninvolved administrator after giving due warning''... and..."Warnings should be clear and unambiguous, link to the decision authorising the sanctions, identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways;")

3) * A review of the following talk pages by an uninvolved editor: [[81]], [[82]], [[83]], and [[84]] to weigh the behavior of all the editors with an eye towards even-handed enforcement of the ArbCom rules.

The defining moment came with this interchange, initiated by user:ErrantX, who chastised most everyone,[[85]] and answered by user:Tom_Reedy, who responded with a defiance and 'up yours' attitude that has defined this debate.[[86]]. By his own admission, Fut.Perf. has observed this behavior,[[87]] yet said nothing to prevent such utterly disgusting conduct. Instead, I seem to be a clear target of his.

Submitted by Smatprt (talk) 23:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

That's a really nice wall of text. Did I miss the link to where you have attempted to discuss and resolve this issue directly with the admin in question on their talkpage? I'm having trouble finding that diff above (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

He has never responded to me before when I have attempted to engage him and my most reply to him remains unanswered. Should I remove this from here and leave it on his talk page first?Smatprt (talk) 23:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is the link to my unanswered comments [[88]] (It's on my talk page, in answer to his latest attempt) Smatprt (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

You asked him a question 5 hours ago on your talkpage (in a very rude and aggressive manner, I might add - heck, I wouldn't have replied to that either) - I see no attempt to resolve the issue with FPAS directly yet. Want to re-think your tone and try with him directly? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Will do. But he's never wanted to engage before. Just sayin. Smatprt (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2013 (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.

Talk:Margaret_Thatcher#POV-section

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.

---

Getting tired of this long attempt to censor the widespread celebrations and protests around Thatcher's death, with goalpost-moving, claims that any evidence anyone can find isn't good enough, and attempts to dstifle discussion (not to mention all the gross personal attacks by John and Malleus - this for example was posted on my talk page when I had made, so far as I recall, a single edit.

I grow sick of the whole thing, which is why I do so little in article space nowadays, concentrating almost exclusively on featured pictures. Ownership of articles and constant shouting of others down, as can be seen on the Margaret Thatcher talkpage, only serve to drive editors off Wikipedia.

I'm going to take a day off from Thatcher. But can some new eyes please have a look at that article and check for POV issues? I see lots, perhaps I'm wrong. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Considering the wide coverage of the celebrations, they should be included. News sources are certainly reliable in this context; acts too recent to have entered scholarly biographies of the subject. Or do they plan on waiting for a new scholarly biography to mention that she is no longer a BLP? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The worst part is that it's a GA, and therefore held to a higher standard of neutrality, which I cannot see this as fulfilling. (Checking back in as I realised I forgot to notify.) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

    There's no "higher standard of neutrality", there's simply neutrality. But what you're talking about isn't neutrality at all. As you would realise if you were being honest with yourself rather than starting another of these vexatious threads. Malleus Fatuorum 23:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

John and I have held off from doing much to this article until the hooh hah has died down, and the serious rebuilding work can begin. As it happens I agree with Adam that the article no longer meets the GA criteria, but that's in no small part down to Adam himself. It's an interesting environment in which one can wreck an article and then claim that it no longer meets the GA criteria because of your wrecking. Malleus Fatuorum 23:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

(EC)With all the edit warring and POV you should put it up for GA review. I just read over the reliable sources and it seems notable. One editor is rejecting all American sources including CBS because he thinks they are POV. The British Library is archiving all UK websites to keep a history of the gloating on websites etc. The BBC refuses to play the top song of the week as they usually do. The song is "Ding Dong, The Witch is Dead". The main downtown party was planned ten years ago. I would say this is all very notable. Someone should even create an article on it and watch the antics in that AfD. To leave any mention of it out of the article is censorship. I could actually care less about the article, but admin causing 100% censorship of well sourced and notable material is something that the WMF or Mr. Wales should notified of. I won't be the one that will notifying them though. How long will it take before the media reports that Wikipedia is the only one censoring it? We will be a laughing stock.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be a good idea for you to actually read the article before sticking your foot in your mouth? The article is already up for a GA review, as you would have seen if you'd taken the trouble to look at it. But of course ignorantly mouthing off is so much easier. Malleus Fatuorum 00:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't see the policy. I just assumed that since it had your precious little green circle thingy-bob on it then it isn't in review. We may wish to seek consensus to remove those while articles are in review. Especially if the press figures out what it means and report that we only censor our best articles.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Apology accepted, let's stop this sub-thread since it's only a distraction. The article is up for GA review, and let's leave it at that. 01:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)Drmies (talk)

(ec)Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher seems to be shaping up quite well, and covers all this. The short section in the biography might be expanded by a sentence or two, but that is certainly all that would be needed. Johnbod (talk) 01:21, 19 April 2013 (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:Brianhd71 personal attacks and disruption

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:Brianhd71 has made personal attacks against Dmries [89] "You must be stuck on stupid Dmries. ... I feel sorry for any student who would get stuck in one of your classes. They probably end up dumber for the experience!" and me [90] "Go fuck yourself WIDEFUX...". User has been warned, blocked for BLP / NPOV, given final warning. SPA editor - suggest topic ban or other. Widefox; talk 18:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• A long-term block may be in order; a combative attitude such as the one he is taking is not conducive to a collaborative project, and there's no indication that he has made valuable contributions in other areas of Wikipedia.--WaltCip (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• Block is probably in order. But why not start him off with a short term block for personal attacks. Though I'm guessing this isn't his time on WP, we have to assume he's a new editor, and hasn't got a sense of the community yet. NickCT (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• Yeah, what can I say. I quit looking at that talk page since they're dead-set on discussing the one thing that they didn't get blocked for. The issue at hand is too boring to reiterate, and the editor so high on his soapbox that he can't hear a thing. I don't care if he gets blocked or not, but I will make sure that he doesn't get to use Ashley Judd as a mouthpiece. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 19 April 2013 (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.

Holy Carp

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.

---

Take a look at this talk page for the user "Begindryly". It's a mess, not to mention being huge and qualifying as talk page abuse. Also, it seems like from the various "unblock requests" that this guy's been posting, he might be a sock of Willy on Wheels, considering the fact that the word "Willy on dumbells" is often shown. Time to lock the talk page? Thekillerpenguin (talk) 05:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Reblocked with talk page access revoked by MaxSem. Mike V • Talk 06:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• 580k? Holy crap. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Now that's TLDR. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 09:36, 19 April 2013 (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.

Canvass

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 would like to report a user who has broken 4 wikipedia policies in the space of an hour.

• He adds a peacock term here
• He misapplies wp:undue which is determined by coverage in reliable sources. (Future clearly did not do a google-books search or he would have seen 456,000 returns)
• He refactors others talk page comments here
• He begins canvassing users he's previously been in agreement with [91], [92].

I think admin action is appropriate. Pass a Method talk 02:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Is this a joke? You made controversial edits on the Jesus article. I reverted them. We both unintentionally added a new thread at the talk page at around the same time. I then tired to combine the two treads, which you reverted. I contacted a few active editors on their talk page invite them to join the discussion. I don't see why you brought this up at ANI.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

No admin action is appropriate. 1) Content issue, not for ANI; 2) Content issue, not for ANI; 3) No refactoring occurred. He just moved his comment under your own, and deleted the section header he himself had added; 4) I see he asked the two of them for their opinions in a very neutral way. If you want to accuse someone of canvassing for support, you're going to need much more substantial evidence.

All that said, this is a content dispute. Go back to the talk page, and continue to follow dispute resolution. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I was going to reply earlier, but theres some sort of glitch. Someguy1221's post only showss up as a diff. Either way, Future specifically canvassed editors with whom he previously agreed on (as can be seen in above threads on the same article). Thats clear canvassing to me. Am i allowed to target editors now who previously diagreed with him? Because that would event the playng field. If what Future Trillionaire did is not WP:CANVASS then i will give up on ever quoting wp:Canvass again since it obviously means whatever it means to the beholder. Pass a Method talk 03:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

As far as I remember, the only previous "agreement" between FutureTrillionaire and myself was on technical issues such as referencing styles. All editors involved in that discussion agreed with each other. I doubt he could have predicted, based on that, what I think of this content dispue. A notification about this thread would have been nice. Huon (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

You haven't shown that it is canvassing, is the problem. Simply informing another editor of a dispute in which they may be interested, or requesting new opinions, is not canvassing. You're clearly suggesting that FT is violating the "no preselecting based on perceived opinions" part of WP:CANVASS, but you have not shown that he should expect them to have the same opinions as himself. With over 100,000 active editors on this site, it's not like an admin is going to see this complaint and say, "Oh, FutureTrillionaire, that guy who always agrees with Huon". Someguy1221 (talk) 03:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

In this diff he refers to me as User:Humanpublic who is an editor both canvass targets have had disagreements with. This demonstrates a canvassing motive, never mind incivility. Pass a Method talk 04:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• A trivial, insignificant content issue I think the term Much Ado About Nothing came about for this type of fanfare. It is a minor content discussion about an issue that will be resolved on the talk page pretty quickly. Someone please close this before it eats up time for no useful purpose. History2007 (talk) 08:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I striked out the content issues. My main issue is with the canvassing and have retitled it such. Pass a Method talk 09:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

One can not canvass users who obviously watch a page and type on it every few days. Both the users you refer to had commented on the GAN thread just above that thread, because they obviously watch the page. Storm in a tea cup in the end. History2007 (talk) 10:22, 19 April 2013 (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:BobiSwiftie

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.

---

Sadly, despite repeated requests for them to stop, an ANI thread, and two blocks (IIRC), they are still adding incorrectly sourced (or, often, unsourced), promotional information, such as false chart positions and false certifications. We need to indef them, as they're clearly incapable of communicating with other users, or editing within Wiki guidelines.

Most recent diffs: [93][94][95][96]. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I have to say, as a regular watcher of the Taylor Swift articles, BobiSwiftie is an disruptive user adding continuous false cahrt positions and certifications whenever he/she edits. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 11:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

This user has NEVER edited a talk page. Indef block until they are willing to discuss, then consider an unblock if they have the right answers. Bobby Tables (talk) 13:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll put down a final warning momentarily. Since I blocked last time, I defer to another admin on this block - but, clearly, nothing is getting through to this editor. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, user:Boing! said Zebedee beat me to it with an Indef. Good block. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - I didn't think there was any chance of getting them to listen any other way. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:46, 19 April 2013 (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 talk:68.231.15.56

There are some issues here. I don't know if they merit a topic ban or if that is the answer. I will try to summarise them effectively. In adding some reliably sourced verifiable content to the current events portal I was unpleasantly called into check by the above editor. My contribution was deemed "sockpuppet account vandalism".

In a further edit they stated the following: "dude in all fairness to WP:CIVIL - i have to ask are you just flat out "addicted" to maheim." This rather puzzled me considering it was they who seemed to be doing much of the deletion and violation of WP:CIVIL. The editor went on to again accuse me of vandalism and to say "it just wastes all the other editors times."

Many of this person's issues seem to rest on accusing those they disagree with, those who won't let them delete or maintain what they desire, of sockpuppetry. I for one have not engaged in anything for "purposes of deception" or "to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards and policies." I have not deliberately or, as far I know, even accidentally (if that is possible) gone out of my way to do any of these.

I later noticed the same editor had (yesterday) deleted this, was reverted by User:Capitalistroadster, then ignored that user and deleted it again. When I put it back this morning - I thought it was verifiable, useful, reliably sourced, provided good context to the event in question - the same editor immediately deleted it and stated: "if my removal of your vandalism was wrong other editors would have reinstated changes" - but how could they do this when this editor would simply remove it again as had now been demonstrated several times?

On their talk page I attempted to address the points they made, trying to maintain the civility they said that I lacked. But the editor did not reply, then deleted my response - they can do that I know, but then this tells me they are only interested in the very things they have accused me of doing. They appear to continue to ride roughshod over consensus, delete anything they dislike. There is no attempt to discuss, only wild accusations of vandalism, incivility, sock-puppetry, and so on, thrown round willy-nilly. From looking at their contributions this sockpuppetry/vandalism obsession when dealing with others goes back quite a bit - 15 April restoration of unsourced material 11 April - targeting of IPs as well, which seems a bit much considering the editor is themselves an IP. At risk of violating the 3RR single-page 24-hour period rule, and not wanting to do that (hope I haven't, sorry if I have), I came here. I wondered if the current events portal is only open to contributions from established editors or is it part of the "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"? Or can anyone explain this editor's repeated actions? Or tell if they are justified or in violation of Wikipedia policy? Am I, are others, such as Capitalistroadster, all wrong for getting in their way? --86.40.107.69 (talk) 11:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

wow - that was the longest lie i have ever heard.

the account anon IP 86.40.107.69 came into being this very day

each and every day this same guy changes his IP to get around administrator ArthurRubin's ban of him for vandalism

the above is just this day's attempt to sockpuppet around his endless ban

endlessly rotating anon IP, hereafter, the sockpuppet, placed a notice against me on this board without informing me on my IP talk page that he was starting a noticeboard issue - for that failed notification alone the sockpuppet has violated wiki rules.

each day in the dailies this sockpuppet changes his IP - look thru the anon IP's and then go to their contribution histories and you will find one single day's history only - the next day a new single day use IP is created and used to vandalize the dailies.--68.231.15.56 (talk) 14:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

A minor point. In one of your edit summaries, you said I blocked a previous incarnation of this floating IP. Could you point to the block, so it can be verified that this is the same editor, and either (1) the block on the original editor is still in effect, or (2) it is the same (type of) edit that the previous editor was blocked for. Most of my blocks in regard "the dailies" were for the "Michigan kid" (see User:Arthur Rubin/IP list), and these don't look like his edits. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

please dont get mad at me arthur but i just dont want to waste my time with the whole thing - if you look at the contributor history for this guy today he already has stopped using this puppet and no doubt is on to the next one... --68.231.15.56 (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, absolutely outrageous. You are absolutely unbelievable. You just keep digging. What next? What will you accuse me of next? Your imagination, your desire to frustrate, knows no end. You have it so wrong and yet you simply insist on seeing sockpuppets in everyone you disagree with. --86.40.107.69 (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

thou i will say this is probably the next one 189.146.50.161 --68.231.15.56 (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

99.109.126.72 was the previous one i think--68.231.15.56 (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

"99" is clearly the "Michigan kid". "189" and "86" don't appear to be; the behaviors don't look the same. In other words, unless I blocked one of the 86's, don't claim I have identified them as vandals. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

This is absolutely outrageous. I don't even know what you're talking about. I've never been banned by ArthurRubin for vandalism. This is the first time you've even mentioned this. Is that what all this is about? When I tried to discuss this with you you deleted it, as you've done again and again, even when other editors have reverted you. Here again you've now accused me of vandalism. You've accused me of sockpuppetry. You've accused me of lying. You've accused me of "endlessly rotating" - what am I supposed to do, sit in the same place all day every day? You've accused me of lacking civility, well actually I think I'm doing quite fine considering what I have to put up with from you. Is there anything you haven't accused me of? All I can see is that you are the vandal, you are the uncivil editor, and you may well, for all I know, be the sockpuppet you're so relentlessly obsessed with as well. Your vitriol, your bullying, your snide remarks, your disrespect for other editors simply knows no bounds. You're a disgrace because, you know, I actually care, and you're the sort who would send editors away in frustration and despair never to return again, and I think that is a crying shame. This is just despicable. You've laughed right through my attempt to seek a consensus on this issue. It's like some sort of childish game to you. That people like you are given a free ride to this to others is a fundamental weakness of Wikipedia and I surely can't be the only one to think this. The destruction you've caused today is unspeakable. --86.40.107.69 (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

quite entertaining - if that was your goal on this account IP that did not exist prior to today and i am quite sure will never be used again--68.231.15.56 (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course I didn't use it for anything else. Why would I after that? That I've never used it before today? So what? What does this mean? Why do I have to use the same one every day? What if I can't? What if it changes every time I switch computer, move location? Why do I even have to edit every day? Why would I bother? Why should I even try to convince you? You simply ignore everything that's said and formulate your next batch of accusations. You are also an IP, yet you mock and harass other IPs. You are beyond speaking to. --86.40.107.69 (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

..............

86.40.111.203
80.116.73.145
86.40.194.82

so you are saying that all these recent puppets are not you? - damn they sure to look similar in every way i can detect--68.231.15.56 (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Please try to keep the discussion on the same page. "all these recent puppets are not you" - yes actually, that's exactly what I'm saying. Full stop. They're not even all in the same country for goodness sake. Apart from which, could you point how exactly these are puppets, as defined above? Even if these were all the same editor, were all in the same country, they wouldn't necessarily be puppets. Editing in passing like that is not sockpuppetry. Not every IP who contributes to the current events portal is a sockpuppet. Heck, you yourself are an IP who contributes to the current events portal for goodness sake. By the logic you've used there we could both be the same editor. 68 is 86 backwards... --86.40.107.69 (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Both of you guys need to stop making random, baseless accusations and try to find a way to work this out simply and logically. Accusing each other of socking as belligerently as you are is going to get you nowhere. TCN7JM 20:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

But I'm not accusing them of it - have you seen what they've accused me of? - just pointing out how absurd their way of accusing me of well - everything - is. --86.40.107.69 (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Just stop arguing over this. You're going dead nowhere, and it doesn't seem your attitudes against each other are going to change. Cool off a bit. Take a Wikibreak, maybe. TCN7JM 20:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

All I'm doing is trying to defend my reputation against the most ridiculous, extraordinary and uncalled for accusations. I've also been wondering here what it is I did wrong in the first place, though no one apart from this tiresome IP has responded (with more unfounded accusations incidentally). --86.40.107.69 (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Non-admin observation: 68.231.15.56, read WP:AGF, and remember that many IPs are dynamic - without reviewing any of the evidence provided here either way, I'm going to follow the principle I listed, and assume that the 86.40.107.69 account is a dynamic IP. Also, I'd suggest, 86.40.107.69, you create an account to stop this sort of thing from occurring. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• This is simply not on. Am I supposed to ignore this too? I left a note at User talk:Capitalistroadster informing them they were mentioned in passing above. 68.231.15.56 then inserted "puppet" beneath it. I don't see how and why they should be allowed to continue to get away with this. It should be clear by now they are only seeking to provoke, it's what they've been doing all day, all week and, it seems, all year. [97] [98] [99] --86.40.107.69 (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

funny how you quote my history because i have a history at wiki - you on the other hand "Puppet" only exist on wiki since yesterday when you created this latest account to vandalize wiki--68.231.15.56 (talk) 08:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Um...IP addresses aren't accounts, and they can't be created. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• 68.231.15.56: Has anyone told you about WP:NPA and WP:AGF? You've also missed my dynamic IP point. Stop your personal attacks, or you risk being blocked by an admin. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Rangeblock on Fort Irwin National Training Center redux

Sorry to start again, but I may not have made myself clear. The vandalism on Fort Irwin National Training Center isn't the only issue; I can stick a semiprotection on an article as well as the next admin.

The spam from addresses in the 69.224.0.0 - 69.239.255.255 range is not only on Fort Irwin, as I mentioned originally: This is an example, as is this, this and these. The spamming is widespread across a range of articles and appears to have been going on for a long period, with reversions soaking up time better spent in doing other things. This needs more than a simple semipro on one article - if not a rangeblock then I'll try Wikipedia:ABUSE, maybe someone there might be a bit more interested. Tonywalton ^Talk 22:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

That's one hell of a big busy range to block, at a quick glance quite unlikely. I would have thought an edit filter (perhaps something like filter 58, or even a new one) would be better suited. It would help to gather the URLs and any IPs you can find. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

<sigh> That was why I initially reported it here, in the hope that someone more knowledgable than me could help on a rangeblock - an edit filter didn't cross my mind as they are as far as I'm concerned witchcraft, though it seems a good idea. Either I'm thick or the edit filter API is impenetrable.

To be honest though the initial WP response - a semiprotection - is pretty much a pat on the head and "don't bother us any more". A semipro I could do myself and have done.

To business. There are no URLs (at least none that blocking would help). IPs we have. What's the next move? Tonywalton ^Talk 23:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I am fairly experienced in making edit filters. Please email all the details you can give about this spammer to me (don't post it publicly as then they would be able to see how we're tracking them). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I created Special:AbuseFilter/548. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• I would use a Filter on part of the url the spammer is including. o.o - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 20:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  The problem is that they're spamming multiple sites. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Does WP:NPA apply here? Does 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.

---

For reference, this is #Talk:Margaret Thatcher#POV-section redux.

In the following sequence of edits; [100][101][102][103] Is "Houdini-esque argumentation" a violation of WP:NPA that justifies removal under WP:TPOC? Compared with "What an assholish move", "detrollify", and "troll-be-gon"?[104][105] Are uncivil comments about wikipedia editors who post under a pseudonym really violations of WP:BLP? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• I didn't look at the substance of the edits, but by definition WP:BLP applies to both living and recently deceased people. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Neither of the participants in the dispute are dead! Leaky Caldron 18:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • You most definitely should have looked at the substance of the edits, and their edit summaries. These were statements about a Wikipedia editor, which said editor then redacted on the grounds that xe is a living person. There then follow more namecalling, this time by that editor. The actual topic of the article wasn't touched upon at all in those talk page edits, ironically. M. Macon is asking a sauce-for-the-goose-sauce-for-the-gander question. Uncle G (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Ah, I thought they were contentious edits about Thatcher. WP:NPA it is then. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
      • My concern is that I am seeing what appears to be an out-of-policy deletion of another editor's comments, and a completely bogus claim that doing so somehow involved a BLP violation, not against Thatcher but against the editor "John". See User talk:John, section "Wikipedia:ANI#Talk:Margaret_Thatcher.23POV-section". As an administrator, "John" should know better. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Frankly John's redaction, and subsequent moaning at a well trod talk page [106] along with the edit summary reading in part "detrollify", is rather foolish. As usual, mileage varies on wether something is a personal attack depending on if you are the giver or receiver. I think John needs to reconsider his understanding of WP:NPA. Other ironies are not missed on me. Pedro :  Chat  22:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  In John's defence he is one of the few administrators who actually work on content, in this case Margaret Thatcher, and so has suffered the same pressures that we cockroaches are exposed to on a daily basis. Malleus Fatuorum 22:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• I don't deny that Malleus. Of course that's irrelevant to the much vaunted WP:CIV. No doubt you'd have found it perfectly acceptable if I had revoked that content with an "NPA" tag even though I don't do content work? Pedro :  Chat  22:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC) not worth it Pedro :  Chat  22:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Seems like the typical heated comments. Not a violation of BLP, but certainly WP:CIVIL concerns. I do not really see them being personal attacks and removing other people's posts when you are involved is generally a sure-fire way to escalate the situation. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• I believe you already have a pretty good idea of my opinion on WP:CIV and WP:NPA, which is that they're not worth the electrons to store them. I'm simply saying that John, even though an administrator, has found himself under the same sort of attacks that we cockroaches have to endure every day, and being human has perhaps responded sub-optimally. But these incessant ANI threads would try the patience of a saint. I haven't been keeping count, but I think I've been dragged here or to WP:3RR at least twice in the last week, and John I think about the same. Malleus Fatuorum 22:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly don't "drag anyone here" lightly. You might want to consider the possibility that this time there just might be a legitimate concern about someone deleting talk page comments that are far milder than his own. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  You might want to consider the possibility that your declaration that "I certainly don't 'drag anyone here' lightly" is patently false for both you and a very significant number of the complaints raised at this swamp of misery and desolation. Malleus Fatuorum 23:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  You might want to consider the possibility that that is a personal attack. But you don't care, so you probably won't. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

  No, that's not a personal attack either. Johnuniq (talk) 00:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

  This "personal attack" thingie seems to be widely misunderstood and misinterpreted, but I guess it gives the kiddies something to chew on. Malleus Fatuorum 01:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• John made some talk page edits that were suboptimal, but the actual problem is trying to escalate such an incident to ANI. Presumably there is some backstory where various editors have been arguing over something, but if the backstory is not suitable for ANI attention there should not be an attempt to create a fuss over minor skirmishes. Johnuniq (talk) 00:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

  One can't help but wonder what kind of "admin intervention" Guy Macon was hoping for, John to get blocked for upsetting him and his friends? Malleus Fatuorum 01:16, 20 April 2013 (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 username choice

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

---

Just noticed this new editor: Special:Contributions/Tamerlan_Tsarnaev. Is that name going to be an issue? AzureCitizen (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Seems like an issue to me. {{usernameblock}}ed. AuburnPilot (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

There's WP:NOTHERE and then there's WP:HEYIMREALLYNOTHERETODOANYTHINGREMOTELYBENEFICIAL (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It may sound sad, but I had to check the contributions page to realize the connection. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2013 (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.

We've got a major problem here!

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 appears that Xx12345678907896xx (talk · contribs) has caused utter disruption, first by nominating himself as an administrator (it has since been deleted as a test page), and nominating Salvidrim, ^demon ‎and 2D for bureaucratship. So far ^demon has turned down his offer for bureaucratship. Looking into this issue more, I think this user is causing disruption to the encyclopedia (check his edit history). Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Probably "major" is overstating it, but a major-league strategy for dealing with this sort of thing should take care of it. Zad68 18:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

...and now knocked out of the park. Zad68 18:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yea, I'm adding to an archived discussion just to point out my amusement. Bite me. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 18:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• such language from an admin ... tsk tsk. :) — Ched :  ?  12:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Block this IP

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

---

64.136.119.175 is being used for vandalism and has had 3 brief blocks before, max 2 weeks. I'd suggest considerably longer, maybe 3 months? asnac (talk) 06:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

As this is a vandalism only ip, a year would be more appropriate. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:16, 20 April 2013 (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.

Talk Psychoanalysis

Sorry to bother you with that, but a user hide my contribs an talk page after a so called Arbcom-waring. I'm not agree with that. I think the warnig was a big mistake. But this warnig concerns only the talkpage of the POV-article [107]. Now I don't have the curage to revert the edit of this user. What shall I do now? --WSC ^® 06:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The warning concerns all "pages broadly related to pseudoscience and fringe science." Your comments were hatted because they did not conform to our talk page guidelines. See WP:TPG. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, exactly what paragraph of this guideline? --WSC ^® 07:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

READ THE WARNING. Also, read, as the warning tells you, WP:ETIQUETTE and the list of policies and guidelines, WP:LOP and WP:LGL. Especially read WP:TPG,WP:CIVILITY, WP:NPA, WP:DE, WP:TE, and our core policies, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. It is your responsibility to know and adhere to these policies and guidelines at all times. As the warning states, "If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Bombing a user with acronyms isn't very helpful :) it's better to at least try and answer the question! --Errant ^(chat!) 08:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me, Errant. I forgot to mention WP:IDHT. Several editors, including me, have tried getting through to this editor, and failed. That's why she was slapped with the warning. Should also mention that she has an impressive block log at German WP, for a wide range of issues, including all of the acronyms I listed above, and more. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Remember, WP:IDONTCARE !!! Basket _Feudalist 10:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Widescreen; the warning applies generally to any topic under the broad umbrella of "pseudoscience". Wikipedia's patience for disputes over those topics was exhausted in 2008, and Arbcom authorised discretionary sanctions. In terms of that hatted thread - I don't see anything too problematic in there and the editor in question probably shouldn't have been so brusque with you. However, if you wish to question Arbcoms stance/decision the place to do so is open a request for ammendment - although its unlikely to work unless you can present a cogent argument for why it is stopping you from improving the article :) --Errant ^(chat!) 08:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

See the explanation already offered at WP:AE by User:Sandstein at the bottom of the page. Sædon^talk 08:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

A good explanation. After failing several times to get Widescreen to be specific about changes or to take an article that she doesn't appear to believe should exist to AfD, I wihdrew from what has been an unproductive discussion. She should take the article to AfD, make some very specific suggestions about changes, or stop posting to the talk page. If she doesn't then some sort of sanction will be needed. The section heading above makes no sense, as this concerns her behavior at Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience and her adding pov tags to the article without making any specific suggestions. Dougweller (talk) 10:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, that means everybody is entitled to revert my contribs on talkpages related to pseudoscience? No matter what I've wrote about? Don't you think that's a bit freaky?

I cite ErrantX: "Wikipedia's patience for disputes over those topics was exhausted in 2008." Who is Wikipedia? Do you mean some POV-users who loves clear decisions, like there is one definition of pseudoscience, the user knows and is entitled to call everything pseudoscience he found a source for? En.WP don't like to discuss to much! I could be expose Wikipedia is not right. It seems, some users rather live in a own wikipedia dreamworld, than having passionate debates.

@Dominus Vobisdu: I'm the 2nd or 3rd most blocked user in de.wp and the one with the most procedures of community ban. I'm wikipedian since nearly 10 years... and I'm one of the users impelled the delation of the the de:Kategorie:Pseudowissenschaft. It taks more than 1,5 years of intense controversy. The catagory is delated since 2007. --WSC ^® 21:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Who is Wikipedia? It's the Wikipedia community as a whole, which led to Arbcom imposing discretionary sanctions on psuedoscientific topics. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It may be the case that de.wp allows editor argumentation to take precedence over a strict reading of sources, I don't know since I don't edit there, but if you're going to edit en.wp you have to adapt to our policies, guidelines, and culture. I don't know if de.wp has an equivalent to discretionary sanctions, but just in case not let me explain how this usually works. Basically, if an editor on a covered topic, such as pseudoscience, repeatedly violates policies or otherwise edits tendentiously, that editor is warned with the template that was placed on your page. If the editor continues the previous behavior the next step is a temporary block and if it happens again then the next step is usually a topic ban (though sometimes topic bans are the second step). It seems, based on what you've said above, that you're familiar with topic bans so I won't explain that, but feel free to ask for clarification. The main difference between discretionary and normal bans is that they can be imposed by any uninvolved administrator, do not require community input, and must be appealed to WP:ARBCOM. Incidentally, it is uncommon for Arbcom to remove discretionary sanctions when imposed at WP:AE.

While you may have had luck at de.wp, it's highly unlikely you would succeed in such a venture here and my advice is to drop the notion of an English Wikipedia without a strong framework for categorizing and labeling pseudoscience. As ErrantX points out, the community's patience in dealing with this topic has been exhausted, the consensus has been formed and for the most part we have little patience when it comes to this topic. Sædon^talk 02:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

@Bushranger: The Arbcom now imposing not to citizise Artikles in this area? That sounds unserious to me. Let's say, just hypothetically, that I'm right. Wikipedia don't notice a large range of excelent philosophical sources. Than the Arbcom would cement POV at wikipedia articles.

@Saedon: Thanks for that straight answer. What makes you belief that I don't argue strict by high quality sources? The problem is, I agrue with high quality sources. You would know that if you had read the discussion on [[108]]. But my arguments are now been reverted, thats why no one can read them anymore. My opponants on this debate don't use any source. The article is full of weak and partial sources, but no one seems to care. When I go back to the debate in philosophy of science, my opponants bombing me with secondary wikipedia policies like WP:FRINGE. I think, anyone is able to proov my objections. He should just take any old textbook of philosophy of science and read it. [109] You ought find in these books a more or less large passage about that issue. To take sources seriously was the way to delate the catagorie against a strong framework of so called sceptics in de.wp. Whats ongoing here with lists and catagories of pseudosciences is highly sceptical organisation POV. If you have nothing better to do, please make a experiment with yourself. search for the most relevant textbooks of philosophy of science, and use the search function for the name of the philosophical goodfather of so called scepticism Paul Kurtz. Than you have an access to estimate what importance he got for the philosophical debat. But if you rather live in a wikipedia dreamworld, leave it. --WSC ^® 04:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I suspect you and I could have a fun conversation on the philosophy of science as it's one of my favorite topics but it's of less relevance here than you might imagine. I've read through some of the discussion you had and I think understand your point - that there is no clear definition of pseudoscience, the items on the list are sourced to what some might consider a "capital S" skeptic POV, and because of this the article has a POV slant. I understand your position especially because I have a background in both science and philosophy and thus view the modern skeptic movement...let's say skeptically. So, if I've characterized your position correctly, I believe it has merit. However, for the purposes of en.wp - for better or for worse - it's of little consequence.

In some specific circumstances we have stringent requirements (for instance WP:MEDRS for biomedical articles) but as a whole en.wp is fairly lax when it comes to minimum inclusion requirements. Basically, WP:NOTABLE establishes the criteria necessary for an article to exist (widespread coverage in reliable sources) and WP:V states the minimum criteria for inclusion in an article (being published in a reliable source).

One of the walls you'll run into is that attempting to delete the article on the justification you used would require WP to basically rewrite the consensus on the reliability of skeptic sources (see WP:PARITY) - a topic which was debated for such a long time that most editors are no longer willing to discuss it (hence ErrantX's and my comment). The second wall you'll run into is that en.wp is very procedural due to its size. I bring this up because as was explained on the talk page, deletion discussions take place at WP:AFD, and if you disagree with the idea of discretionary sanctions you would have to appeal to Arbcom. So at the bottom, whether you're right or wrong is irrelevant if you're talking in the wrong place. But most importantly, whether you're right or wrong has no bearing on whether the sources used are considered reliable for the purposes of WP:V. Since they are, the page's existence is justified prima facie. I get the impression that on de.wp the "bigger picture" is more relevant, but en.wp policies and culture are a little more focused on the trees. Lastly, note that articles regarding pseudoscience will likely always have a slant because few people outside of skeptic circles write about pseudoscience, with the exception of philosophers of science who tend not to write about specific pseudoscientific modalities, but pseudoscience as a whole (though I would love to read Popper on something like Crystal healing :)).

When I say that my advice is to drop it, I really mean that your prospects of being productive in this area are so slim and your chances of getting topic banned large enough that this is not a worthy investment of your time or that of others. Sædon^talk 06:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

@Saedon: I'm confused with your answer. At the one hand you say I'm right, implicite, at the other hand you say it would be wrong to be adamant that I'm right. But what you write is a very coherent describtion of the actual state of en.wikipedia. Especially the part about the procedural manner of wikipedia. Those are my sentiments too. But in one point I'm a bit more rigorous. If anyone is not willing to discuss about fundamental and important issues and policys he should leave it. The discussion about the cerntral issues for the development of a importent and, obviously, high frequenced subject area in wikipedia is a fundamental way of quality-control. If anyone is not willing to hear somthing about the basics of this topic, and requires a policy ore lousy sources, that helps him to win a discussion about a lemma like Crystal healing, he doesn't fit to those pricipes of wikipedia. This procedure come across to me like a weakness of this system.

I had a lot of such discussions about scientific sources and religious, ideological and scientiffic POV. But don't require such policies which doesn't exist in de.wikipedia.

In this "POV-debate" I'm in right, of course. Because I go back to fundamental scientific sources of that issue. Theres no need to question that. Who question the philosophical debate about that issue, don't have a clue and shoud better be quite. There must be a way of handele this issue without ban or block the one who's right. Otherwise the wikipedia spreads POV. A violation of one of the five pillars. To oppose against that, is like betrayl the basics of our doing. --WSC ^® 11:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia does not "spread POV," but it does document various POV using RS. That is fundamental and backed by all our policies. As far as your discussions of the definition of pseudoscience, there is more than one definition, and we have never denied that, but the List is not the place to deal with that. The Pseudoscience article is the place for that, but you chose to use up far more than your legitimate options in the wrong place, and now any continuation by you would just be disruptive. We don't take kindly to near world record holders in getting blocked (I think you claimed to be the second or third most blocked user at the German Wikipedia?) coming here and repeating their disruptive behaviors. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm the critic in this case. Only I know where my criticism is on the right place :o) But seriously: You are not right. You can't spread a ideology by ignoring various other, and much better and relevant, sources. Do you try to tell me, you didn't get this point? You only use the sources you choose to spread your POV. Just like the "pseudoscience" you try to fight against. Or do you wanna tell me that various textbooks and the writings of the famoust philosophers of the 20th century are not as relevant as a sceptics monthly newspaper or a website? You must be joking. --WSC ^® 17:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

You make a lot of talk but are consistently light on sources. The nearest to a source you got was a google search: [110], the rest is based on your personal feelings and experiences. You have discussed this topic to death at NPOVN and List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience, now you appear adamant to discuss it to death here as well, can you please just stop. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Sigh.... You're throwing lots of straw man arguments around, which means you are imputing beliefs to others which they do not hold. This line of thought is only appropriate on the Pseudoscience article, but you've blown your chances. It's time for a topic ban. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking along the same lines. We have a serious case of WP:NOTHERE here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Widescreen, I believe the best thing you can do at this point is to drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass, as it's thoroughly dead. We understand your position - however you refuse to understand that Wikipedia does not work that way. It may not be the way you think it should be, but it is how it is, and, speaking frankly, the chances of it changing in the way you seem to believe it should change are about the same as the proverbial snowball. Given this, you need to either agree to edit in the manner that consensus has agreed upon, or not to edit at all, as to continue to edit against consensus because you don't like the consensus will only prove that you are not here to improve the encyclopedia and result in your not being able to edit at all. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, now you have the insight, that you can't win this debat. Now the phase of personal attacs begin. The cutest argument is from IRWolfie. If you don't belief me, READ THE SOURCES! Or do you wanna tell me, Karl Popper, Imre Lakatos, Hans Albert, Adolf Grünbaum, Hilary Putnam, Rudolf Carnap I referring to, write somthing different thant i suggest in this discussion? And there are much more I can go back to. What about the critics of the Critical Rationalism? Paul Feyerabend, Theodor W. Adorno or Max Horkheimer. And now the typical nonsense, the german skeptics also spread against the most famous philosopers of the 20th century: Straw Man, WP:NOTHERE and so on. I tell you what: [111] --WSC ^® 04:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay everybody, listen up. Take a look at this old comment from Widescreen.

• Editwars are never helpfull. But it's in your own interest, to have a POV-Button, at POV contents, at least. To revert the POV-button is so ignorant, I can't find words for that. I'wont accept that and I will not accept that. --WSC ^® 20:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC) [112]

Are we seeing the same attitude? Strong evidence of a negative learning curve? There seems to be no hope. A topic ban isn't going to be enough. This user has been banned from the German Wikipedia, with one of the longest block records, and they've been continuing the same behavior here, and only been blocked a couple times here. That's not right. Here's their own brag from right above:

• @Dominus Vobisdu: I'm the 2nd or 3rd most blocked user in de.wp and the one with the most procedures of community ban. I'm wikipedian since nearly 10 years... and I'm one of the users impelled the delation of the the de:Kategorie:Pseudowissenschaft. It taks more than 1,5 years of intense controversy. The catagory is delated since 2007. --WSC ® 21:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a psychiatrist, but something's not right, and the community doesn't seem to be able to deal with it. We don't do psychotherapy on other users. That's not our job. We can't cure this type of problem, so in the interest of protecting the community from further waste of time, I suggest a long block. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Well User:BullRangifer seems to belief that a discussion about philosophy of science in the area of Pseudoscience has somthing to do with Psychiatry. I think thats uncivil and nonsens as well. Futher, when I was banned from de.wp. Why did I only just make a edit there? If someone neutral follows this debate, he might notice, that my opponents aren't interested in a debate about the sources or the writings of the philosophers I go back to. No, they only have argumentum ad hominem. Is this only my impression or do other authors also see, that my opponants have no arguments anymore? --WSC ^® 04:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The belief that you were banned came from your own comments, so you have only yourself to blame for that misunderstanding. And the reason your opponents have no arguments anymore is because you continue to argue 'I'm right, I'm right, you're all wrong (and horrible people)", so after a certain point they give up arguing because they know you're not listening. The simple facts of the matter are thus: there are ArbCom sanctions applied to 'pseudoscience'. You can either edit within the sanctions ArbCom has imposed on the topic, or you can not edit articles that come under those sanctions, either by choice or through enforcement, be it blocks, topic bans, or overall bans. If you believe the ArbCom sanctions are inappropriate, you need to discuss that with ArbCom, not here, and you need to edit within the bounds set by ArbCom until and unless they are changed. If you cannot, or will not, do that, then you need to accept the fact that en.wiki is not a place you can contribute at. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I start this thread to concern the delation of an edit, not been criticised by the warning. Than YOU try to outline that my conserns about the topic of pseudosciens are only a wast of time. So that I have to explain my point, in that discussion. And now you have the currage to tell me, thats the wrong place? Don't you think, that a bit unfair? --WSC ^® 07:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

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.

---

On the basis of the material in the above thread, I propose a topic ban for Widescreen (WSC) from fringe science and pseudoscience topics broadly construed until they demonstrate to the community that they will not continue the disruption further, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Befor you start an ban proposal, you should better read a textbook about philosophy of sience. The only thing that I disrupt is your skepitcal POV!

A interesting development in this case is, that no one really negate my main point, that philosophy of science and the related writings, like textbooks and main work of philosophers (like Adolf Grünbaum, Imre Lakatos and much more famous philosophers related to this topic) are excluded in the topic of pseudoscience. My suspiction is, that this topic It shall be deemed to be domitated by skeptical organisations. But this organisations are, if anything, than marginal in the philosophical debate. Anyone is able to proove this assertion by reading relevant textbooks or even the wikipedia articles. Some of the useres are agree with my criticism. The reproach is, that I adress the criticism at the wrong place. But now it seems like the there is no right place. The List of topics characterized as pseudoscience is the wrong place, the ANI seems to be the wrong place. It seems like, there's no right place to adress my citicism to. So this ban proposal is only a attempt to exclude my comprehensible objecitons, everyone with a minor understandig of the philosophical debate knows. --WSC ^® 10:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yep! You go ahead, girlfriend!!! Basket _Feudalist 10:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support, but I fear an indef is going to be the only thing that works in the long run.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  11:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Unfortunate support WSC's comments above seem to suggest that they believe that an encyclopedia is the place for philosophical debates - no. As you've been told that many times yet continue to push your views in lieu of following consensus or the rules, I see no other option at this time. However, I see no problem with coming back to ANI for a relaxation of this restriction in at least 6 months once they have proven their ability to work within consensus and the policies of Wikipedia on other sets of articles (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

No! A encyclopedia is the place to write about philosophical debats and consider the relevant sources. --WSC ^® 12:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Writing, in an article, about a philosophical debate is one thing, having a philosophical debate is quite another. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support, but prefer indef: Clearly WP:NOTHERE, and uncivil, tendentious and disruptive. Fundamentally unresolvable problems with WP:COMPETENCE. Like LGR, I would prefer an indef. The blocklog on the German Wiki is spine-chilling. Block after block after block for just about everything in the book, from personal attacks to editwarring to filing false AIV notices to downright TROLLING (that's right, German Wiki has a policy against trolling). Recently narrowly escaped a community ban there by 48 to 52. I say we nip the problem in the bud here. Editor has given abundant evidence that she means to be disruptive and to ignore policies and consensus. The chances of this editor contributing positively to the project is extremely remote, and due to the fact that this she has been one of the most-blocked editors on German WP for NINE YEARS, that is not going to change. Extending some WP:ROPE would be foolish in this case. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support, but prefer indef. Will the topic ban include behavioral sciences topics like psychoanalysis and Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder? On balance WSC's contributions within this topic area (at least) are far more disruptive than productive. The long-term general WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:CIVIL snarkiness, disregard for sourcing guidelines, and WP:IDHT problems plus what seems to be bragging about the block log on de.wp make me conclude WP:NOTHERE and possibly WP:CIR issues overall. But we can try it with a topic ban first if people see there's a possibility for productivity in other areas (I'm not convinced). Zad68 13:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I guess the scope of the ban would be something the closing admin can estimate from consensus. Personally I think an indef is most appropriate; I didn't suggest one though since I thought most people would have preferred a topic ban. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support, but prefer indef. I've seen no evidence, including during these discussions, that this user gets the point at all, or even has the ability to do so. She continually makes false allegations that we don't want to use scientific sources, which is BS. We haven't even gotten into that discussion, even though she continually mentions it in the form of false allegations. The problem is that she has shown that she doesn't understand or intend to follow our sourcing rules because she seeks to disallow any sources but scientific ones. That's not how this Wikipedia works. We allow many types of sources, depending on the context, INCLUDING scientific ones. We have never objected to using them. This user has been given far too much rope at the German Wikipedia, and still managed to hang herself again and again, and we shouldn't allow her to continue that process here, which she has been doing. Let's put a stop to this mess and get back to editing. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support, but prefer indef After reviewing this case I am amazed at the level of WP:IDHT and I don't see any evidence that it will stop. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support, but prefer indef' as well, alas - from the comments above this editor utterly refuses to accept that they could at all possibly be in the wrong, instead continually demanding everyone hew to their views. This is someone who is not here to build an encyclopedia, and, as has been pointed out before, this editor's history elsewhere indicates that second chances will only cause the same result. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:32, 18 April 2013 (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.

Discussion about imposed community ban

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

---

• Just a quick clarification asked: this is an indefinite block, or a community ban? I'd have guessed the former? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

  Frankly, there isn't much of a difference between a community ban and an indefinite block which is placed as the result of a community discussion. Either way, the action should not be overturned by a single admin, but only by community consensus or ArbCom. For the record, I recorded it as a ban. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

  Alrighty, thanks. I just thought I'd ask given the recent kerfuffle about unilateral unblocks and all that... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

  Don't we usually keep community ban discussions open for 24 hours. This has only been open half of that. AniMate 00:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  Also, shouldn't we have advertised this as a community ban discussion rather than as a topic ban discussion? The reason we keep these open for 24 hours is so we can get a big slice of the community commenting. The same for naming the section appropriately. More people would likely participate if they knew this was a community ban, which is a much bigger deal than a topic ban. Eight people commenting hardly seems like a significant amount requiring an early close, especially since at least three of those only supported a topic ban. AniMate 00:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, add one for me. I posted and self-reverted when I saw that it had closed.[113][114] Consensus isn't just numbers, although those are important. It is also about the quality of the argument. Nobody even bothered arguing that the behavior would change. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  Nobody. Including Widescreen herself. Actually, her "vote" was the most compelling of all. Bragging about being the second or third most blocked editor on German WP pretty much sealed the deal. With that, she indicated that she fully intended to make a career out of being disruptive and tendentious here, as well. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• WTF How did we go from a topic ban to a community ban?  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  00:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Ummm... wasn't that your idea? At least, that's how I understood it. When I was composing my !vote, I originally started with "Fully endorse LGR's suggestion that nothing short of a indef will be effective". I later removed it a superflous. If you're quibbling about the names "indefinite block" versus "community ban", in reality it is just that. A quibble. For all practical purposes, there is no difference between a community ban and a community-imposed indefinite block. At least as far as I can see. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

And add one for me for a community ban. Dougweller (talk) 05:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't think my statement was tongue in cheek, and on a 2nd read it still doesn't sound that way. I'm ok with the block by King, but I am troubled by their logging this as a CB because a CB wasn't under discussion.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  11:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say that your proposal was tongue in cheek. I thought you were completely serious. As for the difference between a block and a ban, there is a section about that in WP:BAN. This seems to fit "ban" better than "block", although, in the end, there is no practical difference. The way I read it "community ban" is synonymous with "community-imposed indefinite block". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Regardless of the merits of the case it makes a nonsense of any sense of justice to close it so quickly. You can't call it a community ban when the community is given no change to engage or to discuss other options of which there are several. This should be reversed and discussed properly, at the moment its a straight and peremptory abuse of admin power. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd argue the snowball clause for the closing given that the editor under discussion basically came right out and said not only would they keep disrupting, but in fact they took pride in their disruptiveness. I would, howver, have suggested it simply be a normal indef instead of a CBAN, as normal indef was what was proposed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    • You don't close a discussion of this nature after 12 hours. What was proposed was a topic ban and the editor's posting above doesn't unambiguously support your interpretation. Even it it did it would not justify closure on a remedy not originally proposed in less than a day. That is plain wrong. ----Snowded ^TALK 08:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
      • There's no need for a lengthy trial when the defendant is jumping up and down in the coutroom and screaming "Yep! I done it! And I gonna do it again and again!" As I said above, it was WSC's own posts that were the most damning. It's pretty difficult to argue that the outcome would have been any different had the discussion continued. In fact, since then, there have been two more concurring votes. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Well two were for a topic ban, four for an indef. If I had found it before it was closed I would have suggested a restriction and opposed an indef (there is a complex history). Others might have done the same. The substantive point is that the item was closed after 12 hours so there was no chance for other editors with some knowledge of the context to engage. The "jumping up and down" statement does not summarise the editors posting either. Sorry this smacks of a lynching. Given the tolerance and length of time given to other editors for far worse offences its also hypocritical ----Snowded ^TALK 09:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
          • "Lynching"? "Hypocritical"? Language like that seems to imply bad faith on the part of the closer and/or praticipants. Surely you don't mean to do that. Have you read the discussion that lead to this proposal (in the section preceeding it)? Sure looks like jumping up and down to me. Not the faintest hint of a trace of admitting that her behavior has been problematic, nor any sign that she intends to desist. Instead, she brags that she is among the most disruptive editors on German WP. It is totally fair to assume that she meant to pursue a similar career here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
            • I have read it and I am also familiar with the editor and the issue. English is not her first language and she is passionate about a subject where she does have some actual knowledge. I know of at least one case where she turned out to be right on a content issue after being trapped into a block by a combative editor. So foolish yes, but not the sort of editor or behaviour that should be subject to summary justice without proper examination. An indef might be the right response but it is NOT the right response after 12 hours with minimal engagement. I find it difficult to believe that any editor can defend that - although come to think of it you are ignoring it. ----Snowded ^TALK 11:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
              • What Snowded said ^^^  little green rosetta(talk)
                central scrutinizer  11:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
                • You're throwing the words "lynching" and "justice" around as if this were a question of determining "punishment" for a "crime" committed, instead of a purely preventative action. I've read through the entire thread, and see no evidence of anybody requesting or even suggesting that WSC be punished. ALL I see is calls for disruptive and tendentious behavior to be stopped or prevented. This all complies with both WP:BAN and WP:BLOCK. Nor does the closer intimate or imply in any way that this is a punitive measure. This simply isn't a matter of "justice". While our proceedings may resemble courtroom proceedings to some degree, they are, in essence, fundamentally different in purpose. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
                  • I'm not throwing words around, they appear as a part of a complete sentences which provide context. But lets make this simple for you. Given that this is a community action, how is it right to close a discussion before all members of that community have had a chance to even look at the problem? You seem to be arguing the case, rather than dealing with the issue I raised here, namely prematurely closing a discussion after 12 hours. ----Snowded ^TALK 12:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
                    • The same could be said if the discussion had been closed after 24 hours. Or any other time frame. 24 is not a magic number. Also, we do have WP:SNOW, which can be fairly said to apply here. Can you quote any specific policy that the closer violated? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
                      • 24 hours at least covers all time zones which 12 does not. In practice most such cases stand for a day or so at least to allow people to contribute. WP:SNOW does not apply as the eventual sanction was not even that proposed so there were two options even within the 12 hours. Given longer there would have been more. I know of no policy which says such matters have to be closed in short order and all precedent is for longer. ----Snowded ^TALK 12:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
                        • Without a policy quote that explcitly says that says such matters CAN'T be closed in short order, or any evidence that the closer or particpants acted in bad faith or in violation of our policies and guidelines, any argumentation to revert this block is unlikely to succeed. I don't see the point of further discussion without any of these things. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
                          • Well two editors disagree with you and I freely admit I find your ignoring the time issue and entitlement of the community to engage disturbing. Sometimes the wrong decision is made for the best of all possible motivations and I think this is one. ----Snowded ^TALK 12:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Note I have reverted King's addition of WSC to the banned list. While WSC may be (rightfully) indeff'ed, they certainly weren't banned by the community and the record shouldn't reflect that. If WSC can convince an admin to unblcok them, bully for them -- but we shouldn't insist upon community approval since the community never approved the ban in the first place.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

And I've reverted it back. You can discuss the matter with King of Hearts and try to persuade him to revert it, or you can take the matter to AN and convince them that the entry is not justified and let them revert it. But you certainly don't have any justification for performing a unilateral action of this sort on your own initiative. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Like hell I don't. Ignoring the fast close for the moment, there wasn't even a proposal to CB WSC in the first place. How anyone can read from the discussion above that WSC was banned by the community is beyond the pale.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

That is YOUR personal interpretation of the discussion, one which I do not share. Like I said, you are free to take this up with King or AN, but have no authority to make a unilateral decision on your own. If you revert back, I will report you at AN myself. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Why wait, report me now.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Non-admin comment: I'm not seeing what the problem is here - the close says that it was an indef by the community, which is basically a community ban anyway, is it not? That said, I do think that the close was a little too soon. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The are a few problems. While King was certainly entitled to make the call to indef WSC all on his lonesome, according to custom he shouldn't have put the community stamp on this action as a CB and posted that WSC was banned by the community to the list of banned editors. Nor should he have closed the section above after taking admin action. IAR (and custom) I suppose.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

If anyone really cares that much, then I'm calling it an indefinite block by community consensus. Not that there is any difference in practice. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

How can it be community consensus after 12 hours? ----Snowded ^TALK 21:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

We aren't a bureaucracy, that's why we have WP:SNOW. Consider that the discussion that widescreen engaged in the above thread was after being officially warned of discretionary sanctions for the same behaviour. Consider also that it's been much more than 12 hours now and there isn't a mass objection from the community (rather another admin, Doug, agreed with the indef afterwards!). IRWolfie- (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, it's a good thing for Widescreen that it was closed after 12 hours - every post of theirs simply dug them into a deeper hole, and odds are had it continued it very well could have round up as a full CBAN right now instead of a simple indef. As it is, all they have to do is promise to follow policy and Arbcom whether they agree with it or not to get unblocked, so I believe we're done here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of the case it is plain wrong to close such a debate after 12 hours, that is nothing to do with being a bureaucracy or not its about basic fairness. In this case there would have been more justification if all editors contributing had supported the original proposition for a topic ban, but with two options on the table (and more possible), more time should have been allowed as WP:SNOW did not apply. Its evident that those engaged in the process feel they did no wrong, I just hope that on a future occasion a little more reflection takes place. ----Snowded ^TALK 03:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

No. WP:SNOW is directly applicable to the merits of the case. You argue despite Widescreen's continued disruption, and despite that nearly every person expressing interest for an INDEF, 6 supported, LGR indicated support for the indef, and despite no further objections being raised by anyone else here, instead one extra support. It is quite frankly obvious that the indef was going to be the final result. If she wasn't blocked by the community she was on cue for a block by arbitration enforcement. You are arguing that we should have left it open to meet specific requirements in the name of justice. You don't seem to be arguing against the merits of the case, but rather in the name of process; that is an argument for bureaucracy. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

One of the reasons we use WP:SNOW is to avoid further embarrassment for the editor. We use it in RFA's, and in a situation where the editor is digging themselves deeper, it's the right thing to do. If WSC wants to appeal it, they may, but I wholly support the maintenance of some degree of dignity for WSC, and will argue that the closure by SNOW actually left the door open for a future return. Yeah, 6 people !voted "yes" - we have had community bans with fewer participants, but they're still valid. It's time to close this and let the editor have their dignity and to avail themselves of their options down the road rather than drag their name further through ANI (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry guys, all of those arguments would have validity - but not after 12 hours with options still open. ----Snowded ^TALK 14:41, 20 April 2013 (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.

Regarding User:ChrisGualtieri's effort to make things personal.

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.

---

Honestly, at this point, i dont care if even I get blocked. No one seems to care! I'm getting irritated. I'm close to cursing, and attempting not to lash out. But this is ridiculous. Here in the talk page talk:Ghost in the Shell especially the recent discussions, User:ChrisGualtieri continues I attempt to stay civil but the editor continues to attempt to make it personal and then blames me for these things. This comes with history of previous edits.

I along time ago "merged" Ghost in the Shell (manga) with the main page. This editor spearheaded everything, ignored BRD and practically owned the article.

Now recently editor Ryulong, made the same edit (merging the manga to the main page). And apparently first fought but then welcomes him (to the point of a barnstar) and entrusts the article to him. However, although he tells other editors he can work well with, he also blames me and whatever rendition mine is the one that cant be incorporated.

Ryulong misunderstood and believed me to be against the merge and was hostile at first. But now that i explained he refuted previous statements about me. And even more good news, shared some ideas on how to organize the article.

But ChrisGualtieri continues to mark me as the problem to the article, and him (alongside Ryulong) to be the solution (despite Ryulong sharing strikingly similar ideas). He even reverts Ryulong's edit and attempts to do same thing. And as reasonable i try, this editor continues to make things personal. I mentioned "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST" (knowing full well it is an essay and a precaution to avoid unnecessary comparing to other irrelevant articles.) And constantly brings it up as a point on how I dont know anything about policies. When i make a point he would say "you had your chance, why you filibustering mine?" I dont understand this statement. He makes several similar ones too. Whats worst he tries to make it look like i'm the one spreading ad hominem.

Enough mud has been slung at me. And I'm tired....im trying to stay civil, but this editor continues to sling mud and i suspect to intentionally deviate the discussion. If i get banned for being uncivil, so be it. I'm tired, i tried my hardest to keep it professional, and if that wasnt enough, oh well. I will find the revisions of his edits in particular that were most problematic. Lucia Black (talk) 01:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

There's no need for admin intervention or any discussion of folks getting blocked. Although some of a the discussion is a bit snippy it's obvious all editors involved are trying to work for the good of Wikipedia -- there's just some difference of opinion and communication issues / frustration. Ya'll need editor help, not admin. Try WP:DRN or WP:RFC and remember to keep the focus on the content, not other editor's behavior. NE Ent 01:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Missing the point. Chrisgualtieri continues to state how "incompetent", how "out of touch with the policies". And making me out the worst in the discussion....i never bring up ANI about the topic but the actions. This editor chooses to see me as the villain even though his ally share the same views as me. I'm tired of the mud.Lucia Black (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

There is on-going Dispute Resolution attempts at the notice board which I opened earlier about this content dispute. It is atWikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Ghost_in_the_Shell.2C_Talk:Ghost_in_the_Shell. I may have been a bit snippy, but not without reason. After being subject to ad hominem attacks (Lucia does not understand the term I think), she makes fun of me by intimating me, "Oh I'm Chris, WP:CFORK says this. I'm in accordance with WP:CFORK, you're not" thats how you sound like." [115] And in response to my explanation of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, she replied, "OTHERSTUFFEXIST is an essay but in a nutshell, meaning commonly accepted." [116] I do not know if Lucia Black is a English-As-A-Second-Language contributor or if there is another communication problem. I have been trying for weeks to explain things to Lucia and I brought it to WP:DRN after what transpired with Ryulong. This matter is over a long-running formatting dispute about Ghost in the Shell. The content dispute is very simple. I want that page to be a franchise page which in a concise and simple manner details works of the franchise and splits off. The reason? Multiple entries in the series bare the same exact names, whether it be the original manga, the 1995 film or the video game. Or its alternate universe series Stand Alone Complex which has no less then 4 different media bearing that exact name. The article is important as well, it has been viewed over 230,000 times in the last 90 days. [117] My only fault is being stubborn enough to want to fix it after all of this, while I'm no expert, I am well-versed in the material. Oh, and to add, I don't harbor any ill toward Lucia, this is not 'personal' and I hold no grudges. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

1) you're only using my statement on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST as a way to show how out of touch i am with policies. Which doesnt make sense! I brought it up to avoid unnecessary debating because previously you brought examples of Final Fantasy and Mortal Komb at the moment, is NOT the place to defend our reasoning. But just to show how far you will take one comment and attempt to turn into a sign of incompetence.

2)I know what ad hominem means. Internet is insanely slow for this month. And i cant load more than one window. But the proof is there. Youve tried to turn a nuetral discussion into something personal, several times. when its tagged "in a nutshell" it means a lot of editors find it helpful. WP:CIR does no advisement and is extremely opinionated yet you continue to bring it up. You always do that. "You dont know what that word means"? I got the definition right here!

3)You're a bully. No grudges? Prove it. Ryulong and i are mostly in the same boat when it comes to how the article should be. But when DragonZero mentions there are only two possible renditions, you single mine out to be bad (and somehow Ryulong's good? He has the exact same idea as i do!) You're lying. I cant possibly assume good faith with these circumstances. Lucia Black (talk) 02:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

There's two personal attacks in your point 3 there - please be cautious lest this report WP:BOOMERANG on you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with my esteemed colleagues: In a discussion, people get snippy sometimes, it is best to stay focused on the merits and overlook little things. And in this discussion you've managed to make two personal attacks against others, so you are better off calling it even, moving on, and focusing on the merits at the DRN discussion. I don't see anything that needs admin attention here. Yet. Everyone just needs to go have a cup of tea and concentrate on the actual edit rationales, and stop offering commentary on each other's personalities. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:27, 20 April 2013 (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.

Less than traditional edit summaries

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 wonder if someone would mind considering Special:Contributions/2602:100:4759:4D52:914F:C1F9:F8A3:D538 and offering a suggestion about 'better' use of edit summaries? Since this is an IP only editor I have not dropped the usual notice on the page. I am suspecting I will only get a torrent of epithets if I do. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:AGF much? IP's are people too. See WP:IGNORANCE (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Have you read the edit summaries? What do they leave to the assumption? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• The edit summaries are marginal to say the least. The only times I can remember swearing in an edit summary is when I've messed up, and I've aimed the summary at myself. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The swearing it the edit summaries are not directed at anyone, and are inappropriate but not block-worthy. I see that nobody had the cojones to Welcome them - so I have. I have also notified them of this discussion. Come on people - if they direct their words at you we have something to deal with. Until then, communicate (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the swearing isn't directed at anybody and to my mind isn't offensive. Probably just a south London teenager. What's all the fuss about?--Launchballer 12:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

When I read the edit summary I thought something dramatic is going on, but removing a redundant link was actually just that. Not sure why the editor is so fired up about it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It may not be offensive, per se, but it is wildly inappropriate. However, it should have been a case of a note on the talk page saying 'hey, you shouldn't do this, here's why', not an instaANI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:01, 20 April 2013 (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.

Chechen people

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

---

OK, so the user Epeefleche , as part of the sudden American/global interest due to 2 guys in Boston, keeps spamming this article with a completely arbitrarty list of random "Notable Chechens", several out of more than 200 on Wikipedia (and this list is including odious figures (Arbi Barayev) and even at least one non-Chechen (Ibn al-Khattab)), falsily claims it's a "standard on wp" (it's not - I just checked Americans, Russians and Poles), keeps reverting and threatning me [118]. Intervention please. --Niemti (talk) 11:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll also note how the article's avoiding the politics/controversy on purpose even in the infobox collage, where there are only some historical figures plus Milana Terloeva (and how Epeefleche's list of 12 "notable" Chechens is not including neither of them). --Niemti (talk) 11:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

You are correct, he needs to start an article List of Chechen people as the articles he refers to are lists of Poles and Russians and not the main articles about those people. I shall inform him of this. However, lets all remain civil to each other and assume good faith--File Éireann 11:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Two issues here.

Socking -- There is a strong suggestion here that Niemti and Mr. IP, who are tag-teaming deletions and blanking from view of the list in question, are one and the same. Note that It has been established that the IP address has been used by blocked user HanzoHattori.. Also, see Niemti contributions and 94.246.154.130 contributions. See also discussions here and here and here. Note that the IP writes ""I'm bringing it the fucking ANI", and then it is Niemti who does so above. And when he does so above, Niemti says I am reverting him -- while in fact he links to me reverting Mr. IP. (I'll address the substance in a moment).--Epeefleche (talk) 11:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Lol, I'm sure "tag-teaming" when unlogged and uh-oh, you found out something about me that no one knew before! Now, as you are, go and add Vasili Blokhin to Russians#Notable achievements, if you think Arbi Barayev was one of the most "notable" Chechens (his claim to fame: killed some people, boasted about killing 160 - while Blokhin killled tens of thousands). What BS. --Niemti (talk) 11:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Your edits have gone back-and-forth within minutes as you tag-teamed your deletions and effective blankings of the list so that, as now, it cannot be seen. See your edits between 6:57 and 7:17 here as an IP (now blocked for 24 hours) and at here as Niemti. Editing-warring on the precise same issue. And, I might add that though the IP is blocked, you are still editing as Niemti, so when another IP or editor pops up we can't know for sure who it is if you are editing under different IPs, etc.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP address for severe incivility including anyone operating from it for 24 hours. I shall not block for longer in case it is a public computer system. The underlying accusation of sockpupeteering is more serious, however and will have to be looked at in greater depth. --File Éireann 11:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Substance. It is perfectly standard to have such lists of notable people. Whether as stand-alone or embedded lists. As to embedded lists, see this MOS section on embedded lists, and especially under "Size": "Some information, such as "Notable people" ... may be formatted with a section lead and a descriptive, bulleted list". Examples of such embedded lists are many -- see, e.g., the notable persons lists in Cree, and Sami people, and Mnong people, and Bubi people. The existence of cats at the same time is not reason to delete such lists. See, e.g., List of Russian people and List of Polish people. I have repeatedly mentioned this to complainant, and invited him to add to the list, as such lists by their nature are never complete, but to not delete appropriate entries from such lists or delete such lists in their entirety. All is reflected in the above diffs As it stands, he has once again hidden it from reader view, as he has now done many times between his IP account and this name account.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, Niemti IS HanzoHattori. As in literally redirects to Niemti's account. It is another account and is not an abusive sock. You might want to take a look at the history before condemning Niemti because it is no secret. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes -- it is one of 14 entries in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of HanzoHattori. There are 12 entries in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of HanzoHattori. The point is that the two indicated ones were tag-teaming both the same reverts, and the same positions in discussions. Furthermore, curiously, HanzoHattori was blocked indef years ago -- which leaves me puzzled ....--Epeefleche (talk) 12:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Ya know folks .. we're an encyclopedia, not a daily newspaper or some "OMG" tabloid. I know all this is utterly amazing, shocking, depressing, and all ... but still ... let's not lose focus on THIS particular project's goals and all. IJS. — Ched :  ?  12:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It is not so much the content of the dispute as it is the behavior behind it. Niemti (aka HanzoHattori renamed) reverted Epee's addition and when Epeefleche readded it, Niemti stayed logged out for a series of edits (including reverting to the borderline 3 reverts, I do not see a rule violation). After performing a string of edits logged out he goes to take it to ANI as Niemti by logging in. While probably not the best practice, and certainly not advisable, I don't see why the block was for civility issues.. I encountered worse on this page no less. Even the edit summaries were not that bad. Niemti does have a bit of a civility problem, its a long running concern, but if anything Niemti needs to relax. Everything is personal to Niemti in situations like this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Niemti.--File --File Éireann 13:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Didn't know being unlogged is violating anything these days. Maybe just disable editing for non-logged users. --Niemti (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Now,

it wasn't quite the intervention that I was looking for. But I guess the stupid "accusation of sockpupeteering" is more important than what ammounts to character assassination on the entire little-known (but already demonized in popular conciousness, including by media such as films and video games) ethnic group when the USA/world is all of sudden interested in the issue. Just take a look at it:

• Alu Alkhanov, Russian politician, former president of Russia's Chechen Republic
• Arbi Barayev, nicknamed "The Terminator", founder and first leader of the Special Purpose Islamic Regiment
• Movsar Barayev, militia leader during the Second Chechen War, who led seizure of Moscow theater that led to deaths of 170 people
• Shamil Basayev, militant Islamist and leader of the Chechen rebel movement
• Artur Beterbiyev, amateur boxer
• Dzhokhar Dudaev, Soviet Air Force general and Chechen leader, first President of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria
• Ruslan Gelayev, commander in the Chechen separatist movement
• Akhmad Kadyrov, Chief Mufti of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria
• Ramzan Kadyrov, Head of the Chechen Republic and a former Chechen rebel
• Aslan Maskhadov, leader of the Chechen separatist movement and the third President of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria
• Abdul-Halim Salamovich Sadulayev, fourth President of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria
• Dokka Umarov, Islamist militant in Russia

A few controversial people, all of whom are responsible for the violence in the last 2 decades (not even evaluating them otherwise), plus 1 random sportsman (just one of many notable Chechen martial artists) (and previously, even a non-Chechen Arab militant) - an entirety of "notable Chechens". Yeah. What a nation, right?

I think it's extremely important for this very biased list to not be posted to this article, now when there's a sudden global attention.

Ched: This is is worse than just sensationalist, it's actively damaging, portraying an entire ethnic group of more than 1 million people as a having basically only "notable" members as a bunch of warring individuals from the most recent times. I think there's actually bad faith involved on Epeefleche's part, as it's so unusual to do such a thing on Wikipedia (directly contrary to Epeefleche's false claim of it being "standard on wp"). If you want, you can compare it with, let's say, Palestinian people - and even List of Palestinians. --Niemti (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

This list is still in the article (under the religion section), I just hid it before opening this thread (because Epeefleche kept reverting, while threatening me). But it needs to be deleted. --Niemti (talk) 13:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

These are all highly notable people, in almost every case notable vis-a-vis Chechnya. The list doesn't even include the two in the news today. And I'm happy to add to it as I have been doing until IP and doppleganger began deleting it. And I repeatedly urged both of them to add to the list. Niemti's desire to delete, for example, every president of Chechnya is unusual.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

"IP and doppleganger", nice baiting. But yeah, Arbi Barayev, and his nephew Movsar ("led to deaths of 170 people", the description adds helpfully, of course not mentioning those "170 people" were almost all killed by the Russians[119]), two of the 12 most notable ever and so perfect representative of the ethnic group. A bunch of what world calls "Chechen warlords" (and all from just the recent years) + 1 random "amateur boxer", out of hundreds of Wikipedia articles. Did you look at Palestinian people and List of Palestinians? (I'm "assuming good faith" right now, but this is so obvious I shouldn't even discuss it anymore.) --Niemti (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

That list is not NPOV as Niemti claims, especially in light of current events. While the Palestinian people list is absolutely a train wreck as well. Namely the fact it cites religious figures like Jesus as Palestinian despite Palestine not even existing at that time. The editing while logged out was a minor issue and seems to be an attempt to avoid opposition to a clearly non-neutral list which captializes on the American 'awareness' and fear mongering of Chechnya. In all seriousness, various media have been detailing how the country's people have long history of radical Islamist terrorists, rebels and murderers. I do not believe having a milita-centric list of people is balanced. But the content issue is a content issue and ANI is chiefly for behavior and other immediate concerns. Take the content matter to WP:DR processes, Niemti needs to disengage a bit anyways. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I removed Jesus, then noticed a long list of "Talmudic rabbi" entries from 2,000 years ago and just bailed out. It should be re-written as for people who identify as Palestnians in the sense of nationality/ethnicity. But that's just a side-note, if someone wants to fix up this article. --Niemti (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Niemti -- You've used at least a dozen puppets and been blocked for it, and now that your IP was blocked today you are still editing from this name, so I did not know I was speaking to the same person when I communicated separately with you in your different forms (and still am confused). As to descriptions of the people in the list, they are simply truncated from the wp first paras (which I did not write). None of this warrants you deleting a list of presidents and other lead movers for chechen independence. Notability lists are completely standard. And as indicated above -- you were invited more than once to add to the list. And you blocked me from continuing to do add to the list by deleting and then hiding the list repeatedly (as you have done most recently), either as an IP or using your Niemti name. Plus -- I see by prior history in at least one of your connected accounts that you've been blocked in the past for removing material. --Epeefleche (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I see you're confused alright. Also the list that you needed is there: President of Ichkeria (in addition to Head of the Chechen Republic). Now, try to insert Vasili Blokhin to Russians#Notable achievements for his all-time world record in shooting people. Arbi was a "lead mover" in kidnapping for profit and assorted mayhem, and even had a krysha from the FSB (Anna Politkovskaya in A Dirty War: a Russian Reporter in Chechnya: "In a extraordinary twist to this tale, it was reported in the autumn of 2000 that the Russian domestic intelligence service, the FSB, was protecting Arbi Barayev, a ruthless Islamist, implicated in numerous kidnappings and the beheading of four Western telecom engineers in Chechnya in 1998."). --Niemti (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think bringing up people's block logs from 2008 is very relevant to the current discussion, Epeefleche, especially when they have already promised to try to reform. Perhaps the IP while it is assigned to Niemti should have a soft redirect on its userpage to the user's current account? Not everyone will immediately recognise that Hanzoi Hatti=Niemti, and if Niemti edits whilst logged out in the future it would make it more obvious who it is. -- Dianna (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I have posted a comment at the SPI. While I don't think Niemti's actions warrant a block, either for civility or for socking, I would strongly suggest that they not edit logged out any more, and to use the talk page for discussion of the contested list rather than trying to communicate via edit summary. -- Dianna (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• We at Wikipedia have to have a long conversation about the difference between ethnicity and national citizenship at some point (see for example: the recurring issues with Germans). This is not the time or place. Carrite (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

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

IP user 198.111.167.130 adding block templates to the user pages of other users

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.

---

• 198.111.167.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is adding block templates to the user pages of various other users, as if he/she was an administrator, and is also adding those user pages to a category reserved for templates. It looks a bit odd to me so maybe an administrator should take a look at it. Thomas.W (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2013 (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.

Renewed sockpuppetry at Neumont University article

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

---

Can someone please block User:Twine4 as sockpuppet of blocked editor User:Gratans? He or she is back to mangling Neumont University, an article which has previously been the topic of discussion here and at the Village Pump when the university issued subpeonas to WMF seeking information about editors to that article. I bring that up not as a legal threat - I don't work for or with this institution in any way - but only to firmly illustrate that this article has a particularly contentious history. It might be worth semi-protecting the article for a little while, too, as this editor clearly has no problem using sockpuppets to evade blocks. ElKevbo (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I've indeffed based on WP:DUCK. I'll wait to see if semi-protection is needed.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2013 (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.

Talk Psychoanalysis

Sorry to bother you with that, but a user hide my contribs an talk page after a so called Arbcom-waring. I'm not agree with that. I think the warnig was a big mistake. But this warnig concerns only the talkpage of the POV-article [120]. Now I don't have the curage to revert the edit of this user. What shall I do now? --WSC ^® 06:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The warning concerns all "pages broadly related to pseudoscience and fringe science." Your comments were hatted because they did not conform to our talk page guidelines. See WP:TPG. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, exactly what paragraph of this guideline? --WSC ^® 07:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

READ THE WARNING. Also, read, as the warning tells you, WP:ETIQUETTE and the list of policies and guidelines, WP:LOP and WP:LGL. Especially read WP:TPG,WP:CIVILITY, WP:NPA, WP:DE, WP:TE, and our core policies, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. It is your responsibility to know and adhere to these policies and guidelines at all times. As the warning states, "If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Bombing a user with acronyms isn't very helpful :) it's better to at least try and answer the question! --Errant ^(chat!) 08:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me, Errant. I forgot to mention WP:IDHT. Several editors, including me, have tried getting through to this editor, and failed. That's why she was slapped with the warning. Should also mention that she has an impressive block log at German WP, for a wide range of issues, including all of the acronyms I listed above, and more. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Remember, WP:IDONTCARE !!! Basket _Feudalist 10:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Widescreen; the warning applies generally to any topic under the broad umbrella of "pseudoscience". Wikipedia's patience for disputes over those topics was exhausted in 2008, and Arbcom authorised discretionary sanctions. In terms of that hatted thread - I don't see anything too problematic in there and the editor in question probably shouldn't have been so brusque with you. However, if you wish to question Arbcoms stance/decision the place to do so is open a request for ammendment - although its unlikely to work unless you can present a cogent argument for why it is stopping you from improving the article :) --Errant ^(chat!) 08:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

See the explanation already offered at WP:AE by User:Sandstein at the bottom of the page. Sædon^talk 08:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

A good explanation. After failing several times to get Widescreen to be specific about changes or to take an article that she doesn't appear to believe should exist to AfD, I wihdrew from what has been an unproductive discussion. She should take the article to AfD, make some very specific suggestions about changes, or stop posting to the talk page. If she doesn't then some sort of sanction will be needed. The section heading above makes no sense, as this concerns her behavior at Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience and her adding pov tags to the article without making any specific suggestions. Dougweller (talk) 10:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, that means everybody is entitled to revert my contribs on talkpages related to pseudoscience? No matter what I've wrote about? Don't you think that's a bit freaky?

I cite ErrantX: "Wikipedia's patience for disputes over those topics was exhausted in 2008." Who is Wikipedia? Do you mean some POV-users who loves clear decisions, like there is one definition of pseudoscience, the user knows and is entitled to call everything pseudoscience he found a source for? En.WP don't like to discuss to much! I could be expose Wikipedia is not right. It seems, some users rather live in a own wikipedia dreamworld, than having passionate debates.

@Dominus Vobisdu: I'm the 2nd or 3rd most blocked user in de.wp and the one with the most procedures of community ban. I'm wikipedian since nearly 10 years... and I'm one of the users impelled the delation of the the de:Kategorie:Pseudowissenschaft. It taks more than 1,5 years of intense controversy. The catagory is delated since 2007. --WSC ^® 21:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Who is Wikipedia? It's the Wikipedia community as a whole, which led to Arbcom imposing discretionary sanctions on psuedoscientific topics. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It may be the case that de.wp allows editor argumentation to take precedence over a strict reading of sources, I don't know since I don't edit there, but if you're going to edit en.wp you have to adapt to our policies, guidelines, and culture. I don't know if de.wp has an equivalent to discretionary sanctions, but just in case not let me explain how this usually works. Basically, if an editor on a covered topic, such as pseudoscience, repeatedly violates policies or otherwise edits tendentiously, that editor is warned with the template that was placed on your page. If the editor continues the previous behavior the next step is a temporary block and if it happens again then the next step is usually a topic ban (though sometimes topic bans are the second step). It seems, based on what you've said above, that you're familiar with topic bans so I won't explain that, but feel free to ask for clarification. The main difference between discretionary and normal bans is that they can be imposed by any uninvolved administrator, do not require community input, and must be appealed to WP:ARBCOM. Incidentally, it is uncommon for Arbcom to remove discretionary sanctions when imposed at WP:AE.

While you may have had luck at de.wp, it's highly unlikely you would succeed in such a venture here and my advice is to drop the notion of an English Wikipedia without a strong framework for categorizing and labeling pseudoscience. As ErrantX points out, the community's patience in dealing with this topic has been exhausted, the consensus has been formed and for the most part we have little patience when it comes to this topic. Sædon^talk 02:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

@Bushranger: The Arbcom now imposing not to citizise Artikles in this area? That sounds unserious to me. Let's say, just hypothetically, that I'm right. Wikipedia don't notice a large range of excelent philosophical sources. Than the Arbcom would cement POV at wikipedia articles.

@Saedon: Thanks for that straight answer. What makes you belief that I don't argue strict by high quality sources? The problem is, I agrue with high quality sources. You would know that if you had read the discussion on [[121]]. But my arguments are now been reverted, thats why no one can read them anymore. My opponants on this debate don't use any source. The article is full of weak and partial sources, but no one seems to care. When I go back to the debate in philosophy of science, my opponants bombing me with secondary wikipedia policies like WP:FRINGE. I think, anyone is able to proov my objections. He should just take any old textbook of philosophy of science and read it. [122] You ought find in these books a more or less large passage about that issue. To take sources seriously was the way to delate the catagorie against a strong framework of so called sceptics in de.wp. Whats ongoing here with lists and catagories of pseudosciences is highly sceptical organisation POV. If you have nothing better to do, please make a experiment with yourself. search for the most relevant textbooks of philosophy of science, and use the search function for the name of the philosophical goodfather of so called scepticism Paul Kurtz. Than you have an access to estimate what importance he got for the philosophical debat. But if you rather live in a wikipedia dreamworld, leave it. --WSC ^® 04:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I suspect you and I could have a fun conversation on the philosophy of science as it's one of my favorite topics but it's of less relevance here than you might imagine. I've read through some of the discussion you had and I think understand your point - that there is no clear definition of pseudoscience, the items on the list are sourced to what some might consider a "capital S" skeptic POV, and because of this the article has a POV slant. I understand your position especially because I have a background in both science and philosophy and thus view the modern skeptic movement...let's say skeptically. So, if I've characterized your position correctly, I believe it has merit. However, for the purposes of en.wp - for better or for worse - it's of little consequence.

In some specific circumstances we have stringent requirements (for instance WP:MEDRS for biomedical articles) but as a whole en.wp is fairly lax when it comes to minimum inclusion requirements. Basically, WP:NOTABLE establishes the criteria necessary for an article to exist (widespread coverage in reliable sources) and WP:V states the minimum criteria for inclusion in an article (being published in a reliable source).

One of the walls you'll run into is that attempting to delete the article on the justification you used would require WP to basically rewrite the consensus on the reliability of skeptic sources (see WP:PARITY) - a topic which was debated for such a long time that most editors are no longer willing to discuss it (hence ErrantX's and my comment). The second wall you'll run into is that en.wp is very procedural due to its size. I bring this up because as was explained on the talk page, deletion discussions take place at WP:AFD, and if you disagree with the idea of discretionary sanctions you would have to appeal to Arbcom. So at the bottom, whether you're right or wrong is irrelevant if you're talking in the wrong place. But most importantly, whether you're right or wrong has no bearing on whether the sources used are considered reliable for the purposes of WP:V. Since they are, the page's existence is justified prima facie. I get the impression that on de.wp the "bigger picture" is more relevant, but en.wp policies and culture are a little more focused on the trees. Lastly, note that articles regarding pseudoscience will likely always have a slant because few people outside of skeptic circles write about pseudoscience, with the exception of philosophers of science who tend not to write about specific pseudoscientific modalities, but pseudoscience as a whole (though I would love to read Popper on something like Crystal healing :)).

When I say that my advice is to drop it, I really mean that your prospects of being productive in this area are so slim and your chances of getting topic banned large enough that this is not a worthy investment of your time or that of others. Sædon^talk 06:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

@Saedon: I'm confused with your answer. At the one hand you say I'm right, implicite, at the other hand you say it would be wrong to be adamant that I'm right. But what you write is a very coherent describtion of the actual state of en.wikipedia. Especially the part about the procedural manner of wikipedia. Those are my sentiments too. But in one point I'm a bit more rigorous. If anyone is not willing to discuss about fundamental and important issues and policys he should leave it. The discussion about the cerntral issues for the development of a importent and, obviously, high frequenced subject area in wikipedia is a fundamental way of quality-control. If anyone is not willing to hear somthing about the basics of this topic, and requires a policy ore lousy sources, that helps him to win a discussion about a lemma like Crystal healing, he doesn't fit to those pricipes of wikipedia. This procedure come across to me like a weakness of this system.

I had a lot of such discussions about scientific sources and religious, ideological and scientiffic POV. But don't require such policies which doesn't exist in de.wikipedia.

In this "POV-debate" I'm in right, of course. Because I go back to fundamental scientific sources of that issue. Theres no need to question that. Who question the philosophical debate about that issue, don't have a clue and shoud better be quite. There must be a way of handele this issue without ban or block the one who's right. Otherwise the wikipedia spreads POV. A violation of one of the five pillars. To oppose against that, is like betrayl the basics of our doing. --WSC ^® 11:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia does not "spread POV," but it does document various POV using RS. That is fundamental and backed by all our policies. As far as your discussions of the definition of pseudoscience, there is more than one definition, and we have never denied that, but the List is not the place to deal with that. The Pseudoscience article is the place for that, but you chose to use up far more than your legitimate options in the wrong place, and now any continuation by you would just be disruptive. We don't take kindly to near world record holders in getting blocked (I think you claimed to be the second or third most blocked user at the German Wikipedia?) coming here and repeating their disruptive behaviors. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm the critic in this case. Only I know where my criticism is on the right place :o) But seriously: You are not right. You can't spread a ideology by ignoring various other, and much better and relevant, sources. Do you try to tell me, you didn't get this point? You only use the sources you choose to spread your POV. Just like the "pseudoscience" you try to fight against. Or do you wanna tell me that various textbooks and the writings of the famoust philosophers of the 20th century are not as relevant as a sceptics monthly newspaper or a website? You must be joking. --WSC ^® 17:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

You make a lot of talk but are consistently light on sources. The nearest to a source you got was a google search: [123], the rest is based on your personal feelings and experiences. You have discussed this topic to death at NPOVN and List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience, now you appear adamant to discuss it to death here as well, can you please just stop. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Sigh.... You're throwing lots of straw man arguments around, which means you are imputing beliefs to others which they do not hold. This line of thought is only appropriate on the Pseudoscience article, but you've blown your chances. It's time for a topic ban. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking along the same lines. We have a serious case of WP:NOTHERE here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Widescreen, I believe the best thing you can do at this point is to drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass, as it's thoroughly dead. We understand your position - however you refuse to understand that Wikipedia does not work that way. It may not be the way you think it should be, but it is how it is, and, speaking frankly, the chances of it changing in the way you seem to believe it should change are about the same as the proverbial snowball. Given this, you need to either agree to edit in the manner that consensus has agreed upon, or not to edit at all, as to continue to edit against consensus because you don't like the consensus will only prove that you are not here to improve the encyclopedia and result in your not being able to edit at all. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, now you have the insight, that you can't win this debat. Now the phase of personal attacs begin. The cutest argument is from IRWolfie. If you don't belief me, READ THE SOURCES! Or do you wanna tell me, Karl Popper, Imre Lakatos, Hans Albert, Adolf Grünbaum, Hilary Putnam, Rudolf Carnap I referring to, write somthing different thant i suggest in this discussion? And there are much more I can go back to. What about the critics of the Critical Rationalism? Paul Feyerabend, Theodor W. Adorno or Max Horkheimer. And now the typical nonsense, the german skeptics also spread against the most famous philosopers of the 20th century: Straw Man, WP:NOTHERE and so on. I tell you what: [124] --WSC ^® 04:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay everybody, listen up. Take a look at this old comment from Widescreen.

• Editwars are never helpfull. But it's in your own interest, to have a POV-Button, at POV contents, at least. To revert the POV-button is so ignorant, I can't find words for that. I'wont accept that and I will not accept that. --WSC ^® 20:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC) [125]

Are we seeing the same attitude? Strong evidence of a negative learning curve? There seems to be no hope. A topic ban isn't going to be enough. This user has been banned from the German Wikipedia, with one of the longest block records, and they've been continuing the same behavior here, and only been blocked a couple times here. That's not right. Here's their own brag from right above:

• @Dominus Vobisdu: I'm the 2nd or 3rd most blocked user in de.wp and the one with the most procedures of community ban. I'm wikipedian since nearly 10 years... and I'm one of the users impelled the delation of the the de:Kategorie:Pseudowissenschaft. It taks more than 1,5 years of intense controversy. The catagory is delated since 2007. --WSC ® 21:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a psychiatrist, but something's not right, and the community doesn't seem to be able to deal with it. We don't do psychotherapy on other users. That's not our job. We can't cure this type of problem, so in the interest of protecting the community from further waste of time, I suggest a long block. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Well User:BullRangifer seems to belief that a discussion about philosophy of science in the area of Pseudoscience has somthing to do with Psychiatry. I think thats uncivil and nonsens as well. Futher, when I was banned from de.wp. Why did I only just make a edit there? If someone neutral follows this debate, he might notice, that my opponents aren't interested in a debate about the sources or the writings of the philosophers I go back to. No, they only have argumentum ad hominem. Is this only my impression or do other authors also see, that my opponants have no arguments anymore? --WSC ^® 04:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The belief that you were banned came from your own comments, so you have only yourself to blame for that misunderstanding. And the reason your opponents have no arguments anymore is because you continue to argue 'I'm right, I'm right, you're all wrong (and horrible people)", so after a certain point they give up arguing because they know you're not listening. The simple facts of the matter are thus: there are ArbCom sanctions applied to 'pseudoscience'. You can either edit within the sanctions ArbCom has imposed on the topic, or you can not edit articles that come under those sanctions, either by choice or through enforcement, be it blocks, topic bans, or overall bans. If you believe the ArbCom sanctions are inappropriate, you need to discuss that with ArbCom, not here, and you need to edit within the bounds set by ArbCom until and unless they are changed. If you cannot, or will not, do that, then you need to accept the fact that en.wiki is not a place you can contribute at. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I start this thread to concern the delation of an edit, not been criticised by the warning. Than YOU try to outline that my conserns about the topic of pseudosciens are only a wast of time. So that I have to explain my point, in that discussion. And now you have the currage to tell me, thats the wrong place? Don't you think, that a bit unfair? --WSC ^® 07:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

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.

---

On the basis of the material in the above thread, I propose a topic ban for Widescreen (WSC) from fringe science and pseudoscience topics broadly construed until they demonstrate to the community that they will not continue the disruption further, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Befor you start an ban proposal, you should better read a textbook about philosophy of sience. The only thing that I disrupt is your skepitcal POV!

A interesting development in this case is, that no one really negate my main point, that philosophy of science and the related writings, like textbooks and main work of philosophers (like Adolf Grünbaum, Imre Lakatos and much more famous philosophers related to this topic) are excluded in the topic of pseudoscience. My suspiction is, that this topic It shall be deemed to be domitated by skeptical organisations. But this organisations are, if anything, than marginal in the philosophical debate. Anyone is able to proove this assertion by reading relevant textbooks or even the wikipedia articles. Some of the useres are agree with my criticism. The reproach is, that I adress the criticism at the wrong place. But now it seems like the there is no right place. The List of topics characterized as pseudoscience is the wrong place, the ANI seems to be the wrong place. It seems like, there's no right place to adress my citicism to. So this ban proposal is only a attempt to exclude my comprehensible objecitons, everyone with a minor understandig of the philosophical debate knows. --WSC ^® 10:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yep! You go ahead, girlfriend!!! Basket _Feudalist 10:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support, but I fear an indef is going to be the only thing that works in the long run.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  11:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Unfortunate support WSC's comments above seem to suggest that they believe that an encyclopedia is the place for philosophical debates - no. As you've been told that many times yet continue to push your views in lieu of following consensus or the rules, I see no other option at this time. However, I see no problem with coming back to ANI for a relaxation of this restriction in at least 6 months once they have proven their ability to work within consensus and the policies of Wikipedia on other sets of articles (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

No! A encyclopedia is the place to write about philosophical debats and consider the relevant sources. --WSC ^® 12:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Writing, in an article, about a philosophical debate is one thing, having a philosophical debate is quite another. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support, but prefer indef: Clearly WP:NOTHERE, and uncivil, tendentious and disruptive. Fundamentally unresolvable problems with WP:COMPETENCE. Like LGR, I would prefer an indef. The blocklog on the German Wiki is spine-chilling. Block after block after block for just about everything in the book, from personal attacks to editwarring to filing false AIV notices to downright TROLLING (that's right, German Wiki has a policy against trolling). Recently narrowly escaped a community ban there by 48 to 52. I say we nip the problem in the bud here. Editor has given abundant evidence that she means to be disruptive and to ignore policies and consensus. The chances of this editor contributing positively to the project is extremely remote, and due to the fact that this she has been one of the most-blocked editors on German WP for NINE YEARS, that is not going to change. Extending some WP:ROPE would be foolish in this case. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support, but prefer indef. Will the topic ban include behavioral sciences topics like psychoanalysis and Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder? On balance WSC's contributions within this topic area (at least) are far more disruptive than productive. The long-term general WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:CIVIL snarkiness, disregard for sourcing guidelines, and WP:IDHT problems plus what seems to be bragging about the block log on de.wp make me conclude WP:NOTHERE and possibly WP:CIR issues overall. But we can try it with a topic ban first if people see there's a possibility for productivity in other areas (I'm not convinced). Zad68 13:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I guess the scope of the ban would be something the closing admin can estimate from consensus. Personally I think an indef is most appropriate; I didn't suggest one though since I thought most people would have preferred a topic ban. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support, but prefer indef. I've seen no evidence, including during these discussions, that this user gets the point at all, or even has the ability to do so. She continually makes false allegations that we don't want to use scientific sources, which is BS. We haven't even gotten into that discussion, even though she continually mentions it in the form of false allegations. The problem is that she has shown that she doesn't understand or intend to follow our sourcing rules because she seeks to disallow any sources but scientific ones. That's not how this Wikipedia works. We allow many types of sources, depending on the context, INCLUDING scientific ones. We have never objected to using them. This user has been given far too much rope at the German Wikipedia, and still managed to hang herself again and again, and we shouldn't allow her to continue that process here, which she has been doing. Let's put a stop to this mess and get back to editing. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support, but prefer indef After reviewing this case I am amazed at the level of WP:IDHT and I don't see any evidence that it will stop. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support, but prefer indef' as well, alas - from the comments above this editor utterly refuses to accept that they could at all possibly be in the wrong, instead continually demanding everyone hew to their views. This is someone who is not here to build an encyclopedia, and, as has been pointed out before, this editor's history elsewhere indicates that second chances will only cause the same result. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:32, 18 April 2013 (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.

Discussion about imposed community ban

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

---

• Just a quick clarification asked: this is an indefinite block, or a community ban? I'd have guessed the former? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

  Frankly, there isn't much of a difference between a community ban and an indefinite block which is placed as the result of a community discussion. Either way, the action should not be overturned by a single admin, but only by community consensus or ArbCom. For the record, I recorded it as a ban. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

  Alrighty, thanks. I just thought I'd ask given the recent kerfuffle about unilateral unblocks and all that... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

  Don't we usually keep community ban discussions open for 24 hours. This has only been open half of that. AniMate 00:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  Also, shouldn't we have advertised this as a community ban discussion rather than as a topic ban discussion? The reason we keep these open for 24 hours is so we can get a big slice of the community commenting. The same for naming the section appropriately. More people would likely participate if they knew this was a community ban, which is a much bigger deal than a topic ban. Eight people commenting hardly seems like a significant amount requiring an early close, especially since at least three of those only supported a topic ban. AniMate 00:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, add one for me. I posted and self-reverted when I saw that it had closed.[126][127] Consensus isn't just numbers, although those are important. It is also about the quality of the argument. Nobody even bothered arguing that the behavior would change. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  Nobody. Including Widescreen herself. Actually, her "vote" was the most compelling of all. Bragging about being the second or third most blocked editor on German WP pretty much sealed the deal. With that, she indicated that she fully intended to make a career out of being disruptive and tendentious here, as well. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• WTF How did we go from a topic ban to a community ban?  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  00:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Ummm... wasn't that your idea? At least, that's how I understood it. When I was composing my !vote, I originally started with "Fully endorse LGR's suggestion that nothing short of a indef will be effective". I later removed it a superflous. If you're quibbling about the names "indefinite block" versus "community ban", in reality it is just that. A quibble. For all practical purposes, there is no difference between a community ban and a community-imposed indefinite block. At least as far as I can see. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

And add one for me for a community ban. Dougweller (talk) 05:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't think my statement was tongue in cheek, and on a 2nd read it still doesn't sound that way. I'm ok with the block by King, but I am troubled by their logging this as a CB because a CB wasn't under discussion.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  11:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say that your proposal was tongue in cheek. I thought you were completely serious. As for the difference between a block and a ban, there is a section about that in WP:BAN. This seems to fit "ban" better than "block", although, in the end, there is no practical difference. The way I read it "community ban" is synonymous with "community-imposed indefinite block". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Regardless of the merits of the case it makes a nonsense of any sense of justice to close it so quickly. You can't call it a community ban when the community is given no change to engage or to discuss other options of which there are several. This should be reversed and discussed properly, at the moment its a straight and peremptory abuse of admin power. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd argue the snowball clause for the closing given that the editor under discussion basically came right out and said not only would they keep disrupting, but in fact they took pride in their disruptiveness. I would, howver, have suggested it simply be a normal indef instead of a CBAN, as normal indef was what was proposed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    • You don't close a discussion of this nature after 12 hours. What was proposed was a topic ban and the editor's posting above doesn't unambiguously support your interpretation. Even it it did it would not justify closure on a remedy not originally proposed in less than a day. That is plain wrong. ----Snowded ^TALK 08:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
      • There's no need for a lengthy trial when the defendant is jumping up and down in the coutroom and screaming "Yep! I done it! And I gonna do it again and again!" As I said above, it was WSC's own posts that were the most damning. It's pretty difficult to argue that the outcome would have been any different had the discussion continued. In fact, since then, there have been two more concurring votes. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Well two were for a topic ban, four for an indef. If I had found it before it was closed I would have suggested a restriction and opposed an indef (there is a complex history). Others might have done the same. The substantive point is that the item was closed after 12 hours so there was no chance for other editors with some knowledge of the context to engage. The "jumping up and down" statement does not summarise the editors posting either. Sorry this smacks of a lynching. Given the tolerance and length of time given to other editors for far worse offences its also hypocritical ----Snowded ^TALK 09:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
          • "Lynching"? "Hypocritical"? Language like that seems to imply bad faith on the part of the closer and/or praticipants. Surely you don't mean to do that. Have you read the discussion that lead to this proposal (in the section preceeding it)? Sure looks like jumping up and down to me. Not the faintest hint of a trace of admitting that her behavior has been problematic, nor any sign that she intends to desist. Instead, she brags that she is among the most disruptive editors on German WP. It is totally fair to assume that she meant to pursue a similar career here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
            • I have read it and I am also familiar with the editor and the issue. English is not her first language and she is passionate about a subject where she does have some actual knowledge. I know of at least one case where she turned out to be right on a content issue after being trapped into a block by a combative editor. So foolish yes, but not the sort of editor or behaviour that should be subject to summary justice without proper examination. An indef might be the right response but it is NOT the right response after 12 hours with minimal engagement. I find it difficult to believe that any editor can defend that - although come to think of it you are ignoring it. ----Snowded ^TALK 11:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
              • What Snowded said ^^^  little green rosetta(talk)
                central scrutinizer  11:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
                • You're throwing the words "lynching" and "justice" around as if this were a question of determining "punishment" for a "crime" committed, instead of a purely preventative action. I've read through the entire thread, and see no evidence of anybody requesting or even suggesting that WSC be punished. ALL I see is calls for disruptive and tendentious behavior to be stopped or prevented. This all complies with both WP:BAN and WP:BLOCK. Nor does the closer intimate or imply in any way that this is a punitive measure. This simply isn't a matter of "justice". While our proceedings may resemble courtroom proceedings to some degree, they are, in essence, fundamentally different in purpose. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
                  • I'm not throwing words around, they appear as a part of a complete sentences which provide context. But lets make this simple for you. Given that this is a community action, how is it right to close a discussion before all members of that community have had a chance to even look at the problem? You seem to be arguing the case, rather than dealing with the issue I raised here, namely prematurely closing a discussion after 12 hours. ----Snowded ^TALK 12:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
                    • The same could be said if the discussion had been closed after 24 hours. Or any other time frame. 24 is not a magic number. Also, we do have WP:SNOW, which can be fairly said to apply here. Can you quote any specific policy that the closer violated? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
                      • 24 hours at least covers all time zones which 12 does not. In practice most such cases stand for a day or so at least to allow people to contribute. WP:SNOW does not apply as the eventual sanction was not even that proposed so there were two options even within the 12 hours. Given longer there would have been more. I know of no policy which says such matters have to be closed in short order and all precedent is for longer. ----Snowded ^TALK 12:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
                        • Without a policy quote that explcitly says that says such matters CAN'T be closed in short order, or any evidence that the closer or particpants acted in bad faith or in violation of our policies and guidelines, any argumentation to revert this block is unlikely to succeed. I don't see the point of further discussion without any of these things. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
                          • Well two editors disagree with you and I freely admit I find your ignoring the time issue and entitlement of the community to engage disturbing. Sometimes the wrong decision is made for the best of all possible motivations and I think this is one. ----Snowded ^TALK 12:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Note I have reverted King's addition of WSC to the banned list. While WSC may be (rightfully) indeff'ed, they certainly weren't banned by the community and the record shouldn't reflect that. If WSC can convince an admin to unblcok them, bully for them -- but we shouldn't insist upon community approval since the community never approved the ban in the first place.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

And I've reverted it back. You can discuss the matter with King of Hearts and try to persuade him to revert it, or you can take the matter to AN and convince them that the entry is not justified and let them revert it. But you certainly don't have any justification for performing a unilateral action of this sort on your own initiative. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Like hell I don't. Ignoring the fast close for the moment, there wasn't even a proposal to CB WSC in the first place. How anyone can read from the discussion above that WSC was banned by the community is beyond the pale.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

That is YOUR personal interpretation of the discussion, one which I do not share. Like I said, you are free to take this up with King or AN, but have no authority to make a unilateral decision on your own. If you revert back, I will report you at AN myself. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Why wait, report me now.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Non-admin comment: I'm not seeing what the problem is here - the close says that it was an indef by the community, which is basically a community ban anyway, is it not? That said, I do think that the close was a little too soon. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The are a few problems. While King was certainly entitled to make the call to indef WSC all on his lonesome, according to custom he shouldn't have put the community stamp on this action as a CB and posted that WSC was banned by the community to the list of banned editors. Nor should he have closed the section above after taking admin action. IAR (and custom) I suppose.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

If anyone really cares that much, then I'm calling it an indefinite block by community consensus. Not that there is any difference in practice. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

How can it be community consensus after 12 hours? ----Snowded ^TALK 21:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

We aren't a bureaucracy, that's why we have WP:SNOW. Consider that the discussion that widescreen engaged in the above thread was after being officially warned of discretionary sanctions for the same behaviour. Consider also that it's been much more than 12 hours now and there isn't a mass objection from the community (rather another admin, Doug, agreed with the indef afterwards!). IRWolfie- (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, it's a good thing for Widescreen that it was closed after 12 hours - every post of theirs simply dug them into a deeper hole, and odds are had it continued it very well could have round up as a full CBAN right now instead of a simple indef. As it is, all they have to do is promise to follow policy and Arbcom whether they agree with it or not to get unblocked, so I believe we're done here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of the case it is plain wrong to close such a debate after 12 hours, that is nothing to do with being a bureaucracy or not its about basic fairness. In this case there would have been more justification if all editors contributing had supported the original proposition for a topic ban, but with two options on the table (and more possible), more time should have been allowed as WP:SNOW did not apply. Its evident that those engaged in the process feel they did no wrong, I just hope that on a future occasion a little more reflection takes place. ----Snowded ^TALK 03:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

No. WP:SNOW is directly applicable to the merits of the case. You argue despite Widescreen's continued disruption, and despite that nearly every person expressing interest for an INDEF, 6 supported, LGR indicated support for the indef, and despite no further objections being raised by anyone else here, instead one extra support. It is quite frankly obvious that the indef was going to be the final result. If she wasn't blocked by the community she was on cue for a block by arbitration enforcement. You are arguing that we should have left it open to meet specific requirements in the name of justice. You don't seem to be arguing against the merits of the case, but rather in the name of process; that is an argument for bureaucracy. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

One of the reasons we use WP:SNOW is to avoid further embarrassment for the editor. We use it in RFA's, and in a situation where the editor is digging themselves deeper, it's the right thing to do. If WSC wants to appeal it, they may, but I wholly support the maintenance of some degree of dignity for WSC, and will argue that the closure by SNOW actually left the door open for a future return. Yeah, 6 people !voted "yes" - we have had community bans with fewer participants, but they're still valid. It's time to close this and let the editor have their dignity and to avail themselves of their options down the road rather than drag their name further through ANI (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry guys, all of those arguments would have validity - but not after 12 hours with options still open. ----Snowded ^TALK 14:41, 20 April 2013 (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.

Regarding User:ChrisGualtieri's effort to make things personal.

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.

---

Honestly, at this point, i dont care if even I get blocked. No one seems to care! I'm getting irritated. I'm close to cursing, and attempting not to lash out. But this is ridiculous. Here in the talk page talk:Ghost in the Shell especially the recent discussions, User:ChrisGualtieri continues I attempt to stay civil but the editor continues to attempt to make it personal and then blames me for these things. This comes with history of previous edits.

I along time ago "merged" Ghost in the Shell (manga) with the main page. This editor spearheaded everything, ignored BRD and practically owned the article.

Now recently editor Ryulong, made the same edit (merging the manga to the main page). And apparently first fought but then welcomes him (to the point of a barnstar) and entrusts the article to him. However, although he tells other editors he can work well with, he also blames me and whatever rendition mine is the one that cant be incorporated.

Ryulong misunderstood and believed me to be against the merge and was hostile at first. But now that i explained he refuted previous statements about me. And even more good news, shared some ideas on how to organize the article.

But ChrisGualtieri continues to mark me as the problem to the article, and him (alongside Ryulong) to be the solution (despite Ryulong sharing strikingly similar ideas). He even reverts Ryulong's edit and attempts to do same thing. And as reasonable i try, this editor continues to make things personal. I mentioned "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST" (knowing full well it is an essay and a precaution to avoid unnecessary comparing to other irrelevant articles.) And constantly brings it up as a point on how I dont know anything about policies. When i make a point he would say "you had your chance, why you filibustering mine?" I dont understand this statement. He makes several similar ones too. Whats worst he tries to make it look like i'm the one spreading ad hominem.

Enough mud has been slung at me. And I'm tired....im trying to stay civil, but this editor continues to sling mud and i suspect to intentionally deviate the discussion. If i get banned for being uncivil, so be it. I'm tired, i tried my hardest to keep it professional, and if that wasnt enough, oh well. I will find the revisions of his edits in particular that were most problematic. Lucia Black (talk) 01:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

There's no need for admin intervention or any discussion of folks getting blocked. Although some of a the discussion is a bit snippy it's obvious all editors involved are trying to work for the good of Wikipedia -- there's just some difference of opinion and communication issues / frustration. Ya'll need editor help, not admin. Try WP:DRN or WP:RFC and remember to keep the focus on the content, not other editor's behavior. NE Ent 01:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Missing the point. Chrisgualtieri continues to state how "incompetent", how "out of touch with the policies". And making me out the worst in the discussion....i never bring up ANI about the topic but the actions. This editor chooses to see me as the villain even though his ally share the same views as me. I'm tired of the mud.Lucia Black (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

There is on-going Dispute Resolution attempts at the notice board which I opened earlier about this content dispute. It is atWikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Ghost_in_the_Shell.2C_Talk:Ghost_in_the_Shell. I may have been a bit snippy, but not without reason. After being subject to ad hominem attacks (Lucia does not understand the term I think), she makes fun of me by intimating me, "Oh I'm Chris, WP:CFORK says this. I'm in accordance with WP:CFORK, you're not" thats how you sound like." [128] And in response to my explanation of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, she replied, "OTHERSTUFFEXIST is an essay but in a nutshell, meaning commonly accepted." [129] I do not know if Lucia Black is a English-As-A-Second-Language contributor or if there is another communication problem. I have been trying for weeks to explain things to Lucia and I brought it to WP:DRN after what transpired with Ryulong. This matter is over a long-running formatting dispute about Ghost in the Shell. The content dispute is very simple. I want that page to be a franchise page which in a concise and simple manner details works of the franchise and splits off. The reason? Multiple entries in the series bare the same exact names, whether it be the original manga, the 1995 film or the video game. Or its alternate universe series Stand Alone Complex which has no less then 4 different media bearing that exact name. The article is important as well, it has been viewed over 230,000 times in the last 90 days. [130] My only fault is being stubborn enough to want to fix it after all of this, while I'm no expert, I am well-versed in the material. Oh, and to add, I don't harbor any ill toward Lucia, this is not 'personal' and I hold no grudges. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

1) you're only using my statement on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST as a way to show how out of touch i am with policies. Which doesnt make sense! I brought it up to avoid unnecessary debating because previously you brought examples of Final Fantasy and Mortal Komb at the moment, is NOT the place to defend our reasoning. But just to show how far you will take one comment and attempt to turn into a sign of incompetence.

2)I know what ad hominem means. Internet is insanely slow for this month. And i cant load more than one window. But the proof is there. Youve tried to turn a nuetral discussion into something personal, several times. when its tagged "in a nutshell" it means a lot of editors find it helpful. WP:CIR does no advisement and is extremely opinionated yet you continue to bring it up. You always do that. "You dont know what that word means"? I got the definition right here!

3)You're a bully. No grudges? Prove it. Ryulong and i are mostly in the same boat when it comes to how the article should be. But when DragonZero mentions there are only two possible renditions, you single mine out to be bad (and somehow Ryulong's good? He has the exact same idea as i do!) You're lying. I cant possibly assume good faith with these circumstances. Lucia Black (talk) 02:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

There's two personal attacks in your point 3 there - please be cautious lest this report WP:BOOMERANG on you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with my esteemed colleagues: In a discussion, people get snippy sometimes, it is best to stay focused on the merits and overlook little things. And in this discussion you've managed to make two personal attacks against others, so you are better off calling it even, moving on, and focusing on the merits at the DRN discussion. I don't see anything that needs admin attention here. Yet. Everyone just needs to go have a cup of tea and concentrate on the actual edit rationales, and stop offering commentary on each other's personalities. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:27, 20 April 2013 (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.

Less than traditional edit summaries

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 wonder if someone would mind considering Special:Contributions/2602:100:4759:4D52:914F:C1F9:F8A3:D538 and offering a suggestion about 'better' use of edit summaries? Since this is an IP only editor I have not dropped the usual notice on the page. I am suspecting I will only get a torrent of epithets if I do. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:AGF much? IP's are people too. See WP:IGNORANCE (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Have you read the edit summaries? What do they leave to the assumption? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• The edit summaries are marginal to say the least. The only times I can remember swearing in an edit summary is when I've messed up, and I've aimed the summary at myself. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The swearing it the edit summaries are not directed at anyone, and are inappropriate but not block-worthy. I see that nobody had the cojones to Welcome them - so I have. I have also notified them of this discussion. Come on people - if they direct their words at you we have something to deal with. Until then, communicate (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the swearing isn't directed at anybody and to my mind isn't offensive. Probably just a south London teenager. What's all the fuss about?--Launchballer 12:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

When I read the edit summary I thought something dramatic is going on, but removing a redundant link was actually just that. Not sure why the editor is so fired up about it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It may not be offensive, per se, but it is wildly inappropriate. However, it should have been a case of a note on the talk page saying 'hey, you shouldn't do this, here's why', not an instaANI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:01, 20 April 2013 (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.

Chechen people

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

---

OK, so the user Epeefleche , as part of the sudden American/global interest due to 2 guys in Boston, keeps spamming this article with a completely arbitrarty list of random "Notable Chechens", several out of more than 200 on Wikipedia (and this list is including odious figures (Arbi Barayev) and even at least one non-Chechen (Ibn al-Khattab)), falsily claims it's a "standard on wp" (it's not - I just checked Americans, Russians and Poles), keeps reverting and threatning me [131]. Intervention please. --Niemti (talk) 11:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll also note how the article's avoiding the politics/controversy on purpose even in the infobox collage, where there are only some historical figures plus Milana Terloeva (and how Epeefleche's list of 12 "notable" Chechens is not including neither of them). --Niemti (talk) 11:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

You are correct, he needs to start an article List of Chechen people as the articles he refers to are lists of Poles and Russians and not the main articles about those people. I shall inform him of this. However, lets all remain civil to each other and assume good faith--File Éireann 11:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Two issues here.

Socking -- There is a strong suggestion here that Niemti and Mr. IP, who are tag-teaming deletions and blanking from view of the list in question, are one and the same. Note that It has been established that the IP address has been used by blocked user HanzoHattori.. Also, see Niemti contributions and 94.246.154.130 contributions. See also discussions here and here and here. Note that the IP writes ""I'm bringing it the fucking ANI", and then it is Niemti who does so above. And when he does so above, Niemti says I am reverting him -- while in fact he links to me reverting Mr. IP. (I'll address the substance in a moment).--Epeefleche (talk) 11:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Lol, I'm sure "tag-teaming" when unlogged and uh-oh, you found out something about me that no one knew before! Now, as you are, go and add Vasili Blokhin to Russians#Notable achievements, if you think Arbi Barayev was one of the most "notable" Chechens (his claim to fame: killed some people, boasted about killing 160 - while Blokhin killled tens of thousands). What BS. --Niemti (talk) 11:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Your edits have gone back-and-forth within minutes as you tag-teamed your deletions and effective blankings of the list so that, as now, it cannot be seen. See your edits between 6:57 and 7:17 here as an IP (now blocked for 24 hours) and at here as Niemti. Editing-warring on the precise same issue. And, I might add that though the IP is blocked, you are still editing as Niemti, so when another IP or editor pops up we can't know for sure who it is if you are editing under different IPs, etc.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP address for severe incivility including anyone operating from it for 24 hours. I shall not block for longer in case it is a public computer system. The underlying accusation of sockpupeteering is more serious, however and will have to be looked at in greater depth. --File Éireann 11:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Substance. It is perfectly standard to have such lists of notable people. Whether as stand-alone or embedded lists. As to embedded lists, see this MOS section on embedded lists, and especially under "Size": "Some information, such as "Notable people" ... may be formatted with a section lead and a descriptive, bulleted list". Examples of such embedded lists are many -- see, e.g., the notable persons lists in Cree, and Sami people, and Mnong people, and Bubi people. The existence of cats at the same time is not reason to delete such lists. See, e.g., List of Russian people and List of Polish people. I have repeatedly mentioned this to complainant, and invited him to add to the list, as such lists by their nature are never complete, but to not delete appropriate entries from such lists or delete such lists in their entirety. All is reflected in the above diffs As it stands, he has once again hidden it from reader view, as he has now done many times between his IP account and this name account.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, Niemti IS HanzoHattori. As in literally redirects to Niemti's account. It is another account and is not an abusive sock. You might want to take a look at the history before condemning Niemti because it is no secret. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes -- it is one of 14 entries in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of HanzoHattori. There are 12 entries in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of HanzoHattori. The point is that the two indicated ones were tag-teaming both the same reverts, and the same positions in discussions. Furthermore, curiously, HanzoHattori was blocked indef years ago -- which leaves me puzzled ....--Epeefleche (talk) 12:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Ya know folks .. we're an encyclopedia, not a daily newspaper or some "OMG" tabloid. I know all this is utterly amazing, shocking, depressing, and all ... but still ... let's not lose focus on THIS particular project's goals and all. IJS. — Ched :  ?  12:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It is not so much the content of the dispute as it is the behavior behind it. Niemti (aka HanzoHattori renamed) reverted Epee's addition and when Epeefleche readded it, Niemti stayed logged out for a series of edits (including reverting to the borderline 3 reverts, I do not see a rule violation). After performing a string of edits logged out he goes to take it to ANI as Niemti by logging in. While probably not the best practice, and certainly not advisable, I don't see why the block was for civility issues.. I encountered worse on this page no less. Even the edit summaries were not that bad. Niemti does have a bit of a civility problem, its a long running concern, but if anything Niemti needs to relax. Everything is personal to Niemti in situations like this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Niemti.--File --File Éireann 13:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Didn't know being unlogged is violating anything these days. Maybe just disable editing for non-logged users. --Niemti (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Now,

it wasn't quite the intervention that I was looking for. But I guess the stupid "accusation of sockpupeteering" is more important than what ammounts to character assassination on the entire little-known (but already demonized in popular conciousness, including by media such as films and video games) ethnic group when the USA/world is all of sudden interested in the issue. Just take a look at it:

• Alu Alkhanov, Russian politician, former president of Russia's Chechen Republic
• Arbi Barayev, nicknamed "The Terminator", founder and first leader of the Special Purpose Islamic Regiment
• Movsar Barayev, militia leader during the Second Chechen War, who led seizure of Moscow theater that led to deaths of 170 people
• Shamil Basayev, militant Islamist and leader of the Chechen rebel movement
• Artur Beterbiyev, amateur boxer
• Dzhokhar Dudaev, Soviet Air Force general and Chechen leader, first President of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria
• Ruslan Gelayev, commander in the Chechen separatist movement
• Akhmad Kadyrov, Chief Mufti of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria
• Ramzan Kadyrov, Head of the Chechen Republic and a former Chechen rebel
• Aslan Maskhadov, leader of the Chechen separatist movement and the third President of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria
• Abdul-Halim Salamovich Sadulayev, fourth President of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria
• Dokka Umarov, Islamist militant in Russia

A few controversial people, all of whom are responsible for the violence in the last 2 decades (not even evaluating them otherwise), plus 1 random sportsman (just one of many notable Chechen martial artists) (and previously, even a non-Chechen Arab militant) - an entirety of "notable Chechens". Yeah. What a nation, right?

I think it's extremely important for this very biased list to not be posted to this article, now when there's a sudden global attention.

Ched: This is is worse than just sensationalist, it's actively damaging, portraying an entire ethnic group of more than 1 million people as a having basically only "notable" members as a bunch of warring individuals from the most recent times. I think there's actually bad faith involved on Epeefleche's part, as it's so unusual to do such a thing on Wikipedia (directly contrary to Epeefleche's false claim of it being "standard on wp"). If you want, you can compare it with, let's say, Palestinian people - and even List of Palestinians. --Niemti (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

This list is still in the article (under the religion section), I just hid it before opening this thread (because Epeefleche kept reverting, while threatening me). But it needs to be deleted. --Niemti (talk) 13:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

These are all highly notable people, in almost every case notable vis-a-vis Chechnya. The list doesn't even include the two in the news today. And I'm happy to add to it as I have been doing until IP and doppleganger began deleting it. And I repeatedly urged both of them to add to the list. Niemti's desire to delete, for example, every president of Chechnya is unusual.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

"IP and doppleganger", nice baiting. But yeah, Arbi Barayev, and his nephew Movsar ("led to deaths of 170 people", the description adds helpfully, of course not mentioning those "170 people" were almost all killed by the Russians[132]), two of the 12 most notable ever and so perfect representative of the ethnic group. A bunch of what world calls "Chechen warlords" (and all from just the recent years) + 1 random "amateur boxer", out of hundreds of Wikipedia articles. Did you look at Palestinian people and List of Palestinians? (I'm "assuming good faith" right now, but this is so obvious I shouldn't even discuss it anymore.) --Niemti (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

That list is not NPOV as Niemti claims, especially in light of current events. While the Palestinian people list is absolutely a train wreck as well. Namely the fact it cites religious figures like Jesus as Palestinian despite Palestine not even existing at that time. The editing while logged out was a minor issue and seems to be an attempt to avoid opposition to a clearly non-neutral list which captializes on the American 'awareness' and fear mongering of Chechnya. In all seriousness, various media have been detailing how the country's people have long history of radical Islamist terrorists, rebels and murderers. I do not believe having a milita-centric list of people is balanced. But the content issue is a content issue and ANI is chiefly for behavior and other immediate concerns. Take the content matter to WP:DR processes, Niemti needs to disengage a bit anyways. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I removed Jesus, then noticed a long list of "Talmudic rabbi" entries from 2,000 years ago and just bailed out. It should be re-written as for people who identify as Palestnians in the sense of nationality/ethnicity. But that's just a side-note, if someone wants to fix up this article. --Niemti (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Niemti -- You've used at least a dozen puppets and been blocked for it, and now that your IP was blocked today you are still editing from this name, so I did not know I was speaking to the same person when I communicated separately with you in your different forms (and still am confused). As to descriptions of the people in the list, they are simply truncated from the wp first paras (which I did not write). None of this warrants you deleting a list of presidents and other lead movers for chechen independence. Notability lists are completely standard. And as indicated above -- you were invited more than once to add to the list. And you blocked me from continuing to do add to the list by deleting and then hiding the list repeatedly (as you have done most recently), either as an IP or using your Niemti name. Plus -- I see by prior history in at least one of your connected accounts that you've been blocked in the past for removing material. --Epeefleche (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I see you're confused alright. Also the list that you needed is there: President of Ichkeria (in addition to Head of the Chechen Republic). Now, try to insert Vasili Blokhin to Russians#Notable achievements for his all-time world record in shooting people. Arbi was a "lead mover" in kidnapping for profit and assorted mayhem, and even had a krysha from the FSB (Anna Politkovskaya in A Dirty War: a Russian Reporter in Chechnya: "In a extraordinary twist to this tale, it was reported in the autumn of 2000 that the Russian domestic intelligence service, the FSB, was protecting Arbi Barayev, a ruthless Islamist, implicated in numerous kidnappings and the beheading of four Western telecom engineers in Chechnya in 1998."). --Niemti (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think bringing up people's block logs from 2008 is very relevant to the current discussion, Epeefleche, especially when they have already promised to try to reform. Perhaps the IP while it is assigned to Niemti should have a soft redirect on its userpage to the user's current account? Not everyone will immediately recognise that Hanzoi Hatti=Niemti, and if Niemti edits whilst logged out in the future it would make it more obvious who it is. -- Dianna (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I have posted a comment at the SPI. While I don't think Niemti's actions warrant a block, either for civility or for socking, I would strongly suggest that they not edit logged out any more, and to use the talk page for discussion of the contested list rather than trying to communicate via edit summary. -- Dianna (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• We at Wikipedia have to have a long conversation about the difference between ethnicity and national citizenship at some point (see for example: the recurring issues with Germans). This is not the time or place. Carrite (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

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

IP user 198.111.167.130 adding block templates to the user pages of other users

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.

---

• 198.111.167.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is adding block templates to the user pages of various other users, as if he/she was an administrator, and is also adding those user pages to a category reserved for templates. It looks a bit odd to me so maybe an administrator should take a look at it. Thomas.W (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2013 (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.

Renewed sockpuppetry at Neumont University article

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

---

Can someone please block User:Twine4 as sockpuppet of blocked editor User:Gratans? He or she is back to mangling Neumont University, an article which has previously been the topic of discussion here and at the Village Pump when the university issued subpeonas to WMF seeking information about editors to that article. I bring that up not as a legal threat - I don't work for or with this institution in any way - but only to firmly illustrate that this article has a particularly contentious history. It might be worth semi-protecting the article for a little while, too, as this editor clearly has no problem using sockpuppets to evade blocks. ElKevbo (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I've indeffed based on WP:DUCK. I'll wait to see if semi-protection is needed.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2013 (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.

RFC to reinsert links to illicit drug website. Silk Road (marketplace)

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.

---

Silk Road (marketplace) is an online black market which is only reachable by TOR. Editors are currently trying to do an RFC to place back the URL to access it. This website is unquestionably illegal and Wikipedia should not assist in allowing readers to access it. Previously at ANI, the decision to blacklist the url was achieved. [133] Revdel of the links is also done. Another case of it came up here.[134] Here is evidence of the revdel from that thread. [135] I'm bringing this matter here to ANI, it should probably go to the WMF as well because it may be in violation of the TOS, per this section.[136] Also... the link seems to be used as a source on the page with a dead link template, ref 18. I would think the RFC be stopped, the link removed and REVDEL as previously and a warning be made about its insertion since being blacklisted is not enough to stop its insertion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Could you spell out what pare of the TOS you feel this violates? Hobit (talk) 00:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
• I think that us knowingly publishing links to websites that exist solely to violate the laws in virtually every country is a bad idea. We do the same for copyright infringing sites, we cover the material but deny links to material we know is illegal. If there was some encyclopedic value in publishing the link, I might be more prone to accept it, but there isn't. Also, the site is accessible via TOR only, making it a burden to verify, so the potential for phishing abuse is much higher than for other types of URLs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Not to mention it violates WP:ELNO #1, #3, #4, #5, and #16 (at least). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflicted/edited) And aside from that, the fact that WP:ELNEVER is against insertion of blacklisted sites, that the link is Revdel by an oversighter and concensus is already against in previous discussion? If the fact it is a black market and illegal by its very nature, then how about WP:IAR to allow for common sense? If WMF remains silent about the matter, that is. Though a second argument is that Wikipedia's previous hosting of the material has resulted in known cases of phishing which hit the blogs, reddit and such. By the nature of the garbled url, even if it was somehow valid and of use, it has proven to be a target. By all accounts there is nothing justified about having it for encyclopedic purposes. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I know an RFC can't override other policy considerations, but I'm not sure how to explain that at this RFC any more than I already have. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I've linked back to this discussion at that RFC. Perhaps we would be better to create a proposal somewhere outside of that RFC to settle the issue of our liability and TOS. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Once this is dealt with, or if someone could, I think a heavy revdel is required as the url has numerous reinsertion and deletions including links to websites that host the url. Not sure where those are concerned... including [137] and this one containing it in the URL field (being removed by Dragon Booster) [138]. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I've RevDel'ed everything that had the *onion address, per the previous ANI discussion. I didn't with the "how to" video, and it wasn't needed. Of course, we aren't a how-to website, so reverting it out was proper. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I have a feeling it won't be the last time it appears, but it is appreciated. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I've made it clear I will block anyone that adds it, based on the previous ANI discussion, unless a consensus forms that overturns that previous decision. I'm not a big fan of preemptively threatening a block, but this is one of those times when I felt it might be best. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• I think you opined in the RFC, did you not, Dennis? It would be better if somebody else wielded the big cudgel... I'm sure there are dozens of volunteers, this enforced Revision Deletion seems an easy call, essentially commercial promotion of a black market site which is anyways inaccessible as an ordinary link... Carrite (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not involved with that article as an editor, so WP:INVOLVED isn't at play. My comment in that RFC was the same as here and my participation is one of an outsider. I did see someone added back a link to an unreliable site that explains how to connect to that website, which fails WP:EL and WP:RS, but I will allow someone else to fight that battle. The larger issue isn't the single edit, it is the policy ramifications. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Ah, NOW I see why that editor seeks adding that gwern link back into the article, he owns that site (per his name and comments on the talk page) so he has a COI and keeps adding back his own domain to the external links. I'm not going to revert it back out since he thinks it was retaliation, but would ask someone else to look at it and determine if it meets WP:EL as a reliable source. Obviously, I would argue that it does not and is spam in this context. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

As this person who filed the RfC, I wouldn't find it unreasonable if someone closed it, since it seems any consensus there has been deemed irrelevant due to policy considerations. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 20:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, there is enough dispute over that, that we need a stronger consensus to firmly establish that fact. To me, it is crystal clear that you don't add in links to websites that we have created filters explicitly to bar, but there is a shortage of participation there, particularly by experienced admin. I've considered raising the issue for formal discussion at WP:AN, but not sure if that is the proper venue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The RFC should not be closed, while I have upped my stakes by responding to the issues with additional information about legality of the site and its inability to be seized, the more it becomes clear that the website poses a risk to Wikipedia. I do not think this matter needs to go to the WMF, and given the nature of it, we seem capable of using existing policy for this and good discussion rather then opt for the 'thermonuclear option'. If it goes there, it goes there, but a response is not even a sure thing. It is best the community decide this as it typically does. And... the link is still visible in many of the pages in its history including the phishing links. Not sure if they should be Revdel out before the RFC closes or after it closes, not sure how the policy cuts. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• • There are multiple problems, each of which should exclude the link, in my eyes. I would image that WMF wants to look at it, and I wouldn't be surprised if Alison drops a note. This is fine, I think the legal consideration is valid and by all means, the WMF has an interest (and a gaggle of lawyers) in this, as technically we work for them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Actually, technically, we don't work for them, as the WMF insulates itself from the potentially legally culpable contributions of its volunteer editors by defining itself as the provider of infrastructure and the promulgator of basic policies, and not the "employer" of those editors. Our edits are not "work for hire" - we each own the copyright on our own contributions, although we automatically license them for use when we upload them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I agree, though, that the WMF should probably weigh in on this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

This is forum-shopping. Discuss it there, not here. Bovlb (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• This is not forum shopping. There is an ongoing RFC and there are broader policy considerations that merit discussion. An RFC on an article talk page can't override existing policy, for example. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • If an RFC or other discussion raises broader policy considerations, then it is appropriate to post a neutrally-worded notice elsewhere encouraging people to participate. The original posting here is definitely not neutrally-worded and, if anything, discourages participation in the RFC. That seems to me like a clear-cut violation of our forum-shopping policy and should therefore be discouraged. If you feel that the RFC seeks to override existing policy, then you should make that argument in the RFC. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, Bovlb, you're wrong. This discussion here will need to continue based on the policy issues. Stop insisting otherwise (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Pointing out a flaw in my argument would be more likely to convince me than bald claims and autocratic commands. Bovlb (talk) 02:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The flaw is that the link being sought to be included at the RFC points to a site engaged in illegal activities (certainly under Florida law, which is where Wikipedia's servers are located). The fact that it would even be discussed as a potentially includeable link boggles the mind. The only need that I can see for an RfC would be to consider a policy that all links to sites hidden behind proxies should be excluded. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. If you believe that Wikipedia has a policy against either of those things that a link to this site would violate then you should make that argument in the RFC, citing the specific policy and explaining why you think it applies. If your argument is compelling, it will likely determine the outcome of the RFC. Alternatively, if you feel that these should be policy, then you should propose that change in the appropriate place and, if enacted, it will trump any local RFC. Either way, there is no need for a parallel discussion here. We should be trying to encourage the community to resolve content issues through policy-based discussion, not trying to chill the discussion with supervotes. Bovlb (talk) 14:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm staying out of that page and discussion from now on. You worry about 'supervotes', but that is not chilling. I know chilling and have been subject to it. Lastly, I did not forum shop and if I had notified the editors involved in the previous RFC that would be WP:CANVAS. This topic was raised because of local attempts to override a previous discussion and circumvent the blacklist. I don't need to defend myself further because those attempts are acceptable concerns to be raised at ANI, given ANI dealt with this page twice before. The RFC suffers from bad scope and procedural issues, this issue at ANI is policy related and policy alone. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri: I wasn't trying to pick on you in particular, and I apologise if my remarks made it seem that way. A lot of people have concerns about a discussion they see in one place, and voice those concerns in another place. Unfortunately, if this is done in the wrong way it can split discussion, cause confusion, and make it harder for the original discussion to proceed to a conclusion. This is why we have a policy against forum shopping. Because you were concerned about this RFC, you did the right thing in raising awareness of it, but this thread should not have been allowed to turn into a rehashing of the very same issues that the RFC was started to resolve. That's why we usually respond to such threads with "Discuss it there, not here." Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 06:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I've already contacted the Foundation and waiting for their input. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:03, 20 April 2013 (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:Aichik

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.

---

Myself, and several other users, have been having issues with Aichik (talk · contribs) since (around) February. I'm not completely involved in this, but I have overseen many of the instances and I was asked by Jivesh boodhun (talk · contribs) to help in filing a case (as he is not familiar), so he would be the one to explain in detail. To reference, a summary of events written by Jivesh last month can be viewed here and here. The latest problem took place on Madonna (entertainer). Aichik has an extreme issue with incivility and personal attacks. It has come to the point where it has become too much; except, for me, that was months and months ago, at him calling Jivesh a misogynist. Another discussion to see would be this GAR page, which he actually removed some of my words such as "Oh my god", "goddamn" and "hell" as personal attacks. I will be notifying all users involved in disputes with Aichik to comment here, as I can not speak for them myself.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Status. It seems that Aichik always narrowly escapes after directing personal attacks. Committing a mistake is not the problem but repeating the same mistake is. I avoided replying to him for a certain period of time but till how long can we ignore him? How about warning the one who "poisons the atmosphere and disinclines collegiality" and stop "let(ting) the petty insults pass by without acknowledging them?" After all, we are all human beings. How far are we expected to be noble? And he is not among those who can change (in my opinion). How can you not see your own mistakes and instead ask (not once but twice already for me to be blocked? [139] [140] Jivesh1205 (Talk) 03:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment from somewhat involved Binksternet. Note that Aichik has recently been warned by Kww as the result of a February 24 discussion at AN: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive245#Personal attacks from Aichik (talk · contribs). There, The Bushranger said that if there was another instance of something as bad as the "misogynist" attack, then Aichik would be blocked very quickly. I am not seeing a more recent attack which is as bad as that, but I am seeing some attacks that are less severe, more like insulting, belittling attitude. A sampling: "Wow, IndianBio continuing in his arrogant tone without actually helping matters"[141]. "You're acting like a cantankerous husband"[142]. Aichik said my reverting of news about a non-notable boyfriend of Madonna's was "a clear example of ageism"[143], which I assumed was a personal attack, though I did not bother to respond in kind. IndianBio threw that ageist comment back at Aichik several times, which I thought was a response based on emotions and frustration.
  I have looked at Aichik's recent work on Wikipedia and I think the editor is abrasive in personal style but correct in targeting the poor writing style in pop music articles that we have been promoting to GA. (For instance, the GA version of Beyoncé bio includes this grammar failure: "Knowles is one of the regarded sexually appealing artists in the industry.") Thus, I would caution Aichik to work more smoothly with other editors, to refrain from browbeating them or talking down to them. I would encourage Aichik to continue the cleanup of pop music articles, but to please treat other editors with respect. Binksternet (talk) 04:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Wow, I actually completely forgot about the other AN. Thanks for pointing that out. It appears I don't have a very good memory...  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Only saying something as bad as "misogynist" should not be the big issue. I would also like to pint out that Aichik frequently write words "less severe, more like insulting, belittling attitude" and the frequency should also count. It is not necessary to drink poison at once; you can also consume it little by little but the outcome remains the same - death. That's the best way I can explain my views. Aichik may not use words as bad or worse than "misogynist" but he continuously misbehaves. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm kinda baffled as to what exactly is Aichik's problem that he/she cannot check these back-handed comments about every edit the person makes? As Binksternet pointed out, the editor is good in pointing out the problems occurring in the music related articles, but adds an extra unnecessary personal attack along with it. And seriously this needs to stop because it undermines the discussion to take place, aggravating other editors (including me, Jivesh etc) and leads to a mess. If you cannot edit in good faith and keeping a neutral tone, then no-one would be interested right? I hope he/she sees the err of their ways, else I believe administrative action should be taken. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• My finger constantly hovers over the block button when I review Aichik's edits, but he never quite crosses the threshold in my eyes. I will have no objection to any other admin blocking him.—Kww(talk) 06:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• There's one more belittling word Aichik used on Jennie--x's talk page: "darling", employed not lovingly but condescendingly. Binksternet (talk) 06:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• From the accused. First off, Binsternet, that word to Jennie is taken out of context. Jennie and I have been posting notes to each other back and forth for some time on various topics around the Beyoncé's article, and she attempted to end the conversation (though not with even close to the tone that Status, Jivesh and IndianBio employ when they try) by deleting my referenced edit, calling it based on a "minority point of view". So I wrote back without touching her edit, "That can be used to take out most of Wikipedia's content, darling. Don't use it as a hammer to drive your own preferences" out of frustration.

Now, for everything else, I've been warned on every one of these instances mentioned above, some several times in ways other editors could venture to call overkill. For Status, Jivesh, and IndianBio to not admit to their own indiscretions, their own building up of the poison, is completely intellectually dishonest but somewhat expected, given the way I've been treated by all three. (Oh, wait, Kwww included here too for not employing his criticality to anyone else involved and showing up randomly threatening to block me, "My finger constantly hovers over the block button" being his go-to expression.) It is a complete lie on Jivesh's part to write has been ignoring me, his commenting "I avoided replying to him for a certain period of time but till how long can we ignore him?" is completely laughable. See this this this and this. He's made it a habit to stalk and goad editors who don't agree with him since I got him warned by [Kwww here], or since perhaps I first touched his fault-ridden Beyoncé contributions.

• I'm not so convinced that "darling" was delivered in any but a condescending tone, intended to insult the target, to diminish her contribution. Binksternet (talk) 05:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• Did you even bother to read what I just wrote, Binksternet? Not one word is in there about it being NOT condescending. That's not the point. Like you generously did with above with IndianBio's weird, over-the-top retaliation against my "personal insult" "directed at" you, I put what you take out back into its context. It's really digging, Binsternet since here it's from a thread that you didn't participate one iota in: Beyoncé not Madonna. Jivesh himself would [cut you down for mixing the two].--Aichik (talk) 12:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment, completely uninvolved I do not find a diff posted here that would should Aichik breaking WP:NPA. A bit heated language at times, definitely, though that seems to go for those who disagree with him as well. If there are diffs with clear violations, please post them. Otherwise I would agree with Kww that Aichik (and others) would do well to think about WP:CIVIL, but I see nothing that would warrant a block.Jeppiz (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• How would you define a personal attack? [144] [145] [146] [147] [148]

And I don't appreciate him asking for me to be blocked. [149] [150]

And according to him, I I have lowered Wikipedia's quality across the board. I NEVER asked for recognition for my work but what the hell is this? My work is now being questioned in such an unpleasant way? Telling other users that I have lowered Wikipedia's quality across the board? There is a limit to all nonsense. Such remarks hurt a lot. According to him, there are far too many Beyonce articles on Wikipedia and he does not like it because Jennifer Lopez and Diana Ross don't have? Pathetic!!! He even masked the information he removes through his edit summaries. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Jivesh, I've had a quick look at the diffs. Quite frankly, you seem to be at least as guilty of breaking WP:CIVIL. I would recommend both Aichik and you to seriously consider Wikipedia's guidelines.Jeppiz (talk) 12:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Jivesh calm down as Jeppiz says. Coming to Aichik, reviewing each and every of your edits and summaries and even each and every one of your comments in this as well as the previous ANI, I'm sorry to say, you have no understanding of civility policy and you are borderline making personal attacks to any user you interact with. As Kww said, you kinda are smart to remain within a tolerance level, but well again the question begets, how much is tolerable? I'm not saying he/she should be blocked or anything but this is a serious case of misbehavior that needs to be checked. Respect others and you would get equal respect Aichik. Learn to apologize for your behavior. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Aichik just hounded me on my talk page for filing this report.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 19:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, Status, like, I can't write on your wall like anyone else on Wikipedia can, whoa, step back. Maybe if I'd taken your threats and shouting more seriously, I would've been on there sooner, but really I prefer to edit than to argue with people who don't know how to communicate. IndianBio, you should be the first to cite civility policy when you went nutty on me when I mentioned ageism to Binkernet. You never asked for an apology then, and finally, here after a ton of drama, you've finally calm down make yourself look humble in front of a worldwide audience. The process shouldn't take this long. You've obviously worked without an apology from me so you can continue. Life goes on, let's see what other changes need to be made in these articles that the world relies on. I hope we can be civil, but if we can't it's no big deal to me, I don't know you and frankly, the 9th and the 10th times you harp on the same stuff about me you don't sell yourself well to me I'm afraid. --Aichik (talk) 00:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, you can't, as I previously already warned you to stay off my talk page. And even more so with such hostel behavior. I am not searching for an apology from anyone (I wouldn't expect one anyway); I was asked by Jivesh to file this ANI. We don't have a problem (that I'm aware of, at least), so I'm not sure why you are now bringing this on me. Please, show me my "threats"; I'm beyond curious. If you prefer to edit, I'm quite confused as to why every second edit you make is in dispute with somebody, and every fifth is a borderline attack. Again, this is about your behaviour; I, for one, know how to communicate with people, just not people who lack the will to. Why we're here today. Not just with one person now, but several.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 02:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

High hilarity, Status. When did you ever "warn me off your page"? That was the first time I deigned to visit it. Do you have some special "status", Status: You can't even distinguish "hostile" from "hostel"! And don't hide behind your "I was asked by Jivesh to do this" crap. He's been on here apparently "for years" but you are the sad one to be siding with someone who however charming in certain ways, however robotically consistent he is at posting cupcakes and barnstars for edits he likes, takes edits he doesn't like to "his" articles personally and can't even post their own ANI. But you do so because you and Jivesh's friendship on Wikipedia is so special, so anyone "whose edits you don't completely understand (read yr own "Keep and speedy close reassessment" section) you are absolutely convinced is in the wrong. Here are your threats (Go to "None of this seems relevant to the GAR" section). Lastly, you exaggerate on my attack-v.-edit ratio, but you wouldn't know that because copyediting outside of articles about ginormous pop stars is not among your interests.--Aichik (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok enough! Stop this tone and stop these personal attacks! You are a borderline insulting a person! Administrators please take a note of this behavior. I would support a block for such atrocious behavior and downright personal attack in a thread where the user's own behavior is being discussed. Aichik, I do not think Wikipedia is a place for you if you cannot be civil at all. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Calm down, IndianBio. This is for Status: I took the time to talk to you, that is done, obviously this person needs to be addressed as well. Like I say, over and over, look in the mirror for controlling borderline-insulting behavior. Like Madonna, says, Papa Don't Preach.--Aichik (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Aichik, why does it "bother" you that I awarded a barnstar to someone? It is the custom to reward Wikipedia contributors for hard work and due diligence by awarding them a barnstar. You even stalk our respective talk-page? Hmmm. And in addition to a rabid fan and a misogynist, I am now a robot? No comments. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• The latest. This is what Aichik wrote referring to this image. How far are his comments tolerable? Is this a way to ask something? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • No personal attack there. Binksternet (talk) 05:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I know but this is not a way to communicate. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Another example of the tone that Aichik uses while communicating, and it is pretty clear who the "cheap users" are being referred tp, and the following description regarding an image is question is surely to aggravate others. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• And removed a WP:NPA related warning I left for the above attack at User:Status, with an equally condescending tone. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)!
• And this as well. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the ones I edited out while writing really count, Jivesh. Another point for you, NOT.--Aichik (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

You still don't have any clue as to the tone that you are speaking with users here and no clue about civility at all. And you think that everything you wrote to User:Status falls within that criteria and level right? Very well. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 03:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• I don't have the time or patience to reply to his attacks directed at me any longer; I'm not gonna even bother reading what he said above because the comments underneath it say enough. I did take a look at the diff, however, and your response to its removal; just because you remove (yet another) personal attack, doesn't mean that you never said it. I think your disruptive behaviour speaks for itself and I am quite excited to see you self destruct. Any day now, I gather. In addition, you may not have seen my first warning to stay off my talk page, but it seems like you acknowledged the second and yet, you left a note on my talk, yet again (to let me know about another personal attack you made, yikes).  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:12, 19 April 2013 (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.

TheRealCABLEGuy

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

---

Resolved

 – Blocked for 6 months by Kww.—Kww(talk) 23:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

For the purpose of full disclosure without requiring editors to go through every single link for date checks, these examples have all happened since the start of 2013.

This user, for longer than I can remember, has been unwilling to participate in discussion regarding their incivility and has been offensive towards other editors in edit summaries (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 "Assplug", 18 "Dumbfuck").

The user also frequently removes sections they don't agree with, even if they are sourced (particularly with the PTC: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11).

The user is unwilling for discussion and frequently blanks their talk page in response. Additionally, they will often edit endlessly to prove their viewpoint, regardless if it is correct or incorrect. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6).

Since I and other editors have been unsuccessful in getting a message across, maybe it's time for an administrator to become involved. --GSK ● ✉ ✓ 22:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Seems like obvious personal attacks and POV editing. I'd like to see what he has to say, but I could support administrative action. —Rutebega (talk) 23:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Note that the editor has been blocked seven times before, for up to 1 month, for edit warring, incivility and vandalism. Black Kite (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

People say that I overuse indefinite blocks, so he's only blocked for 6 months.—Kww(talk) 23:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you don't want people to object about indefinite blocks, you could always block for something like 10 years :-) Nyttend (talk) 00:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Like GSK ● ✉ ✓ 00:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Go with what the railroads did when leasing a competitor instead of buying them, to avoid regulatory oversight--make it for 999 years! rdfox 76 (talk) 00:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this was a good block. TRCG is a good editor, especially for WP:TVS, but their 'my style or (expletive)' pushing of their views over any collaboration or talk page use, along with removal of good information for not meeting their article style, is very ugly and after a run in with them last year I avoided them when I could. Nate • (chatter) 12:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• I wish I had seen this thread a few days ago. I got a soft spot for him--but I don't see how this could have ended any other way. Over the years I've tried to work with him, and I've blocked him a few times as well. I checked in once or twice, and I thought that they were going to be OK. Well, not so much. Anyway, there's Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheREALCableGuy/Archive to keep in mind; no socks were ever found and there was never a convincing case for CU made, but it is likely that Cable Guy will be back as an IP editor. We'll see. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

And now there's more...just checking their talk page and found there were two orphaned image notices involving WJZY and XHDTV-TV logos...which then happened to be taken care of by IP editor 108.94.64.165 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), along with contribs to The Cleveland Show and G4 by the IP also, where TRCG has been in edit wars in the past. I don't want to say this is a WP:DUCK, but from a past incident where they had a block and used an IP to evade it and got a few more weeks added on to it, my suspicions are high. GSK and Kww have been notified. Nate • (chatter) 01:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Another one, {75.181.133.127 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) sprung out of the drawer after 108.94 was blocked by Kww to try to keep their images. Nate • (chatter) 02:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Report now listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheREALCableGuy, mainly more for record-keeping as Kww and Drmies have issued a 72h on 108.94, and a week on 75.181. Thanks for the help. Nate • (chatter) 04:18, 19 April 2013 (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.

Peculiar userspace edits by multiple related users: now spotted as vandalism/fantasy sockpuppet farm

A number of related accounts seem to be creating fake articles in userspace, casting themselves as actors in movies. See User:Alfred Cook, User:Aaron Lee Harker, and User:Sherlock Holmes: Returns. They (or more likely, the one person behind them) seem intent purely on using Wikipedia as a game, without any attempt to make useful edits. I'm not sure whether the activity extends beyond just these three accounts, but it's worth keeping an eye on. -- The Anome (talk) 07:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

As I suspected, there's more: User:The Little Avengers seems to be another one. All this feels somewhat reminiscent of Bambifan101 and other similar editors. -- The Anome (talk) 07:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I think WP:MFD would be a good place for those to be sent. - SudoGhost 07:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the userpage for User:The Little Avengers, I get the feeling they're only just getting started, and intend to make many more of these pages. -- The Anome (talk) 07:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

They also seem to be 217.44.202.115 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and User:The Superman (2013 film). And they now also seem to be injecting nonsense into article space: see this diff, and this. -- The Anome (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Yep. see this diff. They're another vandal intent on creating their own fictional universe, and writing themselves into reality. I think there's a lot of spadework to be done to fix this and make them stop. -- The Anome (talk) 07:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

And they're also User:The mighty Spiderman (film). Also User:One-way 2013 band: more of the same, but music, rather than movies. -- The Anome (talk) 07:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, got it. This appears to be User:The Deadly TV series, a known sockmaster. -- The Anome (talk) 07:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Checkuser says  Confirmed to all of these - Alison ^❤ 07:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Are there any more that need to be tracked down? I get the feeling I've only got the tip of the iceberg here. -- The Anome (talk) 07:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I sent this user page to MFD yesterday as a fake article, any connection? Darkness Shines (talk) 08:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Duck test says yes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Were there any edits to articles or other users' pages from that account, or edits by other users to the user page, or were there links between that and the other user pages? If not, then there's no evidence of a connection; User:The Deadly TV series isn't the only person to use Wikipedia as a hosting service for fake articles. Peter James (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a child, or probably a couple of children, aged 7 (!). The same pair of names crop up repeatedly, and there are full names and birth dates plus the names of hospitals where born (why do child autobiographers always give that?). If the nuisance continues, it should be possible to track down the parents and ask them to stop it. JohnCD (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Boston Marathon

Possible BLP/suspect photo issues at Boston Marathon bombings

The FBI released photos of the possible suspects from area surveillence cameras but haven't named the two people - only that that they are suspects.

There is a debate at the article if this are BLP violations (I strongly agree its an issue among other issues with the images); while there is an RFC going on to decide that, editors are trying to include the photos, despite the default action for questionable BLP to leave it out. This has been going back and forth and we may need admin eyes on the article. --MASEM (t) 03:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

There are so many eyes on this article that I don't think we have to worry about BLP for now.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Masem beat me to it here. Situation is an ongoing happening. One user dead-set on inserting it has reached 3R and has been warned. Masem is at 3R (R for removal, in this case), and I've placed the formal note on their talk page. (IMO, Masem can fall back on the BLP; the other side cannot.) Another admin is at 2R as we speak. The person who uploaded the photo is at 2R--I think, I could be wrong. Anyway, there is no consensus to include which means that by default we should not include. We have some options here. a. Continue to edit war, and block a couple of editors. b. Protect fully, and piss everyone off (well, not me). c. Let common sense prevail, which should dictate "no inclusion unless the RfC's outcome is to include"--but that may be too much to ask for. Please note that there is an RfC going on still. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • As well as at BLP/N. --MASEM (t) 03:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • A 3RR notice was placed on my talk page by Drmies. 1st, Admin Dennis Brown said yesterday that 3RR does not apply on this page after I asked about multiple violations of the 3RR rule. Second it seems Drmies is upset because I reverted his edits removing the word Suspects as he boldly said the FBI never said Suspect (despite massive evidence to the contrary). Third, I am shocked that an Admin would show such poor judgement as to post some of the things Drmies has posted against me and others on the talk page. I'm just trying to make a better article but a few people prefer to pick and choose which policies they want to enforce and to protect the privacy of terrorists the whole world is searching for. I think I'll go something more productive with my time than watch this BS Legacypac (talk) 04:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    • That sounds like a great idea. More detail and diffs on the "suspect" thing on Legacypac's talk page; the shorthand version is "reference did not contain the word"--simple as that. Drmies (talk) 04:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
      • WOW Drmies - still sticking to your position eh? You lost to other editors on the Chinese vics name and lost to other editors on Suspects, and you still want to tear me down? Go read your own talk page to see that others called you out for edit warring. Perhaps Drmies should not be an Admin anymore. How do we arrange that? I'm disgusted Legacypac (talk) 05:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
        • We don't yoink mops for being involved in editing disputes - what abuse of the admin tools has Drmies committed? - - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Legacypac, that you apparently see it in terms of winning and losing saddens me. The issue here was never about what should ultimately be included in the article, but about the sources we needed. Wikipedia is not a tabloid journalism mouthpiece, and we do not include information until it is reliably sourced. It is correct to omit claims before they are reliably sourced, and correct to include them once they are - can you really not understand that? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite involved, but I'll throw one comment in here. Drmies and I disagree on this particular content issue, but it was brought here, and to my knowledge Drmies hasn't used admin tools (outside of blocking a troll or two) on the article, which I think is the pinnacle of restraint and good admin judgment. The BLP/consensus issue is the subject of an RfC that's contentious. That can't be solved any better here than it can at RfC. If there is egregious edit warring though someone uninvolved should handle it. Shadowjams (talk) 07:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I 100% do not see this as winning or losing - but I pointed out that Drmies lost 2 edit wars he participated in yet he continues to absurdly claim well referenced facts are not well documented and attack me across multiple discussion pages. I have not and do accuse him of misusing Admin tools. This is about a better article (and that will come in time, so no need to die on that hill) but more importantly a good productive process for all editors where everyone feels welcome and not attacked. Legacypac (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Once again you're talking "winning and losing" - stop. That WP:BATTLE mentality is not appreciated. I'm also not sure where BLP does not apply to the page. BLP always applies, and edit-warring to remove unsourced and/or inappropriate BLP violations is ALWAYS permitted. Edit-warring to re-insert them is not permitted (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

There's plenty of battleground blame on all sides... this is one of the ugliest talk pages I've seen in a while; that said, Legacypac.... you're just digging yourself a deeper hole. Shadowjams (talk) 09:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

And now there's a completely undiscussed full page protection based on about 3-4 edits. Can somebody who's not invested in this page please come weigh in, because this is getting absurd. Shadowjams (talk) 09:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

So it's not about winning or losing, but the other guy lost? Can you actually hear yourself here? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Uninvolved non-admin here: Legacypac, you say you don't care about winning or losing, yet everything you said here suggests that you indeed do. Drmies should be commended for acting completely within Wiki guidelines (both in regular editor terms, and as a sysop), and his explanation makes sense, with Legacypac clearly failing WP:IDHT. FPP makes sense due to the massive edit warring that's going on. That talk page has several instances of Legacypac attacking Drmies - a block is needed. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I disagree with Drmies and Masem on the topic of the inclusion of the photographs (which has been mooted now), however I fully support any edit or admin action, whether IAR needs to be invoked or not, done in the interest of BLP compliance. The problem with the arguments from 'other side' is the usual - they believe that they are discussing the issue by pushing it. Edit warring is not the way to reach consensus. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Update - requesting downgrading to semi 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.

---

AFter the mess last night in Boston, the FBI has officially released names of the suspects including the one they are manhunting for (as they were tied to the MIT/Watertown incidents). I believe that with their names and the incidents last night, any issue about BLP and including the photos of the men are resolved, and thus don't expect edit warring to be occurring over that. There's also a lot of clamor on the talk page to fix other things/add more details to the article as the story develops, so could an admin review and consider downgrading to semi-prot? --MASEM (t) 14:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• This could be a test case for pending changes level 2. --B (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I have reduced the protection status to semi-protected, per the discussion that went on when the page was fully protected - since the names have been released, the original reason for the full protection is no longer in effect. Duration of the semi-protect is currently 24 hours from now. Using pending changes sounds reasonable to me. Nandesuka (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I concur, though that might just be maslow's hammer talking. —Rutebega (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• I haven't read everything because my wonderful wife just threw two huge steaks on the grill, and I'm admittedly sidetracked, however, I would appreciate that in the future, if someone makes a claim about what I said, that I be notified of the discussion. I didn't say 3RR wasn't in force, I said that on hot topic articles, I tend to be more lenient when someone is obviously trying to enforce clear consensus on the talk page, or otherwise reverting BLP violations. I believe I said that other admin may feel differently, but that is how I operate, and will continue to do so. If you are going to paraphrase me, don't, and link the diff instead, or at least cut and paste the actual statement, please. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:08, 20 April 2013 (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.

Would somebody get a grip of the policy-violating admins and arbs a the Boston Marthon bombings 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.

---

As Bwilkins pointed out "For those who understand full-protection such as this, you'll already know that admins should only now edit it to a) remove policy-violating text/images" or b) implement changes that have been arrived at via WP:CONSENSUS discussions on this talkpage". 80.174.78.102 (talk) 12:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I guess not. We now have 19 infractions, and rising. Three new since I posted this request over an hour ago. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Care to actually provide evidence of bad edits? I've looked at it, as a non-admin, I see almost all edits are copyedits, or minor tweaks. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

For reference, Boston Marathon bombings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(EC) Most of what I see in the article history (at least the last few edits) seems to be coming from the talk page. Do you have a specific edit that concerns you? I'm inclined to revert on general principle, except that A) the edits seem beneficial, b) the edits seem non-controversial (gnoming ref formatting and the like), and c) I'm not gonna edit war on a full-protected high-visibility page. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Ultraexactzz and Lukeno94, the last 50 edits show formatting and copyedits, I can't see where any major changes have taken place since it was fully protected.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's exactly the problem, isn't it? According to the proection policy, Administrators can make changes to the protected article reflecting consensus; that's not happening in this case, bar one edit that was an edit protection request. I don't have a particular problem with any of the edits, but I am concerned that a number of experienced admins are making copy editing and reference edits that have not been discussed on the talk page. Admins should only be editing through the protection to fix blantant BLP violations. GedUK  14:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The protection policy says fully protected pages "should not be edited except to make changes which are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus". Minor edits, which have been characterized here as "formatting and copyedits", certainly fall within the exception for uncontroversial edits. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Edgar is quite correct. Also: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it" (emphasis changed from the original). Let's not get too caught up in the bureaucracy here. The article was (perhaps overeagerly) fully protected to guard against BLP violations. That doesn't mean we have to leave the article to stagnate while we write every sentence by committee. NW (Talk) 14:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)X2...I can see your point GedUK. I would argue that those type of edits already have a wikipedia community consensus when it comes to formatting articles for readability and correcting references, provided specific objections aren't raised. A general objection to the act without a specific statement on how the edit moves against the community consensus of proper actions by an editor seems a little legalistic to me.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I apologize but I am going to let me contempt for our Admin vs. editor culture to slip out for a moment. We may as well close this discussion. Policies rarely apply to admins here and when they do even baltant violated are swept under the rug or justified in some way that woudl dignify the action being taken. because of course an admin is trusted and would never do anything to violate policy. Nothing can be done about admin violations anyway without goign to Arbcom. The only way to do anything about an admin infraction would be to do a full blown Arbitration process and those are long, time consuming and usually non effectual in any kind of positive way (unless you are trying to ban someone from the project). There is nothing useful that is likley to come out of this discussion and certainly no admin is going to stop another admin from doing anything so its just counter productive. Kumioko (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

An arbcom case wouldn't get far—one of the chief culprits is an arbitrator. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 14:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Kumioko, you might want to give "reviewing the complaint on its merits" a shot. Assuming that a concern about admin conduct is valid just because OMFG ADMINS is precisely the same error in logic as the one you complain about (assuming that admins are not in error because they are ADMINS). UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2...again...I agree that this discussion should be closed, but not because of a specific contempt against the powers that be, but because no one can identify a single edit which is objectionable except for a legalistic transcendental application of the rules. I think the entire reason for the community and this rule in particular is to prevent a legalistic transcendental application. We are all here to improve the encyclopedia, and every rule is maintained for that purpose. Can you identify an edit made by an administrator that was contra to improving the encyclopedia?Coffeepusher (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

And naturally enough, the arb plays the golden get out jail card:IAR. Look at the quote from Bwilkins in the first post, above. That was added to the Full Protection section of the talk page shortly after the page was protected. That explains how the policy is always interpreted, unless of course you're an arb or admin, and just don't fancy adhering to the policy today. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 14:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Which edit was the problematic one? I'll revert right now if you can show me an edit that violates policy. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)actually it isn't about "don't fancy adhering to the policy" we are here to improve the encyclopedia FIRST, we establish policies to assist in that regard. IAR isn't a golden ticket, and it is easy to counter IF someone is disrupting the project, all you have to do is give us one single difference where someone wasn't improving the encyclopedia? Coffeepusher (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Administrator-in-dreams comment: All the rules apply to everyone. Where are the examples of rules being broken by administrators?--Launchballer 14:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• (ec) The article has now been put back to semi. One of the admins who made an edit through full protection has previously edit warred on the article including edit summaries like this. The point is not whether admins should be tidying up, but that they should not be editing at all unless it is a serious issue (BLP) or there is consensus. IAR should not apply when an admin can lock an article, and others then edit it like this.Martin451 (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• Look at Bwilkins (administrator) explanation of the rules in the first post in this section. Then look at all of the edits made while the page was protected. Any edit which doesn't adhere to Bwilkins definition is outside of policy. That is all of them except 2. Of course, you'll get a completely different interpretation of the policy now that it has been so blatantly disregarded by several admins and an arb. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 15:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)x4 As this is a highly charged article, how about an alternative view of IAR to ignore IAR and request that arbs and admins not do any sort edits? This article has been to ANI twice in less than 2 days. In the interest of reducing drama (reducing drama on ANI? shocking I know), maybe the admin corps could consider this. Blackmane (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• I really, really don't see what the hissyfit is about (and I'm not a sysop!) - 99% of the edits during FP were copyedits, restructuring, minor tweaks, or anything that wasn't controversial. No content was really added or removed. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• There's a lot of wrong with the editing/talk page on this article in the last 72 hours; this full protection (and the subsequent editing through it) is the most recent. To dismiss these concerns as a "hissyfit" is at best naive. Shadowjams (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• I'm inclined to agree with blackmane here. The article is obviously controversial and thus every edit apart from ones that fix clear grammatical errors can be considered controversial as even slight unnecessary/nonvital word changes can alter the entire meaning of sentences and lead to disputed idea being suggested in the article, which all leads to the us vs them mentality as suggested somewhere before. It's best to just remove blatant violations and leave as it is. Why poke the tiger? YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 16:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• The problem I have isn't that the admins made the edits. But that they violated policy by doing so and then casualy dismissed the notion of abuse by throwing IAR in our face. Its another example of choosing when to follow policy when it suits them but then enforcing it only when it suits them. Either the policy's apply or they don't. IAR doesn't really apply here because only admins could edit the article. If IAR applied there would be no need for protecting it in the first place. Admin abuse is rampant but the desire to stop it is dismissed by those same admins by trying to portray those of us trying to stop it as a bunch of untrustworthy morons because once an admin is trusted that trust is for life. Its the Fraternity if Wikipedia. Kumioko (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Admin abuse is rampant". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Well the reason really, really is obvious. And it really, really wasn't a hissyfit. The definition supplied by Bwilkins is the one always used (unless you're an arb or admin fancying a bit of editing). Everyone believes that their own edits are uncontroversial. If you say that admins can edit protected articles as long as they make only uncontroversial edits, then you are giving all admins the go ahead to edit all protected articles at all times. And even if the edits truly are uncontroversial, the article is still being written and shaped by a tiny minority of editors, and that is not what WP is about. Finally, if you let admins edit through protection there is no incentive for them to remove the protection, quite the reverse. None of this is new. It's all well known to the offending admins and arb. They simply chose to ignore it. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Adding that you'll note how few admins have participated in this thread. It was untouched for an hour. Compare that to kind of pile-on you usually see here when the misdeeds of non-admins are under discussion. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm strongly on the side of not touched fully-protected articles. No typo is so severe that it cannot wait until the full-protection is over. Of all the capabilities being an admin gives me, editing fully-protected articles is the one I use the least, as it is the only one that actually can lead to the "two-tier" system that so many editors complain about. If it's fully protected, it shouldn't be edited without talk page consensus. If a piece of phrasing bugs an admin enough that he wants to fix it, he should start a talk page discussion and get consensus that the wording tweak is necessary, not just go ahead and do it.—Kww(talk) 17:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• I think that the norm for admins editing a locked article is to make non-controversial edits requested by others, not to to just act as a privileged editor who can make non-controversial edits on their own initiative while mere editors can't. So the "were they bad edits?" question is not relevant. North8000 (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• I disagree, but please note that I do respect what others on this thread have said and that I understand that this is just one opinion. The reason I disagree is that threads are locked are not because of formatting changes and reference corrections, they are locked due to edit wars or, in this case, because a recent event has caused such a frenzy of activity that no one can judge one edit from the next because there isn't any real clarity on what actually happened in the reliable sources. I think that the mission of wikipedia is such that we should strive to support edits which correct bad references and improve the readability of articles, and this should occur regardless of an articles protection status. The only reason people are upset is because admins broke the letter of the law, but because no one can point to a controversial edit within that period of time I think we can establish a consensus for those edits due to the silence of the opposition.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that there is consensus through silence. Frankly I find it pretty irritating and annoying (but not at all surprising) that when an admin breaks the rules not one wants to get involved and there's nothing but crickets from teh admins in the discussion but if this wasn't an admin breaking the rules I'll be damned if there weren't ten admins out here with sharpened pitchforks and freshly lit torches ready to ban them from the project. Only more proof of the Us and them mentality between admins and editors. Kumioko (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The consensus through silence is referencing the fact that no one has any problem with the content of any of the edits that were made. Which edits specifically hurt the encyclopedia? Which edits needed discussion because there was a difference of opinion? If no specifics are brought up then we have consensus on the content of those edits through the silence of the opposition. Now I don't buy the "us vs them" mentality, and personally think that is bordering on a battleground mentality. You jumped in this conversation highlighting your bias, and have used this thread as a soapbox on that point. But I don't think this is indicative of a larger problem that "admins aren't held to the same standards" but rather that there is a difference of opinion on what kind of edits can be done on a fully protected page, and quite frankly not everyone agrees that a violation was made. If it was such a clear violation then the admins would be held responsible, but it isn't clear.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I do agree with you completely that the substance of the edits aren't the problem but the intent is. Admins are supposed to operate with a high degree of trust but when they edit through protection like this it is a breach of the communities trust. Especially when the policy specifically states that these types of edits shouldn't be done without discussion. This thread was started because Admins were abusing the tools they had been given and since then the article has been reduced from full protection to semi protection largely in response to the problem that was identified. That action, at least in part, shows that there is a consensus that the actions performed were not in keeping with the trust the community has granted them. Now as for the comment about "admins aren't held to the same standards". That is absolutely 100% true. Admins are almost never demoted or reprimanded for violating policy and in fact in 99% of cases someone invokes some bullshit reasoning like IAR to protect them knowing that if it would have been done by a non admin they would have been burned at the stake. I'm sorry if my comments seemed like battlground mentality but its still the truth even if they are a bit abrasive and offenive and hurt some feelings. If the admins and arbs want to change the us and them persepctive then the ball is in their court. They are the only ones that have the power to do anything about it. The rest of us are just looked upon as a bunch of ignorant trailor trash that cannot be trusted. Kumioko (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I've been editing Scientology since 2006, and I can tell you that every single admin who once worked in that area has been either de-sysop-ed or topic banned. I've seen the same thing happen in most of the controversial sections of wikipedia. I think you are seeing what you want to see. What level of punishment should be dealt out, because for the vast majority of users no punishment is ever dealt out. most people get told not to do stuff and they stop, or they get blocked. in this case I personally invoked IAR because IAR applies equally to admins as it does to you or me, if no damage is being done to the encyclopedia we should ignore the rules and work toward our common goal.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• I think that both sides have valid points. On the one hand, on principle, admins shouldn't be editing locked pages at whim. OTOH, does it really matter if the edits are minor or non-contentious? But perhaps the real problem is that it creates a two-class system where some editors are allowed to make edits that others editors can't. For a project whose motto is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, is that really what we want? That some editors are more equal than others? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

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

BLP violations in history

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.

---

▪◦▪On a side note these edits here & here should be deleted from the page history as they are clearly wrong, the missing brown students were incorrectly identified as the Assailants. [151] ≡SiREX≡^Talk 14:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I moved this out of the scrum above. Unless someone objects, I've identified the four diffs with these names and will delete them shortly, unless someone beats me to it. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Check me to make sure I did not screw something up. I just got the four edits clustered at 08:49 UTC. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Just checked - looks good. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

thank you.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 15:18, 19 April 2013 (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.

Who's kidding who?

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 simple facts of the matter here are that almost everyone who has been editing the Boston bombings article with any regularity has probably violated several policies: with WP:3RR being the most obvious. Right from the start, WP:NOTNEWS went out of the window, and WP:OMGLETSPRETENDWEARECNNFOXTHEBBCANDPRAVDA took over. If we are going to carry on covering breaking news stories in this way (and nobody seems to have the means to prevent it), we need to accept that (a) rules need to be broken to ensure that such articles don't degenerate into a heap of trivia, conspiracy theories, and WP:OR based on something misread from Twitter, and (b) those breaking the rules will get it wrong sometime. This is the price we pay for ignoring our own explicit and stated purpose - to provide an encyclopaedia, rather than an outlet for breaking news. Under such circumstances, the only legitimate reason for holding anyone (admin or not) to account for any action would be that it wasn't done with the best interests of Wikipedia in mind. Unless someone can provide evidence to that effect, I suggest this discussion be closed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Andy, Wikipedia shouldn't pretend to be CNN or the NY Post — it needs to insist upon being better than them. Generally, "breaking news" coverage of matters of clearly historical importance is pretty good here. Rather than obsessing about the things that WP does well, time would be better spent on things that it does poorly. My opinion. Carrite (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC) Striking: I need to read more, blabber less... Carrite (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The only reason it showed up here is because the Marathon bombing article has had a peculiar tone on the talk page from the very beginning. To put it quickly, I've seen WP:NOTNEWS (traditionally understood as an article notability guideline) elevated to exalted status to exclude what is on the front page of every newspaper on at least three occasions while our reliable source and verifiability policies have taken a back seat. This is not some policy debate; our policies are fine. This is a question of a new unspoken but certainly implied policy that everything needs to be published for 6-12 hours before it can be added to the article, sometimes more. We've even had examples of "wait 24 hours" "consensus" by a small handful of editors inside of 1 hour worth of debate after the "waiting on" information was published on the front page of the NYT, Boston Globe, CNN, etc.

And don't be mistaken, I'm not new to current event articles, nor am I naive about how the news cycle works. This is not about some borderline question or publishing fringe sources. I've been right there to say no to all of those. This is about not publishing basic facts that are widespread and well known, not with some leading language, but with simple "this is what X reported" language.

I don't think if this pattern hadn't been so prevalent over the last 3-4 days nobody would have entertained an ANI discussion like this. The full protection, which was to enforce keeping out the names of the suspects despite their widespread publication, which was then violated by a few admins, even if only technically, is part of that pattern. Shadowjams (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is policy, not a guideline. It explicitly states that "breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information" - and given the multiple misreportings we've seen, caution rather than haste seems entirely appropriate. As for the issue of if and when suspects are named in such cases, if we stuck by policy and didn't pretend to be a 'breaking news' media source, the issue wouldn't arise, or at least, we could deal with such issues in a more considered manner. If we are to cover 'breaking news', we should amend policy accordingly to say so - and then make the appropriate revisions to the many other policies this would necessarily entail. Holding a few individuals responsible for what has been a monumental collective decision to pretend policy doesn't exist is simply untenable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I for one would support abolishment of ITN, were it proposed - that's what WikiNews is for. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

We're through the looking glass people! I think most rational people who have experience with Wikinews and ITN would support the immediate abolishment, disbanding, and shuttering of the joke site known as "Wikinews" and the merging and superseding of all of its failed features into ITN on Wikipedia. We can and do a far better job of everything they tried to do. Time to end the relationship, permanently. Viriditas (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that emotional times, like the present news cycle, are the worst possible to propose and debate big-ticket changes to longstanding Wikipedia news features. In any case, Ani is hardly the correct place to do so. Jusdafax 06:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed; just sayin', though. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Update the policy to reflect the accepted definition, as outlined by Bwilkins

I've made a request for the policy to be updated per the accepted and long-standing definition as outlined by Bwilkins 80.174.78.102 (talk) 08:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't recall defining anything - I think I described what would be standard practice, paraphrasing current policy while I did so. However, you're very much permitted to recommend changes (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Do you support the rewording? 80.174.78.102 (talk) 10:06, 20 April 2013 (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.

Boston Marathon Bombings and 2013

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 seems to be a consensus at Talk:2013#2013_Boston_Marathon_bombings to include the Boston Marathon Bombings article on the 2013 article. Certain editors, however, refuse to accept that saying the bombing is only a national event. This ought to be looked at. Hot Stop (Talk) 23:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, the fact that you use "editors" (plural) to describe the opposite point of view should make you realize that you don't have that consensus you are claiming.--McSly (talk) 23:34, 19 April 2013 (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.

BBB76: disruptive editing in articles about TV megafamilies

User:BBB76 has an interest in articles about reality television shows about mega-families. This user's edit-warring to exclude an English word that s/he doesn't understand; the user's apparent imperviousness to concerns of WP:MOS and WP:COPYVIO; and general issues of attitude (causing me to lose patience) lead me to bring their story to this page. I'm tired of engaging with this person over ridiculous trivia. Note: Their talk page is festooned with warnings, not all of which make a lot of sense to me.

Here is the behavior that I've found disruptive:

• At United Bates of America, the user is committed to warring to remove the sourced (and relatively anodyne) statement (which was in the article before they ever edited) that all 19 children in the family were singleton births. The user has objected to the word "singleton" (which was not previously in their vocabulary) and suggests that this point should not be in the article text because it should be "obvious" from studying the table listing the 19(!) birthdates. Diffs: [152], [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158], [159], [160]. (BTW, the fact of singleton births gets remarked upon since large families often include multiple births, and the other 19-kid family on reality TV includes two sets of twins.) Further, the user has attacked me on my talk page for using big words such as "singleton" and "prose": [161], [162], [163], [164].
• At 19 Kids and Counting, there has been a war over verb tense. WP:MOS section on TV shows calls for use of present tense, but this user insists on past tense and has warred to keep past tense. Here are this user's diffs: [165], [166], [167], [168], [169]
• At List of 19 Kids and Counting episodes, the user has insisted on repeatedly inserting episode descriptions that copy or closely paraphrase this source, meanwhile citing extremely unstable bare URLs as sources and deleting somewhat more stable citations: diff, [170], diff. --Orlady (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

These articles are admittedly pretty trivial (I got involved with United Bates of America only because the family lives in my local area), but they have huge page-view counts. Am I the only one who finds this user's behavior disruptive? --Orlady (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• I see plenty of disruption, a lack of manners, and some other things here, though none of them immediately blockable. I've seconded your copyvio note, and I think that further edit-warring should be met with a block--but it takes two to tango, and this constant back-and-forthing on UBA came from both sides. If they revert that "singleton" thing again, they should be blocked. Drmies (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for a sensible set of actions. With all the warnings the user received, I think s/he may have stopped taking user communications seriously. --Orlady (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Boston Marathon

Possible BLP/suspect photo issues at Boston Marathon bombings

The FBI released photos of the possible suspects from area surveillence cameras but haven't named the two people - only that that they are suspects.

There is a debate at the article if this are BLP violations (I strongly agree its an issue among other issues with the images); while there is an RFC going on to decide that, editors are trying to include the photos, despite the default action for questionable BLP to leave it out. This has been going back and forth and we may need admin eyes on the article. --MASEM (t) 03:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

There are so many eyes on this article that I don't think we have to worry about BLP for now.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Masem beat me to it here. Situation is an ongoing happening. One user dead-set on inserting it has reached 3R and has been warned. Masem is at 3R (R for removal, in this case), and I've placed the formal note on their talk page. (IMO, Masem can fall back on the BLP; the other side cannot.) Another admin is at 2R as we speak. The person who uploaded the photo is at 2R--I think, I could be wrong. Anyway, there is no consensus to include which means that by default we should not include. We have some options here. a. Continue to edit war, and block a couple of editors. b. Protect fully, and piss everyone off (well, not me). c. Let common sense prevail, which should dictate "no inclusion unless the RfC's outcome is to include"--but that may be too much to ask for. Please note that there is an RfC going on still. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • As well as at BLP/N. --MASEM (t) 03:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • A 3RR notice was placed on my talk page by Drmies. 1st, Admin Dennis Brown said yesterday that 3RR does not apply on this page after I asked about multiple violations of the 3RR rule. Second it seems Drmies is upset because I reverted his edits removing the word Suspects as he boldly said the FBI never said Suspect (despite massive evidence to the contrary). Third, I am shocked that an Admin would show such poor judgement as to post some of the things Drmies has posted against me and others on the talk page. I'm just trying to make a better article but a few people prefer to pick and choose which policies they want to enforce and to protect the privacy of terrorists the whole world is searching for. I think I'll go something more productive with my time than watch this BS Legacypac (talk) 04:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    • That sounds like a great idea. More detail and diffs on the "suspect" thing on Legacypac's talk page; the shorthand version is "reference did not contain the word"--simple as that. Drmies (talk) 04:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
      • WOW Drmies - still sticking to your position eh? You lost to other editors on the Chinese vics name and lost to other editors on Suspects, and you still want to tear me down? Go read your own talk page to see that others called you out for edit warring. Perhaps Drmies should not be an Admin anymore. How do we arrange that? I'm disgusted Legacypac (talk) 05:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
        • We don't yoink mops for being involved in editing disputes - what abuse of the admin tools has Drmies committed? - - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Legacypac, that you apparently see it in terms of winning and losing saddens me. The issue here was never about what should ultimately be included in the article, but about the sources we needed. Wikipedia is not a tabloid journalism mouthpiece, and we do not include information until it is reliably sourced. It is correct to omit claims before they are reliably sourced, and correct to include them once they are - can you really not understand that? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite involved, but I'll throw one comment in here. Drmies and I disagree on this particular content issue, but it was brought here, and to my knowledge Drmies hasn't used admin tools (outside of blocking a troll or two) on the article, which I think is the pinnacle of restraint and good admin judgment. The BLP/consensus issue is the subject of an RfC that's contentious. That can't be solved any better here than it can at RfC. If there is egregious edit warring though someone uninvolved should handle it. Shadowjams (talk) 07:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I 100% do not see this as winning or losing - but I pointed out that Drmies lost 2 edit wars he participated in yet he continues to absurdly claim well referenced facts are not well documented and attack me across multiple discussion pages. I have not and do accuse him of misusing Admin tools. This is about a better article (and that will come in time, so no need to die on that hill) but more importantly a good productive process for all editors where everyone feels welcome and not attacked. Legacypac (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Once again you're talking "winning and losing" - stop. That WP:BATTLE mentality is not appreciated. I'm also not sure where BLP does not apply to the page. BLP always applies, and edit-warring to remove unsourced and/or inappropriate BLP violations is ALWAYS permitted. Edit-warring to re-insert them is not permitted (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

There's plenty of battleground blame on all sides... this is one of the ugliest talk pages I've seen in a while; that said, Legacypac.... you're just digging yourself a deeper hole. Shadowjams (talk) 09:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

And now there's a completely undiscussed full page protection based on about 3-4 edits. Can somebody who's not invested in this page please come weigh in, because this is getting absurd. Shadowjams (talk) 09:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

So it's not about winning or losing, but the other guy lost? Can you actually hear yourself here? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Uninvolved non-admin here: Legacypac, you say you don't care about winning or losing, yet everything you said here suggests that you indeed do. Drmies should be commended for acting completely within Wiki guidelines (both in regular editor terms, and as a sysop), and his explanation makes sense, with Legacypac clearly failing WP:IDHT. FPP makes sense due to the massive edit warring that's going on. That talk page has several instances of Legacypac attacking Drmies - a block is needed. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I disagree with Drmies and Masem on the topic of the inclusion of the photographs (which has been mooted now), however I fully support any edit or admin action, whether IAR needs to be invoked or not, done in the interest of BLP compliance. The problem with the arguments from 'other side' is the usual - they believe that they are discussing the issue by pushing it. Edit warring is not the way to reach consensus. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Update - requesting downgrading to semi 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.

---

AFter the mess last night in Boston, the FBI has officially released names of the suspects including the one they are manhunting for (as they were tied to the MIT/Watertown incidents). I believe that with their names and the incidents last night, any issue about BLP and including the photos of the men are resolved, and thus don't expect edit warring to be occurring over that. There's also a lot of clamor on the talk page to fix other things/add more details to the article as the story develops, so could an admin review and consider downgrading to semi-prot? --MASEM (t) 14:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• This could be a test case for pending changes level 2. --B (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I have reduced the protection status to semi-protected, per the discussion that went on when the page was fully protected - since the names have been released, the original reason for the full protection is no longer in effect. Duration of the semi-protect is currently 24 hours from now. Using pending changes sounds reasonable to me. Nandesuka (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I concur, though that might just be maslow's hammer talking. —Rutebega (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• I haven't read everything because my wonderful wife just threw two huge steaks on the grill, and I'm admittedly sidetracked, however, I would appreciate that in the future, if someone makes a claim about what I said, that I be notified of the discussion. I didn't say 3RR wasn't in force, I said that on hot topic articles, I tend to be more lenient when someone is obviously trying to enforce clear consensus on the talk page, or otherwise reverting BLP violations. I believe I said that other admin may feel differently, but that is how I operate, and will continue to do so. If you are going to paraphrase me, don't, and link the diff instead, or at least cut and paste the actual statement, please. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:08, 20 April 2013 (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.

Would somebody get a grip of the policy-violating admins and arbs a the Boston Marthon bombings 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.

---

As Bwilkins pointed out "For those who understand full-protection such as this, you'll already know that admins should only now edit it to a) remove policy-violating text/images" or b) implement changes that have been arrived at via WP:CONSENSUS discussions on this talkpage". 80.174.78.102 (talk) 12:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I guess not. We now have 19 infractions, and rising. Three new since I posted this request over an hour ago. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Care to actually provide evidence of bad edits? I've looked at it, as a non-admin, I see almost all edits are copyedits, or minor tweaks. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

For reference, Boston Marathon bombings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(EC) Most of what I see in the article history (at least the last few edits) seems to be coming from the talk page. Do you have a specific edit that concerns you? I'm inclined to revert on general principle, except that A) the edits seem beneficial, b) the edits seem non-controversial (gnoming ref formatting and the like), and c) I'm not gonna edit war on a full-protected high-visibility page. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Ultraexactzz and Lukeno94, the last 50 edits show formatting and copyedits, I can't see where any major changes have taken place since it was fully protected.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's exactly the problem, isn't it? According to the proection policy, Administrators can make changes to the protected article reflecting consensus; that's not happening in this case, bar one edit that was an edit protection request. I don't have a particular problem with any of the edits, but I am concerned that a number of experienced admins are making copy editing and reference edits that have not been discussed on the talk page. Admins should only be editing through the protection to fix blantant BLP violations. GedUK  14:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The protection policy says fully protected pages "should not be edited except to make changes which are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus". Minor edits, which have been characterized here as "formatting and copyedits", certainly fall within the exception for uncontroversial edits. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Edgar is quite correct. Also: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it" (emphasis changed from the original). Let's not get too caught up in the bureaucracy here. The article was (perhaps overeagerly) fully protected to guard against BLP violations. That doesn't mean we have to leave the article to stagnate while we write every sentence by committee. NW (Talk) 14:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)X2...I can see your point GedUK. I would argue that those type of edits already have a wikipedia community consensus when it comes to formatting articles for readability and correcting references, provided specific objections aren't raised. A general objection to the act without a specific statement on how the edit moves against the community consensus of proper actions by an editor seems a little legalistic to me.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I apologize but I am going to let me contempt for our Admin vs. editor culture to slip out for a moment. We may as well close this discussion. Policies rarely apply to admins here and when they do even baltant violated are swept under the rug or justified in some way that woudl dignify the action being taken. because of course an admin is trusted and would never do anything to violate policy. Nothing can be done about admin violations anyway without goign to Arbcom. The only way to do anything about an admin infraction would be to do a full blown Arbitration process and those are long, time consuming and usually non effectual in any kind of positive way (unless you are trying to ban someone from the project). There is nothing useful that is likley to come out of this discussion and certainly no admin is going to stop another admin from doing anything so its just counter productive. Kumioko (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

An arbcom case wouldn't get far—one of the chief culprits is an arbitrator. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 14:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Kumioko, you might want to give "reviewing the complaint on its merits" a shot. Assuming that a concern about admin conduct is valid just because OMFG ADMINS is precisely the same error in logic as the one you complain about (assuming that admins are not in error because they are ADMINS). UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2...again...I agree that this discussion should be closed, but not because of a specific contempt against the powers that be, but because no one can identify a single edit which is objectionable except for a legalistic transcendental application of the rules. I think the entire reason for the community and this rule in particular is to prevent a legalistic transcendental application. We are all here to improve the encyclopedia, and every rule is maintained for that purpose. Can you identify an edit made by an administrator that was contra to improving the encyclopedia?Coffeepusher (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

And naturally enough, the arb plays the golden get out jail card:IAR. Look at the quote from Bwilkins in the first post, above. That was added to the Full Protection section of the talk page shortly after the page was protected. That explains how the policy is always interpreted, unless of course you're an arb or admin, and just don't fancy adhering to the policy today. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 14:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Which edit was the problematic one? I'll revert right now if you can show me an edit that violates policy. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)actually it isn't about "don't fancy adhering to the policy" we are here to improve the encyclopedia FIRST, we establish policies to assist in that regard. IAR isn't a golden ticket, and it is easy to counter IF someone is disrupting the project, all you have to do is give us one single difference where someone wasn't improving the encyclopedia? Coffeepusher (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Administrator-in-dreams comment: All the rules apply to everyone. Where are the examples of rules being broken by administrators?--Launchballer 14:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• (ec) The article has now been put back to semi. One of the admins who made an edit through full protection has previously edit warred on the article including edit summaries like this. The point is not whether admins should be tidying up, but that they should not be editing at all unless it is a serious issue (BLP) or there is consensus. IAR should not apply when an admin can lock an article, and others then edit it like this.Martin451 (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• Look at Bwilkins (administrator) explanation of the rules in the first post in this section. Then look at all of the edits made while the page was protected. Any edit which doesn't adhere to Bwilkins definition is outside of policy. That is all of them except 2. Of course, you'll get a completely different interpretation of the policy now that it has been so blatantly disregarded by several admins and an arb. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 15:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)x4 As this is a highly charged article, how about an alternative view of IAR to ignore IAR and request that arbs and admins not do any sort edits? This article has been to ANI twice in less than 2 days. In the interest of reducing drama (reducing drama on ANI? shocking I know), maybe the admin corps could consider this. Blackmane (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• I really, really don't see what the hissyfit is about (and I'm not a sysop!) - 99% of the edits during FP were copyedits, restructuring, minor tweaks, or anything that wasn't controversial. No content was really added or removed. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• There's a lot of wrong with the editing/talk page on this article in the last 72 hours; this full protection (and the subsequent editing through it) is the most recent. To dismiss these concerns as a "hissyfit" is at best naive. Shadowjams (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• I'm inclined to agree with blackmane here. The article is obviously controversial and thus every edit apart from ones that fix clear grammatical errors can be considered controversial as even slight unnecessary/nonvital word changes can alter the entire meaning of sentences and lead to disputed idea being suggested in the article, which all leads to the us vs them mentality as suggested somewhere before. It's best to just remove blatant violations and leave as it is. Why poke the tiger? YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 16:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• The problem I have isn't that the admins made the edits. But that they violated policy by doing so and then casualy dismissed the notion of abuse by throwing IAR in our face. Its another example of choosing when to follow policy when it suits them but then enforcing it only when it suits them. Either the policy's apply or they don't. IAR doesn't really apply here because only admins could edit the article. If IAR applied there would be no need for protecting it in the first place. Admin abuse is rampant but the desire to stop it is dismissed by those same admins by trying to portray those of us trying to stop it as a bunch of untrustworthy morons because once an admin is trusted that trust is for life. Its the Fraternity if Wikipedia. Kumioko (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Admin abuse is rampant". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Well the reason really, really is obvious. And it really, really wasn't a hissyfit. The definition supplied by Bwilkins is the one always used (unless you're an arb or admin fancying a bit of editing). Everyone believes that their own edits are uncontroversial. If you say that admins can edit protected articles as long as they make only uncontroversial edits, then you are giving all admins the go ahead to edit all protected articles at all times. And even if the edits truly are uncontroversial, the article is still being written and shaped by a tiny minority of editors, and that is not what WP is about. Finally, if you let admins edit through protection there is no incentive for them to remove the protection, quite the reverse. None of this is new. It's all well known to the offending admins and arb. They simply chose to ignore it. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Adding that you'll note how few admins have participated in this thread. It was untouched for an hour. Compare that to kind of pile-on you usually see here when the misdeeds of non-admins are under discussion. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm strongly on the side of not touched fully-protected articles. No typo is so severe that it cannot wait until the full-protection is over. Of all the capabilities being an admin gives me, editing fully-protected articles is the one I use the least, as it is the only one that actually can lead to the "two-tier" system that so many editors complain about. If it's fully protected, it shouldn't be edited without talk page consensus. If a piece of phrasing bugs an admin enough that he wants to fix it, he should start a talk page discussion and get consensus that the wording tweak is necessary, not just go ahead and do it.—Kww(talk) 17:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• I think that the norm for admins editing a locked article is to make non-controversial edits requested by others, not to to just act as a privileged editor who can make non-controversial edits on their own initiative while mere editors can't. So the "were they bad edits?" question is not relevant. North8000 (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• I disagree, but please note that I do respect what others on this thread have said and that I understand that this is just one opinion. The reason I disagree is that threads are locked are not because of formatting changes and reference corrections, they are locked due to edit wars or, in this case, because a recent event has caused such a frenzy of activity that no one can judge one edit from the next because there isn't any real clarity on what actually happened in the reliable sources. I think that the mission of wikipedia is such that we should strive to support edits which correct bad references and improve the readability of articles, and this should occur regardless of an articles protection status. The only reason people are upset is because admins broke the letter of the law, but because no one can point to a controversial edit within that period of time I think we can establish a consensus for those edits due to the silence of the opposition.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that there is consensus through silence. Frankly I find it pretty irritating and annoying (but not at all surprising) that when an admin breaks the rules not one wants to get involved and there's nothing but crickets from teh admins in the discussion but if this wasn't an admin breaking the rules I'll be damned if there weren't ten admins out here with sharpened pitchforks and freshly lit torches ready to ban them from the project. Only more proof of the Us and them mentality between admins and editors. Kumioko (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The consensus through silence is referencing the fact that no one has any problem with the content of any of the edits that were made. Which edits specifically hurt the encyclopedia? Which edits needed discussion because there was a difference of opinion? If no specifics are brought up then we have consensus on the content of those edits through the silence of the opposition. Now I don't buy the "us vs them" mentality, and personally think that is bordering on a battleground mentality. You jumped in this conversation highlighting your bias, and have used this thread as a soapbox on that point. But I don't think this is indicative of a larger problem that "admins aren't held to the same standards" but rather that there is a difference of opinion on what kind of edits can be done on a fully protected page, and quite frankly not everyone agrees that a violation was made. If it was such a clear violation then the admins would be held responsible, but it isn't clear.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I do agree with you completely that the substance of the edits aren't the problem but the intent is. Admins are supposed to operate with a high degree of trust but when they edit through protection like this it is a breach of the communities trust. Especially when the policy specifically states that these types of edits shouldn't be done without discussion. This thread was started because Admins were abusing the tools they had been given and since then the article has been reduced from full protection to semi protection largely in response to the problem that was identified. That action, at least in part, shows that there is a consensus that the actions performed were not in keeping with the trust the community has granted them. Now as for the comment about "admins aren't held to the same standards". That is absolutely 100% true. Admins are almost never demoted or reprimanded for violating policy and in fact in 99% of cases someone invokes some bullshit reasoning like IAR to protect them knowing that if it would have been done by a non admin they would have been burned at the stake. I'm sorry if my comments seemed like battlground mentality but its still the truth even if they are a bit abrasive and offenive and hurt some feelings. If the admins and arbs want to change the us and them persepctive then the ball is in their court. They are the only ones that have the power to do anything about it. The rest of us are just looked upon as a bunch of ignorant trailor trash that cannot be trusted. Kumioko (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I've been editing Scientology since 2006, and I can tell you that every single admin who once worked in that area has been either de-sysop-ed or topic banned. I've seen the same thing happen in most of the controversial sections of wikipedia. I think you are seeing what you want to see. What level of punishment should be dealt out, because for the vast majority of users no punishment is ever dealt out. most people get told not to do stuff and they stop, or they get blocked. in this case I personally invoked IAR because IAR applies equally to admins as it does to you or me, if no damage is being done to the encyclopedia we should ignore the rules and work toward our common goal.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• I think that both sides have valid points. On the one hand, on principle, admins shouldn't be editing locked pages at whim. OTOH, does it really matter if the edits are minor or non-contentious? But perhaps the real problem is that it creates a two-class system where some editors are allowed to make edits that others editors can't. For a project whose motto is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, is that really what we want? That some editors are more equal than others? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

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

BLP violations in history

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.

---

▪◦▪On a side note these edits here & here should be deleted from the page history as they are clearly wrong, the missing brown students were incorrectly identified as the Assailants. [171] ≡SiREX≡^Talk 14:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I moved this out of the scrum above. Unless someone objects, I've identified the four diffs with these names and will delete them shortly, unless someone beats me to it. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Check me to make sure I did not screw something up. I just got the four edits clustered at 08:49 UTC. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Just checked - looks good. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

thank you.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 15:18, 19 April 2013 (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.

Who's kidding who?

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 simple facts of the matter here are that almost everyone who has been editing the Boston bombings article with any regularity has probably violated several policies: with WP:3RR being the most obvious. Right from the start, WP:NOTNEWS went out of the window, and WP:OMGLETSPRETENDWEARECNNFOXTHEBBCANDPRAVDA took over. If we are going to carry on covering breaking news stories in this way (and nobody seems to have the means to prevent it), we need to accept that (a) rules need to be broken to ensure that such articles don't degenerate into a heap of trivia, conspiracy theories, and WP:OR based on something misread from Twitter, and (b) those breaking the rules will get it wrong sometime. This is the price we pay for ignoring our own explicit and stated purpose - to provide an encyclopaedia, rather than an outlet for breaking news. Under such circumstances, the only legitimate reason for holding anyone (admin or not) to account for any action would be that it wasn't done with the best interests of Wikipedia in mind. Unless someone can provide evidence to that effect, I suggest this discussion be closed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Andy, Wikipedia shouldn't pretend to be CNN or the NY Post — it needs to insist upon being better than them. Generally, "breaking news" coverage of matters of clearly historical importance is pretty good here. Rather than obsessing about the things that WP does well, time would be better spent on things that it does poorly. My opinion. Carrite (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC) Striking: I need to read more, blabber less... Carrite (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The only reason it showed up here is because the Marathon bombing article has had a peculiar tone on the talk page from the very beginning. To put it quickly, I've seen WP:NOTNEWS (traditionally understood as an article notability guideline) elevated to exalted status to exclude what is on the front page of every newspaper on at least three occasions while our reliable source and verifiability policies have taken a back seat. This is not some policy debate; our policies are fine. This is a question of a new unspoken but certainly implied policy that everything needs to be published for 6-12 hours before it can be added to the article, sometimes more. We've even had examples of "wait 24 hours" "consensus" by a small handful of editors inside of 1 hour worth of debate after the "waiting on" information was published on the front page of the NYT, Boston Globe, CNN, etc.

And don't be mistaken, I'm not new to current event articles, nor am I naive about how the news cycle works. This is not about some borderline question or publishing fringe sources. I've been right there to say no to all of those. This is about not publishing basic facts that are widespread and well known, not with some leading language, but with simple "this is what X reported" language.

I don't think if this pattern hadn't been so prevalent over the last 3-4 days nobody would have entertained an ANI discussion like this. The full protection, which was to enforce keeping out the names of the suspects despite their widespread publication, which was then violated by a few admins, even if only technically, is part of that pattern. Shadowjams (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is policy, not a guideline. It explicitly states that "breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information" - and given the multiple misreportings we've seen, caution rather than haste seems entirely appropriate. As for the issue of if and when suspects are named in such cases, if we stuck by policy and didn't pretend to be a 'breaking news' media source, the issue wouldn't arise, or at least, we could deal with such issues in a more considered manner. If we are to cover 'breaking news', we should amend policy accordingly to say so - and then make the appropriate revisions to the many other policies this would necessarily entail. Holding a few individuals responsible for what has been a monumental collective decision to pretend policy doesn't exist is simply untenable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I for one would support abolishment of ITN, were it proposed - that's what WikiNews is for. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

We're through the looking glass people! I think most rational people who have experience with Wikinews and ITN would support the immediate abolishment, disbanding, and shuttering of the joke site known as "Wikinews" and the merging and superseding of all of its failed features into ITN on Wikipedia. We can and do a far better job of everything they tried to do. Time to end the relationship, permanently. Viriditas (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that emotional times, like the present news cycle, are the worst possible to propose and debate big-ticket changes to longstanding Wikipedia news features. In any case, Ani is hardly the correct place to do so. Jusdafax 06:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed; just sayin', though. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Update the policy to reflect the accepted definition, as outlined by Bwilkins

I've made a request for the policy to be updated per the accepted and long-standing definition as outlined by Bwilkins 80.174.78.102 (talk) 08:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't recall defining anything - I think I described what would be standard practice, paraphrasing current policy while I did so. However, you're very much permitted to recommend changes (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Do you support the rewording? 80.174.78.102 (talk) 10:06, 20 April 2013 (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.

Boston Marathon Bombings and 2013

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 seems to be a consensus at Talk:2013#2013_Boston_Marathon_bombings to include the Boston Marathon Bombings article on the 2013 article. Certain editors, however, refuse to accept that saying the bombing is only a national event. This ought to be looked at. Hot Stop (Talk) 23:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, the fact that you use "editors" (plural) to describe the opposite point of view should make you realize that you don't have that consensus you are claiming.--McSly (talk) 23:34, 19 April 2013 (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.

BBB76: disruptive editing in articles about TV megafamilies

User:BBB76 has an interest in articles about reality television shows about mega-families. This user's edit-warring to exclude an English word that s/he doesn't understand; the user's apparent imperviousness to concerns of WP:MOS and WP:COPYVIO; and general issues of attitude (causing me to lose patience) lead me to bring their story to this page. I'm tired of engaging with this person over ridiculous trivia. Note: Their talk page is festooned with warnings, not all of which make a lot of sense to me.

Here is the behavior that I've found disruptive:

• At United Bates of America, the user is committed to warring to remove the sourced (and relatively anodyne) statement (which was in the article before they ever edited) that all 19 children in the family were singleton births. The user has objected to the word "singleton" (which was not previously in their vocabulary) and suggests that this point should not be in the article text because it should be "obvious" from studying the table listing the 19(!) birthdates. Diffs: [172], [173], [174], [175], [176], [177], [178], [179], [180]. (BTW, the fact of singleton births gets remarked upon since large families often include multiple births, and the other 19-kid family on reality TV includes two sets of twins.) Further, the user has attacked me on my talk page for using big words such as "singleton" and "prose": [181], [182], [183], [184].
• At 19 Kids and Counting, there has been a war over verb tense. WP:MOS section on TV shows calls for use of present tense, but this user insists on past tense and has warred to keep past tense. Here are this user's diffs: [185], [186], [187], [188], [189]
• At List of 19 Kids and Counting episodes, the user has insisted on repeatedly inserting episode descriptions that copy or closely paraphrase this source, meanwhile citing extremely unstable bare URLs as sources and deleting somewhat more stable citations: diff, [190], diff. --Orlady (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

These articles are admittedly pretty trivial (I got involved with United Bates of America only because the family lives in my local area), but they have huge page-view counts. Am I the only one who finds this user's behavior disruptive? --Orlady (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• I see plenty of disruption, a lack of manners, and some other things here, though none of them immediately blockable. I've seconded your copyvio note, and I think that further edit-warring should be met with a block--but it takes two to tango, and this constant back-and-forthing on UBA came from both sides. If they revert that "singleton" thing again, they should be blocked. Drmies (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for a sensible set of actions. With all the warnings the user received, I think s/he may have stopped taking user communications seriously. --Orlady (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Heated discussion at WP:COIN

After what I thought was a conflict of interest on an article I created (which was eventually confirmed), I avoided an edit war with another user by starting a thread at WP:COIN to discuss the issue. At first, the user in question disagreed with what I said and pretty much kept on accusing me of trying to own the article. But now, the user is getting really heated about the situation and even threatening to have me blocked (a strange threat to be coming from a new user). I wonder if an admin can help sort things out. (The whole situation is in detail at COIN under the preceding link.) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm no admin but I'll give it a shot. If anything the user should be blocked per WP:USERNAME for right now being of unconfirmed identity until OTRS has it. Stewiedv as in Stewie DeVille, the husband of the subject. It is a clear COI. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

As I stated in the above-referenced COIN discussion, I welcome admin assistance with this matter. While I have admitted my identity, and am open to any assistance and unbiased feedback on my edits and participation, I believe that Erpert is abusing the COI system, as well as other polices including WP:OWN, to cover inaccuracies in his article, excuse his actions (including but not limited to removal of non-controversial edits allowed under COI) and is attempting to discourage me from contributing. Please note, I have not edited the article in question, nor any other documents, since the issue was first submitted to COIN. Stewiedv (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri, I have submitted my information as you suggested in the COIN thread. Thanks again. Stewiedv (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

It would seem to me that as long as this is being thrashed out at COIN, it doesn't need to be here, at least not until someone believes that COIN has reached a dead end. As an aside, I don't believe I've ever seen a COI editor who writes like Stewiedv. More like a seasoned Wikipedian. I'm not sure what to make of that but just thought I'd toss it out.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Bbb23. I will take your comment about my writing as a compliment. While I am new to Wikipedia, I do have a writing background. Plus, it helps to be a quick learner when someone is policy shopping against you. Stewiedv (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Superastig

User:Superastig, despite repeated warnings, continues to insert erroneous and non-cited info in articles. Read his talk page at User talk:Superastig to see what I mean. Also check his talk page's history as he has been deleting postings criticising his erroneous postings. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

A few comments. First, if you're going to accuse an editor of a pattern of misconduct, you must provide diffs in support of your claims. Second, generally a user has a right to remove warnings from their talk page. Finally, you should have notified the editor of this report; I've done so for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, Bbb23. Here are the last two. The first is the false edit MGM Records article at [191] which he stated incorrectly that Warner Music Group owned the rights to the pre-1986 MGM soundtracks. WMG's Rhino Entertainment had the license which has since expired. The digital download license is held by Hallmark Records as shown at [192]. Time Warner's Turner Entertainment unit owns the rights to the pre-1986 MGM soundtracks. The other glaring error is in Superastig's edit in the Parlophone article at [193] that EMI Records was sold to Warner Music Group which is clearly wrong. EMI Records is now a unit of Universal Music Group which made it part of the Virgin EMI label group. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that these diffs show a pattern of misconduct, but let's just take the first one (MGM). There's an assertion in the article, which he changed and I guess you changed back. The source in the article doesn't support the asssertion. Why not? Now, I'm not saying you're wrong, just how can such claims be evaluated? This is a textbook example of why material needs to be sourced.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

This 1997 source from Billboard at [[194]] shows that at that time, Rhino had the rights to the pre-1986 MGM soundtracks which the article states are owned by Time Warner's Turner Entertainment unit. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

He has been covering his tracks again as shown at [195] as he deleted more postings about his faulty edits. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Socialhistorian2013

User:Socialhistorian2013, has been making Serena Williams longer and longer instead of making it shorter, which was agreed upon by tennis contributors. He has been deleting my comments to his page rather than having a conversation. Dencod16 (talk) 14:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Uninvolved non-admin observation: It actually looks more like a net 0, I can see big additions of things, and big removals of them as I look through the edit history. Looks like there's been a fair bit of edit-warring from several parties in the last month. Also, the fact they've deleted your comments means you should stay off their talk page, not immediately readding the comment. One major problem is that there's been absolutely no discussion since November on the talk page of this article - from ANY person. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

ANI does not deal with content disputes. WP:DRN is where you want to go if things get rough. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Socialhistorian2013 is a relatively new account (editing since 3/31/13). It appears to be a WP:SPA, focused on Williams, although the editor branches out into a few other areas. The account came to my attention recently because the editor accused another editor of socking (a fairly frivolous allegation, actually), and I chastised them for it. Whoever Socialhistorian is, they are not inexperienced. I don't know what they did on Wikipedia before creating the account.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Eh? I just commented on a page where the pattern of editing looked suspicious. No need to try and cause trouble for a newbie. Anyway Dencord no need to throw the toys out of the pram. We are trying to improve the pages right not butcher it and lie and make up rules. Socialhistorian2013 (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you're a newbie; your account is a newbie. I didn't "cause trouble"; your edit summary did. I'd steer clear of words like "lie".--Bbb23 (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Well I apologize for that crass comment, but lets be honest blue wasn't helping himself at that moment having done other revisions on that page in the style of another user. But as I say crass comment from me so I'm sorry. But is this from Dencord on my talkpage appropriate? He called me a moron. Socialhistorian2013 (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree, they shouldn't have called you a moron. If it makes you any happier, I don't think you're a moron. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your thought :P Socialhistorian2013 (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The Light Blue looks like they exclusively edit on tennis articles where you seem to have stirred up some friction, so most likely followed you over to the snooker article. I don't think it is Armbrust since The Light Blue has done most of their editing while Armbrust wasn't even blocked. Betty Logan (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh great I've got myself a stalker LOL! Socialhistorian2013 (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Question: Do "tennis contributors" (whoever they are) get to WP:OWN articles about tennis players now? RNealK (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course not. Although I do get that impression from Dencod when he writes "quote boxes should not be included on a page" and "it's not been deleted but moved to another page". Is imo Owning and as far as I can see as he keeps referring to WP tennis about quotes and it is not a view held by them. Socialhistorian2013 (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Admin action to delete a case of 'outing' required.

I have just deleted a post from another users talk space which 'outs' a fellow Wikipedia editor ([196]). I have posted a warning on the said contributors talk page warning him that outing is forbidden so no further action should be required here. However, admin action is required to delete the post from the Revision history of the above user talk page. I B Wright (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Already oversighted. For future reference, high-traffic pages such as ANI are not the place to report outing - contact the oversight mailing list directly (as it says at the top of the page). Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

(ec)In the ANI page header, and in the gigantic edit notice you saw when you posted this here, you should have seen that you should never post privacy-related requests to noticeboards. The edit, however, has been taken care of by an oversighter. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's more likely the editor did not see either the ANI page header nor the edit notice -- because there's way too much crap on both which makes them invisible per usability research. NE Ent 20:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Astynax, War of the Triple Alliance

Dear all,
Astynax (talk · contribs) has recently gone on a mission to redirect all links to War of the Triple Alliance to the term Paraguayan War (please see his recent edit history: [197]). A similar situation was previously discussed in the NPOV noticeboard ([198]) on April 12, 2012 (over a year ago).
The main problem with Astynax's edits are not just the fact that he is trying to subtly remove the number of times the term "War of the Triple Alliance" leads to "Paraguayan War", but that he is using edit summaries to hide his misbehavior as "link disambiguation". In the article Chincha Islands War, he tries to impose the made-up word "inbrolied" as well as the term "Paraguayan War".

1. On my edit summary, I noted that my edit was a copy-edit and WP:COMMONNAME (see ([199])
2. Astynax then reverted my edit, again restoring the term "inbroiled" ([200])
3. Given that his edit was not in Good Faith, I called out its blatant vandalism ([201])
4. Astynax again reverts, reprimanding me for calling his edit vandalism, and returning the word "inbroiled" and term "Paraguayan War" back into the article ([202])

It should also be noted that War of the Triple Alliance links directly to Paraguayan War, so the "link disambiguation" claim of Astynax is false.
Please help.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I also would like to point out that the term "Paraguayan War" was imposed at the "War of the Triple Alliance" article in a controversial move discussion in 2012 (see [203]); to this day, "War of the Triple Alliance" has 261,000 Google Books hits (see [204]) by comparison to the miniscule "Paraguayan War" with 43,600 hits (see [205]). The move discussion even continued after the end of "voting" (see [206]). Since then, the term "War of the Triple Alliance" has been continously hounded down by those supporting the term "Paraguayan War".--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Response: MarshalN20 never discussed or explained his reversion of my edit, either on my or the article's talk. Although my version contained a spelling and grammer error (and I was planning on looking at it again today), MarshalN20 decided on a simple revert instead of correcting and improving the sentence. MarshalN20 is undoubtedly aware that links to redirect pages are discouraged in FA-class articles, as he has reviewed at FAC, and it was not vandalism to change the link to the correct page. MarshalN20 could have piped a different title to the correct page, had he chosen and were it really an issue. As it was, I found the sentence confusing (which "alliance"?) and my attempt to improve it was not vandalism, as MarshalN20 alleged here. As for my "campaign", my edits this morning were simply cleaning up a lot of old links to redirects that I never got around to doing back when the article was moved. Another editor's comment reminded me that it hadn't been done, and it seems that MarshalN20 is taking my misspelling as an opportunity to resurrect an argument for Paraguayan War's article title for which he could not garner editor consensus twice before. • Astynax ^talk 22:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Astynax already knows about the sensibility over the article title of "Paraguayan War" and "War of the Triple Alliance". Astynax participated in the second move discussion and in subsequent discussions related to the matter (see [207]). I find no reason to "explain" to him something he knows. Furthermore, his long list of continuous recent edits (which he calls a "campaign") show his determined attitude that was not going to change with a comment on his talk page. Coming straight to AN/I still seems to me as the friendliest and easiest way to resolve this matter once and for all.

I also did not make a "simple revert" of the material. As shown in the diffs, the original material that Astynax changed ([208]) is considerably different from my edit (see [209]). The fact that Astynax, a constant FA reviewer, did not even bother to notice that he was reverting to the term "inbroiled" also demonstrates that he was reverting for no reason other than to engage in an edit war with me.

The article "Paraguayan War" is neither a Featured Article Candidate (FAC) nor a Featured Article (FA), and War of the Triple Alliance (as shown in the Google Books result of my second statement) is a perfectly acceptable direct link to the article "Paraguayan War".

Lastly, what is at issue here are Astynax's recent edits that clearly aim to harm the wikilinks that use "War of the Triple Alliance" (for no other reason than to make a WP:POINT).

Kind regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Reply: Although I am aware of your displeasure at repeatedly failing to garner editor consensus for an article move at Paraguayan War, I'm unsure what accusation you are leveling at me here or what actual harm you think I have done. Is it the 2 reverts I made to Chincha Islands War? Is it being bold in pointing a particular link in the latter article toward an article's name? Is it because I think it is important that articles progress toward higher levels (whether they are yet candidates for advancement or not)? Is it because of some point you imagine I am attempting to make? Is it because I made a mistake in my edit and didn't catch it before reverting the second time? Are you attempting to argue for an article move to another title here, rather than on the article's talk? • Astynax ^talk 08:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Astynax, before this gets turned into a WP:TLDR, please just read my last few statements if you really do not understand this AN/I report. Reading WP:IDHT might also help. The Point: No need exists to discriminate against "War of the Triple Alliance" and impose over it the term "Paraguayan War", either through direct replacement (such as in Chincha Islands War) or subtle wikilink replacement. Request: Please stop, and please revert your recent actions. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 12:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Reply: I have already said that if there was a good reason to point a link to a redirect instead of the article's title, I have no problem with that. So far, your point is lost on me other than I get the vague sense that it has to do with your siezing an opportunity to revisit the debate regarding the move 2 years ago of Paraguayan War in a different venue. If there is a better reason, I am not refusing to get the point. The point, however, isn't clear and you immediately dragged this here instead of making any attempt whatsoever to discuss and clarify your reasoning. • Astynax ^talk 16:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Repeating the same things over-and-over again won't make them facts, Astynax. At this point, I am simply waiting for comments from an administrator. Have a good day.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I should also note that, since this AN/I case was presented, new developments took place in Chincha Islands War:

• User MarnetteD wrote ([210]): "there is no such word as "inbroiled" and the rest of this looks quite WP:POINTy"
• Next, Astynax again imposed the term Paraguayan War ([211])

This user's recent edit history also show that his intent is not to improve the articles, but rather simply to remove (or hinder) the term "War of the Triple Alliance". At Chincha Islands War, he is edit warring to impose his favored term.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

And, of course, following my message Astynax is now trying to pretend he is actually improving the article. By my count, there are 60+ articles that he edited with the mere purpose of hurting the wikilinks to "War of the Triple Alliance". Please see his edit history from (09:14, 17 April 2013) to (17:43, 17 April 2013). His more recent contributions are trying to confuse the situation. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor comment

This is one of those bizarre aspects of wikipedia, where an article uses a fringe name that is rarely used in the English language; the Paraguayan War is more well known as the War of the Triple Alliance. It was moved to a name that reflects how the war is referred to in the Portuguese language a couple of years ago, by editors whose predominant language is, Portuguese. Attempts to do a simple thing like correct the name result in some rather silly behaviour by the editors who originally proposed the change and, really, while its irritating, it isn't worth the hassle of trying to fix it.

So we have the situation that most people find their way to the article via the redirect, which last time I looked was nearly always hit first. We also have a situation where there is further rather silly behaviour by the same editors who go around "correcting" the English language wikipedia to reflect how its referred to in the their native tongue. A rather large WP:TROUT needs to be deployed along with a huge helping of WP:CLUE stick.

My proposed solution: Move Paraguayan War to War of the Triple Alliance and WP:TROUT the lot of them. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Support this per WP:UCN, WP:USEENGLISH, and WP:COMMONSENSE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Reply: Wee Curry Monster was, and still seems to be, involved in the very issue he is raising here. Ignoring the valid objections to a move raised during the last move proposal, then shopping this around to another venue after failing to acheive editor consensus for a move is what is truly bizzare. • Astynax ^talk 17:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Although I agree with Wee Curry Monster that the article's name should be changed to "War of the Triple Alliance" (and agree it would be a great result from this discussion), the whole point of this AN/I report is for Astynax to stop hindering the term "War of the Triple Alliance" in other articles.

Regarding the title move discussions, the situation is quite convoluted. The first move (from "War of the Triple Alliance" to "Paraguayan War") was done under false premises, with claims that the title "Paraguayan War" was more numerous in Google Books than "War of the Triple Alliance".

The second move request, presented by me, sought to fix the previous mistake by demonstrating that (in fact) Google Books widely supported the term "War of the Triple Alliance". The votes ultimately added in favor of the title "War of the Triple Alliance", but the closing administrator decided to go against the votes.

A careful analysis of the second move request would also demonstrate that the users in favor of the term "Paraguayan War" are (for the most part) Portuguese or Brazilian.

I have no idea what can be decided here at AN/I, but this whole "campaign" against the term "War of the Triple Alliance" (the WP:COMMONNAME) is simply silly.

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

My sole involvement was to point out what the common English name was and to be the focus of some particularly silly abuse as a result. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I must admit to reading this thread with a sort of odd bemusement. I've been reading military history for over four decades, and until MarshalN20's first post four days ago, I had never seen this conflict referred to as anything but the War of the Triple Alliance. I can say categorically that I would never know to look for it under another name. Rklear (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Likewise. (My first reaction at seeing "Paraguayan War" was "which one?") - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Huldra makes personal attacks in Norwegian

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 was bold and edited "Labour Party (Norway)" to "Workers' Party (Norway)" on several pages. I was reverted, and User:Huldra posted some incivil comments on both the article's talk page and also on my own talk page. I replied in a civil manner, before Huldra made another comment, this time in Norwegian. The comment can be translated like this: "Oh my god. Don't tell me about how "Arbeiderpartiet" might be translated. You know just as well as me what the official translation is, and we'll stick to that one. This is massive disruption and if you don't stop and clean up your mess I will get you banned. I don't bother wasting more time on this. Learn the rules! Then you can edit! Read WP:OR! Sincerly [...]" LiquidWater 20:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

That is his/her translation. (Btw, it is about original as his/her translation of "Arbeiderpartiet"). My translation is on the talk-page of LiquidWater.[212]. LiquidWater has unilaterally this evening tried to change the name of the governing "Arbeiderpartiet" of Norway from "Labour Party" to "Workers party". Note that the government of Norway use "Labour Party" (see eg [213]). Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I was WP:BOLD. There exists no such thing as "unilateralism" on Wikipedia. LiquidWater 21:09, 20 April 2013 (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.

• Belated comment: I looked at LiquidWater's talk page after seeing this topic, and as a native English and Swedish speaker with a more than passable knowledge of Norwegian I must honestly say that Huldra's comment IMHO can not be classified as a "personal attack". A frustrated/irritated comment, yes, but personal attack, no. Thomas.W (talk) 11:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

  Agreeing with Thomas W. "Sukk" means "sigh", the best response to this. I don't see incivility, although Norwegians are very polite. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• I think "Learn the rules, then you can edit" was the 'attack' in question. I have to agree it's fairly borderline - I personally would call it uncivil, but not a PA - just. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Just a small note: my "så vil jeg be om å få deg banned" was translated by LiquidWater as: "I will get you banned", when it actually means "then I will ask to have you banned". "Tiny" difference. Also lost in all this is the political "overtones", wrt this "innocent" name-change request, something most people in Norway would be acutely aware of, post 22 July 2011. (Some touched on here here: Talk:Labour_Party_(Norway)#Requested_move.) As I noted on my talk-page: "There is not much sense in worrying about problems with the syntax ...if one is totally clueless about the semantics. But that is Wikipedia, I guess". Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Personal attack / insult by user:Mouh2jijel

Hello,

I would like to report a personal attack / insult by user:Mouh2jijel on User talk:Dzlinker, calling me "grosse petasse", that means "fat b*tch" in French.

I ask for an immediate block of this user!

Regards,

--Omar-toons (talk) 01:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I have notified them of this AN/I discussion...which you have failed to do. I have also provided a warning for personal attacks, which is the appropriate action here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Repeated racism and 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.

---

Reading about the reactions to Margaret Thatcher's death, I happened to come upon some very disturbing comments by Quis separabit?, with whom I don't think I've ever interacted. In several edits, the user calls other "scum" [214], calls Afro-Caribbeans "criminal/thugs/gaolbirds" and adds some attacks on the Irish [215], [216]. In another comment, the user expresses his joy over the murder of human rights lawyer Rosemary Nelson[217]. The user obviously has many valuable edits, but repeated racism of this kind is disturbing and violates quite a number of policies.Jeppiz (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• The user is actually User:Rms125a@hotmail.com, who has history here. I can understand that various emotions were running high after Thatch's death, but the Rosemary Nelson diff is completely out of order and I would certainly have issued a block to them had I seen that at the time. I'm actually about to revdelete it now. If any other admin wants to block for that I wouldn't object at all. Black Kite (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I found it downright disgusting, and the openly racist comments about Caribbeans and Irish just as bad. It's among the worst comments I've ever seen on Wikipedia, hence my bringing it here though I'm not involved.Jeppiz (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see any rational way in which those comments represent an acceptable level of discourse. I've blocked the account for 1 week, and would invite feedback about that decision. MastCell ^Talk 18:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• As I said above, I agree completely. If I'd seen it at the time I'd have probably blocked indef until the user had pledged not to do anything that stupid again. Black Kite (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the block but I think it should be noted that the accusations mentioned are against particular members of their respective classes rather than as slurs against the classes as a whole. There is no implication that all members of each class are such offensive things. The terminology is still unnecessary and insulting by implication. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't actually that worried about those. It was the comment about the murder of someone (which I've revldeleted, and am not going to repeat here). I cannot imagine what a member of her family would have thought about Wikipedia if they'd read that. Black Kite (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• If I'd've got there first I would have indeffed him, but the 1 week block seems fair. If I ever see anything like that again... GiantSnowman 18:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm, I suppose, a major supporter of Robert and have been involved for many years in blocking his accounts, back in the day. I was a major supporter of his unban, too. He's basically a good guy and means well. Having said that, I have to support the week-long block here, as those comments were utterly inappropriate by any interpretation - Alison ^❤ 18:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

This week long block seems utterly pointless and 100% punitive, yes the comments were in poor taste, but why do we suddenly care now when no one did 6 days ago when they were made? Since this outburst the user seems to have returned to constructive editing so I oppose this sanction and support just letting it go (with a warning). - filelakeshoe (t / c) 19:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I care about it today because I became aware of it today. While I take your point about the time lapse between the comments and the block, I do think there's some value - some preventative value - in making clear that those kinds of comments are unacceptable, even at 6 days' remove. That said, there is not much science to choosing a block length, and I wouldn't defend 1 week as The Right Answer. The fact that Alison is willing to vouch for someone goes a long way for me, and I'd be fine with shortening the block to 24-48 hours as long as there's general agreement that the comments in question were inappropriate. MastCell ^Talk 19:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I oppose the block duration, and its much-delayed timing. The OP's linked comments were neither "racism" nor "personal". Stale issues should not trigger blocks. Looking at histories at Talk:Margaret Thatcher and User Talk:You Can Act Like A Man, a lot of edits not by rms125 were revdel'd from the user talk page, but rms125a seems not to have edited Talk:Margaret Thatcher since 9 April. This makes this block less valid due to staleness. The OP duplicated alleged offensive edits. RMS's comments must be read in whole, not in part, to understand them. I see this block as an overreaction by people who don't read for context. rms125a has been civil in all discussions with me. However, as a reminder to be more civil (since I don't think RMS was uncivil), and because a few people were offended (I think too much, really) this block should be for 1 or 2 days maximum, since it's a first incident since 2009. --Lexein (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I originally made the accusation of racism against Rms125, on my TP, but did not report it here as perhaps I should have because, assuming gf, I recognised it as probably being a result of the general heightened emotion of the time. I'm not commenting on the block, but re: the timing, there is no Statute of Limitations here. Basket _Feudalist 11:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the 2009 block of RMS' account was done in error. Having said that, I'm not opposed to a reduction in block duration if that's what's agreed. I'm pretty-sure he's not going to repeat the offense now - Alison ^❤ 19:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

If you're going to claim that the comments weren't racist then the rest of what you say is simply going to be ignored, as it clearly also makes no sense. GiantSnowman 19:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

As for the timing, I brought it to ANI now because I saw it now. After six days, I might not have brought a "normal" policy violation here, but expressing joy at the murder of another person and referring to "Afro-Caribbean criminal/thugs/gaolbirds" is well beyond what is acceptable.Jeppiz (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

You need to note that the Afro-Caribbean comment does not say what you seem to think it says. It's an adjective describing a subset of criminals (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• There were not racist comments...but the horrific comments about the murder were inappropriate and block-worthy...even this far down the road. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• The comments by Mr. Hotmail were strong enough to warrant a block. However, anyone who was celebrating Thatcher's death on-Wiki also deserves a block. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 21:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

What policy permits a block for someone "celebrating" her death? No one in the UK has been charged with any offence for publicly celebrating her death - yet. Leaky Caldron 21:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Who cares about policy? Sometimes we use common sense. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 21:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Not when it comes to removing someone's editing rights we don't. Leaky Caldron 21:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 21:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Good job you're not yet an Admin. then. Leaky Caldron 21:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Good block, even a little after the fact. The Nelson comment was beyond the pale. The other comments were block worthy too; it is long established that we avoid expressing personal opinions about individuals, especially if those comments are derogatory (per WP:BLP). This needs to be impressed on him very strongly, and if he does it again I support stronger blocks. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

You say that now. Wait until its an overreaction due to context-free reading that results in you being blocked. For a week. With no prior shorter block. RMS125a was also not given notice that he would be blocked if his comments weren't stricken. I strongly feel that what due process exists here at Wikipedia (warn, stronger warning, warning of about to block, then block short, then block long on repeated offense) was shamefully not followed. --Lexein (talk) 02:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, that would require me to agree that there is some context to this that makes the comments acceptable under our rules. Are you able to offer that sort of insight? --Errant ^(chat!) 07:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Good block, in my view. Outright racism has no place here. Period. Jusdafax 10:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

True. Having been the victim of "outright racism", I agree. However, the comments linked to show no racism whatsoever. I'm having great trouble with how people are parsing grammar today :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The diffs presented in the first paragraph are quite enough proof to justify the block. One of the diffs had to be stricken completely, it appears. I am not sure what you mean by "parsing." It seems to be clearly racism. Jusdafax 11:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we're reading different diffs. For example, in the opening paragraph, Jeppiz claims that rms "calls Afro-Caribbeans "criminal/thugs/gaolbirds"" which is not borne out by the actual link. The phrase used is "it is mostly the "Afro-Caribbean" criminal/thugs/gaolbirds" - that does not call Afro-Caribbean people criminals/thugs or gaolbirds, it refers to a subset of criminals, thugs and gaolbirds who happen to be Afro-Caribbean. There's not a single speck of racism in that phrase, unless one parses it tremendously contrary to English language usage. Maybe it's a different link you're looking at? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

BW, are you really going down that path? I thought better of you. GiantSnowman 11:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

BW that is the diff I am looking at. And technically, you are right. But the intent seems clear, at least to me. Jusdafax 11:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Bwilkins, I usually find your reasoning very clear, even when we disagree, but I'm afraid I don't follow this time. If the user wanted to point out that only "criminal/thugs/gaolbirds" celebrated Thatcher's death, he could have written that. Adding "Afro-Caribbean" was not necessary for any other reason than to single out an ethnic group in a negative sense.Jeppiz (talk) 11:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

No, Bwilikins, it seems your parsing is what is too fine. If as you maintain the subject is, criminal/thugs/gaolbirds and they are identified as Afro-Carribean or Irish, they are being held out for ridicule by race, otherwise why mention their race, especially when it's a sourceless opinion that "those" people are the problem. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

First, I will restate: as someone with an ethnically-diverse background, I loathe any false claim of racism. When one reviews the reign of Thatcher (which is public knowledge) you'll find that two the major themes were a) N.Ireland relationships, and b) a crackdown on crime, which included the arrests of an inordinate number of "Afro-Caribbeans" (yes, including family members of mine, thank you very much). So, with the death of Thatcher, those groups of individuals might indeed be celebrating. RMS at NO time said that either of those groups were a "problem", nor were they ridiculed (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean? Celebrateing a death wasn't a problem? When it caused widespread sturm and drang commentary and even riot? Second, your personal feelings are not the issue. The issue is what one objectively looking at that sees. They see a race identifyer attached to a put-down. Finally there was no "they might" but that would hardly make the analysis different. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, his major issue seems to be with the Irish; they are Slugger o'Toolites, Shinners etc, and his signature is (was) the motto of the UDA, a proscribed organisation. FYI. Basket _Feudalist 12:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I get Bwilkins point on how "Afro-Carribean" is used. He may be right, but I think it's actually ambiguous and could mean both a sub-set of Afro-Carribeans or it could mean (given the short-hand/truncated style many of us normally adopt when posting) that the words following Afro-Carribean are used adjectivally for the entire group. I suppose WP:AGF - we should assume the best interpretation. DeCausa (talk) 12:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Putting aside the "Afro-Carribean" comment (though I still say it was racist), the anti-Irish/pro-Ulster issues highlighted by YCALAM are extremely alarming. GiantSnowman 12:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Ya know, I'm from the Southern US; people call us "Appalacian Americans" all the time (a derogatory regard in ways), but I don't have time nor inclination to care. Is it insulting? If YOU let it be. There's something called "Freedom of Speech" where I live, and your rights to such end only when it approaches yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre. So were "comments" made offensive to some? It appears so. Should we defer our common sense and rights EVERY time someone supposes their feelings are disregarded or hurt? Probably not. Should we "ban" someone for their words when done without malicious universal actions or physical threat? Probably not; again, these are mere words. In many ways the knee-jerk reaction of overly sensitive or zealous persons should not dictate how we see and regard information, both good and bad. Closing your eyes and ears to the unpleasantness of the World does not reduce or erase it's problems, it magnifies the ignorance associated with being uninformed and closed-minded. Opinions, good or bad, are just that. Words are similar. You take the good with the bad. Deal with it, because it is not going away in any of our lifetimes. Just an opinion :) Barada wha? 02:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Psst...there's no such thing as WP:FREESPEECH on a private website such as this. We have behavioural norms that everyone agreed to when they started editing (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's consider other trump cards like WP:IGNORE & WP:NOTCENSORED, where we dispense with the restrictive ideas between "Freedom" and "Speech". This debate more closely fringes on the idea of "Tolerance", because a certain limited number of individuals are dictating a point that, in cases such as an entire ethos of contemporary persons who denote themselves via expression, is restricted by the lack of acceptance and tolerance for ideas based on limited personal means and interpretations. So let's call this "tolerance", because some have none for ideas they cannot consider, or dare not do so. Before you strike a Red Letter on someone for expressing themselves, you need to look carefully at yourself for intolerance, for bias, and for the inability to accept the candor of others. Don't let intolerance dictate your reach and breadth. Don't be swollen with the ignorance that makes negative opinion so easy to jump to. Could we substitute the word "Religion" here for "Speech"? Sure, but the hangman's noose would loom from every branch of differing ideology when someone first says; "That's just ugly to say. Your religious ideas are insidious, derisive, and I don't like them or believe them, so I'm going to ban you". Challenge me that. For you know that "Tolerance" would not be sufficient, and "Freedom" is the word assigned to religion...i.e. "Freedom of Religious expression and belief". So I do not endorse the idea of a limited "Free Speech" here, as nothing said was universally malicious and/or baneful as ascribed above. Indeed, the knee-jerk reactions of the limited few who jump to condemn ideas are the ones we should be concerned with, for their contributions are always as "nay-sayers" for the ideas of others, and have concern only for the mindset of the similar. Anonymous quote; "Open your mind; your arse will follow." Just an opinion :) Thanks for letting me express it! Barada wha? 05:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

When you edit Wikipedia, you agree to the community's code of conduct. Some of it is legalese in the "terms of service", others are "policies" and "guidelines" established by the community. "Freedom of speech/expression/religion/noseblowing" is not covered anywhere in any of those - there are certain things that, if done, fall outside the code of conduct and will result in sanctions, and waving "freedom flags" in those cases doesn't help - it is, in fact, counterproductive. If there's parts of Wikipedia's polices and guidelines you don't agree with, there's three options: one, accept them even though you don't agree with them; two, initiate a discussion to attempt to change them at the relevant policy's or guideline's talk page or through a RFC; or three, stop editing Wikipedia (with a failed "two" resulting in either "one" or "three" being left as options). "Tolerance" of those who who choose the fourth option - "ignore it" - is, in fact, not an option. And, despite the arguments of some, WP:CIVIL isn't just a policy, it's one of the five pillars - to choose to ignore incivility is to strike at the very heart of what Wikipedia is. And it seems I'm developing some sesquipedalian loquaciousness, which means it's time for me to sleep. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but you are well spoken, and your respect for words and ideas grants you the ability to rationalize despite what must include your personal fortitudes, feelings, and inclinations. I truly appreciate what Wikipedians express here, for there is no greater single group of people willing to put up with the millions and millions of divergent life philosophies than here (granted, some are a tad more in "flex-mode" than others...no biggie). Now in regard to "flag waving", I never chose to highlight a policy, but instead a process that many can relate to and I believe folks should regard when making statement of simple "word choice" disagreement (note the original lack of blue lettering back there and the notation that I could see no universally malicious actions or physical threats to justify a limiting of such word choice), so I must displace the reprisal there for they are not in true appointment of my intentions. However, I did incline a few of the "majors" to read the words, and place well thought commentaries all of us can appreciate when we regard the entirety of this post. Anyone who does not internalize this diverse group of ideas and attempt to gain a greater understanding of these points of view is missing out, I believe, on the good parts of each portion. That I lean one way on expression and others lean another is a matter of consequence, exposure, and upbringing. I, for one, can see the whole in their dimensions. It is my sincere hope that others can as well. Yet I still regard that we shouldn't have banned Quis separabit? so far after the fact...it's like prosecuting outside a respectable statue of limitations. Do you stick your dog's nose in poop 7 days after his accident and expect it to have anything but a negative and confusing impact? I wouldn't! ... Thanks for more great debate :) Barada wha? 04:23, 21 April 2013 (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 in undeleting 2 pages with many edits

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Bug in undeleting 2 pages with many edits. Graham87 10:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

user:Dippoldtheoptician

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

---

Can someone uninvolved please warn user:Dippoldtheoptician for trying to fiddle AFD? Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted the user's change at the AfD (and put it on my watchlist). I've warned them on their talk page. They seem to have serious anger issues. I've also notified them of this discussion, which you should have done.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

This is over the top. In my opinion, changing the vote of another editor should result in an immediate block until the user signifies that he understands what he did wrong and promises not to do it again. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I have speedy deleted the article (it was already speedy deleted before by another admin) and closed the AfD. The editor has been warned. That's enough for now.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• I think the user needs a block, they've ALREADY recreated the article. This is exactly why we called for a SALT: because it was damn obvious this SPA would recreate the article. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Done (for 24h) and salted by Boing! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:35, 22 April 2013 (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.

obvious socks

Trolls gonna troll. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Someone please block 'em--Slimyrasp2 (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nemont Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gratans You are more likely to get a response at WP:SPI if you show the evidence that makes you think it is "obvious" that these are sockpuppets. --Orlady (talk) 15:41, 22 April 2013 (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:Asishillickal

User:Asishillickal / User:Asishjose could use some guidance. 92.40.182.182 (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

He's received some ... any editor can give him additional guidance beyond that. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

IP attacks on User:Pks1142

Can an admin protect this user's page, he's been subject to attacks by ip addresses see [218]. Please take the appropriate action with the IPs.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

User page has been semi-protected by Ultraexactzz. Doesn't look like there's a problem with the talk page. Chamal ^T•C 16:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The IPs are blocked as well, 48 hours. The Semi is set for three weeks, so hopefully they'll go play somewhere else in the interim. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Repeated racism and 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.

---

Reading about the reactions to Margaret Thatcher's death, I happened to come upon some very disturbing comments by Quis separabit?, with whom I don't think I've ever interacted. In several edits, the user calls other "scum" [219], calls Afro-Caribbeans "criminal/thugs/gaolbirds" and adds some attacks on the Irish [220], [221]. In another comment, the user expresses his joy over the murder of human rights lawyer Rosemary Nelson[222]. The user obviously has many valuable edits, but repeated racism of this kind is disturbing and violates quite a number of policies.Jeppiz (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• The user is actually User:Rms125a@hotmail.com, who has history here. I can understand that various emotions were running high after Thatch's death, but the Rosemary Nelson diff is completely out of order and I would certainly have issued a block to them had I seen that at the time. I'm actually about to revdelete it now. If any other admin wants to block for that I wouldn't object at all. Black Kite (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I found it downright disgusting, and the openly racist comments about Caribbeans and Irish just as bad. It's among the worst comments I've ever seen on Wikipedia, hence my bringing it here though I'm not involved.Jeppiz (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see any rational way in which those comments represent an acceptable level of discourse. I've blocked the account for 1 week, and would invite feedback about that decision. MastCell ^Talk 18:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• As I said above, I agree completely. If I'd seen it at the time I'd have probably blocked indef until the user had pledged not to do anything that stupid again. Black Kite (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the block but I think it should be noted that the accusations mentioned are against particular members of their respective classes rather than as slurs against the classes as a whole. There is no implication that all members of each class are such offensive things. The terminology is still unnecessary and insulting by implication. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't actually that worried about those. It was the comment about the murder of someone (which I've revldeleted, and am not going to repeat here). I cannot imagine what a member of her family would have thought about Wikipedia if they'd read that. Black Kite (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• If I'd've got there first I would have indeffed him, but the 1 week block seems fair. If I ever see anything like that again... GiantSnowman 18:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm, I suppose, a major supporter of Robert and have been involved for many years in blocking his accounts, back in the day. I was a major supporter of his unban, too. He's basically a good guy and means well. Having said that, I have to support the week-long block here, as those comments were utterly inappropriate by any interpretation - Alison ^❤ 18:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

This week long block seems utterly pointless and 100% punitive, yes the comments were in poor taste, but why do we suddenly care now when no one did 6 days ago when they were made? Since this outburst the user seems to have returned to constructive editing so I oppose this sanction and support just letting it go (with a warning). - filelakeshoe (t / c) 19:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I care about it today because I became aware of it today. While I take your point about the time lapse between the comments and the block, I do think there's some value - some preventative value - in making clear that those kinds of comments are unacceptable, even at 6 days' remove. That said, there is not much science to choosing a block length, and I wouldn't defend 1 week as The Right Answer. The fact that Alison is willing to vouch for someone goes a long way for me, and I'd be fine with shortening the block to 24-48 hours as long as there's general agreement that the comments in question were inappropriate. MastCell ^Talk 19:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I oppose the block duration, and its much-delayed timing. The OP's linked comments were neither "racism" nor "personal". Stale issues should not trigger blocks. Looking at histories at Talk:Margaret Thatcher and User Talk:You Can Act Like A Man, a lot of edits not by rms125 were revdel'd from the user talk page, but rms125a seems not to have edited Talk:Margaret Thatcher since 9 April. This makes this block less valid due to staleness. The OP duplicated alleged offensive edits. RMS's comments must be read in whole, not in part, to understand them. I see this block as an overreaction by people who don't read for context. rms125a has been civil in all discussions with me. However, as a reminder to be more civil (since I don't think RMS was uncivil), and because a few people were offended (I think too much, really) this block should be for 1 or 2 days maximum, since it's a first incident since 2009. --Lexein (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I originally made the accusation of racism against Rms125, on my TP, but did not report it here as perhaps I should have because, assuming gf, I recognised it as probably being a result of the general heightened emotion of the time. I'm not commenting on the block, but re: the timing, there is no Statute of Limitations here. Basket _Feudalist 11:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the 2009 block of RMS' account was done in error. Having said that, I'm not opposed to a reduction in block duration if that's what's agreed. I'm pretty-sure he's not going to repeat the offense now - Alison ^❤ 19:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

If you're going to claim that the comments weren't racist then the rest of what you say is simply going to be ignored, as it clearly also makes no sense. GiantSnowman 19:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

As for the timing, I brought it to ANI now because I saw it now. After six days, I might not have brought a "normal" policy violation here, but expressing joy at the murder of another person and referring to "Afro-Caribbean criminal/thugs/gaolbirds" is well beyond what is acceptable.Jeppiz (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

You need to note that the Afro-Caribbean comment does not say what you seem to think it says. It's an adjective describing a subset of criminals (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• There were not racist comments...but the horrific comments about the murder were inappropriate and block-worthy...even this far down the road. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• The comments by Mr. Hotmail were strong enough to warrant a block. However, anyone who was celebrating Thatcher's death on-Wiki also deserves a block. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 21:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

What policy permits a block for someone "celebrating" her death? No one in the UK has been charged with any offence for publicly celebrating her death - yet. Leaky Caldron 21:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Who cares about policy? Sometimes we use common sense. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 21:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Not when it comes to removing someone's editing rights we don't. Leaky Caldron 21:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 21:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Good job you're not yet an Admin. then. Leaky Caldron 21:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Good block, even a little after the fact. The Nelson comment was beyond the pale. The other comments were block worthy too; it is long established that we avoid expressing personal opinions about individuals, especially if those comments are derogatory (per WP:BLP). This needs to be impressed on him very strongly, and if he does it again I support stronger blocks. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

You say that now. Wait until its an overreaction due to context-free reading that results in you being blocked. For a week. With no prior shorter block. RMS125a was also not given notice that he would be blocked if his comments weren't stricken. I strongly feel that what due process exists here at Wikipedia (warn, stronger warning, warning of about to block, then block short, then block long on repeated offense) was shamefully not followed. --Lexein (talk) 02:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, that would require me to agree that there is some context to this that makes the comments acceptable under our rules. Are you able to offer that sort of insight? --Errant ^(chat!) 07:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Good block, in my view. Outright racism has no place here. Period. Jusdafax 10:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

True. Having been the victim of "outright racism", I agree. However, the comments linked to show no racism whatsoever. I'm having great trouble with how people are parsing grammar today :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The diffs presented in the first paragraph are quite enough proof to justify the block. One of the diffs had to be stricken completely, it appears. I am not sure what you mean by "parsing." It seems to be clearly racism. Jusdafax 11:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we're reading different diffs. For example, in the opening paragraph, Jeppiz claims that rms "calls Afro-Caribbeans "criminal/thugs/gaolbirds"" which is not borne out by the actual link. The phrase used is "it is mostly the "Afro-Caribbean" criminal/thugs/gaolbirds" - that does not call Afro-Caribbean people criminals/thugs or gaolbirds, it refers to a subset of criminals, thugs and gaolbirds who happen to be Afro-Caribbean. There's not a single speck of racism in that phrase, unless one parses it tremendously contrary to English language usage. Maybe it's a different link you're looking at? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

BW, are you really going down that path? I thought better of you. GiantSnowman 11:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

BW that is the diff I am looking at. And technically, you are right. But the intent seems clear, at least to me. Jusdafax 11:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Bwilkins, I usually find your reasoning very clear, even when we disagree, but I'm afraid I don't follow this time. If the user wanted to point out that only "criminal/thugs/gaolbirds" celebrated Thatcher's death, he could have written that. Adding "Afro-Caribbean" was not necessary for any other reason than to single out an ethnic group in a negative sense.Jeppiz (talk) 11:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

No, Bwilikins, it seems your parsing is what is too fine. If as you maintain the subject is, criminal/thugs/gaolbirds and they are identified as Afro-Carribean or Irish, they are being held out for ridicule by race, otherwise why mention their race, especially when it's a sourceless opinion that "those" people are the problem. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

First, I will restate: as someone with an ethnically-diverse background, I loathe any false claim of racism. When one reviews the reign of Thatcher (which is public knowledge) you'll find that two the major themes were a) N.Ireland relationships, and b) a crackdown on crime, which included the arrests of an inordinate number of "Afro-Caribbeans" (yes, including family members of mine, thank you very much). So, with the death of Thatcher, those groups of individuals might indeed be celebrating. RMS at NO time said that either of those groups were a "problem", nor were they ridiculed (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean? Celebrateing a death wasn't a problem? When it caused widespread sturm and drang commentary and even riot? Second, your personal feelings are not the issue. The issue is what one objectively looking at that sees. They see a race identifyer attached to a put-down. Finally there was no "they might" but that would hardly make the analysis different. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, his major issue seems to be with the Irish; they are Slugger o'Toolites, Shinners etc, and his signature is (was) the motto of the UDA, a proscribed organisation. FYI. Basket _Feudalist 12:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I get Bwilkins point on how "Afro-Carribean" is used. He may be right, but I think it's actually ambiguous and could mean both a sub-set of Afro-Carribeans or it could mean (given the short-hand/truncated style many of us normally adopt when posting) that the words following Afro-Carribean are used adjectivally for the entire group. I suppose WP:AGF - we should assume the best interpretation. DeCausa (talk) 12:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Putting aside the "Afro-Carribean" comment (though I still say it was racist), the anti-Irish/pro-Ulster issues highlighted by YCALAM are extremely alarming. GiantSnowman 12:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Ya know, I'm from the Southern US; people call us "Appalacian Americans" all the time (a derogatory regard in ways), but I don't have time nor inclination to care. Is it insulting? If YOU let it be. There's something called "Freedom of Speech" where I live, and your rights to such end only when it approaches yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre. So were "comments" made offensive to some? It appears so. Should we defer our common sense and rights EVERY time someone supposes their feelings are disregarded or hurt? Probably not. Should we "ban" someone for their words when done without malicious universal actions or physical threat? Probably not; again, these are mere words. In many ways the knee-jerk reaction of overly sensitive or zealous persons should not dictate how we see and regard information, both good and bad. Closing your eyes and ears to the unpleasantness of the World does not reduce or erase it's problems, it magnifies the ignorance associated with being uninformed and closed-minded. Opinions, good or bad, are just that. Words are similar. You take the good with the bad. Deal with it, because it is not going away in any of our lifetimes. Just an opinion :) Barada wha? 02:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Psst...there's no such thing as WP:FREESPEECH on a private website such as this. We have behavioural norms that everyone agreed to when they started editing (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's consider other trump cards like WP:IGNORE & WP:NOTCENSORED, where we dispense with the restrictive ideas between "Freedom" and "Speech". This debate more closely fringes on the idea of "Tolerance", because a certain limited number of individuals are dictating a point that, in cases such as an entire ethos of contemporary persons who denote themselves via expression, is restricted by the lack of acceptance and tolerance for ideas based on limited personal means and interpretations. So let's call this "tolerance", because some have none for ideas they cannot consider, or dare not do so. Before you strike a Red Letter on someone for expressing themselves, you need to look carefully at yourself for intolerance, for bias, and for the inability to accept the candor of others. Don't let intolerance dictate your reach and breadth. Don't be swollen with the ignorance that makes negative opinion so easy to jump to. Could we substitute the word "Religion" here for "Speech"? Sure, but the hangman's noose would loom from every branch of differing ideology when someone first says; "That's just ugly to say. Your religious ideas are insidious, derisive, and I don't like them or believe them, so I'm going to ban you". Challenge me that. For you know that "Tolerance" would not be sufficient, and "Freedom" is the word assigned to religion...i.e. "Freedom of Religious expression and belief". So I do not endorse the idea of a limited "Free Speech" here, as nothing said was universally malicious and/or baneful as ascribed above. Indeed, the knee-jerk reactions of the limited few who jump to condemn ideas are the ones we should be concerned with, for their contributions are always as "nay-sayers" for the ideas of others, and have concern only for the mindset of the similar. Anonymous quote; "Open your mind; your arse will follow." Just an opinion :) Thanks for letting me express it! Barada wha? 05:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

When you edit Wikipedia, you agree to the community's code of conduct. Some of it is legalese in the "terms of service", others are "policies" and "guidelines" established by the community. "Freedom of speech/expression/religion/noseblowing" is not covered anywhere in any of those - there are certain things that, if done, fall outside the code of conduct and will result in sanctions, and waving "freedom flags" in those cases doesn't help - it is, in fact, counterproductive. If there's parts of Wikipedia's polices and guidelines you don't agree with, there's three options: one, accept them even though you don't agree with them; two, initiate a discussion to attempt to change them at the relevant policy's or guideline's talk page or through a RFC; or three, stop editing Wikipedia (with a failed "two" resulting in either "one" or "three" being left as options). "Tolerance" of those who who choose the fourth option - "ignore it" - is, in fact, not an option. And, despite the arguments of some, WP:CIVIL isn't just a policy, it's one of the five pillars - to choose to ignore incivility is to strike at the very heart of what Wikipedia is. And it seems I'm developing some sesquipedalian loquaciousness, which means it's time for me to sleep. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but you are well spoken, and your respect for words and ideas grants you the ability to rationalize despite what must include your personal fortitudes, feelings, and inclinations. I truly appreciate what Wikipedians express here, for there is no greater single group of people willing to put up with the millions and millions of divergent life philosophies than here (granted, some are a tad more in "flex-mode" than others...no biggie). Now in regard to "flag waving", I never chose to highlight a policy, but instead a process that many can relate to and I believe folks should regard when making statement of simple "word choice" disagreement (note the original lack of blue lettering back there and the notation that I could see no universally malicious actions or physical threats to justify a limiting of such word choice), so I must displace the reprisal there for they are not in true appointment of my intentions. However, I did incline a few of the "majors" to read the words, and place well thought commentaries all of us can appreciate when we regard the entirety of this post. Anyone who does not internalize this diverse group of ideas and attempt to gain a greater understanding of these points of view is missing out, I believe, on the good parts of each portion. That I lean one way on expression and others lean another is a matter of consequence, exposure, and upbringing. I, for one, can see the whole in their dimensions. It is my sincere hope that others can as well. Yet I still regard that we shouldn't have banned Quis separabit? so far after the fact...it's like prosecuting outside a respectable statue of limitations. Do you stick your dog's nose in poop 7 days after his accident and expect it to have anything but a negative and confusing impact? I wouldn't! ... Thanks for more great debate :) Barada wha? 04:23, 21 April 2013 (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 in undeleting 2 pages with many edits

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Bug in undeleting 2 pages with many edits. Graham87 10:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

user:Dippoldtheoptician

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

---

Can someone uninvolved please warn user:Dippoldtheoptician for trying to fiddle AFD? Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted the user's change at the AfD (and put it on my watchlist). I've warned them on their talk page. They seem to have serious anger issues. I've also notified them of this discussion, which you should have done.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

This is over the top. In my opinion, changing the vote of another editor should result in an immediate block until the user signifies that he understands what he did wrong and promises not to do it again. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I have speedy deleted the article (it was already speedy deleted before by another admin) and closed the AfD. The editor has been warned. That's enough for now.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• I think the user needs a block, they've ALREADY recreated the article. This is exactly why we called for a SALT: because it was damn obvious this SPA would recreate the article. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Done (for 24h) and salted by Boing! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:35, 22 April 2013 (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.

obvious socks

Trolls gonna troll. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Someone please block 'em--Slimyrasp2 (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nemont Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gratans You are more likely to get a response at WP:SPI if you show the evidence that makes you think it is "obvious" that these are sockpuppets. --Orlady (talk) 15:41, 22 April 2013 (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:Asishillickal

User:Asishillickal / User:Asishjose could use some guidance. 92.40.182.182 (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

He's received some ... any editor can give him additional guidance beyond that. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

IP attacks on User:Pks1142

Can an admin protect this user's page, he's been subject to attacks by ip addresses see [223]. Please take the appropriate action with the IPs.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

User page has been semi-protected by Ultraexactzz. Doesn't look like there's a problem with the talk page. Chamal ^T•C 16:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The IPs are blocked as well, 48 hours. The Semi is set for three weeks, so hopefully they'll go play somewhere else in the interim. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Wade (Survivor contestant) and AfD socks fest

With no reference to the article's merit, this AfD is a sockpuppet fest. Almost everyone, including the nominator, is a SPA account. The "discussion" looks silly and increasingly ridiculous. I was moving to request a page protection, but given the nature of the discussion at this point I would prefer a speedy close and eventually a new nomination in a few days by a "clean" editor. It is not the only AfD discussion with these problems, as, looking at edit histories of the socks, it appears that a sockmaster is attacking a bunch of articles related to Survivor (eg, this AfD looks quite pointy). Furthermore, all these socks are smearing on so many AfD discussions that it could be wise stop them. Please take a look. --Cavarrone (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I have added semi-protection until the end of the AfD. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with voting to delete on an AFD. That is what AFD is for. If you want to keep it you vote keep and if you feel the article should be deleted you vote delete. SurvivorFanHH (talk) 23:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protection does not work so well if a sockpuppet is allowed to remove all the SPA tags: [224]. Cavarrone (talk) 23:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

There's plenty wrong with an apparently coordinated sock/meatpuppet campaign to stuff the ballot box, which is absolutely what this looks like. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

{{checkuser needed}} – It's more massive disruption by banned user Don't Feed the Zords (talk · contribs); the only thing that can be done is to shut down or delete all AfDs, block all sockpuppet accounts involved, and, if necessary, apply further restrictions. --MuZemike 03:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The tags on at least one blocked account says BuickCenturyDriver (talk · contribs), but looking at that SPI it seems these two sockpuppeteers are tangled up like a bag of snakes... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Or like a rat king. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Ongoing harassment of User:Alan Liefting by User:CBM

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 has been a lengthy and ongoing discussion on User:Alan Liefting's talk page about the appropriateness of User:CBM's repeated blocks. Alan is under a community sanction from creating categories outside Mainspace. He has done a few edits that were needed and everyone agrees were helpful and useful. No other admins seemed to be bothered with the few edits that Alan was doing except CBM. CBM has done few other edits except for the repeated blocks of Alan. The last several blocks in a row were all done by CBM giving the appearance that he is stalking Alan's edits and is involved.

The problem that I have with this situation isn't that Alan was blocked. My problem is that CBM is clearly invovled at this point, refuses to admit so and has adamantly refused that there is any problem with an Admin following an editor around until they can find something to block them for.

What I am recommending is for CBM to disengage with Alan. Let another admin handle his case from this point on. If Alan does something worthy of a block then fine, but at this point CBM's continued involvement gives the perception if not the reality that he is following Alan around looking for a reason to block him. Kumioko (talk) 14:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The sanction is for "any category-related edits outside of mainspace", not just creating categories. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED is very clear that an admin does not become "involved" with a situation by virtue of taking administrative action. It says "This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary." Indeed, an admin with experience in an issue is often in a better position to evaluate the circumstances of an edit restriction and take action without needless discussion to bring others up to speed - particularly in the case of completely objective violations such as these. The goal of an edit restriction is to stop the forbidden edits without requiring further community discussion.

The background situation here is that Alan Liefting has an edit restriction due to long-term complaints about his category-related edits and numerous previous warnings [225]. The restriction is completely objective: "Alan Liefting may not make any category-related edits outside of mainspace until and unless this topic ban is lifted." Since the restriction was established, Alan Liefting has violated it on numerous occasions. As described at [226], he appealed the restriction twice, and the appeals were not successful. He specifically agreed to follow the restriction as part of one unblock [227], but then went back to violating it. I have issued several blocks following the usual increasing sequence of block lengths, in hopes that he would change his editing to follow the restriction. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, this is the second time this has been discussed; see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive248#Alan_Liefting_and_long_blocks. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• I will also point out that he violated the restriction in Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Theo's Little Bot 8.—Kww(talk) 15:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I see three issues here:

• Alan has probably transgressed his topic ban (I deliberately haven't looked). Blocking or other action is justified. I have no problem with this, if there's no other way to have Alan respect the topic ban (A topic ban I called for). Bit of a failure for WP all-round though if that's the only technique available.
• CBM has been the blocking admin for most of Alan's block log. This looks suspicious, even if it isn't. There are many admins. This is not a rapid-response issue. These blocks would appear more credible if they were coming from more than one admin.
• A 3 month block is disproportionate punishment to the offence.

Andy Dingley (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The reason for the 3 month block. of course, is the recidivism by Alan Liefting. The first blocks were much shorter. It is standard practice is to use escalating block lengths in this way. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I see your point and Andy's. Consider this: Joe from Rando (ha, you thought I'd say Randy) is extremely poor and has sick hungry children at home. He steals a loaf of bread for which he received probation. Two weeks later he steals again for which he receives community service. Again, later, he steals and receives a night of prison and steals again and gets a week. Subsequent thefts, because although Joe works hard as a [insert extremely poorly paid job here], he has like 10 kids and his wife left him for some rich ass and they're in the Bahamas. After Joe gets out after a week of prison, he steals bread again. Always non-violent, no other infractions other than stealing a loaf of bread. This time Joe gets a month and a strong admonishment. (Poor Joe's kids, who is taking care of them while he is in prison). Using this escalating punishment idea, at what point does Joe's serial theft top out at? Can Joe receive three, six, or even a year in prison for stealing? Could Joe get life for stealing? Or how about death? (By the way, thanks for wasting your time by reading my imaginative narrative) Although we use escalating 'preemptive preventative deterrent measures' (i.e. a happy way of saying punishment for which I am fine with but the draconianophobes will cry about), at what point do we say "You know, the punishment is disproportionate to the offense." In law, we find minimum and maximum sentences. But very rarely are those things spelled out in community probations. You usually find "Alan can't do shit with categories or he'llz gets the hamma baby!" but what we really need is "If Alan touches those cats again, he'll get anywhere from beat with a stick to 3 months block at an admin's discretion."--v/r - TP 16:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

All very well until you realise than Alan doesn't have sick hungry children at home, and even if he did, it has nothing to do with volunteering to work in a collegiate online encyclopedia. Alan repeatedly and unashamedly violates the community sanctions placed on him. What's the point in community sanctions if they're not upheld? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Not saying they shouldn't be upheld. I'm saying we need to be realistic about the range of discretion given individual sysops. CBM did nothing wrong, but at what point do we top off in progressive discipline or do we continue into indefinite despite how minor the actual infraction.--v/r - TP 17:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Well that's more a site-wide issue, it's potentially setting a precedent that we'd need to follow in future if we remove the current level of discretion applied. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it's Carl that's being harassed here, by those who continually follow Alan Liefting's page (some editors seem to do nothing but edit that talk page....) and chase Carl for making legitimate blocks. In doing so, such editors legitimise Alan Liefting's attempts to circumvent the community sanctions placed on (and subsequently reiterated to) him at various AN/I discussions. We've already removed the "involved" issue as WP:INVOLVED is abundantly clear on it. In fact, one finds it hard to believe that editors keep banging the "involved" drum in spite of the fact INVOLVED caters for precisely this situation. If we insist on "uninvolved" admins being involved here, we'd need to rewrite INVOLVED, define what "involved" means (is it one block, two blocks, three blocks? Does it count against named editors, IPs, etc?) and find some suitable candidates who are prepared to go over the entire history of Alan Liefting's transgressions (to provide suitable context), deliberate vandalism, etc. Any volunteers? (It's also worth noting that Alan Liefting has been blocked by four separate admins in less than a year.... ) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed 100%. This should be closed as baseless - an admin who repeatedly blocks someone for policy/topic-ban violations isn't "stalking" them and certainly isn't "involved", they're simply familiar with the situation and know what to look for. If Alan, or anyone else, does something worthy of a block, then he should be blocked - by whichever admin finds the violation first, and if that happens to be CBM, that's the way the cookie crumbles. Here's a better idea than telling CBM to stop blocking Alan: telling Alan to stop doing things that get him blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree. My first thought was that 3 months is excessive but that's where escalating blocks need to end up. The ban is clear and there is no need for Alan Liefting to go around violating that ban, even if everyone agrees that they are needed, helpful and useful. Not much point in a ban if it is only selectively enforced. --regentspark (comment) 16:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

So really what I'm hearing here is that no matter how much an admin follows an editor around that they cannot be held accountable? You all know as well as I that the wording "broadly construed" is nothing but a tool to allow an admin unlimited discretion to block a user that they don't like. You say that Carl is being harassed but you don't care that the only edits CBM seems to be doing with any ferquency is blocking Alan. He logs in, does a couple edits, blocks Alan and then leaaves. If Alan's actions are that problematic I can assure you that there are more than enough admins that will take action. There literally wandering around looking for stuff. So there is no need for the same admin to block one user 4, 5 or 6 times in a row. Someone above said this justifies to Alan that he can keep violating his sanction. What this also does is show editors that admins are above the rules and policy doesn't apply to them. That is much more of a problem than Alan's useful edits and unwritten and unverbialized invocation of WP:Bold and WP:IAR which it seems only apply to admins and not editors. Let alone those under sanction. Kumioko (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Kumioko, let's look at this in a straightforward way. Either CBM is acting in bad faith when blocking Alan Liefting or he isn't. If he is, then sticking to the ban should adequately take care of the situation. If CBM blocks for reasons other than the ban, then his actions can be reviewed. If, on the other hand, he is acting in good faith and merely implementing the ban then there is nothing anyone can do. Asking for sanctions against an admin who is merely implementing consensus is unfair and unreasonable. --regentspark (comment) 16:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

"Accountable" for what? Enforcing the community-agree topic ban? (And no, "wandering admins" will have no idea of the background of Alan's regular transgression of his topic ban, nor his vandalism, so that's why admins who know what he does usually intercept him) Easiest thing to do would have been to advocate removal of the topic ban and provide masses of evidence as to why Alan should now be trusted despite such a lengthy block log (even before Carl's correct escalation sequence). That way, Alan's repeated transgressions stop being.... transgressions and we can all move on. If Alan's doing such a sterling job, it shouldn't be too hard to convince the community that his topic ban should be removed, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Accountable for harassment unless that policy doesn't apply to admins. I have to admit that I didn't really have any faith that this submission would be taken for the serious matter it is and that some would come and justify CBM's actions. But I wanted it known that there are a number of editors who think CBM is out of line and abusing his admin tools by following Alan around and acting as the Lone Ranger. Now I have done that so it makes sense at this point for this to be closed since its another glaring example of the Admin vs. editor mentality that is rampant in Wikipedia. Its sad, its disgraceful and you all should be ashamed that you let it continue but we are powerless and you are the ones who have been "trusted" with the tools to do something about it. If none of you have the morale courage to do the right thing in the face of obvious harassment by an administrator then I really do have little hope for the long term success of the project and I do not feel even remotely bad about calling attention to it. And no I don not at this point think that CBM's actions are in good faith. I'm sorry to say that but that's how I feel. Kumioko (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

"harassment", how? Enforcing the community ban is what Carl has done. Where are all these editors "who think CBM is out of line" and "abusing his admin tools"? Perhaps you should seek his desysop? (It looks like as many think Carl's done the right thing as those who don't). The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I almost got that done a couple months ago. The discussion was leaning towards removal, but didn't achieve consensus per lack of participation and because Alan decided he wanted the discussion to end without getting the topic ban removed. (it also resulted in him being unblocked). Ryan Vesey 17:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Try again maybe? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Several of them commented on Alan's talk page and even Andy above thinks its a negative perception at least. As I already said its strange if not innapropriate for an admin to seemingly login only to check to see if one editor violated their topic ban and then seemingly logoff again doing very few other edits or uses of his admin tools. Is CBM Alan's personal parole officer? I think not. And even I am not calling for his Desysop yet but I think that once an admin has repeatedly done something like this then they need to get some more eyes on the case. believe me if he is causing serious problem people will be lining up to stop him. If you have to go digging to find a reason to block a user then its not a problem! As I stated on Alan's talk page is a lot like 3RR in spirit. At a certain point we need more than one person looking at a case if we don't want it to be viewed as innapropriate. Kumioko (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Well get these people here, drop them a line. No major problem with that. There's nothing inappropriate about Carl's actions. Other editors have done nothing in the past week than edit Alan's talk page. Carl is enforcing the community sanctions which is appropriate for an admin to do. Repeat: Carl has done nothing wrong, so go seek his desysop, it's pointless though. (By the way, Kumioko, have you counted the number of people who have commented here, at Alan's talk page, and in the archives about Alan's blocks and Carl's admin? It's "more than one person" for sure).... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

@Kumioko: Perhaps you should seek a footnote on WP:INVOLVED that says to the effect of "Although not involved by this definition, an administrator who is repeatedly performing administrator actions on a particular users are strong recommended, though not required, to defer action to other uninvolved sysops in most cases." That seems to be the meat of what you're saying.--v/r - TP 17:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

This would also need to be fed to all current and prospective admins to know that, at some arbitrary point in enforcing a community-sanctioned block, they would become to expect harassment from other "uninvolved" editors. The "arbitrary point" should have a clear definition since this proposal advocates removing the ability of an admin's ability to ascertain that he or she is still acting objectively. And one would imagine that if an admin acting without objectivity, they should no longer be admins and should have their bit removed by community consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Well the idea is balancing the reality of objectivity with the perception of subjectivity. Essentially: "You are not prohibited from acting and you cannot be punished if you really were uninvolved, but expect some backlash and a probably ANI inquery."--v/r - TP 17:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, all very well but Alan has had a lengthy block log before this scenario arose, and Alan is adept at deflecting blame onto "irrational-thinking" people, trying to make the rest of us think he's "rational-thinking" and those of use who disagree are the opposite. Alan's community ban was across a tiny sliver of what an editor can edit on Wikipedia, yet he's broken those terms four times in a row, usually within days of being unblocked. He's been to AN/I and back. Sometimes, the drugs don't work. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not arguing Alan's defense here. I fully support CBM. I'm thinking of a broader scope that might be useful in this case. As the primary patroller here, perhaps Carl can write up some kind of disposition that would bring the rest of us up to speed. Maybe that could even become the S.O.P. for these deep rooted issues.--v/r - TP 17:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support involving other admins: CBM can choose to not continue to block Alan. There are plenty of admins that can do this work. CBM has been invited on multiple occasions to allow other admins to conduct this work. He has chosen not to do so. Whether or not there is a vendetta on CBM's part, whether or not CBM is hounding Alan or not, the simple reality is that to a number of concerned editors this is the appearance that is being carried. It is very simple to sidestep this issue and allow for the same functional result (that of blocking Alan); just have other admins become involved. Furthermore, should Alan eventually be banned from the project, having a single administrator be the person doing all of this will dramatically weaken the case against Alan. It's simply the sensible thing to do. Is CBM technically correct? Sure. Does that make his actions proper? No. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • There is no "hounding", just an enforcement of community sanctions, as you are very well aware. This has been discussed many times and multiple locations, no other admins have the background in Alan Liefting's abuse of Wikipedia. Carl has done the right thing. Hammersoft and others have simply harassed Carl while side-stepping the fact that Carl has done nothing wrong but while Alan has repeatedly broken the terms of his sanction, and had multiple blocks from multiple admins. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
    • You previously offered advice that if I thought CBM's tools should be removed, I should start a thread to that effect. I offer you the same advice; if you believe I have harassed CBM, then please start a thread to that effect. Raising issue with CBM's conduct does not constitute harassment. But, you are certainly welcome to plead your case. As WP:ADMINACCT notes, "Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions" Within the bounds of that policy, I do question CBM's actions. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
      • No-one said you weren't allowed to question admin's actions, but your recent edit history shows that all you do here is harangue Carl. Simple. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
        • If you feel that way, you are welcome to start a thread to that effect. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
          • I don't need to. I'm happy with the status quo. Other than your periodic arrival in Wikipedia to defend Alan's latest transgression and harass Carl. But that's your prerogative. It's not elegant or sensible, but it's how you operate. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
            • Continuing to attack me is inappropriate. I appreciate that you modified the above statement away from the blatantly false statement you made earlier, but the intent remains effectively the same. My position remains the same; if you feel I have done something wrong, then you are free to start a thread about it. However, continuing to attack me here on this thread is counter productive. That said, I of course can not stop you from doing so again. In fact, I'll make this easy for you. If I have behaved even half as badly as you have described, then a block is certainly in order. I remove you from the burden of being involved in respect to you taking admin actions against me. With that out of the way, you are welcome to block me for flagrant transgressions against our policies with regards to CBM. If you do not block me, then I presume the accusations are false, in which case this divergence of the thread is at an end. If you do block me, then I can not contribute to this thread so once again this divergence of the thread is at an end. Either way, it ends here, now. I am confident you will do the right thing. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
              • Your edit history tells its own story, I'll leave it to others to check that out. I'll also assume good faith and note that you frequently return to defend Alan's latest transgressions, very noble. I'm confident you'll do the right thing eventually here and stop harassing Carl and stop defending an editor who has disrupted Wikipedia so many times that he has been blocked by four different editors in the last 11 months. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
                • Either my transgressions are worthy of a block or your accusations are false. There is no middle ground. Take your pick. Since it seems you are adamant that I am grossly in error, I expect you will block me shortly. If not, please drop the continued assault against me. I don't expect you to admit it is wrong, but the very least you can do is either drop it or block me. Your choice. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
                  • Neither. Your transgressions are those of a very angry and frustrated person who wants their own way. I can deal with that, quite simply. You need to calm down and stop monitoring Alan's page (which, from your edit history, seems pretty much your thing here). You need to understand that your commitment to Alan is very noble indeed, extremely chummy, but won't help when it comes to those of us who have to deal with his constant transgressions of the community-sanctioned ban. I'm sure you'll eventually do the right thing and get back to content building. You've got your thread here at AN/I now, and unfortunately you're just spoiling your opportunity to be heard by bringing out the same old non-arguments about Carl doing the right thing. I imagine most people haven't got a clue what you're complaining about! Still, your chance is here and your chance is now. We wait, with baited breath.......... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
                    • And now you accuse me of being 'very angry', a person who 'wants [my] own way', that I need to 'calm down', and that I need to stop monitoring Alan's page (ironic, given you are the #1 poster there other than Alan himself). I would also like to clarify that I did not start this thread and it isn't 'my' thread. I encourage you to block me or drop this false line of accusations. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
                      • No, once again you're not reading properly. I characterised your transgressions as being those of a very angry person. It may just be that your personality is very calm but you write in a manner of a very angry person (at least as far as I can read). I won't block you, that's daft, and I won't drop the line of perfectly accurate statements I've made. Either way, thanks for at long last bringing this to some kind of central forum, very admirable, and thanks for contributing. I'm sure now the community will have a chance to see exactly what they're dealing with! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
                        • No, it's rather far from daft. You've made quite a swath of accusations against me personally. As I've noted, if even half of it is true I am deserving of a block. You maintain these statement are accurate. I again note that I remove you from the burden of being subject to any 'involved' restrictions with respect to your admin actions towards me. Please, if what you are saying is accurate then a block is in order. Since you insist it is accurate, you should block me. As to your other point, as I noted above, I did not bring this issue to this forum. I posted to it some hours after it had already started. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment from uninvolved admin - The motive of those arguing in support of Alan here is clear - this is the latest in a long line of attempts to draw Carl into ugly dramaboard discussions and therefore somehow tag him as "involved" and bar him from taking further administrative actions against Alan. We must not allow this to happen. Carl is doing his job; the community has decided unambiguously what we are to do with Alan, and Carl is simply executing this decision. I find it strange that some of the editors calling for Carl to stop blocking Alan here are also the habitual proclaimers of the argument that admins are supposed to serve the community, the current admin corps has lost touch with the community it was elected to serve, admins have put themselves at odds with the wishes of the community etc. etc. The community has decided what it wants in this situation; how else is Carl supposed to act? He is simply carrying out the wishes of the community. In addition, the substance of this particular topic ban has been confirmed by ArbCom on more than one occasion. Far from acting inappropriately, Carl is doing an excellent job of keeping a close eye on an editor who has already demonstrated he is abundantly willing to shun what the community wants and violate his topic ban whenever it inconveniences him. It's true that other admins could do this job but it would take them longer, being less familiar with Alan's editing problems than Carl. I can't help but think that this is what the real motive of this thread is. This needs to close, and end, now. Or we have to re-write WP:INVOLVED and dissolve the Arbitration Committee. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • One of the most common argument from Alan's supporters is that "admins protect admins", so I'd be inclined to keep this open as long as possible to allow full contributions from the community. However, maybe we should ask Arbcom to get comment......... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Let me just comment that I am not an Alan supporter. I am a supporter of admins being held to the same or higher standard as editors, not exempt from the same policies they are policing. I think the topic ban on Alan had some merit but since then he hasn't been doing the same problematic edits. He seems to me to be taking great care in fact to ensure that those edits he does do are valid and not contentious (outside his topic ban). I also have a real problem when one editor like Alan is held to one standard and blocked at the first indications "broadly construed" and at the sole discretion of the admin, of a violation when others are ignored. Even worse when admins do the same thing or worse and nothing is done or there admonished (oh dear not admonishment, anything but that...wait what is that?) because they are admins being sheltered because no one wants to set a precedance of admins being burned for doing admin functions. An admin shouldn't have to fear being desysopped if they are doing the right thing. But if they aren't or the perception is that they are, then they shouldn't be immune from criticism and they should be dealt with accordingly. I have already stated that CBM may be doing the right thing, but the perception is that he is simply harassing Alan. Not only because he is the only one repeatedly blocking him but also because he does few other edits or actions. If he was doing hundreds of edits or routinely using his tools it would be less of a problem but that is not the case. Kumioko (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Kumioko, I have absolutely no dog in this affair and all I can see is a series of actions by CBM that are consistent with his role as an administrator. That's not to say that his motives are pure, but rather that there is no basis for any speculation about his motives whatsoever. Reading through some of the discussion on Alan Liefting's talk page, I do see that the blocks are, um, unnecessary in the sense that there was no harm to the project from AL's activities. So what we have here is, perhaps, enforcement of the letter of the law rather than its spirit. I say perhaps because I'm limited only by what I see and obviously I don't see the whole picture. Regardless, implementing the law to the letter is not actionable. The easiest way to sort this out is to remove the ban itself. (See below). --regentspark (comment) 18:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• • • • (edit conflict)The argument that there is a "perception [of] harassing" because an admin is enforcing community sanctions is a massive failure of good faith. Enforcing sanctions does not make an administrator WP:INVOLVED, full stop; this isn't "admins protecting admins", this is following policy and applying common sense. Also, I do have a question: ...why exactly is Kumioko bringing this up? If Alan is feeling harassed, shouldn't that be something for Alan to address himself, if he desired? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
        • There is no perception of harassing because an admin is enforcing community sanctions. I don't think anyone is stating that. There is a perception of harassment because CBM is the only admin who has blocked Alan for violating his topic ban. All six blocks are by CBM. There is no case that can be made that CBM's actions in this case are just happenstance. He is deliberately monitoring Alan. Whether we call that harassment or not is open for debate, but it is clear that it can readily appear that way. CBM avoiding this does two things (1) removes that suspicion and (2) increases the strength of any further cases against Alan on this issue. In effect, while CBM is technically correct in enacting the blocks, he is functionally harming the case against Alan. At some point, the sheer number of blocks by CBM against Alan, when NO one else is blocking him, becomes blatantly vindictive. This is all avoidable by the sheer expediency of requesting other administrators to step in. CBM has been invited more than once to do so, yet refuses. He has warned that his next block of Alan will be for a year. It is time for another administrator to step in. No harm will come to the project because CBM steps away from this issue. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
          • "blatantly vindicative"? No. AGF. Carl is carrying out the request of the community when Alan has contravened his ban. No harm will come to the project because Hammersoft stops waiting in the sidelines for a cause to follow, and then harass Carl endlessly for doing what the community voted for him to do. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
          • I was going to say "I find your lack of good faith disturbing". Then I read the below. By comparison your comment is an absolute paragon of good faith. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
            • @TRM: Allow me to clarify. I said "At some point...[it] becomes blatantly vindictive". I did not say this point is now. I think we can all agree that 200 blocks against a user by a single admin with no other admins blocking them becomes vindictive. I think we can all agree 1 block is not vindictive. Somewhere inbetween comes the "at some point". We do not need to reach that point; it's easily avoidable. Just have another admin handle this issue. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course there's nothing wrong with Carl's actions. He's an admin and it's a content builder he's dealing to. Only the content builders are whinging, which they do anyway, so why listen? Maybe Alan's offending edits were entirely reasonable, but he's a content builder and content builders are not to buck a community decision (admin-speak for a rule made up by a small group of admins). A sense of perspective is needed here. An unruly mob of content builders are orchestrating a cruel attempt to deny Carl the pleasures of unbridled power. There is nothing wrong with lying in ambush to catch a content builder and treble or quadruple his previous block. It's what our best admins do. It is irrelevant to point out that admins who busy themselves with these traps contribute little content. How can Carl concentrate on the pleasures of ambush if he's also expected to build content? Content building is hard work. Anyway, building content is an undignified activity on Wikipedia, not something a good administrator should stoop to. Wikipedia needs less content building and more administration to the remaining content builders. Maybe elsewhere someone who behaves like Alan would have his blocks capped at a sane level, such as one month. But this is Wikipedia, the brave new Wikipedia where Sandstein is starting his rule, implementing an increasingly rigid, uncompromising and authoritarian regime. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, what a load of puffery that is. If you disagree with the community consensus on Alan's ongoing disruption, do something about it, don't harp on about some kind of hidden agenda. "Infamy, infamy... they've all got it in for me!" (P.S. I assume you're excluding me as a "content builder"? Please justify that.... And if you think modifying categories ad infinitum constitutes "content building", I'd be interested to hear that argument too....!) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

You're the last person to be talking about puffery. Alan does a measure of content building as well. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Your link makes no sense. But good try. Alan does a "measure" of content building, of course he does, don't we all? But your tirade was so one-eyed it made mine (both of them) water. Admins build content too. Unless you can prove otherwise! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

If the link makes no sense to you then you must be oblivious to your own puffery. Yes of course some admins contribute content, and there, there... I'm sure you've made good contributions too. I slipped up and forgot that some Americans seem to have have trouble with irony. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Americans? Donde? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Epipelagic, that's seriously in bad faith, could easily be considered uncivil, and could even be construed as a personal attack upon certain admins. And as an admin who also works extensively on content I'm frankly disgusted at the slings and arrows flung at admins by people who harp on and on about "admins don't make content and look down on ones who do". There is indeed admin abuse rampant on Wikipedia, and it's the admins who are being abused. (Also, we do not "cap" blocks at any level, otherwise it's a blank cheque - "you've had your block, now go out there and violate all the policies you want, you've got a get out of blocking free card".) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

What I actually said was "It is irrelevant to point out that admins who busy themselves with these traps contribute little content." I didn't think I was referring to you. Do you busy yourself with these traps? I note your implied threats. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

What makes this so much better is Epipelagic's assumption that I'm American. Brilliant! Do not pass go, do not collect 200 pounds....!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Really? You're not? Are you quite sure? --Epipelagic (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Me no Americano dude! You need some ed-u-kay-shun...! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Well I never! --Epipelagic (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Well indeed, and I suppose a handful of FAs and FLs doesn't count as content-building in your mind. Nor the content-building of the other admins who have contributed to this discussion. Your whole "anti-admin/non-content-building" argument is without foundation, and frankly, a little bit embarrassing for you. But I'm sure you'll be just fine with that, facts don't seem to be a necessary part of this discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, facts don't seem to be a necessary part of this discussion --Epipelagic (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, facts don't seem to be a necessary part of your discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

So "content builder" is now an insult? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I see no problems whatsoever in CBM's actions. I am saddened by Alan's blocklog and by his inability to participate in Wikipedia on the basis of it being a community. But the rent-a-mob baiting of CBM and those who have supported his enforcement of the sanctions at Alan's talk page leaves a really sour taste in the mouth. --Dweller (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm saddened too. But since this is a volunteer run site and people tend to edit what they are interested in, in this case categorization of articles, it seems hard to understand why someone would have an easy time of following a sanction. It should not be at all surprising that 99% of all editors who get sanctioned end up being blocked for violating it. Why is that I suppose? Could it be that people are less likely edit something that does not interest them? I would think so. As I said before, the sanction had some merit but its overly broad. His sanction dealt with a specific type of edit, readin gthe sanction is plain to see what, but yet we established a huge net and said he can't edit categories outside namespace, knowing that leaves a massive window. Does this include talk pages? Would adding WikiProject banners count? It seems they would but weren't a problem and shouldn't be covered. Yet his sanction would include them. You can be mad as you want that we are questioning the natural order of things but if you want to point fingers at someone then you need to also include those who wrote a sanction so broad that it covers nearly everything. Alan has taken great care to ensure his edits were useful so at this point we should invoke IAR and BOLD and call it a day. There is absolutely no benefit to the project with this block, there is absolutely no prevention, only punishment and CBM is absolutely 100% involved. There is no other way to view it. He is the only one taking action, its one of the few actions he even bothers with in the infrequent occassions he graces us with his presence. Kumioko (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you personally disagree with a sanction that has been decided on and then confirmed by the community is interesting but immaterial. As is whether each and any edit made in breach of a sanction was constructive or not. CBM is enforcing community sanctions and has done nothing wrong. Calling his blocks "harassment" is the only wrong here. --Dweller (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I repeat my question from above: why are you raising this issue, Kumioko, instead of letting Alan speak up for himself if he feels CBM is not acting in an impartial manner? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Extended comment to follow NE Ent 21:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Well for a couple reasons. I am less concerned about his sanction, that is for him to fight. What I am trying to discuss is CBM's unhealthy and unhelpful harassment of the user. That is the problem I am trying to get dealt with here more than the topic ban itself. With that said, he's blocked for the next three months. So how would he possibly discuss the issue with us here? He can't. Even if he could he probably feels as I do that its unlikely that anyone would take the allegations seriously. Kumioko (talk) 22:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Ironically, your unfounded and over-the-top repeated accusation of CBM's "harassment" is itself harassment. A bunch of uninvolved editors have told you that CBM did nothing wrong. Even if you disagree with them, please drop the aggressive hyperbole. --Dweller (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It's simple. Alan posts on his talk page, or here after the block expires, "I don't believe CBM is capable of being impartial with regard to enforcing my topic ban, I would like for another admin to handle it instead of him". The community says, "ok". No drama, no fuss, a polite request by the subject of the sanctions won't ruffle anyone's feathers. Somebody else coming in and accusing CBM of hounding/wikistalking/vendettaing? That's pot-stirring at best. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Dweller, I am going to make this as clear as I can. My comments are not harassment. If an admin is allowed to follow another editor around, sanction or not, looking for a reason to block them and does so no less than 6 times in the same number of months, that is harassment, plain and simple. There really is no other way of looking at it other than justifying it as admins aren't subject to harassment and hounding policies. If that's the case then fine (although that would be indeed troubling). If my desire to discuss those questionable actions causes you to think I am harassing CBM then that's also fine, I can live with that. But I view what CBM to do as wrong, I have brought that up here expecting that admins would support his harassment and I was right. I never expected him to admin fault and I didn't expect other admins to say he was wrong. I would have been truly surprised if I was wrong. But it seems I am not. As for Hyperbole, if CBM blocked him 2 or 3 times that could be argued as not harassment, but 6 times? Come on, you cannot actually expect me to believe or buy that is not harassment. There are over 650 admins in Wikipedia and you are telling me that 1 admin who rarely edits is the only admin qualified and versed in the case enough to do it? Please I am not that stupid so your assuming I am is only an insult to you, not me and is also insulting to the rest of the admins and community to say that they aren't smart enough to perform the block if they think something was wrong. You say he did nothing wrong and its not harassment and you don't agree with me. Ok that's fine, we'll have to agree to disagree but how many blocks would it take before it was harassment if not 6? 10? 20? 100? And again my questioning an admin on his actions isn't drama potstirring, its due diligence. Kumioko (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

So, uncontroversial topic ban enforcment being fought against in the third person by a drama-only account. It's not obvious why people are taking this seriously. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you clarify which Drama only account you are referring too? Kumioko (talk) 22:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Looked in a mirror lately? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh great, this discussion doesn't have enough drama already you need to come along and snipe your usual stupid comments! Kumioko (talk) 00:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)WP: NPA, Kumioko. It would be best if you dropped the WP: BATTLEGROUND mentality. We're all just trying to do what's best for the 'pedia. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 00:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Alan Liefting is under a community-imposed topic ban because a sufficient portion of the community found Alan's category changes to be disruptive. As explained above, the only harassment occurring is from a small circle of dissenters, with CBM as their target. This topic has been discussed on many previous occasions, with numerous appeals to have the topic ban removed—appeals which have been rejected by the community. Instead of attacking CBM, the OP should attempt to explain a few facts of life to Alan: this is a collaborative project, and an editor who repeatedly irritates others by making unwelcome changes is going to end up with a topic ban, and will be blocked for escalating periods if the ban is violated. Thank you CBM for having the perseverance to monitor the situation for the community. Johnuniq (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I for one am glad that so many people are validating my fears here that admins are not subject to the rules of harassment and involved. I feared it already but this solidifies it for me. What a shame. Now we are even thanking admins for stalking other editors they don't like. That's wonderful. Kumioko (talk) 00:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Remove Alan Leifting's ban on category creation outside mainspace

Alan Leifting appears to be violating the ban, but doing so in a useful sort of way. In which case, rather than blocking him for doing so, perhaps we should remove the ban itself. --regentspark (comment) 18:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Regardless of whether the edits were benefical or not, they're still in violation of a community-imposed sanction - and to lift the ban because "they're not causing harm,e ven though they're in violation" would be rewarding bad behavior and would make a mockery of the sanctions process. If people want to have sanctions lifted, the way to do it is to obey the sanctions and then, after a certain amount of time has passed, request that the sanction be lifted "on the terms of good behavior", as it were - not to flout them and have somebody say "oh, they're actually good edits even if they're made in the wrong". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support with condition - I think there were merits to the ban in the first place. I think as long as he is taking care to ensure these edits aren't contentious such as he has been it would be fine. I would be happy if we could clarify that there are some category edits outside mainspace he can do that aren't of the sort he was doing before that got him into tgrouble. Kumioko (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

  The problem is that the ban then becomes unenforceable. Admins can't be expected to evaluate whether a particular violation is useful or not. --regentspark (comment) 19:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

"Admins can't be expected to evaluate whether a particular violation is useful or not."

• Can't they do it or would it just be more inconvenient for them? What can't admins be expected to evaluate next? This is a really ridiculous claim. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose until we've actually discussed the ban and how best to deal with further transgressions. Alan makes thousands of edits a day when not blocked (by one of many different admins, not just Carl). His topic-block edits will almost certainly go unnoticed, and it's unclear if Alan is making these edits deliberately or accidentally. But after four consecutive blocks for the same issue, I'm inclined to believe he knows what he's doing. Hopefully those who took part in the last few discussions over Alan's behaviour have been notified about this? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose The way to reward people who repeatedly break community sanctions is not to lift the community sanctions. Alan's problem has been and remains that he cannot see past what he thinks is The Right Thing To Do, while the rest of the editors work on consensus-based editing. His continual breaching of the sanction proves that he does not get it. Sadly. --Dweller (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose It dismays me that we keep hopelessly entangling CBM's actions with Alan's actions whenever one or the other's actions are raised. CBM's actions with respect to Alan are an issue in and of themselves. While Alan's actions with regards to the topic ban strike me as being Ghandi-esque, there is no way that peaceful non-cooperation (read; actions that violate the ban but do not harm the project) can ever prevail on Wikipedia. If we supported such actions by overturning Alan's topic ban via this vehicle, all editors would be empowered to violate their topic bans via "peaceful non-cooperation". That way leads to chaos. Alan's topic ban will never be repealed until he complies for quite some length of time with all elements of the topic ban. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • You've yet to actually demonstrate in policy or principle what Carl has done wrong, so it's probably about time you stopped with the wilful inaccurate characterisation of an admin doing what the community asked of him. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
    • And now I am by your account guilty of wilfull inaccurate characterizations. TRM, please block me or drop it. Please. You are not helping the discussion. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes, correct. But perhaps you're just tired. Like me, of all this nonsense. Good night, God speed, and I sincerely hope you get something you like out of all this! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - As a non-admin, seeing someone have their sanctions lifted for violating them, and because a rent-a-mob pack are hell bent on protecting them (and disparaging absolutely anyone that disagrees with them), would absolutely smash my confidence in any system here to pieces. To be honest, having been blocked several times for violating the TBAN, it's a surprise they haven't been indeffed... maybe that's because Carl knew just what a reaction that would bring? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Hammersoft's very practical reasoning, with the caveat that I see no issue with CBM's actions as he appears to be doing exactly what an admin is supposed to do: enforcing community consensus. Saedon (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)21:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. When you were banned because you were causing problems in a certain realm, and when you break it by doing the same thing as before, you shouldn't be rewarded by being unbanned. Ban-enforcement blocks are like 3RR blocks — they're bright-line situations that would equally be imposed by any uninvolved admin; it's a far cry from blocks for disruption, for vandalism, etc. Nyttend (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• It remains beyond my grasp why intelligent and well-meaning editors respond positively to such refuge in audacity. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• No specific comment on this request, but one fallout from this is requests to other users to take actions that the block prevents AL from taking on his own. At some point, the overall impact of the block and the editors actions since then and the effect on the encyclopedia need to be considered. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - I suppressed some edits here. Nothing nefarious, just someone forgot to log in - Alison ^❤ 22:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comment — I noticed the revdel and was wondering what had happened. Nyttend (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - I like Alan, and think he's generally a productive editor, but I see no reason why his inability or unwillingness to abide by a valid community ban should be a justification for overturning the ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
• Question - Can the ban be enforced by an edit filter. It might be difficult, but if we (Wikipedians) can ensure that the ban won't be broken, then there's no reason for the block. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes it can, but it might be hard to code. Kumioko (talk) 00:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Thank you Arthur. That's the first really constructive comment on this thread. At which point I suppose the thread will be hurriedly closed. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Please close this thread

Per the near-unanimous decision above to oppose lifting Alan's topic ban, along with a clear consensus that CBM was not WP: HOUNDING, I propose that an uninvolved admin close this thread, which seems to be causing much more heat than light. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 00:46, 23 April 2013 (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.