Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive804

Request to block User:Lobsterthermidor from my talk 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.

---

Based upon many requests to stop personal attacks (see #User will not understand original research#Continuing incivility), I request that my talk page (User talk:CaroleHenson) is blocked to prevent edits by User:Lobsterthermidor.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

A block would be from all areas of Wikipedia, not just your talkpage. Normally, you formally request them to no longer post on your talkpage. If they continue, then you report them for harassment. I do not see anywhere where you have distinctly requested that they leave your talkpage alone. You might also want to review WP:WIAPA for definitions of "what is a personal attack" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

You're right, I had not specifically asked him to stop uncivil comments on my talk page - it was requested that he stop uncivil comments totally.

If I don't have the right guideline (personal attack), I am happy to use whatever is the correct guideline.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• I have left the crustacean a note to empahsize: a) that Carole has requested he remain off her talkpage, under possible penalty of blocking for harassment, and b) that civility is not optional. If the Lobster violates your request to stay off your talkpage, let us know ... if they continue to be uncivil, then be aware that they're not quite close to the chronic level ... yet (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:04, 10 July 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.

Editorializing at Every Nation

• Every Nation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Olympic1012 (talk · contribs)

Sorry to start this here, after initially requesting help at the BLP noticeboard, but this seems appropriate now. A WP:SPA is using the 'criticisms' section to load original research and editorialize about the church and its positions. I've attepmted to explain policy at the user's talk page and via edit summaries. 76.248.144.216 (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Olympic1012 here. I am trying to respond but having difficulty. I having trouble understanding the concerns. Willing to go through the process to clear this up. I don't understand the concerns as currently stated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Olympic1012 (talk • contribs)

For starters please read WP:BLP and WP:RS.--ukexpat (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

If this edit is any indication, then you should spend more time to familiarize yourself with what we do here on Wikipedia. This section you've written is full of loaded language ("Disney's Gay agenda") and is written like you are arguing a position. Wikipedia should use neutral language and present facts in a neutral way. Please see WP:NPOV. For the time being I suggest the involved parties should use Talk:Every Nation to discuss large edits before they are made so these issues can be identified and discussed. Gamaliel (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Olympic1012 (talk) 02:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC) Olympic1012 again. There is a disconnect here. It is as if the words criticism and neutrality have the same meaning to people here. Any criticism is going to have a point of view. It, cannot by definition be neutral. My concern is that the individual who deleted my post has his own agenda. Even after I modified the post, it was deleted again. I still do not under stand the objection to the word "agenda" or "gay agenda". This especially true when considering the statement represented a group which opposed the activity of gay activity at Disney. I am concerned that the objection is not about neutrality, but covering up the fact there is support for homosexual positions which occur at Disney. A similar objection might be raised is someone used the phrase "evangelistic agenda". In both cases I see that because the words do not have a precise meaning. Rather, they have a general meaning - referring to the activities as a whole associated with the word "agenda". If someone wants to substitute a word or phrase for agenda, such as "history of actions" or "plans of actions" would that be sufficient? I

Gamaliel, I brought the topic here because I ascertained rather early that discussion at the talk page won't do the trick; the verbiage may have toned down, but Olympic1012 has something to say, and is determined to use a Wikipedia article to say it [1], guidelines be damned. If this isn't handled here then a page protection or user block is the logical next step. The problems are inherent in all the edits since late June, and include other sections of the 'criticism' segment as well. 76.248.144.216 (talk) 03:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I've watchlisted the article and I'll talk to Olympic if s/he tries to place that section in the article again. Gamaliel (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism of So Fresh: The Hits of Autumn 2012 by IP users from the 49.189.80.0/20 address range

In the last three or so weeks, there have been 12 separate vandalism incidents on So Fresh: The Hits of Autumn 2012 by the IP addresses 49.189.85.18 ([2][3]), 49.189.81.13 ([4]), 49.189.81.106 ([5][6]), 49.189.91.14 ([7]), 49.189.80.208 ([8][9]), 49.189.91.50 ([10]), 49.189.85.230 ([11][12]) and 49.189.82.42 ([13]), which all fall in the 49.189.80.0/20 address range. No vandalism edits to that article have been made from outside this range since January, and between the above IPs there is only one edit to any other article (an apparently constructive edit to List of programs broadcast by ABC Television by 49.189.85.18: [14]). Given the narrow range of edits from these addresses and the fact that they are numerically similar, it is likely that they are the same user. If it is possible to implement a rangeblock for a specific article, I propose that the 49.189.80.0/20 range be blocked from editing So Fresh: The Hits of Autumn 2012. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done Gamaliel (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Upped to much longer, as there's no collateral via CU and this has gone on for months. WilliamH (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! The (presumably) same person has been vandalizing the related article So Fresh: The Hits of Summer 2012 + The Best of 2011 for quite a while. Favonian (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Bidgee using editnotice to defame other editors

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. User:Bidgee's editnotice on his talkpage clearly bans me from his talkpage in a rather rude and inconsiderate manner. I recently, and wrongfully, had such messages on my own talkpage, but they were removed. I have requested Bidgee twice to remove the message, only to be insta-reverted.

I would note that Bidgee in his edit summaries is effectively throwing a fit, in what I presume is an attempt to whip up sympathy for himself.

I post here hoping that someone will tell Bidgee to remove the editnotice about me, which ANI removed from my own talkpage for pretty much the exact same reason. Thanks, ★★RetroLord★★ 14:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I question the point of such an edit notice, especially since you have decided to ignore it anyway. Regardless, it seems pretty neutrally worded to me. In what way is it "rude and inconsiderate"? It's nothing like your large bolded "These users are banned forever!" message you had on your page. Also, he seems to be throwing a fit because you keep posting on his talk page anyway, not to whip up sympathy.--Atlan (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

So its perfectly fine for a user to keep a list of banned users, aslong as its in an editnotice, not their talkpage? I'll keep that one in mind for later. ★★RetroLord★★ 14:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Nobody said that ... but you do recognize you were being extremely insulting to Bidgee on their talkpage, and could be blocked right now for harassment? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I edited his talkpage twice, to place "an important notice or warning". I'd consider ANI notifications important warnings, hardly harrasment. Can we get back to the topic? Bwilkins surely you remember the similar notices removed from my talkpage. ★★RetroLord★★ 14:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Calling them "Bidgeroo" was somehow considered valid/useful/positive/not-insulting? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Well you said "extremely insulting", not "somewhat annoying". Its the equivalent of someone calling you Bwilky I guess, not really an insult. ★★RetroLord★★ 14:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Your messages prior to the edit notice where quite condescending. I can sympathize with Bidgee here. To then come over here to act all sanctimonious doesn't make you look any better.--Atlan (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• On topic, any editor has traditionally been allowed to ban others from editing his or her own talk page; I don't see why it would be inherently problematic to say so in an editnotice, and I don't see any insult or offensive material in the editnotice itself, so I don't really see any merit to this ANI thread. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The merit was that I wasn't allowed to have similar notices on my talk page. Why are edit notice bans allowed, yet talk page ones not allowed? ★★RetroLord★★ 14:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Your most recent edit was a neutral ANI notice, which is fine. Bidgee removed it without comment. Your previous edits, asking to be removed from the edit notice, were met with hostility - likely because you threatened to take him to ANI. You also seem to have attempted to out Bidgee here, just yesterday. This is one of those situations where you need to walk away and not interact with Bidgee in any way, shape, or form. He has asked you to stay off of his talk page, and you need to honor that request. Doing it in the edit notice is unusual, certainly, but not out of line at all - and the request seems to be made without attacking you personally. If it were me, I'd remove the caveat about notices, as I would want nothing to do with an editor who harassed me so clearly on my own talk page. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm getting sick and tired of Retrolord commenting on my talk page (after this comment), even had the guts to remove the notice. They have made attacks ([15][16][17]) against me, harassed me on my talk pages and articles I'm connected[edit] to (Charles Sturt University[18] and JetGo Australia[19]) Bidgee (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Someones pretty riled up over what? 3 or so edits? As for charles sturt and jetgo, i clicked the links on your talk page, and removed promotional material, or unreffed stuff I disagreed with. Its generally accepted policy you ref things on wiki. ★★RetroLord★★ 14:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

You did it to make a point after the I said that the burden was on you to provide sources for your claim on the Australian Greens talk pages. Bidgee (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Okey Dokey. Interpret my actions as you wish. ★★RetroLord★★ 14:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

So to clarify, it would be allowable for me too to ban people via editnotices? ★★RetroLord★★ 14:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I think you can agree never to post at User talk:Bidgee and he can agree to remove the notice. I also think that comments such as this one continue a pattern of harassment that is going to get you blocked, either by myself or someone else. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• • I'll be happy to remove it if Retrolord agrees to stay off my talk page unless it is important. I have no intention to comment on their user talk page. I also seek to have their harassment cease. Bidgee (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• I don't know of any prior consensus, but if Retrolord already knows that the user doesn't want him to post there, then making it a notice that everyone must see every time they post does look a little on the polemic side. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

So can we A) remove the notice like mature adults or B) keep the notice and throw a wiki-fit because someone was mean on the internet? ★★RetroLord★★ 14:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

There's a difference between a honking "so-and-so is permanently banned" on your userpage, and a gentle reminder in an edit-notice. No you cannot ban them via and edit notice - you might be able to remind them via one, although it does smell of WP:POLEMIC. Banning someone from your talkpage is typically childish, and should only be a very last resort when actually being harassed. The fact that you have to do it (yes, I've done it once or twice) shows more about you than it does the other person. Plus, you of all people are one to talk about wikifits...did you actually just accuse them of "crying over" it? Seriously asking for a block right here on ANI? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

RetroLord, will you agree to stay off Bidgee's user page if the notice is removed? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Well we all seem happy to admit it is a bit wrong, but we are all so caught up in faulting me that its irrelevant? Right? ★★RetroLord★★ 15:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, since clearly you are the "most wrong" here, looking at the total picture.--Atlan (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

REtroLord, I asked a simple question. Please respond. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I am the most wrong, implies the other user is also wrong? Now I know everyone's favourite game is "burn retrolord at the stake hold an ANI discussion" but can we atleast do something about Bidgee too? ★★RetroLord★★ 15:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure. He's already agreed to remove the notice if you agree to stop editing his talk page and harassing him. Seems like a good deal. I would advise you to take it. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually me agreeing wouldn't be required. What would be required by the WP:POLEMIC policy is for him to remove the notice though. ★★RetroLord★★ 15:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

He asked you to stop editing his talk page. You ignored him. An edit notice (that was clearly effective, in that you saw it) is reasonable. Now, if it said "Retrolord is an asshole and can't edit here", then yeah - polemic might apply. But that's not what he said. Hell, he even gave you a loophole to continue your harassment with "important notices". There is no cause for him to remove the edit notice - quite the opposite. But he's said that he will if you agree to leave him alone. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, if Retrolord posted after being told to please stop, then a neutral notice makes more sense, as does removing it once Retro will just agree to avoid that page excepting as required for notifications. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't really seem to be much to sweat about, I pretty much tell all IP editors to take a hike in my edit notice. I should return the middle finger image though, that was more amusing than the faces. Tarc (talk) 15:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Big diference between a huge range of people and one account, obviously singled out for the purposes of defaming them. If Bidgee wanted me to stop he would tell me, not put an ad in the New York Times. This is the WP equivalent of doing that. ★★RetroLord★★ 15:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

You seem incapable of understanding that your conduct has been a problem here - as noted above, you've been harassing Bidgee. But they, in a quite unwarranted show of good faith, have removed the notice (as seen here). So now what do we do about your actions here? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Bidgee deserves a knighthood. Can we close this case now? ★★RetroLord★★ 15:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec)I never defamed you! It was a request that all you had to do was acknowledge it (without uncivil or harassing comment) and I would've removed it. Bidgee (talk) 15:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: That RetroLord be formally banned from making any edits whatsoever to Bidgee's talk page or other user pages. Any essential notifications are to be made by requesting a third person to make the necessary postings. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• • Unnecessary and heavy handed. The page notice has been removed, I suggest closing. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:17, 10 July 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.

Doug Tushingham / user:Proudly Canadian

I think that user:Proudly Canadian has plenty to be proud about but copyright violations at Doug Tushingham isn't one of them (and it is a copyright violation unless he is the author of the copied piece). Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing regarding Talk:Tech Nine#Requested move 2

I would like advice about how to handle this requested move in light of the canvassing by STATicVerseatide (talk · contribs). Let me emphasize right off the bat that I am not seeking sanctions or punishment against this user; I've had a discussion already on their talk page and they have noted they were unaware of the guideline. The violation of WP:CANVASS occurred as this user notified 13 editors [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] asking them to comment "to overturn another horrible move". This was not a neutral message to them, and the users were pre-selected as the same ones supportive of the recent requested move of Deadmaus to Deadmau5 or in the case of the last user, supportive of the move Sunn (band) → Sunn O))). Thus it is a large group of editors who would be expected to support the move of Tech Nine to Tech N9ne. My question is, to people who might have more experience dealing with canvassing than I do, what do we do with the discussion Talk:Tech Nine#Requested move 2? I'm tempted to speedily close it as inherently problematic due to the canvassing. (A large outcry of WP:NOTBUREAU would be sure to ensue.) Or do we leave it but add {{Canvassed}} next to the comments of people who were canvassed? Or just add a comment to the discussion and leave it for the closer to sort out? Or do we canvass other editors who would be expected to hold the opposing position? (I am doubtful about reacting to canvassing with yet more canvassing.) Thanks in advance for any guidance. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Just let the discussion take place, this way it is receiving a better full consensus (the last one had a very low amount of voters). It would have been the same if I had posted it on the talk page of Deadmau5. I had not picked and chose editors to leave the message on their talk page, I just chose a group from the last requested move, and in the case of the last one had nothing to do with the Sunn RM and another two other due to their previous comments on the talk page. I already admitted to never hearing about canvassing before and agreed the original message should have been neutral, but the debate should continue as it is as it is just their opinions, I did not go on a big campaign and tell them how to vote. If there was a template on the article page to notify of ongoing move discussion I would have not even bothered sending the message out. STATic message me! 02:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I noted that editors were participating in the discussion and ignored the canvassing notice on my user talk page. If necessary a canvassing notice can be placed on the discussion, but that is as far as I would go. Apteva (talk) 02:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I assume there's a reason we (the 13) weren't notified, but I feel a need to make a comment - I'm not sure this person was acting in bad faith at all, a requirement for canvassing. They wanted people who had recently formed a consensus regarding the use of 5 in Deadmau5 instead of Deadmaus to come and comment on this new thread relating to the same thing. Yes, they notified only editors who supported the change, but in my opinion they did such because there was a consensus that it's okay to include the numerals/other characters in the name. Not because they wanted to influence the discussion one way or the other, but because they wanted people to see the other article discussion. Has anyone asked the editor if they were acting in bad faith? Don't scream canvassing until you do. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 02:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The number 13 above may have been a reference to there being 26 who supported the Deadmau5 move (two of whom voted twice, probably inadvertently) and 13 of those were canvassed, and 13 not. Apteva (talk) 03:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Uh, canvassing does not need to be bad-faith to be "canvassing" and this is clearly a targeted campaign to supporters. I've already once mentioned the appropriate action for these discussions, and I stand by that. Canvassing was done; that much is obvious, just like it was done in Deadmau's/5' matter, but this one is more egregious because it is on-wiki and it targeted the supporters - I can only imagine why I wasn't contacted as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Charmlet I explained to Paul many times on my talk page I was only doing it in good faith in order to get the proper consensus the discussion needed, but he ignored that and took this here still. And ChrisGualtieri I was also going to notify you along with a couple others, I actually remember opening your talk page too, but my internet had crashed when I was in the process of sending the word out. By then I assumed I had invited enough anyways, it was not even my intention to only invite supporters thats just how it turned out, and by then I had gotten into a discussion on the talk page of Tech N9ne so I stopped sending the message out. STATic message me! 03:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's all go home now. @STATicVerseatide: Go forth and sin no more. No more messages that aren't neutral (I find that a link is the least biased thing to give! Just a straight link!). ~Charmlet ^-talk- 03:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I still think the take away from this is "don't do it again please", you aren't going to get in trouble. It is a beginner mistake and most people don't know such policies even exist. Though I wish the overarching issue is raised at the proper venue. Though which the Chinese character matter, I'd wait. Too much drama on wiki is making "i didn't know" into a TV drama, I just wish more energy was spent on content and maintenance of the encyclopedia. My arguments were bested; I have no need to entrench myself - it was a 3O that made me switch sides and offer strong evidence against 'maus' in the RFC. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, all of you. Again, my intention here is not to get STATicVerseatide in trouble. I am here out of concern that a biased sample of editors is being pulled in to the discussion about the requested move of Tech Nine / Tech N9ne. Apteva offered a helpful suggestion about how to deal with the RM; thank you for that. I would welcome comments (additionally) from anyone who has not so far been involved in the Deadmau5 and Tech N9ne discussions. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• It was my mistake, not a "beginner mistake" I have been here three years and surprisingly never heard of canvassing. Anyways its all unnecessary drama as we all have much better and more constructive things to be doing on here, it is not a biased sample as all the contributors to the Deadmau5 RM have commented on the Tech N9ne one (outside of 5-10 supporters, and 3 opposers two of them being IPs). The thing is the large majority of the last RM were supporters. STATic message me! 03:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I do wish I had been notified of this discussion, as is the rules; I happened to stumble upon this by sheer chance. — Richard BB 15:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Tech Nine/Tech N9ne RM come up a few times during the Deadmaus/Deadmau5 RM discussion? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes many times if I am not mistaken. STATic message me! 18:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thought so. That means these notifications weren't fully necessary, as people were notified about the debate in the Deadmau5 discussion, but it also means that there shouldn't be anything more than a caution from this thread, as it was already being discussed. Maybe this thread should be closed? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Without meaning to discount others' contributions to this thread—some of you have provided some details that are very much worth taking into consideration—I still have not received any input from anyone who has not previously been a part of the deadmau5 and/or Tech Nine move discussions ... which I was looking for in a "third-opinion"–uninvolved kind of way. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Did you invite them? Please put a note in their talk page about this discussion if not already done.  A m i t  ❤  02:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

But that would be Canvassing. ;) -- MisterShiney ✉ 06:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Self-removal of report from WP:UAA

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 reported the user Stowmarket Stingers (not going to link here or notify, or this report will likely end up removed too) to WP:UAA for having a promotional username. Stowmarket Stingers then removed my report (diff). --71.199.125.210 (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Deleted and when an editor does that (self removed) revert. Be mindful of an edit war but it was clear from talkpage rationale they are here for promotional reasons. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I've softblocked the account per {{causeblock}}. January (talk) 16:14, 10 July 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.

Helen Oyeyemi

Anonymous users keeps deleting picture without explanation. Maybe some protection template should be used. Thanks, --RomanM82 (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done - Protected by Nyttend -- Diannaa (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Removing AfD tag, planning to canvass, 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.

---

Copied from WP:AIV which may have been the wrong place -

• Elite spark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On KPassC: actions evidently indicate a vandalism-only account. Multiple AfD tag removals. Personal attacks such as violating human rights, vandalizing by sending the article to AfD, acting out of malice, being elitist, and being bias. The editor also said to partake legitimately or get lost. SL93 (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC) Now the editor has expressed a plan to canvass the AfD discussion. SL93 (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC) Another personal attack in the AfD debate after being told twice that it was wrong - "There is a fine line between opinion and fact and some of your response incorporates emotion I suspect which may or may not impair your reasoning skills.". SL93 (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)."

He then proceeded to call another editor a Nazi and said "I'm gay, like hairy chests and a seven inch ding-dong. Yaaay! nazi won.". AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KPassC. SL93 (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Any help is appreciated. This has been going on for a few hours. SL93 (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• This is bad. Dude probably should be indeffed pbp 22:43, 10 July 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:VisualEditor/RFC

Please participate in the Visual Editor Request for comment. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

User:STOPhaus violating NPOV and threatening "war"

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

---

I'm not really sure what to do about this, so I'm going to bring it here and see what everyone else thinks. Specifically, the problem is that User:STOPhaus has been violating the neutral point of view policy on The Spamhaus Project, and since his edits there have been reverted, he's threatening "war" on this site on his user talk page and on The Spamhaus Project talk page. I thought about bringing this to AIV, but it seems like this isn't normal vandalism, so I think here would be a more appropriate place. As far as I can tell, based on his edits and his username, this user isn't here to build an encyclopedia. Lugia2453 (talk) 23:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I caught this on AIV. I've blocked them for legal threats. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 23:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The user name is also a violation of WP:ORGNAME. See [33], although I imagine this is a moot point at the moment. Voceditenore (talk) 05:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Appears to be evading the block as 174.120.156.50 and continuing to post legal threats, e.g. [34]. Voceditenore (talk) 05:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 24h. Legoktm (talk) 07:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

See news.admin.net-abuse.email for further details. This is a very dedicated spammer who isn't going to go away. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe create an edit filter or blacklist entry to stop their website from being used here? It won't stop them but might slow them down a bit. Ravensfire (talk) 13:15, 10 July 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.

Qwh claiming to be a professor

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 first came upon Qwh (talk · contribs) when they posted on the Education Noticeboard asking to be given Course Instructor rights. I asked for clarification and they removed the request, indicating that they would do it later. The reason I asked for clarification was that the dates of the class didn't make sense with any academic calendar and there was no professor by the name of Jacob Smith at the University of Maine. Anyways, I recently was poking around the page history and clicked on his userpage, which now states that they are Jacob Smith and work at UMaine. In the time since the request was withdrawn, they added information that seems to show that they are trying to construct an online persona around being a non-existent professor. In light of the whole Essjay thing from years ago, I figured I'd bring it here to see what others thought, as I could see the potential of this getting out of hand down the line. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

For those who forgot or don't know who User:Essjay is (and what it was about), you can find the information on this page. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I should mention that another thing that I noticed is the fact that their grammar is quite poor for a professor, and their talk page is a mess, which is not something I've seen of professors on this site. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support block I can think of all sorts of reasons why one might pretend to be a fake teacher/professor online, and none of them are even slightly good. At the very least, they can't do it here. Might be worth contacting the school and letting them know what's going on too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• I don't think an immediate block is in order; they haven't done anything harmful yet. I seriously doubt they are a 34 y.o. Professor based on their edits (this one is enlightening). Suggest blanking their userpage and notifying them on their talk page further falsifications will lead to a block. Rgrds. --64.85.216.200 (talk) 06:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• How do we know there is no such professor? Many adjunct professors have little or no online presence at their schools and as non-permanent employees many not be present in staff directories and the like. Gamaliel (talk) 06:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• I would think a Ph.D would be able to pronounce kept in the proper tense, not to mention capitalize everything that should be capitalized. This suggests absolutely the opposite. I mean, I know some academics do live "under the radar" as far as computers are concerned, but I seriously see how somebody could have possibly gotten through typing a dissertation on a computer through with communication like that (aside from cheating and/or gross academic dishonesty). --MuZemike 06:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Having worked at a couple of colleges, I've met professors who couldn't spell their own names half the time. Gamaliel (talk) 06:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• (ec) This can be resolved by having them email info-en@wikimedia.org using their University of Maine email account. --64.85.216.200 (talk) 06:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, seems like a reasonable requirement. Gamaliel (talk) 06:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• I don't believe that the editor has currently done anything that merits a block, however I do see a potential risk if he tries to take advantage of his supposed position. Having bad grammar is not definitive proof that he is not a professor; we are making assumptions when there really is no need for it. Simply asking him to email us using his university account (as stated above) will be more productive than posting it on ANI. —Dark 07:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

A block strikes me as killing a fly with an atomic bomb. Plenty of adjuncts are master's level degree holders, and depending on the campus, may not have access to a university e-mail address. A bit more AGF seems in order until there's a better reason not to, as worrying as this situation is. --Drmargi (talk) 08:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

This user gives an email address on their userpage. Checking this on Google seems to lead to several drugs-related sites. This user has edited mainly drugs articles on Wikipedia. I strongly doubt the claim to be a "professor of history". RolandR (talk) 10:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how that's the least bit relevant. Being interested in drugs and being a history professor are not mutually exclusive conditions. That said, some of the user's other activities here are suspicious, and the claims made on his user page are strange or misleading. He's done nothing blockable (yet) but it would be good if editors would keep an eye on him. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry i will not do it again Qwh (talk) 10:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

@Qwh:, you won't do what again? What are you admitting to have done? GiantSnowman 10:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry for doing that i used to work there i do not any more Qwh (talk) 10:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Is Jacob Smith your real name? Or the name of somebody you used to work with? What was your role at UMaine? GiantSnowman 10:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

My real name is Jacob Smith i was a cleaner from 2000 to 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwh (talk • contribs)

OK, thanks for explaining, I hope you see why pretending to be someone/something you are not is simply not acceptable on Wikipedia (or in real life!), and that you won't repeat your actions/behaviour. If you need any further help or guidance please ask. GiantSnowman 10:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Now i know i remove the thing from my user page and i now know that its not acceptable Qwh (talk) 11:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

What about the email address on your user page? Is that really your address? Do you realize it's associated with illegal drug sales and a Long Island phone number? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I find it even harder to AGF here. The contribs from his IP 65.175.255.73 (talk · contribs) (which comes an unblock-auto request Qwh requested here) are extremely questionable, and a few of them are outright vandalism. --MuZemike 15:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Going off of what MuZemike said, it is a bit hard to assume good faith if someone comes to the Education Noticeboard and falsely claims to be a professor in order to get a right. I know in discussions with another Regional Ambassador, we were perplexed over this whole thing, because of how little sense it made. Even the above comment by them that they worked there is something I doubt, in light of the past actions of the editor, but that is another story for another day. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedians need to remember that assuming good faith doesn't mean ignoring evidence of bad faith. Falsely claim to be a university professor and the Good Faith ship has officially sailed without you. Wikipedia (quite rightly) took a lot of heat and bad press for the Essjay fiasco, and even in that case there was substantial good contributions to outweigh the bad. This time there isn't. I see absolutely no reason to continue to extend editing privileges to someone who has clearly taken the community for a bunch of gullible idiots. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

While it is inappropriate for someone to misrepresent themself as a professor, the only remedy I see is to ask that and insure that the incorrect information is removed, as it has been. While their grammar may not be perfict,[35] such errors are easily corrected,[36] and I see no reason to restrict them from participation. Apteva (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I do not think that we should block them, as it would be unproductive to get rid of someone because they likely didn't know that there was a rule against this sort of thing. That being said, the IP evidence is concerning, so that should be taken into account in any further action. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Sadly Qwh's two different attempt were rather feeble. First time, Qwh requested for course instructor rights which is only granted to professors/teachers that use Wikipedia as a learning tool. Qwh decided that he wants that right and claims to be an instructor so that he can obtain it. When his ruse was discovered, he took that request down. But he didn't stop there. In the second time, he made a userpage to assert himself as a professor. I can draw many similarities between Qwh and Essjay (lying about being a prof, using the prestige of an academic to obtain rights, creating a userpage to deceive others). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Concur - no need to block based on very misguided actions, but they should read this article,and re-think falsifying credentials either on the internet or in real life (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• "didn't know that there was a rule against this sort of thing"?! Please tell me that was some bizarre attempt at sarcasm. If not, what strange alternate universe do you live in where it's generally considered okay to fraudulently pass yourself off as a university professor? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps the rule isn't written, but it's still a problem. Read Essjay controversy to see what happened some time ago when someone wrongly gained influence based on a false claim of being a professor. Nyttend (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Based on the IP that MuZemike provided, I strongly believe that Qwh is socking. Qwh was using good hand/bad hand. The IP is being the bad hand by vandalizing and Qwh being the good hand by immediately reverting the vandalism on multiple pages and large timespan that it couldn't be coincidence. See this list

Date	Article	IP (65.175.255.73)	Qwh
2013-02-22	Loperamide	[37]	[38]
2013-02-24	Persoonia levis	[39]	[40]
2013-05-19	List of the poorest places in the United States	[41]	[42]
2013-06-02	Grand Theft Auto (series)	[43]	[44]

OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

•  The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says: the following accounts are  Technically indistinguishable:
  • 2013xd (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Qhw (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Qwh (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • ثلج (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Xylem52013 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Officialpsy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Ipod3g (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Korbat (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Raju Dab (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Well now. Looks like somebody's been a busy little bee. One spamblocked, one that should have been spamblocked, one claiming to be Psy. I'd say that tears it; all blocked or soon to be so. (Note that Ipod3g is the acutal oldest account of this farm, but I've tagged Qwh as the master due to being the most active and the subject of this kerfuffle.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Given the evidence above, I think we can safely conclude that the person is not here to contribute constructively, and the matter is resolved. —Dark 07:38, 11 July 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.

Dogmaticeclectic blowing things out of proportion, again.

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

---

On an admin's talk page, User:Dogmaticeclectic is suggesting that I should be blocked for edit warring (despite this only being over one sentence in a single article which I declared to be trivia and fancruft; he argued that this change required consensus on the talk page).

My concern comes upon his comments; he specifically went to Bbb23 because of his involvement in another edit warring case that involved me and himself, asserting that I should be blocked for making two reverts because he got blocked for making two reverts. While I argued that this was a very different scenario (I only disputed one sentence that was trivia in comparison to the rest of the article, and he wiped out every change I did to Microsoft Office 365 by claiming that it was vandalism, whilst assuming bad faith because of my past disputes with him), he also asserts that it would be a violation of Wikipedia policy not to block me for my actions because "administrators should consider all sides, since perceived unfairness can fuel issues."

I personally think this is unfair because of the bias he's expressing by going back to an admin that he clams I fooled him into being on my side. He's effectively performed canvassing. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I consider this entire report a personal attack and have warned this user accordingly. I would ask that an administrator close this immediately to prevent this report from further disrupting Wikipedia. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Posting here is not a personal attack, but templating someone for it when said person did not commit personal attacks is a personal attack (and to some extents, a blockable offense), and you should know that. I'd recommend you to not template regulars, specially when there's no reason to. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Citation needed for the second part of the first sentence... and WP:DTTR is just an essay. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

While I fully agree that "regulars", up to and including Jimbo (not that that would ever be necessary!), should be templated when templating is necessary, the "it's only an essay" argument makes me twitch. WP:ATA is only an essay too, after all. Don't WP:VAGUEWAVE with "it's only an essay" - make an argument for your position. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Which part of this constitutes a personal attack? Said policy reads that "discussion of a user's conduct or history is not in itself a personal attack when done in the appropriate forum for such discussion" (which Administrators' Noticeboard is considered to be). And how can a dispute between only two editors disrupt Wikipedia as a whole? ViperSnake151  Talk  20:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

This is not "the appropriate forum for such discussion", at least right now, given that the discussion at the administrator in question's talk page is still ongoing. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Is there something stopping you two from discussing the content dispute on the article's talk page? That would be a better idea than block-shopping like this. Also, stop templating each other. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• (ec) DE, it was entirely inappropriate for you to template Viper. I don't understand what you think the personally attack is. And Viper, you're just as bad templating DE for templating you. Both of you should be a little more grown-up about this. Looking into the dispute, the material in question has been around for a bit. Viper tried to remove, DE restored. From there, it should have gone to the talk page. Viper, you are editting warring and you should probably stop. DE, rather than discussing your concerns with Viper, you ran to Bbb23 48 minutes after templating Viper in an attempt to get him reprimanded. He was warned, that's it. There is no need for anything further unless it happens again. I suggest this be closed with a caution to Viper to avoid edit warring in the future and a strong warning to DE to stop the vindictive behavior. Ishdarian 20:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The problem with this is that certain administrators keep supporting User:ViperSnake151's consensus-violating positions over and over again (in no small part by blocking me or threatening to do so). I've therefore pointed out this particular instance early on to one of the administrators in question. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you, although I am starting to see the potential bias concerns you're raising. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• Gee, why does this look like my talk page? I second Mark's suggestions.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• Because Bbb23 you have a leaky talk page :-P. all that talk is leaking to ANI. This whole discussion really shouldn't be here. Some one please close it already.  A m i t  ❤  04:03, 11 July 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:RKC Vakwai logo uploads

In reviewing potential images for Commons I've noted a number of images by this uploader which are claimed as own work, but which are clearly logos of another entity. I have been tagging these as "no evidence of permission', The uploader hasn't responded, despite the warnings and at least 2 requests for further information on their talk page by others.

I am therefore asking for a second opinion from the admins. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

(clerical note) Uploader informed of this disscusion Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Pretty obvious the images are not free and the editor doesn't have an understanding of our copyright policy. But I don't think the editor is deliberately being disruptive, just has an unclear understanding of copyright. Should probably tag the useful logos (the ones used in the articles for the football clubs) with {{Non-free use rationale logo}}. I'll pop a note on the editor's talk page about this. —Dark 12:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Edits to Politicians page Steve_Kent_(politician) from opposition supporters and might have violated revert rule

Firstly I apologise if I have violated any rules, it was unintentional, especially the revert rule, but this is my first time seeing this issue. The issues related to flurry if edits to Steve_Kent_(politician) which began last Friday when the local media whipped the public into a frenzy about a Leadership Race with an opposing political party. Various IP (68.171.231.82, 99.241.108.174) have been making Politically motivated anonymous changes to the page.

I am looking for assistance to stop these edit wars and allow the page to remain an unbiased as possible which it was before 5th July.

Hopefully a temporary measure will allow others to become distracted by other things, so that they will move on.

Thanks for your review. Canbrit01 (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Kevin Dewayne Hughes

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

---

I'm about to logoff; but spotted Kevin Dewayne Hughes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which to me has some questionable content. The primary ref used is something called "Bugeisha Shimbun" which I can't locate any mention of anywhere as existing; and the first couple external links are Facebook pages. On the other hand, the patent mention and some other technical write-ups appear to be potentially good source docs. At the very least, the article needs considerable cleanup - although after purging the questionable content, I'm not sure enough would remain to still meet WP:BIO. It also appears that several of the editors are only involved in that one article - so there's a chance the article is the result of some sort of class project.

I may be back online this evening - although it's more likely I won't be able to get back until after the weekend. So, I wanted to mention it here so that someone with more time might be able to review the article a bit more fully to verify/clean-up the content, or if needed, to prod it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Could it be "財界芸者新聞" or just "芸者新聞"? But I don't know because there are a few ways to render "Bugeisha" one... I also see mentions for a small martial arts magazine which is the most likely candidate here.[45] Given the scope I am very certain that this is the link, but have no way to verify it. I think the "Shimbun" / Newspaper is actually incorrect referencing here. I don't think it is malicious or a hoax, but quite a few papers (newspapers being key) are "Shimbun" which literally means "newspaper" and contains the characters "新聞". The lack of those characters means an error on the editor. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the magazine ended in 1998. So its not this one. [46] Ask the editor maybe? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you guys really discussing just an articles content (not even seems to be a dispute yet) in ANI?  A m i t  ❤  04:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:12, 12 July 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.

Requesting topic ban for User:BobFilner from the article Bob Filner

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 newly registered editor, User:BobFilner (who is obviously not the real Bob Filner) has repeatedly added negative unsourced material to the article about San Diego mayor Bob Filner. They started small [47] but then began adding huge sections of text obviously copied from somewhere else [48] and re-adding the sections when reverted [49]. I can't keep up with them. Please deal with this BLP vandal promptly. Thank you. --MelanieN (talk) 06:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Indef blocked. User had stopped editing, but as MelanieN wrote, obvious WP:IMPERSONATE username violation. Please do correct this if I have made an error. Peter in Australia aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:33, 12 July 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.

Post-close comment: I'm 99.94% sure I'm not the only person who saw this and immediately thought, "MelanieN, you're an admin, why don't you fix this yourself?", and then a split second later thought "MelanieN's not an admin? What the..?" --Shirt58 (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Malicious merge proposal by a sockpuppet

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 request that this merger proposal be speedily closed with the decision "Rejected". I believe that this is a malicious proposal by a banned editor. The rational is as follows:

1. The merge proposal was made at about 22:00 on 11 July 2013 by an unregistered user
2. The IP addressed used by that was 212.183.140.15, a dynamic address owned by Vodafone.
3. Earlier that day User:Cobulator was banned as a sock-puppet of User:DeFacto
4. User:DeFacto has used IP addresses from Vodafone in the past – here and here
5. Sockpuppets of User:DeFacto proposed a similar merge of the article Metrication of British Transport back into Metrication in the United Kingdom shortly after the new article was created – see here.

The case for writing the article in the first place is Talk:Imperial and US customary measurement systems#here.

Martinvl (talk) 06:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Moved to Request for closure noticeboard. Martinvl (talk) 07:37, 12 July 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.

Offsite outing

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

---

I have become aware of an apparent off-site outing incident and am going to report this here as neutrally as possible and then step back; I have had a mild real world connection with parties involved and hereby declare a conflict of interest in any administrative action.

here (offsite link) the Editor in Chief of a widely read automobile news website The Truth About Cars posts describing a series of IP edits to the wikipedia article on the website by IP editor 76.20.240.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who he alleges is a former writer for that website who resigned in the recent past. The IP geolocates to the general area of the United States of the former website writer, but I have no other specific information as to whether they are or are not the IP editor.

The Editor in Chief is a long-term pseudonymous editor in good standing on Wikipedia, who has described his account and edits on the website, but has not disclosed his account name. I am going to decline to name (out) the Editor in Chief's account, though others can probably figure it out from his own description. Please don't post it here, as doing so would itself constitute outing. As far as I can tell he has not outed anyone on-wiki. If required I will name the account in email, to uninvolved admins investigating, if they contact me in private.

It appears that the article identification constitutes outing the alleged real world identity of the IP editor. This appears to violate WP:OUTING , part of the official WP Harassment policy.

I leave this to other uninvolved admins to review, determine if actionable violations of policy happened, and follow up with any responses. I have notified the Editor in Chief in email (I hope; the other email I sent directly bounced but hopefully the Wikipedia account email went through) and am not going to tag his account with the ANI notice to preserve his identity for the time being.

I apologize for the weird constraints; I don't know how else to do this given the outing policy and specifics. It does not seem to rise to the level of something to pass to Arbcom directly, though if consensus here is to do so I will happily email specifics over there.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Yo dawg, I heard you like outing Wikipedia editors so we outed a Wikipedia editor who was outing a Wikipedia editor so you can out Wikipedia editors while they out Wikipedia editors dawg.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a typical off-wiki attack with a slight complication - how does an admin take action without outing the editor in question? and there wont be any one to prevent the IP editor from writing a similar article in a blog or something off-wiki once an action is taken  A m i t  ❤  04:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• The IP's insertion of the information into the TTAC article has been removed, as it is not reliably sourced and quite honestly, does not belong in the article. Since when does the resignation of a single employee (which has 0 coverage outside of a blog post) belong in the company's article? Nothing really should be done about the "outings", however unprofessional the parties have decided to act, it really has nothing to do with us. The editor-in-chief alleges that an IP with like 3 edits is a former employee of the business, without much proof and not even on-wiki. Can't really do much about that. Regardless, if the IP continues to add unreliably sourced and irrelevant information, he will be warned appropriately and blocked if he continues to persist. The editor in chief seems reasonably informed about COI, so I don't anticipate any problems with him either. Open and shut case, really. —Dark 07:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I have to agree; while not in the best of faith, there's really nothing that can, or should, be done here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:11, 12 July 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 Tmcfootball96

User:Tmcfootball96 appears to have a history of unproductive edits and vandalism per User talk:Tmcfootball96 talk page. Most recently, this edit at Geno DeMarco. I'm an admin, but I've also edited this article some. Please consider me neutral on the matter and that this is merely a notice to other admins that may take any action as they see necessary.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism by numerous IP and IPv6 addresses

The IP addresses 70.215.11.16 and 70.215.2.220, as well as numerous IPv6 addresses, all within 2600:1000:b100::/42, have been mass-blanking pages. Some of them have already been blocked, but I think a rangeblock is in order. --71.199.125.210 (talk) 19:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It is. Elockid is on it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this has been happening for a couple of days. Will keep an eye out. Elockid ^(Talk) 19:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

User:JacksfilmsisWhore2

Could an admin remove this user's talk page access? This user has been posting attack comments on there, such as this, and abusing it in general since being blocked. Thanks. Lugia2453 (talk) 22:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Just did. —C.Fred (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for Article Page Ban for Binksternet for Consistent Inappropriate Edits on the Mitsuo Fuchida Page

Since March of 2012, Binksternet has been reverting and altering the Historical Controversy section of the page on Mitsuo Fuchida, contantly shaping it to produce as unfavorable a picture of Fuchida as possible without regard to historical accuracy, references, or qualifications. I, TheLeopard or T Martin Bennett, have spent eight years researching the life of Fuchida, have the endorsement of the highest qualified experts on both Fuchida and Pearl Harbor, and am a full-time researcher/writer and cannot maintain the integrity of this page no matter what I do. I am not as skilled as Binksternet on Wikipedia as I cannot devote much time to it.

After an edit war with Binksternet in late November 2012, I requested a page block to at least protect the page from damage during the week of December 7, when it receives the most visits. A block was put in place for about 6 months, for which I am grateful. As soon as the block was removed, the "Controversy" section was highly altered, leaving Parshall's full paragraph of anti-Fuchida comments, while deleting my information and replacing it with a single sentence falsely presenting a view as being mine. This is the very reason people do not trust Wikipedia.

Most recently, I added four references to articles appearing in the Naval War College Review showing Parshall's full arguments and my own. It is very, very difficult to get published in this Review, even in the "Letters" section. I also updated my counterpoint to Parshall's charges against Fuchida. You can see these two edits here: [50]

Within a day, Binksternet reverted my counterpoint section and replaced it with the opionion of someone else falsely speaking on my behalf, and completely deleted the entire four references to the Fuchda dispute article series in the Naval War College Review.[51]

Understand that these articles are highly academic, highly researched, highly vetted, present both sides, and are extremely germane to the "Controversy" section of this page. The Review allowed two articles on the subject from each author – point and counterpoint, and two letters – point and counterpoint. There is no good reason to simply wipe them off the page when at the same time, Parshall's book, entitled "Shattered Sword" is listed in the Bibliography section when his 640 page book has only a few mentions of Fuchida's name and has virtually nothing to do with the Fuchida article.

Binksternet has implied that I have a Conflict Of Interest because I have written on Fuchida, which is absurd. I will be the first to show that Fuchida was a corrupt person and I have altered my own writings based on criticism giving others the benefit of every doubt, as my only interest is in the truth. I am one of the most knowledgeable people in the world on Mitsuo Fuchida. I have indeed written about Fuchida, (good things and bad things) which in no way disqualifies me from commenting on his page. In fact, it is quite the opposite. On the other hand, Binksternet has yet to demonstrate the least qualifications to edit this page.

I am requesting a permanent article page ban of Binksternet from the Mitsuo Fuchida page based on the fact that he consistently bends the page against Fuchida, violating WP:NPOV while demonstrating no personal qualifications or documentation to add to the content of the article. There is no way I or anyone can keep up with the constant erosion of the integrity of the page if he continues to edit it.--TMartinBennett (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried Dispute resolution before coming here? Do you have extensive input from people not previously involved in this dispute? --Jayron32 02:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I have gone over the issue on the talk page at length, but there are few, if any, with the knowledge to participate who are also Wikipedia-savvy. I am not involved enough in Wikipedia to find competent WWII experts to participate, although I have looked. Binksternet has never made any contributions of substance to the Fuchida page, whereas I (and many others) have. He deletes and reverts to promote his POV. If you can bring in some WWII experts who are disinterested third parties, that would be great, but even if there is a temporary resolution, what would prevent Blinksternet from going back to his old ways? He has no business fiddling with a serious page like this and does not respect the guidelines. This has become a serious problem.--TMartinBennett (talk) 22:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The only knowledge required on Wikipedia is how to read sources. There is no other requirement for working on a "serious page", whatever that means. I certainly know how to read sources—I have taken four articles to Featured article status, and none of them were topics I was previously familiar with. The call for experts is a fine sentiment but not necessary.

I intend to keep an eye on the Fuchida biography because it has been the center of a real-life dispute between T. Martin Bennett, entrepreneur and would-be filmmaker who is working on a Fuchida story, and Jon Parshall, a respected military historian. Let's not allow this dispute to boil over into Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Mr Bennett, Binksternet is a highly experienced Wikipedian who can help shape the article to meet Wikipedia standards. He's knowledgeable about WWII topics. You are a person with knowledge of this particular topic who is not as familiar with the particular requirements of this website. This is a good opportunity to cooperate to make the article better, as there should be some synergy here. I would suggest by starting with providing reliable sources for all the material in the article – not just the Controversy section – as presently there's entire paragraphs that are unsourced. Mr Bennett, the reason why it might be deemed that you have a conflict of interest is because you are citing your own article as a source for the corresponding Wikipedia article. While this is not forbidden, you need to be careful not to give your own point of view undue weight. See WP:SELFCITE. Binksternet or other experienced Wiki editors can help you with this aspect to make sure that you inadvertently do not commit this error. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, and thanks for your thoughts. It's important that disinterested third parties (not friends) help remedy this situation, so please state for the record that you have no prior relationship or communication with Binksternet. RSVP, thanks.

I have provided many substantial contributions with accurate references to the Fuchida page already and will continue to do so as time permits. There is no prohibition against citing your own material (although there are guidelines) and Parshall, who started the "Controversy" section in the first place, only quotes his own book and no one has yet to object. It is only information that contradicts his assertions that is quickly deleted by Binksternet and violating the NPOV that continues to damage the accuracy of this page.--TMartinBennett (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I am a Wikipedia administrator and part of that job is to try to help answer inquiries on this board; that's why I responded to this thread. Binksternet and I have edited a few of the same articles as we both work on WWII topics so I cannot say we have never communicated with one another, though I would not class us as friends. If you want the help of a disinterested third party, your best bet is to try one or our dispute resolution protocols. There's more information on this at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Diannaa. You realize that Binksternet is altering content and helping to falsely attribute opinions to me on the official page that are not my opionions at all, right? As soon as I post accurate, referenced material, he deletes it immediately, apparently not even bothering to read the sources or material. If any entry gives the balance of opposite information to Parshall and Binksternet's POV, it is immediately excised. I have a job and much work to do and cannot maintain the integrity on this page so long as Binksternet runs free to shape the page to his own POV, which he's been doing since early 2012. For the life of me, no matter how hard I try, I cannot even list the four highly academic articles that appear in the U.S. Naval War College Review. Binksternet deleted them immediately. It is unfair to the readers of Wikipedia to not be able to read for themselves the most thorough examination of the "controversy" re: Fuchida that exists today. Also, Binksternet is not adding any substantial valuable content to the page, only deleting information and adding opinion. So long as he has access to shape the page, it will never be accurate.--TMartinBennett (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I've been on both sides of a discussion such as this, so believe me when I say that neither user is thinking about page content anymore. At least, not from the edit history I saw. This looks like an edit war, plain and simple. Binksternet and I have history, as we've "fought" over things before, but I don't see how his edits help the page at all. On the other hand, Bennett, you should have alerted someone of this issue as soon as the pattern became clear; since you waited a bit before bringing in a third party, it looks like you're simply rallying support for your point of view. Trust me, I've been there, too. Now that another editor, Theleapord, has become involved, this whole thing has devolved into a game of tug-of-war, with the page as the victim caught in the crossfire. As for citing your own works as a reference, that may not be prohibited, but it's an extremely precarious leg to stand on. Published works by two authors, both contradicting the other, that are being toted by their authors. That's a recipe for disaster in my view; both of you are just asking for trouble. Magus732 (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Magus732, you and I have worked together successfully on the Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory article as well as on the Boeing XB-15 article. I do not agree with your assessment that "neither user is thinking about page content anymore." I have not been building the Fuchida biography but I believe I have been valuable to the wiki by removing unsound timber from the construction. An important part of page content is the removal of poor content, which must be done with the reader in mind, and Wikipedia guidelines as the anchor. My point is that Bennett is not very well known so his contribution must not be given undue weight, especially in regard to more highly respected authors such as Parshall. Binksternet (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

@Magus732, User:Theleopard and T Martin Bennett are the same person. @Everybody, this is a content dispute, and is beyond the scope of this board. The first step a content dispute is to discuss the proposed edit on the article talk page. If that doesn't work, the next step is dispute resolution. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

UPDATE: Binksternet is now deleting content on the Talk page in direct violation of WP:TPNO in order to bolster his POV. Binksternet is not concerned with who the experts are, from Dr. Goldstein to Dan King, he's consistently bent on producing the worst image of Fuchida in the controversy section, as he has deleted comments from these experts as well. Parshall is also highly disrespected by extremely qualified and well-known experts. This is no longer a content dispute, but a behaviour problem that is far outside the Wikipedia guidelines. Why is Binksternet allowed to delete Talk page content without consequence? For the record, I started using my own name, T Martin Bennett, when Theleopard became confusing to others. I appeal to the editors to prevent Binksternet from further damage to this page.--TMartinBennett (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, the Historical controversy should have more reliable sources and/or references. Having just three of them is too few. At the same time, it should be noted that when reliable sources and/or references are added not to have too many. To have controversial content should be backed-up with at least two or more references. Can I also request that the talkpage be auto archived as well? If anyone doesn't mind, I can set that up. Adamdaley (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet should not have removed your remarks from the talk page. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I removed the same material from the article and from the talk page, both per WP:BLP. I do not see Bennett's own letter as being a good enough source to demean the reputation of Parshall, especially in the manner that this disparagement was presented, with belittling remarks presented without specific point-by-point criticism of Parshall's work. The Fuchida biography (and its talk page) is not the platform for generally denigrating comments about Parshall. Only specific criticism of his Fuchida research should be brought in, and that criticism must not be given undue emphasis. Binksternet (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I'm not sure I agree with your perception that it was disparaging enough to warrant removal, but it was a logical thing to do and done for good motives. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet erroneously refers to my "letter," by which he means my vetted article. As I've pointed out on the Fuchida Talk page, the Naval War College Review has no "letters" section. Parshall is an executive of a small software company who co-wrote a single book six years ago that puts forth some controversial, and widely rejected theories regarding Fuchida, especially by those who are experts on Pearl Harbor and Fuchida. Parshall's credibility, or lack thereof, is of paramount importance. Goldstein is a doctored professor of many years in law and history and the author of over a dozen books on Pearl Harbor, The Pacific War, and Fuchida, yet Binksternet has immediately wiped his statements from the page. Parshall conceded that his ideas are conjecture so there is no belittling in stating simple facts. Binksternet has now shaped the page with a full paragraph on Parshall's theories and helped to dumb down the the other side of the issue to a single statement supposedly showing my viewpoint, which it does not. Is this the bar for Wikipedia editors? For articles?--TMartinBennett (talk) 03:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Bennett, here's a quick timeline of your involvement at the Fuchida biography:

• [52] December 5, 2008. A series of edits which added Fuchida present on the Missouri battleship for the signing of the Japanese surrender (an assertion which has been called a Fuchida "fabrication" by historians[53] because no hard evidence supports it, and nobody else remembered him there), and a self-promotional link to a Youtube video that was uploaded by T Martin Bennett, a 90-second clip about the Bennett film project known as Wounded Tiger, a Fuchida biography under development. Both of these additions are changed by others: one editor removed the promo video link, and Jparshall toned down the Missouri bit by changing it to "Fuchida claims to have been part of a delegation"...
• [54] January 4, 2009, Bennett insists that Fuchida was really on the Missouri.
• [55] February 19, 2009. A series of edits which adjusted some text but which removed 10 fact tags without answering them.
• [56] Mid-October 2009. Assorted changes, no harm.
• [57] January 4, 2010. The day before this, Jparshall once again toned down the Fuchida assertion that he was on the Missouri during the surrender. Bennett follows with his preferred reversion.
• [58] December 4, 2011. An IP editor added a "reappraisal" of Fuchida based on the Parshall and Tully book, Shattered Sword, and the Parshall piece about Fuchida's "Three Whoppers" (fabrications.) Bennett reverted this addition.
• [59] December 5, 2011. An editor restored the "reappraisal section, so Bennett removed it again.
• [60] December 16, 2011. Bennett sees that he cannot remove the section so he adjusts it, writing that, even Fuchida's story was doubted by Parshall and Tully, it was believed by Prange and Goldstein, using only the argument from authority fallacy.
• [61] December 16, 2011. Bennett rethinks the previous strategy, taking out his addition, and he removes most of the Parshall-based text he didn't like, along with the "Three Whoppers" reference.
• [62] March 13, 2012. Bennett removes the whole "reappraisal" section. He is quickly reverted.
• [63] November 3, 2012. Bennett tweaks the link to his promotional video clip about Wounded Tiger
• [64] December 4, 2012. Bennett gets his own letter published in the Naval War College Review, so he uses it as a reference to say Parshall's work is "riddled with errors... conjecture and speculation... misplaced confidence in unreliable sources... all of his charges are groundless." No detailed rebuttal is supplied, only this denigration and dismissal.
• [65] December 4, 2012. Seeing his wording reduced to the essence, Bennett reverts to the larger, more wordy version.
• [66] December 5, 2012. Same as above.
• [67] December 5, 2012. Same as above.
• [68] December 5, 2012. Same as above.
• Article is fully protected from content warring. Binksternet (talk) 05:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Your list is very incomplete as I've added entire paragraphs not included above. Perhaps my variation of names, Theleopard and TMartinBennett have interefered with your search. Please feel free to list your additions of content to this page. Thanks.--TMartinBennett (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Mr Bennett, I see where on the talk page of another editor you have made the assumption that I am Binksternet's friend. I am not his friend; we are-co-editors who share an interest WWII topics and therefore have edited some of the same articles, but that's all. In fact we had a disagreement at Manstein when I re-wrote the article for a WP:Good article nomination (the material is still on the talk page). No other administrators, indeed no other editors, have responded to your complaint about Binksternet. Perhaps it's time for you to step back and think – perhaps the reason you are not getting the desired result is because there's no administrator action that can be taken at this time, other than yourself being blocked for edit warring if you continue to insert your preferred version of the Controversy section into the article. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Diannaa, you and Binksternet are acquainted and have very similar POVs re: Fuchida, so I will try to limit it to that. Two Wiki history editors I contacted said they have given up on issues like this as they felt it was a waste to spend their precious time updating and fixing damaged articles only to have their work instantly reverted, so I understand their hesitation. I'm not the only one exasperated with Binksternet's POV editing as he's earned himself quite a reputation: <redacted link and quotation from attack site> The fact that roughly 50 people openly opposed his being granted a request for adminship speaks volumes. I've seen much of the same behavior myself. He was rejected. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Binksternet%7CWikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Binksternet--TMartinBennett (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I again suggest that you try dispute resolution using one of the processes listed here. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet's admin or non-admin status is irrelevant to the content dispute. Your sole interest in Wikipedia is to insert reference to your article and that's why Binksternet and I are both suspicious that you are not here to improve the encyclopedia but rather to promote your own interests. You have a clear and obvious conflict of interest, as you have a screenplay and book in the works on the subject of this article. Linking to that attack site is not permitted on this wiki and I warn you not to do it again or you could be immediately blocked without further warning. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment TMB is now canvassing others to come support his position here and here Ishdarian 00:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
• I've blocked Theleopard for 72 hours for disruptive editing, including canvassing, promotion, and POV-pushing. The two instances of canvassing highlighted by Ishdarian are just the tip of the iceberg - there are many more. And they are the most egregious canvassing I've seen, including leveraging the canvassed user's supposed antipathy for Binksternet to convince the user to come here. I also looked at some of Bennett's recent edits to the article, which are also atrocious, including putting in such choice sentences like "Author and screenwriter T. Martin Bennett spent eight years researching the life of Mitsuo Fuchida and believes Parshall has no case for any of his charges and has rebutted Parshall's arguments in two articles in the Naval War College Review." My only difficulty was deciding how long to block him. I initially was going to block for a week, but I decided based on his apparent inexperience at Wikipedia and it being his first block, 72 hours was more fair.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you, Bbb23. Obviously I am partial in this matter but Theleopard's canvassing was egregious, very disruptive. Binksternet (talk) 01:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Two of my comments on my articles deletion discussion have been removed.

First discussion

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

---

GiantSnowman removed two important comments I made on my article's deletion page. I feel this violates my free speech and is just rude and wrong.

He claims there was a problem with them. I can understand that about one of them. But he removed two comments. One was very long but contained important information and one was short and concise and it was deleted too.

This is giving my subject's detractors the ability to put on a smear campaign on Wikipedia trying to damage his reputation (their words have been stricken at times) and trying to get his article removes. My subject is VERY notable, very well know and very well documented and passes all WP:GNG notability requirements and then some. I have 10 sources and I have several supporting editors with long standing histories on Wikipedia.

I also have evidence that shows reason for this smear campaign and I have shown it to C.fred (that's his username.)

There is no reason why a certain user should try for 6 years to delete this page of a soccer player who has played professionally in 3 continents and is well documented.

So I request that my article's page be protected and not deleted since my ability to defend it has been prevented. I'll notify the person who deleted my comments and C.fred of my posting here. Thank you. Fussballspieler11 (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Sigh, this all relates to this AFD. As Fussballspieler11's comments above clearly show - "my article" - they have OWNership issues regarding the article that is nominated for deletion and seem to be personally offended that people are questioning notability. The edits I reverted to the AFD was this - a mass wall of text, including copyrighted material, that was simply disruptive. I've not much more to say on this matter, any admin picking this up needs only to look at the AFD history to see what a mess it is and how Fussballspieler11 edits. GiantSnowman 22:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and don't worry - I received no notification, and I have notified C.Fred (talk · contribs) about this thread. GiantSnowman 22:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

This is complete rubbish. User:Fussballspieler11 has engaged in ad hominem attacks against me simply because of my !vote in an AfD (both on my Talk page and the AfD itself). GS has been far more patient with Fussballspieler11 than I would have been. Jogurney (talk) 22:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

He's doing that with anybody who votes delete the article. The bottom of my talk page and the AfD shows it too. This is a case of WP:BOOMERANG. LionMans Account (talk) 23:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Ownership" seems to be a bit of an understatement with this spa Fussballspieler11 (talk · contribs) Taroaldo ✉ 23:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

—————→I notified GiantSnowman and C.fred on their talk pages. I have nothing personal in this except I can notice an injustice when I see one. You deleted a simple Google search result showing just how notable my subject is. Pretty much satisfying your doubts. I also refuted yours and your friend's claims about assuming that not finding information is proof of some kind of sham. You're trying to make a proof because of your lack of ability to do research or your refusal to believe factual references from reputable 3rd party sources that have already been used as sources on Wikipedia over 500 times. I'm not taking this personally and I am not the only one who has noticed the strange attention to an article that is obviously perfectly notable in subject and references. Heck the subject has played with pro teams in USA, Brazil, Sweden, Switzerland, Germany, Slovakia and maybe more and he founded the Ventura Film Festival and gives awards to Academy Award winning celebrities. He was also in the US Dream Team training camp with the Michael Jordan's of USA soccer. It's incredible the denial. There are videos and pictures of him giving the awards and pictures of him with Pele and David Beckham on his site and his family are award winning, famous actors and musicians. Clearly notable. Your smear campaign is obvious to me and becoming more obvious to others. If 10 references, mulitple official league stats, multiple official pro team blogs, multiple features about him in newspapers and highly regarded news portals, staring in world wide and national tv commercials isn't enough then what is? This reference alone satisfies Association Football notability ALONE http://uslpro.uslsoccer.com/stats/23496.html. The others just back it up. There should be no need for discussion. There are two other good standing Wikipedia editors who have also noted that they sense a strange suspicion of mal-intent by the "deleters" here and at least 3-4 maybe more people who have voted to keep the article.Fussballspieler11 (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

One, that is not "your" article, read WP:OWN. Two, talk of a "smear campaign" by those who do not believe the subject is notable is over-the-top and offensive - but then most of your edits/comments are. Three, do you have any connection, personal or professional, to Jordan Older? GiantSnowman 23:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

It does appear that Fussballspeiler11 has corresponded with Older, based on this comment on my user talk page. Whether there's any pre-existing relationship, that's for him(/her) to answer. —C.Fred (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)While I think the CSD G3 tag on this article was inappropriate, I don't think it was done in deliberate bad faith. I am starting to have reservations about Fussballspieler11's conduct and whether (s)he is assuming good faith in the edits of other users. The comments about "injustice"s and "smear campaign"s do seem to come a little too readily. —C.Fred (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Note. Here is a link to the article's first AfD [69]. The lack of reliable sources was evident then, and there is no indication that this has changed. Taroaldo ✉ 23:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

This is off topic since I don't get what any of it has to do with ANI, but most of your claims like Google searches, pictured with famous people, mention in official blogs etc do not go towards establishing notability. And mentioning that sort of OT here and irrelevant generally stuff doesn't exactly give confidence that you've been wronged. Nil Einne (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comment above Nil Einne. You're coming in at the end of a 3 day discussion. The "Google searches, pictured with famous people, mention in official blogs" are only circumstantial SUPPORTING references mentioned in the deletion discussion. Please don't put words in my mouth, so to say. They were not in anyway included in the article. But at this time I have to wonder why I non notable person's article is getting this attention. I love conspiracy theories and this is shaping up nicley. This establishes his notability http://uslpro.uslsoccer.com/stats/23496.html The scores of other newspaper articles just hammer the proof home. I'm not the other one who agrees to keep the article. There are perhaps 6 people who have voted to keep it so far. Thanks again for your interest in my articleFussballspieler11 (talk) 23:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

No they were not just " only circumstantial SUPPORTING references " , you mentioned them right here which as I said is unnecessary and doesn't help your case. I hadn't even checked out the AFD at the time of that comment. Nil Einne (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

—————→User:buffbills7701 Approved the article originally and these two editors have made comments about some strange sense of agenda and vendetta by the wan to be "deleters" of my article:

• User:FergusM1970
• User:Usmanwardag

I am just a fan of soccer and a very knowledgeable one. And I am not the only one to notice the attitude. Even C.Fred striked out the language of some of the people on my article. So you know I am not the only one smelling something fishy here. And I have evidence in the form of news reports and press releases that there may be (not making an accusation or definately saying there is) an organized smear campaign against my subject. Evidenced/referenced here by the business conflict reported regarding his Ventura Film Festival. I have no proof but, my subjects page was only deleted near the time that this business conflict took place and 6 years later its still got more attention than a fly on honey (but at the same time not called notable.) This is enough to warrant the page to be protected and not deleted. Again I am not saying there is a smear campagin PLEASE DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH. I am saying that the 6 year deletion campaign by a certain editor is suspicious. Coupled with the links below it makes sense. And I'm not saying that all Italians are in the mafia either. Do not make me seem like that bad guy here please. The bad guys have spent way too much time on a non notable person (according to them) to make it normal. I know how anonymous web sites like this work. Anyone can get a proxy and fake a username so your over the top energy and the other detractors (6 year to delete a famous soccer player and Ventura Film Festival director's Wikipedia account) leads me to read between the lines. I hope you can too. You see C.fred is being very impartial. He didn't delete anything I wrote. He offered me help since this is my first article. He was nice. You just came in and deleted two, not just one of my important comments and then misrepresented their contents saying they were copyrights. I don't think Google search results are copyrighted? I've already linked to some of the links in my article's defense. You also deleted where I found a game roster that could have been a typo. I saw another typo of his name on another roster too. Jordan Older is not a common name. The other "deleters" have constantly been using worlds like "a few" minutes to misrepresent my subject's playing career and they have the effect of minimizing his reputation. I paste a link to a pro site (also used by scores of other wikipedia authors) and the "deleters" call it an amateur league when it clearly says pro. They are just trying to minimize his reputation, in my opinion and C.fred even had to strike out their comments due to this. It's just obvious to me what's going on here. There is no reason to be discussing the deletion of this article whatsoever. End of story (in mine anothers opinion.) I respect your right to disagree and thank you for your time and apologize if I was taken as rude. I am an award winning author who takes his work seriously.

http://www.vcreporter.com/cms/story/detail/will_the_real_ventura_film_festival_please_stand_up/7035/ http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/02/27/idUS120964+27-Feb-2009+PRN20090227 Fussballspieler11 (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

———————→User:Taroaldo It looks to me like you are mistaken. There are 10 new references. Some weren't even in existence at the time the original article was written.Fussballspieler11 (talk) 23:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you stop doing stuff like calling anyone 'bad guys'. Nil Einne (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• My apolgies Taroaldo. I have striken the comment. Thanks for commenting on my discussion.Fussballspieler11 (talk) 00:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• User:Taroaldo comments above about not having any change baffles my mind. I just can't understand how he/she can not see the totally new article and 10 new references? Can anyone clear this up like C.fred who is being impartial?Fussballspieler11 (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

How do any of us know what was in the original article? Far as I can tell, it was never undeleted. Sources which didn't exist in 2007 must be new, but otherwise we can just go by what was said in the AFD unless we're admins. In any case, it's largely a moot point if the sources were in the original article, if they're still not sufficient to establish notability. BTW, having looked at the second AFD, I agree you've made it into a real mess. Nil Einne (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

If the same sources were in the prior version of the article, we wouldn't be having this discussion: the article would already be deleted under CSD G4. I take Taroaldo's comment to mean that the ten new references fail, in his perception, to meet the criteria of reliable sources (or to provide significant enough coverage to meet GNG). And that's why we're having the AfD discussion: to discuss and reach community consensus on whether the sources are sufficient (and the article should be kept) or are not (and the article should be deleted). —C.Fred (talk) 23:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• That's a good point Nil Einne... but yet there are many of the "deleters" who have said there are no new references. All of the references are new because I read the original article. You can even see it copy pasted on the message boards, but my comment about that was deleted by GiantSnowman so you are going to have to remain uninformed because of that. Some of the teams the player played for simply are so old there are no references for them online. Try finding a roster for the San Fernando Valley Golden eagles from 1995. It just doesnt exist because the USL site was nonexistant or a simple html page. But this one does from a newer date that is all I should need for notability. http://uslpro.uslsoccer.com/stats/23496.html. Here it is. There are also 2 other news articles by newspapers that were just written this year by journalists. Here http://www.futebolinterior.com.br/news/259995+Ex-jogador_vira_empresario_e_comeca_a_ganhar_espaco_no_futebol http://www.pvnews.com/sports/article_ed96e25e-76da-11e2-a086-001a4bcf887a.html . Then there is a blog from a pro team in Sweden that may not be a primary reference but it does at least back up the others http://www.lsk.se/default.asp?do=game_details&gameID=1111 . It was not used in the original article because no claims were made regarding sweden or at which level the subject played. The blog stats that he "played in the top league" in Brazil. All the data, perhaps over 20 sources, some more reliable than others says the same thing. Keep in mind my article was deleted as a hoax within less than hour or so after I wrote it. This was denied by C.fred. Was someone just waiting around to call it a hoax so quickly even though it had 10 new references? Sounds strange to me but ALL the sources prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that my subject did what I said he did and that he is beyond notable. I am not saying he is the best soccer player in the world, far from. But I am a fan and there are pictures, newspapers, videos even, hundreds of decade old forum posts, fan sites, press releases, rosters, etc. I'm done defending this article because what I type is quickly deleted by admins and I feel bullied at this point. It's all there and I thank you all (all 20 or so people who care so much about my subject) to have examined his career with a fine toothed comb. I think its time for me to log off but I know that if I log back in after a few days more suspicious "deleters" will have commented on this 6 year old debate about a nothing soccer player who only played amateur soccer and who prevented a hostile take over of his film festival.Fussballspieler11 (talk) 00:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Look, I'll put it a different way since I think you're still not getting it. There's no point trying to prove whether or not the article should be deleted here. That's the purpose of the AFD. All you should be doing here is explaining what administrative intervention is needed and why. If the editors have really done anything majorly wrong that required administrative intervention, you should show that. Minor things like a comment you disagree with but may have misunderstood anyway don't help. Asking for deletion of a recreated article that was correctly deleted in the past is no evidence of a vendetta either.. In addition, while I often make long posts, you've made so many of them, and in such quick succession that I'm not sure how many people have even read half of what you've said. And trying to prove notability or other off topic commentary here is counterproductive since it makes people think there's nothing worth looking in to here. As I've hinted above, the length, number and formatting of your posts are also a problem in the AFD. Anyone checking it out quickly is likely to think you're making more problems than anyone else. Nil Einne (talk) 00:18, 11 July 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.

Second discussion

I'm re-opening this becaue it's not done, nowhere near, unfortunately. Can an uninvolved admin review the mess that is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Older (2nd nomination), as well as the contributions of Fussballspieler11 (talk · contribs) - basically a SPA showing terrible OWNership issues, has a clear COI/agenda here as he has described the subject of the article as "my customer" (given his behaviour/previous comments I cannot AGF and believe it was a simple typo). A quick review of the AFD will show Fussballspieler11 accusing other editors of lying, of "foul play", of this and of that; any editor that has !voted 'delete' is "suspicious" while any editor that has !voted 'keep' is "honest"; he believes there is a conspiracy trying to get the article deleted etc. etc. He has been registered for only 3 days and yet talks to very experienced editors and admins as if they are naughty children. It is worse than talking to a brick wall and I have already had to warn him not to post on my talk page because I am so very, very close to losing my rag big-time with him and none of us wants that. Posting this, notifying, then going to bed before I have a stroke or something. GiantSnowman 22:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked for the remainder of the AFD. What a disgraceful sequence of events by this editor; wholly disgraceful behaviour (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• What started this ANI discussion is this edit.  AfD's are considered to be talk pages, so WP:TPO applies here.  The removal of this text should have provided a comment to that effect at the point where the text was removed, so that other editors would know to look at the edit history if they so desired.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • While that may be true, Fussballspieler11 had been acting uncivily in the AfD discussion (and on user Talk pages like mine) long before that, and I'm surprised by the amount of patience that has been shown by the involved admins. Jogurney (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
    • And his explosion of personal attacks, bad faith, and WP:IDHT on his talk page has resulted in talk page access being revoked. Note that I'm having internet issues at the moment and will be intermittently online; if another admin thinks this is being heavy-handed you can feel free to undo the TPA revocation, I won't consider it wheel-warring.- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
      • That AfD is ... impressive. Good block. Bobby Tables (talk) 02:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
        • @Unscintillating:, you're right, I should have placed a diff on the AFD showing my removal of the text. However, I did explain why to the editor in question, and to be fair the text that was posted was so 'TLDR' it was disruptive, and was simply the editor re-hashing the same argument he had made many, many times before. GiantSnowman 09:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
• Since my last comment at the AfD, I have been away doing real life stuff. Lucky for me I missed a lot of the nonsense, although I think I severely strained my scrolling finger as I tried to find the current bottom of the AfD comments. (Much of it falls under TLDR and the "familiar" formatting told me much of it was repetitive anyway.) This has approached a level of disruption I've rarely seen, and I certainly think a proposal for a topic ban on football (soccer) related topics would be a good idea. This level of nonsense should not be tolerated. Taroaldo ✉ 00:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for Article Page Ban for Binksternet for Consistent Inappropriate Edits on the Mitsuo Fuchida Page

Since March of 2012, Binksternet has been reverting and altering the Historical Controversy section of the page on Mitsuo Fuchida, contantly shaping it to produce as unfavorable a picture of Fuchida as possible without regard to historical accuracy, references, or qualifications. I, TheLeopard or T Martin Bennett, have spent eight years researching the life of Fuchida, have the endorsement of the highest qualified experts on both Fuchida and Pearl Harbor, and am a full-time researcher/writer and cannot maintain the integrity of this page no matter what I do. I am not as skilled as Binksternet on Wikipedia as I cannot devote much time to it.

After an edit war with Binksternet in late November 2012, I requested a page block to at least protect the page from damage during the week of December 7, when it receives the most visits. A block was put in place for about 6 months, for which I am grateful. As soon as the block was removed, the "Controversy" section was highly altered, leaving Parshall's full paragraph of anti-Fuchida comments, while deleting my information and replacing it with a single sentence falsely presenting a view as being mine. This is the very reason people do not trust Wikipedia.

Most recently, I added four references to articles appearing in the Naval War College Review showing Parshall's full arguments and my own. It is very, very difficult to get published in this Review, even in the "Letters" section. I also updated my counterpoint to Parshall's charges against Fuchida. You can see these two edits here: [70]

Within a day, Binksternet reverted my counterpoint section and replaced it with the opionion of someone else falsely speaking on my behalf, and completely deleted the entire four references to the Fuchda dispute article series in the Naval War College Review.[71]

Understand that these articles are highly academic, highly researched, highly vetted, present both sides, and are extremely germane to the "Controversy" section of this page. The Review allowed two articles on the subject from each author – point and counterpoint, and two letters – point and counterpoint. There is no good reason to simply wipe them off the page when at the same time, Parshall's book, entitled "Shattered Sword" is listed in the Bibliography section when his 640 page book has only a few mentions of Fuchida's name and has virtually nothing to do with the Fuchida article.

Binksternet has implied that I have a Conflict Of Interest because I have written on Fuchida, which is absurd. I will be the first to show that Fuchida was a corrupt person and I have altered my own writings based on criticism giving others the benefit of every doubt, as my only interest is in the truth. I am one of the most knowledgeable people in the world on Mitsuo Fuchida. I have indeed written about Fuchida, (good things and bad things) which in no way disqualifies me from commenting on his page. In fact, it is quite the opposite. On the other hand, Binksternet has yet to demonstrate the least qualifications to edit this page.

I am requesting a permanent article page ban of Binksternet from the Mitsuo Fuchida page based on the fact that he consistently bends the page against Fuchida, violating WP:NPOV while demonstrating no personal qualifications or documentation to add to the content of the article. There is no way I or anyone can keep up with the constant erosion of the integrity of the page if he continues to edit it.--TMartinBennett (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried Dispute resolution before coming here? Do you have extensive input from people not previously involved in this dispute? --Jayron32 02:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I have gone over the issue on the talk page at length, but there are few, if any, with the knowledge to participate who are also Wikipedia-savvy. I am not involved enough in Wikipedia to find competent WWII experts to participate, although I have looked. Binksternet has never made any contributions of substance to the Fuchida page, whereas I (and many others) have. He deletes and reverts to promote his POV. If you can bring in some WWII experts who are disinterested third parties, that would be great, but even if there is a temporary resolution, what would prevent Blinksternet from going back to his old ways? He has no business fiddling with a serious page like this and does not respect the guidelines. This has become a serious problem.--TMartinBennett (talk) 22:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The only knowledge required on Wikipedia is how to read sources. There is no other requirement for working on a "serious page", whatever that means. I certainly know how to read sources—I have taken four articles to Featured article status, and none of them were topics I was previously familiar with. The call for experts is a fine sentiment but not necessary.

I intend to keep an eye on the Fuchida biography because it has been the center of a real-life dispute between T. Martin Bennett, entrepreneur and would-be filmmaker who is working on a Fuchida story, and Jon Parshall, a respected military historian. Let's not allow this dispute to boil over into Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Mr Bennett, Binksternet is a highly experienced Wikipedian who can help shape the article to meet Wikipedia standards. He's knowledgeable about WWII topics. You are a person with knowledge of this particular topic who is not as familiar with the particular requirements of this website. This is a good opportunity to cooperate to make the article better, as there should be some synergy here. I would suggest by starting with providing reliable sources for all the material in the article – not just the Controversy section – as presently there's entire paragraphs that are unsourced. Mr Bennett, the reason why it might be deemed that you have a conflict of interest is because you are citing your own article as a source for the corresponding Wikipedia article. While this is not forbidden, you need to be careful not to give your own point of view undue weight. See WP:SELFCITE. Binksternet or other experienced Wiki editors can help you with this aspect to make sure that you inadvertently do not commit this error. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, and thanks for your thoughts. It's important that disinterested third parties (not friends) help remedy this situation, so please state for the record that you have no prior relationship or communication with Binksternet. RSVP, thanks.

I have provided many substantial contributions with accurate references to the Fuchida page already and will continue to do so as time permits. There is no prohibition against citing your own material (although there are guidelines) and Parshall, who started the "Controversy" section in the first place, only quotes his own book and no one has yet to object. It is only information that contradicts his assertions that is quickly deleted by Binksternet and violating the NPOV that continues to damage the accuracy of this page.--TMartinBennett (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I am a Wikipedia administrator and part of that job is to try to help answer inquiries on this board; that's why I responded to this thread. Binksternet and I have edited a few of the same articles as we both work on WWII topics so I cannot say we have never communicated with one another, though I would not class us as friends. If you want the help of a disinterested third party, your best bet is to try one or our dispute resolution protocols. There's more information on this at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Diannaa. You realize that Binksternet is altering content and helping to falsely attribute opinions to me on the official page that are not my opionions at all, right? As soon as I post accurate, referenced material, he deletes it immediately, apparently not even bothering to read the sources or material. If any entry gives the balance of opposite information to Parshall and Binksternet's POV, it is immediately excised. I have a job and much work to do and cannot maintain the integrity on this page so long as Binksternet runs free to shape the page to his own POV, which he's been doing since early 2012. For the life of me, no matter how hard I try, I cannot even list the four highly academic articles that appear in the U.S. Naval War College Review. Binksternet deleted them immediately. It is unfair to the readers of Wikipedia to not be able to read for themselves the most thorough examination of the "controversy" re: Fuchida that exists today. Also, Binksternet is not adding any substantial valuable content to the page, only deleting information and adding opinion. So long as he has access to shape the page, it will never be accurate.--TMartinBennett (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I've been on both sides of a discussion such as this, so believe me when I say that neither user is thinking about page content anymore. At least, not from the edit history I saw. This looks like an edit war, plain and simple. Binksternet and I have history, as we've "fought" over things before, but I don't see how his edits help the page at all. On the other hand, Bennett, you should have alerted someone of this issue as soon as the pattern became clear; since you waited a bit before bringing in a third party, it looks like you're simply rallying support for your point of view. Trust me, I've been there, too. Now that another editor, Theleapord, has become involved, this whole thing has devolved into a game of tug-of-war, with the page as the victim caught in the crossfire. As for citing your own works as a reference, that may not be prohibited, but it's an extremely precarious leg to stand on. Published works by two authors, both contradicting the other, that are being toted by their authors. That's a recipe for disaster in my view; both of you are just asking for trouble. Magus732 (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Magus732, you and I have worked together successfully on the Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory article as well as on the Boeing XB-15 article. I do not agree with your assessment that "neither user is thinking about page content anymore." I have not been building the Fuchida biography but I believe I have been valuable to the wiki by removing unsound timber from the construction. An important part of page content is the removal of poor content, which must be done with the reader in mind, and Wikipedia guidelines as the anchor. My point is that Bennett is not very well known so his contribution must not be given undue weight, especially in regard to more highly respected authors such as Parshall. Binksternet (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

@Magus732, User:Theleopard and T Martin Bennett are the same person. @Everybody, this is a content dispute, and is beyond the scope of this board. The first step a content dispute is to discuss the proposed edit on the article talk page. If that doesn't work, the next step is dispute resolution. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

UPDATE: Binksternet is now deleting content on the Talk page in direct violation of WP:TPNO in order to bolster his POV. Binksternet is not concerned with who the experts are, from Dr. Goldstein to Dan King, he's consistently bent on producing the worst image of Fuchida in the controversy section, as he has deleted comments from these experts as well. Parshall is also highly disrespected by extremely qualified and well-known experts. This is no longer a content dispute, but a behaviour problem that is far outside the Wikipedia guidelines. Why is Binksternet allowed to delete Talk page content without consequence? For the record, I started using my own name, T Martin Bennett, when Theleopard became confusing to others. I appeal to the editors to prevent Binksternet from further damage to this page.--TMartinBennett (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, the Historical controversy should have more reliable sources and/or references. Having just three of them is too few. At the same time, it should be noted that when reliable sources and/or references are added not to have too many. To have controversial content should be backed-up with at least two or more references. Can I also request that the talkpage be auto archived as well? If anyone doesn't mind, I can set that up. Adamdaley (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet should not have removed your remarks from the talk page. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I removed the same material from the article and from the talk page, both per WP:BLP. I do not see Bennett's own letter as being a good enough source to demean the reputation of Parshall, especially in the manner that this disparagement was presented, with belittling remarks presented without specific point-by-point criticism of Parshall's work. The Fuchida biography (and its talk page) is not the platform for generally denigrating comments about Parshall. Only specific criticism of his Fuchida research should be brought in, and that criticism must not be given undue emphasis. Binksternet (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I'm not sure I agree with your perception that it was disparaging enough to warrant removal, but it was a logical thing to do and done for good motives. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet erroneously refers to my "letter," by which he means my vetted article. As I've pointed out on the Fuchida Talk page, the Naval War College Review has no "letters" section. Parshall is an executive of a small software company who co-wrote a single book six years ago that puts forth some controversial, and widely rejected theories regarding Fuchida, especially by those who are experts on Pearl Harbor and Fuchida. Parshall's credibility, or lack thereof, is of paramount importance. Goldstein is a doctored professor of many years in law and history and the author of over a dozen books on Pearl Harbor, The Pacific War, and Fuchida, yet Binksternet has immediately wiped his statements from the page. Parshall conceded that his ideas are conjecture so there is no belittling in stating simple facts. Binksternet has now shaped the page with a full paragraph on Parshall's theories and helped to dumb down the the other side of the issue to a single statement supposedly showing my viewpoint, which it does not. Is this the bar for Wikipedia editors? For articles?--TMartinBennett (talk) 03:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Bennett, here's a quick timeline of your involvement at the Fuchida biography:

• [72] December 5, 2008. A series of edits which added Fuchida present on the Missouri battleship for the signing of the Japanese surrender (an assertion which has been called a Fuchida "fabrication" by historians[73] because no hard evidence supports it, and nobody else remembered him there), and a self-promotional link to a Youtube video that was uploaded by T Martin Bennett, a 90-second clip about the Bennett film project known as Wounded Tiger, a Fuchida biography under development. Both of these additions are changed by others: one editor removed the promo video link, and Jparshall toned down the Missouri bit by changing it to "Fuchida claims to have been part of a delegation"...
• [74] January 4, 2009, Bennett insists that Fuchida was really on the Missouri.
• [75] February 19, 2009. A series of edits which adjusted some text but which removed 10 fact tags without answering them.
• [76] Mid-October 2009. Assorted changes, no harm.
• [77] January 4, 2010. The day before this, Jparshall once again toned down the Fuchida assertion that he was on the Missouri during the surrender. Bennett follows with his preferred reversion.
• [78] December 4, 2011. An IP editor added a "reappraisal" of Fuchida based on the Parshall and Tully book, Shattered Sword, and the Parshall piece about Fuchida's "Three Whoppers" (fabrications.) Bennett reverted this addition.
• [79] December 5, 2011. An editor restored the "reappraisal section, so Bennett removed it again.
• [80] December 16, 2011. Bennett sees that he cannot remove the section so he adjusts it, writing that, even Fuchida's story was doubted by Parshall and Tully, it was believed by Prange and Goldstein, using only the argument from authority fallacy.
• [81] December 16, 2011. Bennett rethinks the previous strategy, taking out his addition, and he removes most of the Parshall-based text he didn't like, along with the "Three Whoppers" reference.
• [82] March 13, 2012. Bennett removes the whole "reappraisal" section. He is quickly reverted.
• [83] November 3, 2012. Bennett tweaks the link to his promotional video clip about Wounded Tiger
• [84] December 4, 2012. Bennett gets his own letter published in the Naval War College Review, so he uses it as a reference to say Parshall's work is "riddled with errors... conjecture and speculation... misplaced confidence in unreliable sources... all of his charges are groundless." No detailed rebuttal is supplied, only this denigration and dismissal.
• [85] December 4, 2012. Seeing his wording reduced to the essence, Bennett reverts to the larger, more wordy version.
• [86] December 5, 2012. Same as above.
• [87] December 5, 2012. Same as above.
• [88] December 5, 2012. Same as above.
• Article is fully protected from content warring. Binksternet (talk) 05:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Your list is very incomplete as I've added entire paragraphs not included above. Perhaps my variation of names, Theleopard and TMartinBennett have interefered with your search. Please feel free to list your additions of content to this page. Thanks.--TMartinBennett (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Mr Bennett, I see where on the talk page of another editor you have made the assumption that I am Binksternet's friend. I am not his friend; we are-co-editors who share an interest WWII topics and therefore have edited some of the same articles, but that's all. In fact we had a disagreement at Manstein when I re-wrote the article for a WP:Good article nomination (the material is still on the talk page). No other administrators, indeed no other editors, have responded to your complaint about Binksternet. Perhaps it's time for you to step back and think – perhaps the reason you are not getting the desired result is because there's no administrator action that can be taken at this time, other than yourself being blocked for edit warring if you continue to insert your preferred version of the Controversy section into the article. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Diannaa, you and Binksternet are acquainted and have very similar POVs re: Fuchida, so I will try to limit it to that. Two Wiki history editors I contacted said they have given up on issues like this as they felt it was a waste to spend their precious time updating and fixing damaged articles only to have their work instantly reverted, so I understand their hesitation. I'm not the only one exasperated with Binksternet's POV editing as he's earned himself quite a reputation: <redacted link and quotation from attack site> The fact that roughly 50 people openly opposed his being granted a request for adminship speaks volumes. I've seen much of the same behavior myself. He was rejected. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Binksternet%7CWikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Binksternet--TMartinBennett (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I again suggest that you try dispute resolution using one of the processes listed here. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet's admin or non-admin status is irrelevant to the content dispute. Your sole interest in Wikipedia is to insert reference to your article and that's why Binksternet and I are both suspicious that you are not here to improve the encyclopedia but rather to promote your own interests. You have a clear and obvious conflict of interest, as you have a screenplay and book in the works on the subject of this article. Linking to that attack site is not permitted on this wiki and I warn you not to do it again or you could be immediately blocked without further warning. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment TMB is now canvassing others to come support his position here and here Ishdarian 00:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
• I've blocked Theleopard for 72 hours for disruptive editing, including canvassing, promotion, and POV-pushing. The two instances of canvassing highlighted by Ishdarian are just the tip of the iceberg - there are many more. And they are the most egregious canvassing I've seen, including leveraging the canvassed user's supposed antipathy for Binksternet to convince the user to come here. I also looked at some of Bennett's recent edits to the article, which are also atrocious, including putting in such choice sentences like "Author and screenwriter T. Martin Bennett spent eight years researching the life of Mitsuo Fuchida and believes Parshall has no case for any of his charges and has rebutted Parshall's arguments in two articles in the Naval War College Review." My only difficulty was deciding how long to block him. I initially was going to block for a week, but I decided based on his apparent inexperience at Wikipedia and it being his first block, 72 hours was more fair.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you, Bbb23. Obviously I am partial in this matter but Theleopard's canvassing was egregious, very disruptive. Binksternet (talk) 01:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Long term incivility from User:BrandonTR

Articles involving the JFK assassination have always been a target for POV pushers and civility violators. User:BrandonTR has had long term issues with interacting with other editors on these articles (which are mostly the only articles he edits on Wikipedia) in a civil manner. Here is a small sampling of his incivility that he has directed at myself and others for about two years: [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95]. He has been aware this has been an issue for some time, as it has been pointed out to him on talk pages again and again and offensive comments of his have been removed again and again. Attempting to avoid interacting with him has not been successful as he will just insult you in the edit summary. I would appreciate it if another administrator would attempt to impress upon him the importance of this core policy. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Update: I forgot to link to my most recent attempt to get BrandonTR to discuss his behavior before bringing the issue here. It was reverted without comment, which I suppose is an improvement from reverting with an insulting edit summary. Gamaliel (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It looks to me as if most of the incivility provided is not serious and where it seems serious there is usually some inappropriate action on your part. When you alter a passage to say "bringing the sanity" and someone refers to that edit as insanity, that seems more like petty bickering between two disputants. Similarly when you seem to claim there has been discussion over including a conspiracy-related detail in an article on the conspiracy theories by pointing to a discussion on an article on the actual event, then you are being deceptive as any editor familiar with this issue knows inclusion of fringe views on an article about fringe views is different from including them in an article that is not about fringe views.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

First, I didn't "alter a passage", that was a snarky edit summary which was not directed at an individual but only reflected my opinion about a section that was one sided and POV and, as far as I know, not written by BrandonTR BrandonTR responded with a personal attack on me in his next edit summary. If you want to throw out that example of BrandonTR's incivility, fine, there are plenty more to choose from.

Second, I have no idea what you mean when you say that I am "being deceptive". What are you referencing specifically, with links? That's a serious accusation and you should make it clear what on earth you are referring to and why it is relevant here. I'm not sure this claim is relevant anyway, since this discussion is solely about editor behavior, not article content. I have no interest in discussing BrandonTR's article content in this forum as I feel it would only muddy the waters.

If you have a specific accusation against me, please start a new thread. This is not about me versus BrandonTR, as his incivility is not directed solely towards me. It would not be appropriate for other editors to continue to be the victims of his behavior because you think I did something inappropriate, whatever it is. Gamaliel (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The pot calling the kettle black A bit of incivility on Gamaliel's part -- referring to me as a "troll":

Okay, it's been fun, but we're done here now. I've had fun poking the troll, but from now on I'm going to be removing your comments per WP:BLP when you use this page as a forum to libel living individuals. Gamaliel (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lee_Harvey_Oswald&oldid=539562246 BrandonTR (talk) 20:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course, you left out a large thread full of days worth of your incivility and libelous comments towards BLPs directly above that comment. I would love to never have to say another word to you in my life, and we can make that happen if you can just restrain yourself from directing offensive comments towards me and other editors. Gamaliel (talk) 20:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. Your act of incivility at the time was justified by what you regarded as my acts of incivility? BrandonTR (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, you had spent several days insulting myself, User:Canada Jack, "lone-nut theorists", unnamed editors on the Jack Ruby article, and multiple living authors by name. That said, no acts of incivility are justified. I am trying to get this nonsense to stop entirely, in an manner satisfactory to all parties involved, but you have constantly refused to change your behavior. Gamaliel (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It's interesting that you pretend to speak for other editors who I have allegedly offended, when none of these editors who you propose to speak for has complained. Could it be that you're a little thin-skinned? As for Canada Jack, causally looking at a thread of his comments reveals that he is notorious for insulting other editors, but when they take digs back at him, he doesn't whine. He can take it. BrandonTR (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

That's the problem here is your refusal to understand how Wikipedia works. Nobody should have to "take it". Gamaliel (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you are confusing sarcasm with incivility. BrandonTR (talk) 22:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

To your first point, I see you added a section so I guess you didn't alter a passage per se, but the point is that your edit summary was a swipe at people editing that page and, I should note, you were editing a section that Brandon had just previously edited. As to what I said about being deceptive, I was referring to what prompted the comment in this diff. You made the comment, "We've already dealt with this some years ago, and this material still doesn't belong in the article." However, you linked to a discussion page for a different article, one on the assassination and not one on the conspiracy theories about the assassination. As the discussion concerned the CT article, it is a serious misrepresentation to act as if the earlier discussion was about the same article as there are different criteria for inclusion on the two pages.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Or perhaps, it was just an error on my part? This error (or alleged "deception"!) is irrelevant as the editors on both pages decided not to use the material based on its factual inaccuracy. Even so, what does that have to do with the issue of BrandonTR's behavior? Do you feel it is appropriate to make accusations of deliberate deception and abandon WP:AGF? Do you feel this error gives BrandonTR permission to violate WP:CIVIL in this manner? "In your typical troll fashion, your reference is deceitfully pointed to another article". If I made a mistake regarding article content the appropriate response is not childish insults or sandbagging an unrelated discussion with it months later. The appropriate response is to discuss the issue like mature adults at the time the error was made. Gamaliel (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I find it odd to suggest that you didn't realize one discussion was about one article and the other discussion about a different article. That said, it seems there is personal history here and he got annoyed because your comment mislead him. Why someone makes a comment is just as important, often more important, as the comment itself.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The previous discussion was several years old, and both articles were about the JFK assassination. Why is that mistake odd? Besides, it is irrelevant, as the material was factually inaccurate and thus inappropriate for any article. Even if I unintentionally misled him, his response is in no way appropriate behavior. And that is one incident among many where he has engaged in incivility and namecalling. Perhaps he has a good excuse each time, or was prompted by something that annoyed him in each case, but it adds up to an inappropriate pattern of behavior that he has repeatedly refused to address. I am tired of it and other editors are tired of it. Gamaliel (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Nobody's perfect. Everybody gets a little snippy now and again, especially on these sorts of contentious subjects. Are you saying that you have never been snippy with him or other editors in the topic area? Looking at the entire discussion that followed, it seems it was relatively civil and Brandon wasn't posing any unique problem.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, everybody gets a little snippy. Lord knows I do. But I'm baffled you can look at that discussion full of namecalling on his part and just dismiss it. This is a two year pattern of behavior directed at multiple editors. I'm coming here for assistance, but your idea of "assistance" is the same as the offending editor. I should just shut up and "take" his abuse. Gamaliel (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

it's interesting, why do you excuse BrandonTRs long term pattern of behavior as "nobody's perfect" but I make one mistake about a discussion from six years ago being on one JFK article talk page instead of another, and you accuse me of "deliberate deception". Why the blatant double standard? Gamaliel (talk) 06:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's try this again

I can understand if other admins don't want to read that wall of text. Most of it is irrelevant anyway, like a distracting and inappropriate accusation of deception because I thought a six year old discussion was on one talk page instead of another. Here's the situation: for two years a user has been acting as if civility doesn't apply here. Sometimes we ask him to stop, sometimes we remind him of policy, sometimes we get snarky. Nothing has worked. We are not requesting anything extraordinary, just for outside parties to let this user know this pattern of behavior cannot continue. His response above was that I should not "whine" and just "take it". Is this what we want from wikipedia? I'm not a perfect editor or admin, and neither are the other editors, but let's not pretend there's any kind of equivalence here, nor should we require editors to be impassive saints when confronted with an unchecked pattern of negative behavior. All we are asking is for existing policies to be enforced when it comes to his behavior, and for that matter ours. Gamaliel (talk) 06:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Gamaliel has a point. It's true, I give as good as I take, but with Brandon I've found that virtually every time we've debated something it descends into a tirade where everyone who disagrees is some CIA troll or one of my pro-Warren Commission minions. And quite often, he is factually wrong or ignoring basic wikipedia policy which makes the process all the more frustrating. The longest discussions on the Kennedy assassination pages are typically sparked by changes he has made or has attempted to make. And almost all the time, no other editor agrees with the point he is making, which usually boils down to using material appropriately, not, as he claims, using "inappropriate" material (i.e., material which tends to negate the lone-gunman interpretations). Canada Jack (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the point should be made that it's not a content issue here. Brandon uses the talk pages as a battleground to sling insults because he can't always get his way with content, while there are other editors who disagree with us we get along with just fine, like User:Joegoodfriend, who is pretty much a model editor. Gamaliel (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

A casual reading of these threads will reveal that critics of the Warren Commission like myself are often denigrated as being on a par with those who believe in alien abduction, lizard people, or something else way out there. But that's okay. My retort is to bring out the facts as best as I can ascertain them. I've been wrong a couple of times and when I have, I've corrected my mistakes. I have also compromised several times on issues of wording and other matters. Regarding Canada Jack's criticism of me, one will note that it is long on generalities and short on specifics. BrandonTR (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I have limited Internet access this week. I will comment in a few days if this discussion is still open. Thanks. Joegoodfriend (talk) 20:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

A casual reading of these threads will reveal that critics of the Warren Commission like myself are often denigrated as being on a par with those who believe in alien abduction, lizard people, or something else way out there. That response is precisely what Gamaliel is talking about. While Brandon says that Gamaliel needs to get a thicker skin like me, that's not really the point. The point is that every time someone takes issue with an edit of his, Brandon, that is, he shoots back with some paranoid line like that. And, despite his characterization that me and others are "censoring" Warren Commission critics, the usual truth is that Brandon either has posted material which doesn't apply, is factually wrong, goes against the consensus without any attempt to engage editors beforehand, or is simply irrelevant. I could cite many examples, but this is Gamaliel's complaint, not mine and I want to avoid the bogged-down back-and-forth as per the above. Canada Jack (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

So the original complaint has evolved from accusations of incivility on my part -- a Wiki violation -- to a complaint that I am paranoid and have "...posted material which doesn't apply, is factually wrong, goes against the consensus without any attempt to engage editors beforehand, or is simply irrelevant." This is an interesting transformation. I have searched the Wikipedia guidelines regarding "paranoia" violations, but have come up empty. Maybe Canada Jack can help here. BrandonTR (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Please do cite them actually. I don't see this as "my" complaint as I don't see this as a me versus him situation. He does, apparently, and that hostile attitude is precisely the problem. Gamaliel (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved editor:After looking at a few of the relevant edits, it appears that Gamaliel is pushing some conspiracy theories. Looking at the very first revert Gamaliel cites in his original post[96], Gamaliel appears to have been editing in support of an assertion from a certain Jim Marrs that:

Jim Marrs later presented a list of 103 people he believed died "convenient deaths" under suspect circumstances.

While it is true that BrandonTR does not appear to have much patience for such things, I believe that Gamaliel's sin is considerably greater. Therefore, suggest severe, long-term boomerang against the OP, together with a warning to BrandonTR to tone it down.William Jockusch (talk) 06:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jockusch, I think you are misreading this - Gamaliel is clarifying that authors critique Marrs' list of suspicious deaths by citing Posner who says some listed in fact died of natural causes, like a heart attack. Brandon removed the specific cases. Far from "pushing a conspiracy theory," Gamaliel expands the critique of the conspiracy claim. Canada Jack (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

You are right. I withdraw my suggestion.William Jockusch (talk) 15:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks CJ. Next time I'll try to cut down the snark in the edit summary to avoid this sort of confusion. On an unrelated note, would you be willing to sign on to an RFC regarding BrandonTR's behavior, assuming the wording is to our mutual satisfaction? We don't seem to be getting any outside assistance here, so I guess that is the next step. Gamaliel (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The same uninvolved editor again, doing a complete about-face Looking at this some more, it does appear to me that the OP has a point. Just look at the polite and effective response from CJ to my mistaken post above, in contrast with several of the BrandonTR posts in this thread. Based on my misimpression of the situation, I had just suggested a "severe, long-term boomerang" against the OP. But CJ didn't call me a troll, an idiot, or anything like that. He simply said that I was misreading the situation, which was both civil and true. Meanwhile, look at how BrandonTR has responded in this very thread. If someone is raising issues about one's civility, a great start to refuting such an accusation would be to respond in a civil manner. However, BrandonTR writes in this thread that CJ is "notorious for insulting other editors" and that the OP is a "troll". So at this point, I agree with the OP that BrandonTR is causing a problem. Such long-term incivility can grow quite annoying over time. And CJ's entirely civil and helpful response to my earlier mistake is not at all consistent with BrandonTR's accusation.William Jockusch (talk) 00:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

It's worth repeating The pot calling the kettle black Gamaliel's incivility -- referring to me as a "troll." i.e., the one making the accusations is himself guilty:

Okay, it's been fun, but we're done here now. I've had fun poking the troll, but from now on I'm going to be removing your comments per WP:BLP when you use this page as a forum to libel living individuals. Gamaliel (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lee_Harvey_Oswald&oldid=539562246 BrandonTR (talk) 03:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

So? I have never pretended to be perfect. But what you leave out is your days of uncivil and libelous comments prior to that mild remark of mine, and the fact that I've been the one trying to bring civility to these articles and your response is for me not to "whine" and just "take it". So while I broke a rule once, you act as if that rule does not exist. Gamaliel (talk)

Again, looking at Brandon's own example, Gamaliel appears to have it right. In the edits preceding that diff, I see BrandonTR being gratuitously incivil here [97] as well as repeatedly going after some third-party authors here [98] and here [99] and several other places as well. While it is true that there is more than zero incivility from the Gamaliel/CJ side, the incivility from BrandonTR is considerably greater and also earlier in the discussion.William Jockusch (talk) 04:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm done with this discussion. We're just talking in circles. It's been nice talking to you. BrandonTR (talk) 04:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Brandon has been unnecessarily uncivil to me in TALK page discussions. It's extra disappointing to me considering that I defended Brandon at length in this talk topic when he was bullied by user SbHarris.

Consider this topic. Brandon made what I thought was a dubious assertion. I asked him where he got his information. His response was to suggest that I do the research myself to find out that this assertion was true, saying to me, "Google makes it easy to look up even for the mentally impaired." For the record, he was wrong about the assertion in question.

Of course that can't compare to this exchange (relevant portion in quotes below). And to give this context, the whole thing is bizarre considering that Brandon knows that I agree with him, and not with CanadaJack, on what the evidence in the JFK assassination means.

“ Johgoodfriend is another suck-up to Canada Jack. The only reason Canada Jack makes unwarranted deletions of material on this page is because he knows he can get his yes-men Warren Commission apologists and other assorted fools to go along with him. BrandonTR (talk) 03:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC) ”

“ Why don't you have a look at the archived talk pages for the assassination conspiracies theories article and the LHO article going back about eight years or so. Then come back here and quote all the times I argued that LHO acted alone. As Mitt Romney would say, "I'll bet you $10,000" you don't find any. Joegoodfriend (talk) 03:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC) ”

“ Why don't you just admit it. You're a suck-up to Canada Jack. If Jack told you to shoot yourself in the leg, you'd probably do it. BrandonTR (talk) 03:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC) ”

Thanks. Joegoodfriend (talk) 02:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Two of my comments on my articles deletion discussion have been removed.

First discussion

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

---

GiantSnowman removed two important comments I made on my article's deletion page. I feel this violates my free speech and is just rude and wrong.

He claims there was a problem with them. I can understand that about one of them. But he removed two comments. One was very long but contained important information and one was short and concise and it was deleted too.

This is giving my subject's detractors the ability to put on a smear campaign on Wikipedia trying to damage his reputation (their words have been stricken at times) and trying to get his article removes. My subject is VERY notable, very well know and very well documented and passes all WP:GNG notability requirements and then some. I have 10 sources and I have several supporting editors with long standing histories on Wikipedia.

I also have evidence that shows reason for this smear campaign and I have shown it to C.fred (that's his username.)

There is no reason why a certain user should try for 6 years to delete this page of a soccer player who has played professionally in 3 continents and is well documented.

So I request that my article's page be protected and not deleted since my ability to defend it has been prevented. I'll notify the person who deleted my comments and C.fred of my posting here. Thank you. Fussballspieler11 (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Sigh, this all relates to this AFD. As Fussballspieler11's comments above clearly show - "my article" - they have OWNership issues regarding the article that is nominated for deletion and seem to be personally offended that people are questioning notability. The edits I reverted to the AFD was this - a mass wall of text, including copyrighted material, that was simply disruptive. I've not much more to say on this matter, any admin picking this up needs only to look at the AFD history to see what a mess it is and how Fussballspieler11 edits. GiantSnowman 22:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and don't worry - I received no notification, and I have notified C.Fred (talk · contribs) about this thread. GiantSnowman 22:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

This is complete rubbish. User:Fussballspieler11 has engaged in ad hominem attacks against me simply because of my !vote in an AfD (both on my Talk page and the AfD itself). GS has been far more patient with Fussballspieler11 than I would have been. Jogurney (talk) 22:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

He's doing that with anybody who votes delete the article. The bottom of my talk page and the AfD shows it too. This is a case of WP:BOOMERANG. LionMans Account (talk) 23:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Ownership" seems to be a bit of an understatement with this spa Fussballspieler11 (talk · contribs) Taroaldo ✉ 23:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

—————→I notified GiantSnowman and C.fred on their talk pages. I have nothing personal in this except I can notice an injustice when I see one. You deleted a simple Google search result showing just how notable my subject is. Pretty much satisfying your doubts. I also refuted yours and your friend's claims about assuming that not finding information is proof of some kind of sham. You're trying to make a proof because of your lack of ability to do research or your refusal to believe factual references from reputable 3rd party sources that have already been used as sources on Wikipedia over 500 times. I'm not taking this personally and I am not the only one who has noticed the strange attention to an article that is obviously perfectly notable in subject and references. Heck the subject has played with pro teams in USA, Brazil, Sweden, Switzerland, Germany, Slovakia and maybe more and he founded the Ventura Film Festival and gives awards to Academy Award winning celebrities. He was also in the US Dream Team training camp with the Michael Jordan's of USA soccer. It's incredible the denial. There are videos and pictures of him giving the awards and pictures of him with Pele and David Beckham on his site and his family are award winning, famous actors and musicians. Clearly notable. Your smear campaign is obvious to me and becoming more obvious to others. If 10 references, mulitple official league stats, multiple official pro team blogs, multiple features about him in newspapers and highly regarded news portals, staring in world wide and national tv commercials isn't enough then what is? This reference alone satisfies Association Football notability ALONE http://uslpro.uslsoccer.com/stats/23496.html. The others just back it up. There should be no need for discussion. There are two other good standing Wikipedia editors who have also noted that they sense a strange suspicion of mal-intent by the "deleters" here and at least 3-4 maybe more people who have voted to keep the article.Fussballspieler11 (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

One, that is not "your" article, read WP:OWN. Two, talk of a "smear campaign" by those who do not believe the subject is notable is over-the-top and offensive - but then most of your edits/comments are. Three, do you have any connection, personal or professional, to Jordan Older? GiantSnowman 23:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

It does appear that Fussballspeiler11 has corresponded with Older, based on this comment on my user talk page. Whether there's any pre-existing relationship, that's for him(/her) to answer. —C.Fred (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)While I think the CSD G3 tag on this article was inappropriate, I don't think it was done in deliberate bad faith. I am starting to have reservations about Fussballspieler11's conduct and whether (s)he is assuming good faith in the edits of other users. The comments about "injustice"s and "smear campaign"s do seem to come a little too readily. —C.Fred (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Note. Here is a link to the article's first AfD [100]. The lack of reliable sources was evident then, and there is no indication that this has changed. Taroaldo ✉ 23:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

This is off topic since I don't get what any of it has to do with ANI, but most of your claims like Google searches, pictured with famous people, mention in official blogs etc do not go towards establishing notability. And mentioning that sort of OT here and irrelevant generally stuff doesn't exactly give confidence that you've been wronged. Nil Einne (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comment above Nil Einne. You're coming in at the end of a 3 day discussion. The "Google searches, pictured with famous people, mention in official blogs" are only circumstantial SUPPORTING references mentioned in the deletion discussion. Please don't put words in my mouth, so to say. They were not in anyway included in the article. But at this time I have to wonder why I non notable person's article is getting this attention. I love conspiracy theories and this is shaping up nicley. This establishes his notability http://uslpro.uslsoccer.com/stats/23496.html The scores of other newspaper articles just hammer the proof home. I'm not the other one who agrees to keep the article. There are perhaps 6 people who have voted to keep it so far. Thanks again for your interest in my articleFussballspieler11 (talk) 23:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

No they were not just " only circumstantial SUPPORTING references " , you mentioned them right here which as I said is unnecessary and doesn't help your case. I hadn't even checked out the AFD at the time of that comment. Nil Einne (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

—————→User:buffbills7701 Approved the article originally and these two editors have made comments about some strange sense of agenda and vendetta by the wan to be "deleters" of my article:

• User:FergusM1970
• User:Usmanwardag

I am just a fan of soccer and a very knowledgeable one. And I am not the only one to notice the attitude. Even C.Fred striked out the language of some of the people on my article. So you know I am not the only one smelling something fishy here. And I have evidence in the form of news reports and press releases that there may be (not making an accusation or definately saying there is) an organized smear campaign against my subject. Evidenced/referenced here by the business conflict reported regarding his Ventura Film Festival. I have no proof but, my subjects page was only deleted near the time that this business conflict took place and 6 years later its still got more attention than a fly on honey (but at the same time not called notable.) This is enough to warrant the page to be protected and not deleted. Again I am not saying there is a smear campagin PLEASE DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH. I am saying that the 6 year deletion campaign by a certain editor is suspicious. Coupled with the links below it makes sense. And I'm not saying that all Italians are in the mafia either. Do not make me seem like that bad guy here please. The bad guys have spent way too much time on a non notable person (according to them) to make it normal. I know how anonymous web sites like this work. Anyone can get a proxy and fake a username so your over the top energy and the other detractors (6 year to delete a famous soccer player and Ventura Film Festival director's Wikipedia account) leads me to read between the lines. I hope you can too. You see C.fred is being very impartial. He didn't delete anything I wrote. He offered me help since this is my first article. He was nice. You just came in and deleted two, not just one of my important comments and then misrepresented their contents saying they were copyrights. I don't think Google search results are copyrighted? I've already linked to some of the links in my article's defense. You also deleted where I found a game roster that could have been a typo. I saw another typo of his name on another roster too. Jordan Older is not a common name. The other "deleters" have constantly been using worlds like "a few" minutes to misrepresent my subject's playing career and they have the effect of minimizing his reputation. I paste a link to a pro site (also used by scores of other wikipedia authors) and the "deleters" call it an amateur league when it clearly says pro. They are just trying to minimize his reputation, in my opinion and C.fred even had to strike out their comments due to this. It's just obvious to me what's going on here. There is no reason to be discussing the deletion of this article whatsoever. End of story (in mine anothers opinion.) I respect your right to disagree and thank you for your time and apologize if I was taken as rude. I am an award winning author who takes his work seriously.

http://www.vcreporter.com/cms/story/detail/will_the_real_ventura_film_festival_please_stand_up/7035/ http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/02/27/idUS120964+27-Feb-2009+PRN20090227 Fussballspieler11 (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

———————→User:Taroaldo It looks to me like you are mistaken. There are 10 new references. Some weren't even in existence at the time the original article was written.Fussballspieler11 (talk) 23:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you stop doing stuff like calling anyone 'bad guys'. Nil Einne (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• My apolgies Taroaldo. I have striken the comment. Thanks for commenting on my discussion.Fussballspieler11 (talk) 00:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• User:Taroaldo comments above about not having any change baffles my mind. I just can't understand how he/she can not see the totally new article and 10 new references? Can anyone clear this up like C.fred who is being impartial?Fussballspieler11 (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

How do any of us know what was in the original article? Far as I can tell, it was never undeleted. Sources which didn't exist in 2007 must be new, but otherwise we can just go by what was said in the AFD unless we're admins. In any case, it's largely a moot point if the sources were in the original article, if they're still not sufficient to establish notability. BTW, having looked at the second AFD, I agree you've made it into a real mess. Nil Einne (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

If the same sources were in the prior version of the article, we wouldn't be having this discussion: the article would already be deleted under CSD G4. I take Taroaldo's comment to mean that the ten new references fail, in his perception, to meet the criteria of reliable sources (or to provide significant enough coverage to meet GNG). And that's why we're having the AfD discussion: to discuss and reach community consensus on whether the sources are sufficient (and the article should be kept) or are not (and the article should be deleted). —C.Fred (talk) 23:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• That's a good point Nil Einne... but yet there are many of the "deleters" who have said there are no new references. All of the references are new because I read the original article. You can even see it copy pasted on the message boards, but my comment about that was deleted by GiantSnowman so you are going to have to remain uninformed because of that. Some of the teams the player played for simply are so old there are no references for them online. Try finding a roster for the San Fernando Valley Golden eagles from 1995. It just doesnt exist because the USL site was nonexistant or a simple html page. But this one does from a newer date that is all I should need for notability. http://uslpro.uslsoccer.com/stats/23496.html. Here it is. There are also 2 other news articles by newspapers that were just written this year by journalists. Here http://www.futebolinterior.com.br/news/259995+Ex-jogador_vira_empresario_e_comeca_a_ganhar_espaco_no_futebol http://www.pvnews.com/sports/article_ed96e25e-76da-11e2-a086-001a4bcf887a.html . Then there is a blog from a pro team in Sweden that may not be a primary reference but it does at least back up the others http://www.lsk.se/default.asp?do=game_details&gameID=1111 . It was not used in the original article because no claims were made regarding sweden or at which level the subject played. The blog stats that he "played in the top league" in Brazil. All the data, perhaps over 20 sources, some more reliable than others says the same thing. Keep in mind my article was deleted as a hoax within less than hour or so after I wrote it. This was denied by C.fred. Was someone just waiting around to call it a hoax so quickly even though it had 10 new references? Sounds strange to me but ALL the sources prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that my subject did what I said he did and that he is beyond notable. I am not saying he is the best soccer player in the world, far from. But I am a fan and there are pictures, newspapers, videos even, hundreds of decade old forum posts, fan sites, press releases, rosters, etc. I'm done defending this article because what I type is quickly deleted by admins and I feel bullied at this point. It's all there and I thank you all (all 20 or so people who care so much about my subject) to have examined his career with a fine toothed comb. I think its time for me to log off but I know that if I log back in after a few days more suspicious "deleters" will have commented on this 6 year old debate about a nothing soccer player who only played amateur soccer and who prevented a hostile take over of his film festival.Fussballspieler11 (talk) 00:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Look, I'll put it a different way since I think you're still not getting it. There's no point trying to prove whether or not the article should be deleted here. That's the purpose of the AFD. All you should be doing here is explaining what administrative intervention is needed and why. If the editors have really done anything majorly wrong that required administrative intervention, you should show that. Minor things like a comment you disagree with but may have misunderstood anyway don't help. Asking for deletion of a recreated article that was correctly deleted in the past is no evidence of a vendetta either.. In addition, while I often make long posts, you've made so many of them, and in such quick succession that I'm not sure how many people have even read half of what you've said. And trying to prove notability or other off topic commentary here is counterproductive since it makes people think there's nothing worth looking in to here. As I've hinted above, the length, number and formatting of your posts are also a problem in the AFD. Anyone checking it out quickly is likely to think you're making more problems than anyone else. Nil Einne (talk) 00:18, 11 July 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.

Second discussion

I'm re-opening this becaue it's not done, nowhere near, unfortunately. Can an uninvolved admin review the mess that is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Older (2nd nomination), as well as the contributions of Fussballspieler11 (talk · contribs) - basically a SPA showing terrible OWNership issues, has a clear COI/agenda here as he has described the subject of the article as "my customer" (given his behaviour/previous comments I cannot AGF and believe it was a simple typo). A quick review of the AFD will show Fussballspieler11 accusing other editors of lying, of "foul play", of this and of that; any editor that has !voted 'delete' is "suspicious" while any editor that has !voted 'keep' is "honest"; he believes there is a conspiracy trying to get the article deleted etc. etc. He has been registered for only 3 days and yet talks to very experienced editors and admins as if they are naughty children. It is worse than talking to a brick wall and I have already had to warn him not to post on my talk page because I am so very, very close to losing my rag big-time with him and none of us wants that. Posting this, notifying, then going to bed before I have a stroke or something. GiantSnowman 22:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked for the remainder of the AFD. What a disgraceful sequence of events by this editor; wholly disgraceful behaviour (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• What started this ANI discussion is this edit.  AfD's are considered to be talk pages, so WP:TPO applies here.  The removal of this text should have provided a comment to that effect at the point where the text was removed, so that other editors would know to look at the edit history if they so desired.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • While that may be true, Fussballspieler11 had been acting uncivily in the AfD discussion (and on user Talk pages like mine) long before that, and I'm surprised by the amount of patience that has been shown by the involved admins. Jogurney (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
    • And his explosion of personal attacks, bad faith, and WP:IDHT on his talk page has resulted in talk page access being revoked. Note that I'm having internet issues at the moment and will be intermittently online; if another admin thinks this is being heavy-handed you can feel free to undo the TPA revocation, I won't consider it wheel-warring.- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
      • That AfD is ... impressive. Good block. Bobby Tables (talk) 02:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
        • @Unscintillating:, you're right, I should have placed a diff on the AFD showing my removal of the text. However, I did explain why to the editor in question, and to be fair the text that was posted was so 'TLDR' it was disruptive, and was simply the editor re-hashing the same argument he had made many, many times before. GiantSnowman 09:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
• Since my last comment at the AfD, I have been away doing real life stuff. Lucky for me I missed a lot of the nonsense, although I think I severely strained my scrolling finger as I tried to find the current bottom of the AfD comments. (Much of it falls under TLDR and the "familiar" formatting told me much of it was repetitive anyway.) This has approached a level of disruption I've rarely seen, and I certainly think a proposal for a topic ban on football (soccer) related topics would be a good idea. This level of nonsense should not be tolerated. Taroaldo ✉ 00:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

A lengthy screed that nobody here is likely to care for

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.

---

Long, silly polemic that would be amusing if it didn't vaguely call out certain specific named editors. At least the section title is pretty accurate.

Before I start, I'd like to ask that nobody blithely dismisses the following statement, by asking me to take it to requests for comment, the village pump, or the on-hiatus Jimbotalk. This message is being posted here, on the dramaboard, for a very specific reason—to strike in the heart of the idiocy that Teh Communitah™ has displayed in a variety of times, places, and manners, this board included. On the outside of the walled city of Wikipedia, where our readers exist, most people are under the impression that Wikipedia is a halcyon land of community participation, collaboration, and consensus to create the world's largest encyclopedia. While the latter fact is true, the sheer quantity, and more importantly quality, of our encyclopedia's finest works is only possible through the work of thousands of diligent, hardworking, and selfless content creators, who have donated their time to a cause far greater than themselves. These contributors, however—including Malleus Fatuorum, SMcCandlish, and others—are being forced out and replaced by a new breed of Wikipedian, the squabbling power-players who care little for the health of the encyclopedia in terms of content, but rather actively seek out and force away anyone who is actually on the encyclopedia to produce content. Where we stand today Even as they loudly trumpet that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, the power players, who are naturally at home on this board, form miniature cabals, gangs, and lynch mobs for the sole purpose of accruing political capital and credibility with other members of Teh Communitah™. Co-opted by corrupt, abusive, and in many cases incompetent admins, these users harass, block, sanction, and outright ban anyone in the way of their political ascendancies. If they do happen to break some of the policies, such as no personal attacks, civility, and in particular the three-revert rule,they so vigorously expect compliance of from lesser beings like content contributors, friends will inevitably rally to their defense with the typical "ignore all rules" card or a heavily lawyered interpretation of policy. Subsequently, these friends, if they include Wikipedia functionaries, will cover up any damning information about a person, clearing the path for their acceptance as Wikipedia functionaries. The exceedingly weak institutional framework that exists on Wikipedia is deliberately designed to be ill-suited to such cabals, the better for them to accrue further power. Administrators are, in many cases, exceedingly incompetent in content matters, with only a small portion of their edits to Wikipedia devoted to content. Article creation records for Wikipedia functionaries are also poor and consist largely of redirects and stubs rather than real content pages, leaving one perplexed as to why people who contribute such little to content should be considered qualified to police it. Worse, the few article-space contributions that many such editors have are, in large part, semi-automated vandalism reversions, a far cry from the actual content production that is the reason why readers come to Wikipedia. The problem even extends to Arbitrators, who are supposed to be the ultimate guardians of the encyclopedia. Although, of course, not everyone has every problem, it is important to recognize that the problem of lack of article to contribution is rampant among functionaries. How to fix Wikipedia How do we fix the problem? For one, create an administrative control board, elected by the community in order to control the admin corps and investigate the conduct of miscreant administrators. Below that, create a magistrates' court system in order to replace this noticeboard, with a new usergroup jurists reviewing diffs from aggrieved parties in order to arrive at a decision and whose decisions regarding admin conduct are appealable to the aforementioned admin control board. In non-admin-conduct matters, magistrates' court decisions should be appealable to ArbCom directly; those decisions appealed to the admin control board may in turn be appealed to ArbCom. For its part, the Arbitration Committee will have greater powers to hear broad-reaching cases with implications, as opposed to those that are mere conduct cases between several parties, but will also be bound by precedent, and will have to provide a compelling reason to break such precedent. On the content side, new editorial boards should be created, five people each for social sciences, natural sciences, formal sciences, philosophy, arts and literature, history, popular culture and current events, politics and law, and miscellaneous. These new editorial boards will be headed by Subject Editors, who will in turn answer to a Wikipedia Content Review Board consisting of five Subject Editors chosen on a rotating basis bimonthly. Subject editorial boards and the Wikipedia Content Review Board will be allowed to accord GA or FA status, based on the reviews of ordinary editors and content reviewers alike, as has always been standard practice; in addition, these editorial boards will review any contentious articles brought to them for consideration where a community-consensus solution to problems cannot be found, and will be able to modify articles and set the appropriate protection/pending-changes level to ensure neutrality, verifiability, reliability, and notability. Subject editorial boards will be elected based on a multiple-votes-per-person system, in which each individual can vote for five people to be a part of an editorial board, membership of which is subsequently decided by an editor-elect's preferences and competencies. As a final control, an elected Wikipedia Assembly of fifteen members will coordinate the whole project at a broad level, and will be the legislative counterpart to ArbCom. Obviously, many members of Teh Communitah™ will object to what they percieve to be excessive "bureaucracy". However, only about sixty-five new "bureaucrats" will be added, and the new structures that have been put into place will probably eliminate many more admins who have deserted their duties alone. The new proposals will also effectively stop a large percentage of Wikipedia's drama, eliminating character assassinations and lynch mobs and replacing them with case requests and rapid adjudication. Through the elimination of drama opportunities, the cabals and private bureaucracies that run the encyclopedia, with untold hundreds of members and the major cause of Wikipedia's inefficiencies, will dissipate—some members will be forced to write content, and others will leave in a fit of rage. None will be able to harm Wikipedia with the old, highly-effective methods they once used. In conclusion Wikipedia once existed for a small clique of content-contributors, the selfless writers who started the encyclopedia and allowed it to survive its tumultuous early years. In time, decadence and rot began to manifest, giving Wikipedia to self-interested power players and cabals, who while themselves being meddlesome private bureaucracies hypocritically decried bureaucracy and waste, the main cause of their success and political capital. The time has now come for the contributors of content to rise up and take the encyclopedia, not for themselves, but for the hundreds of millions outside our walled city who read the encyclopedia, every day. —Wer900 • talk 01:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC) References

No. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Seconded. --Jayron32 01:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

"Thirded". Taroaldo ✉ 01:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Fourthed. I did read the entire thing, but with respect, the level of hyperbole you resort to to describe both your clique and those you dislike makes it impossible to take this seriously. Resolute 02:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

As is the level of idiocy on the drama board overall. However, it is hard to ignore the fact that many Wikipedia functionaries do little, if any, substantive content work. I created concrete proposals to address drama, and few people even look at them. Besides, content contributors are hardly a "clique"; sure, there are bad apples that sometimes collude, but nothing compared to the organized schools of sharks that do battle here. Wer900 • talk 02:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Rule #1 of the drama board: if something causes heartburn, hat it, remove it, or in more severe cases oversight it. Try to cause everybody to forget about anything particularly damning. If Wikipedians cannot, in large part, read the proposal, look at the references, and acknowledge that their leaders (or at least their power players) are primarily involved in Wikipedia for the purpose of drama and argument, it is truly sad indeed. Wer900 • talk 02:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

If you actually want to change something rather than just cause pointless drama, post it elsewhere, start an RfC, whatever... Everyone knows that this, posted here, will achieve little. Yes there is some truth to what your saying, you dont have to hang around ANI all that long to think "well that outcome was a little strange". But posting this here, and naming specific editors, is just likely to cause more harm and drama, which is a bit ironic, given the nature of the monologue. -- Nbound (talk) 02:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Rule #1 of the drama boards is "ignore it and it will go away", but I digress.

Please - briefly - articulate the problem statement for which you propose editorial boards related to content as the solution.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

There are several problems. First, and most obvious to many AN/I participants, are the POV wars. If a POV issue cannot resolve itself in time, and a grievance is brought to a subject editorial board, a solution will be found by the editors that best meets the policies, with penalties for defiance defined by the editors and enforceable in the aforementioned magistrates' courts (thereby also eliminating discretionary sanctions). Second is the slowness of the GA and FA processes, and their (very rare) but regrettable errors; our existing "editors", the FA delegates, simply don't have the time or manpower to review each article in any depth. A third problem that would be resolved would be plugging the gap created by the fact that ArbCom cannot make content decisions, but instead can only make decisions that give a temporary band-aid without addressing the underlying content issues. Wer900 • talk 03:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Wer900, I accept the sincerity of your critique, but I will point out just two of its flaws. The first, less significant, is that some of your "exhibits," and hence your conclusions drawn from them, are misleading. For example, while it's no secret I spend a fair amount of my wikitime administrating and arbitrating, I also have created more than 100 substantive articles (excluding redirects), including about a dozen this year. The meme that I, and some of my arbitrator colleagues, couldn't find the mainspace without a roadmap, though oft repeated, is exaggerated. The second is that you suggest that we need new community-elected leadership to take on some of the role of the ArbCom, which you are dissatisfied with—but you suggest no reason to think that the types of people who would be interested in serving on, or would be elected to, the new positions would be much different from the types of people who volunteer and are elected to be arbitrators, who are already selected through community-wide elections.

However, if this proposal ever is implemented, please sign me up for the Editorial Board for Miscellaneous, which sounds like the most interesting and well-rounded job of the lot. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, you may be right about yourself, although there are some functionaries, even Arbitrators, who made a few articles, started getting involved in social networking, and never looked back. The reason that people do not run for ArbCom elections is simple, and known perhaps best of all to you—its powers extend only so far as the conduct of a few users without the ability to address underlying problems, with said issues decided by the very cliques and cabals who took their case to ArbCom. Besides, the sorts of people who would be running and voting for editor positions would likely reflect the current composition of the FA and GA forums—that is to say, regular content creators.

The miscellaneous board is meant to be for things like vexillology, numismatics, heraldry, and all the stuff that just doesn't fit. Wer900 • talk 03:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing here for ANI (i.e. a board for admin intervention) to actually do, so why is this one of the less important of the Wikipediocracy crowd being given a soapbox from which to continue haranguing everyone? Tarc (talk) 04:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Tarc, please. This is deliberate political defiance of the idiotic, bureaucratic morass by which good ideas are destined to die on Wikipedia. It's better to strike straight into the beating heart of Wikipedia's mob rule. Wer900 • talk 04:27, 13 July 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.

Vandal Block 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.

---

diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAndyTheGrump&diff=563981892&oldid=563973581

Can someone block it please? Thanks, ★★RetroLord★★ 16:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Blocked as open proxy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, ★★RetroLord★★ 16:26, 12 July 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.

Legal threats from COI 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.

---

Relevant diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABidgee&diff=564030165&oldid=563978888

This guy is making legal threats to Wikipedia on User:Bidgee's talkpage.

Relevant phrases/words

" "JetGo" style infringes the trademark of JetGo International."

"but I do have an obligation to advise that the style JetGo is trademarked by JetGo International (http://www.jetgointernational.com/) which is owned by Aero Specialties, which in turn is owned by the L3 Corporation"

" well I can tell you that I am the Managing Director Airlines at JETGO Australia" COI

" it infringes some else's IP."

Perhaps not 100% clear cut legal threats, but it certainly is on the border of it. I don't think our editors need to be subjected to "You are infringing my trademarks" style harrasment, so it would be appreciated if an admin here could warn/talk to this "Managing Director" and ask him to stop. Thanks, ★★RetroLord★★ 06:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• It's good to report possible problems such as the above, but stuff that happens on that user's pages should not be reported by you in view of things like this ANI discussion of just three days ago. On the substance of the report, there is no legal threat—the IP is claiming something about trademarks, and there is no evidence in that diff to say they are thinking of taking legal action. Someone should explain WP:TRADEMARK to the IP, or see whether they have a point and some article should be changed. However, I don't see a WP:NLT problem in that discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 07:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Umm.. I'm not seeing any threats. Pretty sure he's just trying to be helpful, quite honestly. —Dark 09:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Having the "managing director" of some company come and start jumping up and down screaming about how their copyright infringes may not be a clear cut legal threat, but I still think a bit of education regarding WP policies would be beneficial for the wiki as a whole. ★★RetroLord★★ 10:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
      • If you read what he wrote carefully, you'll find that's not what he said at all. He states that the proper name for the article should be JETGO, rather than JetGo - and that the latter is a completely different company. He expresses concern that by stylising the article as JetGo, there may be issues with intellectual property/trademarks (which is wrong, but that is irrelevant). Nowhere is he saying that he is taking any legal action, nor is he "jumping up and down screaming". He is not making any threats, veiled or otherwise. This issue can be easily settled by asking him to provide reliable sources stating that JETGO is the proper name for the company or asking him to email info-en@wikimedia.org with confirmation from his company email address. —Dark 10:50, 13 July 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.

unremoved 7-year-old death-threat and more

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 why this death-threat "DOn't vandalize the sandbox or I will kill you" by an IP on User talk:IiIIies, the talkpage of a user blocked in year 2006, has never been oversighted or at least deleted. Would delete it by myself, but are not well-versed with :en-policies. By the way, there are more of that kind: User talk:Jake07265, User talk:91.121.102.62, User talk:Fancy ozuna, User talk:Weridfairy, User talk:71.223.158.129. Doesn't give the best impression to external parties. --Túrelio (talk) 08:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Combing the vast archives for half-baked threats like that seems like a task that would be both pointless and unproductive. Doc talk 09:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Just erase it when you see it, then warn and report appropriately. Oversight can only be used when there is sensitive personal information involved. You'll be surprised at what people say when they can hide under a veil of anonymity. —Dark 09:50, 13 July 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.

Copy-pastes from innovations.ahrq.gov

Requesting a block of FieldsTom (talk · contribs) for violations of policies of COI, Neutrality, using Wikipedia for advertising, etc. Tom Fields is content manager of innovations.ahrq.gov. All User:FieldsTom edits consist of copy-pastes of press release/marketing/advertising/promotion blurbs from his web site. This text is possibly public domain, if written by US Government employees. Though some of the text can be traced back to other documents copied from the hospitals described. In any case the edits are pure peacock language and promotional material. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I am somewhat new to Wikipedia and was just trying to provide links to public domain healthcare information on relevant pages. None of the information comes from press releases/marketing/advertising material. I do not own the innovations.ahrq.gov website. It is a government site. The main purpose of this AHRQ-funded site is to disseminate innovative health care practices that have been successfully introduced in one setting in order to inform other organizations considering the same type of problems. I will take any recommendations regarding this content seriously and can paraphrase more if necessary. Is the AHRQ material http://www.innovations.ahrq.gov/innovations_qualitytools.aspx not public domain? User:FieldsTom 16:22, 12 July 2013

Since FieldsTom is prepared to talk and is trying to do the right thing, I think a block should not be done. We should help him understand how to contribute to Wikipedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Holy crap. Less than 20 minutes after templating him with a "copyvio" warning, you come to ANI rather than actually explain the issue to them? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course it's Public domain, and there 's no question of copyvio. However, our rules on plagiarism require exact attribution even for PD sources, and directly quoted material needs quotation marks. Moreover, the problem here is that these statements are basically written by the people engaged in the program--they are apparently reviewed in some manner --though from the description of the project only general oversight of content is exercised, but including them as key content in general articles can be seen as undue emphasis on particular examples. That their PR is being published by the government does not make it any the less PR. "Learning objectives are interwoven in the context of service to the community. Experiences in promotion of population health help prepare students for careers in service." is PR-talk no matter who wrote it or who edited it, and does not belong in an encyclopedia. In addition, WP:MEDRS, our guideline on medical articles, has some rules about what we consider reliable sources in this field, and the sort of individual case studies being added may not meet them. DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I used the wrong template; I'm not sure which one is best for copy-pastes of PR material by COI editors. It appeared to me that after my warning, the copy-pastes continued at a robot-like pace, so further intervention was needed. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Anonymous209.6 edit on the background section of Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012

User:Anonymous209.6 made a recent edit on the article Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012. The edit was discussed here, but there was no consensus reached. Plus the background section was discussed in detail here. I requested that User:Anonymous209.6 self revert, here. That request was 10 days ago and has yet to receive a reply. As such, I request an administrator provide assistance and revert the background section. Also, I request that an administrator ask User:Anonymous209.6 to return to the talk page. Thank you for your time.Casprings (talk) 00:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Not sure I am actually expected to respond to this, or how. What is the "incident", except Casprings again filing frivolous motions INSTEAD of making arguments on Talk. Edits could not have been better explained or justified. Please look at Casprings history of filing. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I am trying not to WP:EW. I will not revert this edit. However, I would ask that an administrator please look at this. User:Anonymous209.6 is claiming WP:OR. This is an issue that was discussed on WP:ORN, here. That is a thread that I took part in. I also took part in an RFC on the talk page and that had a closure by an administrator, here. The current discussion is mentioned in the OP, which is another thread I have taken part in. I also have asked User:Anonymous209.6 to self revert 10 days ago. I understand that I have also been an edit warrior on this article. However, I tried to hit the reset button, here. I do not want to edit war. However, I also don't want to have a page that is edited away from WP:consensus . I would ask that an administrator please take a look at this, despite my pervious actions on this page.Casprings (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Unresponsive IP

For the past week or so, 108.54.106.70 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been editing various articles in common with me. Multiple times, I have seen that his edits remove every single extra carriage return between article sections and these comprise the only edit he has made to the page. Examples: [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108]. I have requested multiple times on his talk page to cease this edits visible here but he has not responded. Something needs to be done to get his attention or tell him that this editing practice is not welcome.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks like they blanked their page in response to your comments. I have applied a block of 24 hours. Hopefully, that will catch their attention. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 17:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup on aisle 3

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 someone please block Napoleon of France (talk · contribs), Polllilur's latest sock? An SPI has been filed. Thanks. - MrX 21:01, 13 July 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 editing by Darkness Shines

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 biographical article on Narendra Modi was fully protected from editing by administrator User:Nick on 23 May 2013 until 11 July 2013. This was due to highly disruptive editing and addition of contentious material without appropriate discussion on the talk page of the article by some users. Administrator Nick (another user) agreed to remove the protection on the condition that there be no further disruptive editing and edit-warring by users participating on this page. Maunus recently added contentious material regarding the subject of the biography which was removed by me inviting discussion on the talk page of the article. Darkness Shines (talk · contribs · count), a highly disruptive and uncivil editor, has gone ahead and reverted (see edit summary) the change on this BLP. I request that an administrator intervene and restrict this user from editing this page. It appears that they are entirely incapable of editing this page in a manner that is not disruptive. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 15:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

You come to the conclusion that my first edit to that article which was not reverting either blanking or BLP vios, means I am "entirely incapable of editing this page in a manner that is not disruptive" Interesting, why do people insist on dragging me here every time they have a content dispute? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Darkness Shines edited own comment at 15:23 UTC. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 15:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

This is not your first edit on the article. You have also been editing articles that are closely related to the biographical subject such as 2002 Gujarat violence. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 15:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I never said it was my first edit did I? Did you not notice that I clarified my statement above? I have reverted blanking and some BLP violations, that is it. So tell everyone Nick, how is my one revert of you mean I am "entirely incapable of editing this page in a manner that is not disruptive"? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The biography article page is currently under restrictions, which was the precondition for unprotection by Administrator Nick. This information is available on the talk page. Despite the warning, you decided to engage in revert-warring on a biography of a living person. The added information is contentious. It may be well-sourced, however being well-sourced is only the minimal condition qualifying it for addition, not a reason why it should definitely be added. Your block log sufficiently demonstrates that the style of your editing will continue to remain combative. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 15:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

My block log has no bearing on this, and you are obviously mentioning it to muddy the waters. One revert is not "edit warring" And given I went straight to the talk page and asked you why you had removed it, a question still unanswered I may add, where is this "entirely incapable of editing this page in a manner that is not disruptive"? coming from?. Like I said, another content dispute dragged to ANI, quite sad really. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

You are very well aware that articles related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan have been placed under standard discretionary sanctions by the Arbitration Committee. In fact, you added yourself recently to the list of users placed on notice. It was well within Administrator Nick's discretion to place restrictions on the article page given the history of contentious editing in the past, so please do not plead ignorance, as it is inappropriate. Your block log is highly pertinent for this discussion, and so is the warning which I gave you yesterday against combative behaviour. You have also demonstrated with your recent commentary on this very page that you do not think combative editing and commentary is gravely inappropriate on this project. – [109], [110]. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 16:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

NHN, you say that the protection ... was due to highly disruptive editing and addition of contentious material without appropriate discussion on the talk page of the article by some users. Talk about a non-neutral explanation! Anyone who looks at the history can equally posit that "some users" have been attempting to censor the thing by removing content etc. - Sitush (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, your less than exemplary behaviour and personal attacks are all well documented on the project – [111], [112]. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 16:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This is a useless drama-mongering thread over a simple content dispute. You should both head to DRN and work it out there. And NHN, you would be wise to lay off with the accusations, especially when they seem to have more to do with grinding an axe than with the article in question. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 16:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: This is in reply to a message on my talk page. NHN, it seemed to me the personal attack accusation appeared randomly in the middle of a content dispute. I read it as either axe-grinding or lawyering, neither of which are conducive to a full discussion. It felt as if it was downplaying others who might have been in disagreement. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 16:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

 Comment - I've contacted administrator Nick for his decision on whether he thought this would include "disruptive editing", "reverts without discussion" by Darkness Shines. Respectfully, but bluntly, it is my opinion that Darkness Shines has long and frequently utilized the step-as-close-to-the-line-as-I-can-get method of dispute handling, and the "I'll let you get away with it this once but not next time" remedy is not appropriate, as it has been used many times before to no avail. Either this is inappropriate edit warring, or it is not. As for NHN: if he has handled this dispute incorrectly, then a block, protection, or warning is appropriate. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey Magog, long time to hassle from you. And did you mention to Nick that I had used the talk page straight after my revert? Course not, or that I am still waiting on NHN to respond to my question there? Course not, just you going after me on spurious grounds as usual. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the red herring. Nice try. In fact, I said nothing whatsoever about your behavior in this instance; I only asked Nick to take a look. And he will take a look, red herrings aside. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 20:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

This [113] isn't a particularly brilliant edit. The use of the word terrorism is always a cause for pause and thought, to see if it's possible to use a less dramatic, less polarising word or description. I don't see anything immediately wrong with this [114] although describing the subject as "Rambo" isn't the best of ideas. I'm not sure how the issue of the flooding/rescue could be considered highly contentious straight off the bat, the article was fully protected in June and there was no discussion on the article's talk page about including it. There's certainly an element of automatically expecting each side to know what's going to be considered contentious and what's going to be OK, but if you don't actually talk and discuss changes, nobody knows for certain and you get this silly edit warring behaviour, which is going to result in people getting blocked for edit warring, civility violations and disruption sooner rather than later, I expect. It would have been sensible to discuss such a large text addition beforehand but deciding it's contentious when you've just seen it for the first time is equally unhelpful. In short, people are spending their time clogging up ANI instead of thrashing out compromises on the article's talk page and improving the article. Nick (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify I used the word "rambo" because it was used by the Indian Minister in his critique of Modi's action and was subsequently repeated in multiple sources and became something of a "meme" within India, both in the print press and in the blogosphere.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Nick, that was Maunus's edit which Darkness Shines reinserted with his edit summary. The material is contentious and I have explained why in detail on the talk page of the article. Maunus has not only added contentious and biased material (leaving out non-critical commentary) but he has also grossly misrepresented sources (please review this) that he has cited on the page itself. Both of them have enough experience on this project to know that such edits will be considered contentious by other users and so it is best to discuss them on the talk page rather than going about adding them on the article further aggravating the dispute. I have extended this courtesy to both of them by discussing changes on the talk page of 2002 Gujarat violence and I expect they would do the same, but I suppose that is too much to hope for. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 21:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

And I have addressed Nicholas' rather unimpressive objections with corrective edits to the article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Conduct aside, and just for the record, I've briefly reviewed the actual content and found it to be notable and well sourced, but ferociously one-sided and suffering from too much focus. However, I'll point out I know next to nothing about Indian politics and my quick reading could be well off base. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 21:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Darkness Shines uses 'facist' for hindus[115], 'bunch of pussies'[116] in this discussion. When User:Yogesh Khandke asked help on RegentsPark's talkpage here, DS says,YK, I will say what I want, when I want and where I want and quite simply there is sweet fuck you can do about it. He has got blessings of Admin RegentsPark to talk and do anything on wikipedia and get away with it. neo (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? Do you have to misrepresent everything? I said the Hindu right wing extremists are fascists, which is what RS call them. I said child rapists and murders are pussies, am I wrong? Obviously not, but as I was asked to refrain from saying such I have. Funny how you miss so much out. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

---

It appears the issue is being properly resolved on the discussion page. For future reference, parties are advised to:

• discuss any changes which might be controversial before making them. That especially goes for restoring content that was removed under BLP grounds. Darkness Shines, I know you think I have a vendetta against you, but this should go without saying (I'm sure basically everyone would agree in principle), especially if the article is under some sort of sanction.
• discuss content issues on the talk page before coming to noticeboards in the future unless there is a BLP emergency. This doesn't mean problems cannot be brought here, but the discussion should occur first. If Nick is experiencing WP:MASTADON problems, he is advised to go scream into a pillow for as long as necessary.

Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:33, 14 July 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.

Grinding a personal ax at OTOY

• OTOY (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Realityengine (talk · contribs)

Persistent restoration of inadequately sourced content re: a non-notable lawsuit involving an employee of the company. 76.248.144.216 (talk) 00:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

This is probably better handled at WP:ANEW than here. —C.Fred (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, but this is so evidently an attempt on behalf of a former employee of the company to get their personal laundry into a Wikipedia article that it constitutes something other than mere edit warring. The content doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. 76.248.144.216 (talk) 00:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

MarkMonitor is exploiting the Wikipedia editing system for the sake of their clients public image. This is not personal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realityengine (talk • contribs) 00:42, 14 July 2013‎ (UTC)

• Certainly looks like some personal use shenanigans. In any case, it's a non-notable event being sourced by a non-RS. I removed it. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Much appreciated, and to Barek as well for the page protection. Probably a good idea to watchlist the article. Thanks, 76.248.144.216 (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Restoring a missing user preference (VisualEditor)

According to bugzilla:

“

> Can you explain what the code in this area looks like? There _was_ a user
> preference previously, it's just gone missing. Is this simply a matter of
> setting a configuration variable?

Yes, it's just a matter of removing "$wgHiddenPrefs[] = 'visualeditor-enable';"
in CommonSettings.php.

”

Can't we do that? We were literally promised this setting would remain in place before launch, and, at the moment, the only instructions to find the well-hidden hack in the gadgets are at WP:VisualEditor, which I really doubt anyone who missed the banner is going to see. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

There are also instructions at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/FAQ.--Rockfang (talk) 04:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

However, that's a hack, and most users won't know to got to a FAQ page of something that most editors won't even know the name of to look up. It's not like the tab says "Edit with VisualEditor" (although it arguably should) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• I proposed that name two or three times... and was met with a wall of silence. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

GANG on 2002 Gujarat violence

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 my proposed edit to 2002 Gujarat violence and I think this section reflect discussion regarding my proposed contents, except last 4-5 edits. I am citing these sources: Human Rights Watch[117] [118], United States Department of State [119], European Parliament[120], Amnesty International [121], Social Science Research Council [122], United Nations Human Rights Council [123], TIME magazine [124], Wall Street Journal [125]. And let me make it clear, I can bring many sources. But User:Darkness Shines, User:Qwyrxian, User:Maunus and possibly User:The Rahul Jain are determined not to allow me to add anything. They are not even telling me which of my sources are primary and unusable. I think this summarise their behaviour. When I pointed out that I am using same source DS has used in the article and when I pointed out that HRW has given conclusion in summary that it was attack by 'muslim mob', Maunus quotes controversial Banerjee report and says that conclusion of HRW regarding train fire is not central point and I should not use it. But he will use same report to support his text. What to do when they, as a WP:GANG, have made up their mind not to allow me to add the content? neo (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I have given you copious amounts of explanation for why your proposed text is unusable. It is because it misrepresents the sources. The sources are fine, but not the way you use them.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

huh? Now you talked that 'sources are fine'. It took so long. And I am directly attributing sources in my proposed edit. Where is misrepresentation? Behaviour of you and DS is extremely frustrating and as you both edit as a GANG, almost impossible for single user to contribute to articles. neo (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

It would make it easier to discuss if you were to actually read my responses I have been telling you about twenty times that the sources are fine but that they can't be used to support the claim you try to make them support. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Openly lying on ANI that you 'twenty' time said sources are fine? Post those twenty diffs or even single diff. Sources talk about direct or alleged involvement of muslim mob in train fire, but as they also talk about attacks by hindus and Gujarat govt involvement in attacks on muslims, you want me to concentrate on 'attacks on muslims' part and forget attack on train part. You can use that source to support your text, but I can't use same source to support my text. Isn't this weirdest argument? How to contribute to wikipedia when users like you make a gang to shoo away users and openly lie even on ANI? neo (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I've said a million times that hyperbole isn't lying. And anyway, Maunus said "about twenty". Paul B (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, to be completely fair it was probably only around five times then. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

neo, you asked what to do. Read WP:DR, which explains all the options available for resolving content disputes. This noticeboard is not one of them. TFD (talk) 21:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

A question has already been asked at RSN and we could help out further there if users would like to present sources one by one. We can advise on when a source should be regarded as primary. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

@Paul, This is not joke. Don't take blatant lie of Maunus lightly.

@TFD, Please read article talkpage. They are determined not to allow me to add any content related to muslim mob involvement, no matter what sources are there. Is this content dispute? @itsmejudith Maunus just said sources are fine. Ask him what he mean by 'fine'. But even if they are secondary, that GANG will keep saying that they can use those sources but I can't. There is no logic or policy in their behaviour. It is just 3RR vs 12RR as a GANG. neo (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute. What do you expect to be done at ANI? Taroaldo ✉ 22:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

It's neo ... he tends to take things to the extreme. Calling Maunus a liar is leading him towards a block this time, however. All we're learning on ANI is that neo is becoming a timesink in front of the entire community (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

As a side note, Neo, Maunus is not the final arbiter of whether or not those sources okay (other editors can also weigh in); plus, as I and others have explained to you, there are other problems with your proposed edit. Is there a "gang" on the article talk page? Sure, in the same sense that the police is a gang--there's a group of people with an extreme, aggressive drive to make sure the article falls all of our policies, which, as has been explained, your suggested edits do not. Now, we could be wrong; if so, take us to a content noticeboard; probably WP:NPOVN or WP:DRN. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:22, 14 July 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.

Actions of User:Tumandokkangcabatuan on Iloilo International Airport

User:Tumandokkangcabatuan has been insisting on adding Passi City as a city-served by Iloilo International Airport on the airport page. After reminding him numerous times that Passi City is not considered a city-served as per WP:AIRPORT guidelines on the Template:Infobox airport, my requests for proper discourse, as seen on User talk:Tumandokkangcabatuan, to reach a consensus on this issue with other editors on the article's talk page or on WT:AIRPORT have remained unanswered and insists that his edit is correct. Furthermore, it may be possible that there is COI between the user and the article as he claims to be from the region. I will leave the article as is, with his edits, because reverting it will just end up with him reverting it again. Admin intervention would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! pikdig (talk) 03:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Being from the region does not give one COI (but might give one WP:OR). Is there edit-warring, or is this just a slow content dispute? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

There's edit warring. A quick glance at the page history shows that User:Tumandokkangcabatuan seems to be well over the three revert limit. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 13:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, edit-warring ... hence my link to the correct noticeboard for edit-warring (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Malicious merge proposal by a sockpuppet - Take 2

I believe that this merge request of Imperial and US customary measurement systems into Comparison of the imperial and US customary measurement systems is a malicious proposal by a banned editor. The rationale is as follows:

1. The merge proposal was made at about 22:00 on 11 July 2013 by an unregistered user
2. The IP addressed used by that was 212.183.140.15, a dynamic address owned by Vodafone.
3. Earlier that day User:Cobulator was banned as a sock-puppet of User:DeFacto
4. User:DeFacto has used IP addresses from Vodafone in the past – here and here
5. User:Pother, a Sockpuppets sockpuppet of User:DeFacto proposed a similar merge of the article Metrication of British Transport back into Metrication in the United Kingdom shortly after the new article was created – see here.

The case for writing the article in the first place is Talk:Imperial and US customary measurement systems#here.

This request was referred to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure who rejected it on grounds that this is a request for Admin intervention in a case of following ban evasion and not rather than a genuine merge request and therefore not within their remit.

Martinvl (talk) 04:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Request clarified by adding names of articles concerned and tweaking grammar. Martinvl (talk) 06:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Looks like DeFacto's remit, the Vodafone IP fits. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• I use Vodafone UK too. Does that mean that I, and the rest of their 19.2 million UK subscribers are also socks of DeFacto? 212.183.128.167 (talk) 18:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps if you use Vodafone UK and also QUACK like a duck?--R.S. Peale (talk) 23:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Gadgets and plug-ins

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

---

I'm probably posting in the wrong place but something seems to be wrong with the system. Twinkle, and probably all other plug-ins too, stop working every now and then, and the Gadgets menu has disappeared from Preferences. Is something wrong or do I just need more coffee? Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 12:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

There's some discussion at WP:VP/T. Something is buggy today. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there's a discussion at the Villiage Technical, User Okeyes has confirmed it is being looked into--5 albert square (talk) 12:37, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Yep; TL;DR it looks like Parsoid is accidentally conducting a denial-of-service against the API cluster, taking out gadgets. If it makes you feel better, the polish wikipedia is currently displaying the mobile view for everyone - we got off lightly :P. It's being looked into and will hopefully be resolved soon. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me thataway. But I think I'll have some coffee anyway. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 12:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Looks like it's not a Parsoid problem, actually - some [expletive deleted] decided to DoS the API cluster externally. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:03, 14 July 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.

WMF intends for Only VisualEditor to be usable on Talk pages.

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

---

Technical whinging; not admin fodder
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:VisualEditor&diff=prev&oldid=564282164 What. The. Fuck. Was anyone consulted on this? What if you want to quote text from the article on the talk page? Or wanted to use templates? Not to mention how many bots will need recoded. Goodbye auto-archiving bots. Goodbye the bot that handles Good article promotions. Goodbye to this noticeboard having the same format used for discussions elsewhere. Is the WMF insane? Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC) Not that I don't sympathize, but why is this a topic for WP:AN?—Kww(talk) 23:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC) More than that, why is this a topic for AN and ANI, at the same time, and not, like, WT:VE or something? And why the rage? It's not going to get the discussion anywhere if you start it out with obscenities and hyperbole. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC) Yes. "The best thing we can do is go on with our daily routine.." -- Hillbillyholiday talk 23:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC) I hate the visual editor. Is there a way to disable it?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC) Gadgets section of Preferences, although that went skew-whiff earlier today. - Sitush (talk) 23:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC) Let me just quote what's being said by the WMF: ""You should strive to achieve Zen acceptance that the only editor for Flow will be the VisualEditor. If, by the time Flow is released, the VisualEditor supports a native code editor, it will likely be there. But nothing is promised - nor can it be." - Jorn (WMF)" "He goes on to add "It is entirely possible that the data for each post will not be saved as wikitext because there are considerable performance issues that arise when doing so. If this is the case, things like templates will simply be unable to be supported." If the WMF is talking about not even supporting templates on talk pages, this is something that affects everyone on Wikipedia. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC) But it's certainly not an incident for Admins. WP:VPT maybe, but stop your whinging here - you're in the wrong place for whinging (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:59, 14 July 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.

When admin attention is needed for rev-del...

I've just had an interesting experience. Yesterday, I came across an unsupported claim of illegal activity on a BLP talk page. I sent a message to oversight and was told by an oversighter and former arbitrator that I should "please visit the appropriate noticeboard" if I "think this matter needs attention from administrators" such as rev-del. A post to NYB's talk page saw a rev-del from Risker (thanks). Today I found a post claiming to out an editor, and I posted here - rev-del and a block resulted in minutes. I have now been advised by IRWolfie- and asked by ‎Rschen7754 not to post here but to use WP:RFO, the exact process that did nothing to rev-del and sent me here. I think that keeping a low profile is a sensible approach but I just demonstrated that a higher profile gets results much faster, and with an oversighter telling me to come to a noticeboard, I think we need a more consistent procedure. EdChem (talk) 09:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, there's a difference between libel and outing. If it's outing, then we don't want to draw more attention to the info that needs to be oversighted by posting it on one of the most highly watched pages on this site, as that is a person's real-life identity and violates their privacy. The directions at the top of this page explain this as well. --Rschen7754 4:33 pm, Today (UTC+7)

Welcome to Wikipedia, where the privacy of pseudonymous editors is more important than preventing the spread of libellous allegations of bestiality. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 10:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the outing was less serious too, but that's just my opinion. EdChem (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I hadn't read the diff and was not aware of its contents. That sort of libel should not have been sent here either, per the comments below. --Rschen7754 17:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• (ec) Perhaps an email to an admin you trust, after removing the BLP-violating material? I understand why Rschen and Wolfie said not to post here: Streisand effect.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
• The problem with posting requests for suppression and revdeletion on these noticeboards is that, doing so, you end up drawing even more attention to what should, instead, be hidden. In this case, the reply you got, the one directing you to the appropriate noticeboard, is a boilerplate decline, which should probably be clarified (there may be cases where the correct course of action is to post to BLPN, for instance, and others where attention should not be drawn to the edit in question). As a general rule, I believe that when a OS thinks that an edit should not be suppressed but only revdeleted, he should do the needful, but that's only my opinion. For the future, if you need an edit revdeleted, pick one of these sysops and send them an e-mail or post a message on their talk page. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
• I do understand the virtue of handling suppressions quietly, though in this case I considered swiftly to be desirable as I expected the IP would continue to post unless blocked. My broader point, however, was that oversighters directing people to noticeboards in revdev-but-not-supress cases is sub-optimal, as is the ANI edit info which encourages sending revdel cases to oversight. I suggest (1) redraft the boilerplate or produce a new one for "should be revdelled but I am not going to do it now" responses which encourages a non-noticeboard next step; (2) redraft the ANI edit info to encourage seeking a sysop rather than emailing oversight if revdel but not oversight is warranted - after all, if you get it wrong, the sysop can revdel and send it on to oversight himself or herself; and (3) consider more carefully the case where immediate removal and revdel is needed and removal is likely to lead to more inflammatory / libelous / outing posts from (say) an IP. I know I drew attention to the posts by posting at ANI but the material was gone and the IP blocked in minutes - I don't know that my going looking for a sysop would have led to speedier action. Anyway, just some thoughts. EdChem (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

It's possible to ask for revdel on irc://irc.freenode.org/#wikipedia-en-revdel _→AzaToth 14:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• We need a better on-wiki system. Radical suggestion: User, User:EdChem, please open an Arbcom case, as this squarely falls with Arbcoms privacy jurisdiction and they should be able to work to construct a better system, post haste. {I am thinking some kind of private comment boxes for various reports. That is properly staffed, responds with action, or a note of no action to the reporter, and does not require reporters to reveal e-mail addresses or repeat anything publically). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom's privacy jurisdiction has always been about discrete events, not about constructing an onwiki system. Frankly, I wouldn't even know how to begin going about creating a private comment system that is staffed, reports back, and provides absolute privacy. I think the easiest solution might just be to create a new info-en OTRS subqueue and leave it at that. NW (Talk) 16:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

That's why people bring you cases to consider, so that you can weigh the pros and cons, and the processes, not because you know the answers ahead of time. Moreover, Arbcom has set up processes for determining issues in the past, I am surprised you would claim to be unaware of that. Just recently, it did it in Muhammad, and Abortion, an tried to do it in Tea Party, and will soon in AE. As for whether this is an "incident" or not, it sure appears to be one, and it's one with broad implications, which is what Arbcom usually involves itself with. As for the proper mechanism, well you just suggested another alternative. As for how we staff things, with people with the proper permissions, and knowledge, and powers, that seems to be a thing that surely seems to happen often enough. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC) amended, Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

If you want to waste time with an arbcom case open it yourself. Telling an editor to go to Arbcom because of some confusion with process is a terrible idea, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, sure. Just not as terrible and shortsighted as the implication of the comment (ie. "there's a difference between libel and outing") above, where we are discussing having libel republished and linked to on AN/I, or anywhere else on the Pedia, like some high traffic user talk page or other notice board. Such is a problem, sometimes a much bigger problem. Sure, I can go open the case, but it is obviously better to discuss such a case here first in the context of this incident. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Oversighters routinely delete material when a request for suppression is made if it is appropriate. A suggestion to discuss a matter with other administrators if deletion is declined is made because opinions regarding interpretation of policy may differ, as they seem to in this case. Obviously a response declining a particular request should not be generalized to be general procedure which applies to all cases where suppression or deletion may be appropriate. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the boilerplate, "not done", response should probably be changed, perhaps including a caution to not republish the offending material when discussing a matter, including the option of contacting administrators privately. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I think redrafting the boilerplate would be a very good idea, it presently recommends bringing matters to noticeboards. EdChem (talk) 06:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree. How do we do that? Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, thanks for your thoughts but I'm not going to lodge a case because I don't see what one could achieve, there is nothing here for them to arbitrate. Bringing matters to ArbCom's attention in situations where they need to act but which don't fit on the case / clarification / ammendment pages can be problematic, IMO, but that isn't the topic here. What we need here is quick action. EdChem (talk) 06:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The reason I suggested that is that the incident apparently involves confusing (and hidden) instructions given to you in several places, and Arbcom could coordinate the cross wiki-confusion, relatively expeditiously. At any rate, we now have suggestions to address boilerplate here and at the other notice board. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

The edit notice at the top of ANI edits reads (emphases and links omitted):

Oversight & Revision Deletion

If the issue concerns a privacy-related matter, or potential libel/defamation, do not post it here. If you need an edit or log entry to be deleted or suppressed (oversighted), or for any privacy-related matter, please e-mail the relevant diffs internally via this form or to oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org. If a suppression action is pending, consider asking an administrator privately to delete the revision in the meantime. Revision deletion may also be requested privately via IRC: #wikipedia-en-revdel.

In cases where revdel but not oversight is needed, whether action is taken from contacting oversight depends on who responds. So, I suggest that better advice might be something like:

If the issue concerns a privacy-related matter, or potential libel/defamation, do not post it here. If you need an edit or log entry to be revision deleted, you might consider contacting an administrator who acts on rev-del requests eith by internal email or via IRC: #wikipedia-en-revdel or on her or his talk page. If suppression under the oversight policy is warranted, or for any privacy-related matter, please e-mail the relevant diffs internally via this form or to oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org. If a suppression action is pending, asking an administrator privately to delete the revision in the meantime may be appropriate.

Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 06:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Placement: Its current placement after a User has already clicked edit is also suboptimal, to say the least. At the very least, it should also be visible at the top of this page with a big STOP sign next to it, (and it should not be collapsed). Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Made-up person, speedy deletion?

An interesting situation has come up in relation to the Peru national football team article. On July 11, 2013, User:Peruvian1004 created an article about a person named Andres Aguilar. However, after careful evaluation of the sources & image, I can confirm that this person does not exist (at least not as a football player). I think this meets the criteria for WP:SPEEDY deletion (per the Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes rule). Best Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't take much expertise to concluded that. The 1st source is clearly about another player, the 2nd is some team page that doesn't mention this guy, and the Commons photo is of yet another player. I've tagged the article for speedy deletion. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Article was deleted by User:Lectonar. Maybe User:Peruvian1004 needs to be blocked for vandalism? He also changed the article on Rafael Guarderas, [126]. At least someone should look at his other edits. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

We will see how he reacts to your warning. I am loath to block him outright, as he seems at least to know a little bit about editing, and we can use every editor we can get...even if he starts out like this. Thanks. Lectonar (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

And Peruvian1004 should've been notified of this discussion in the first place. I have done that now. De728631 (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that 108.206.107.48 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is the same person, and this edit was made after the final warning. There haven't been any further transgressions following that one, but I'll try to keep an eye on those two accounts. Favonian (talk) 09:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe he wasn't logged in so he didn't see the notification on the account's talk page. I have now notified the IP too. Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Highly disruptive SPA

Marianne1982 (talk · contribs) is a single purpose account whose only edits [127] seem to be to support Applesandapples (talk · contribs) in editwarring content from the article on Ghulam Azam. This is an obvious case of meatpuppetry here, as this is the third time now that Marianne1982 has logged in to support A&a on this article, and their only edits are just reverts to A&a's versions. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I actually find it quite irritating that Marianne1982 keeps doing this, because it leads to DS eagerly reporting me. I edit a variety of articles, Ghulam Azam is only one...if this is meatpuppetry, it would be the most stupid and clueless meatpuppetry in the world. I feel a little insulted. Applesandapples (talk) 11:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Racist Troll Account

WP:DENY: sockpuppet blocked. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:Bootle Bridge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk%3aHowicus?diff=564278634 and his most recent question at refdesk/humanities both concerned Trayvon Martin and vivid racial descriptors where used. Apologies for bad expression of what I'm saying here as I typed this quickly. Basically, its a single purpose troll/racist/vandal account. Please block? I didn't notify him as I wasn't sure to under WP:DENY. ★★RetroLord★★ 08:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC) Quotes, "But Trayvon Martin was a nigger that has a criminal past", and something along the lines of (at refdesk/human) "Did Trayvon Martin fit into the Negroid category?". Added these for clarity of the problem, available in the diff I linked and at refdesks page history. ★★RetroLord★★ 08:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC) Already blocked by Dweller[128] Darkness Shines (talk) 08:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC) Revdel Also, would a revision deletion be appropriate to hide this from other editors? ★★RetroLord★★ 08:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

SOCK AT RFA

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 everyone's attention, I think the most recent RFA launched by User:Jacobvaughn is a massive sockfest, with 3 support votes all from sock accounts within seconds of it being listed. Someone block these accounts, close the RFA please? ★★RetroLord★★ 14:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually it was launched by "johnericlee". Socks confuse me. ★★RetroLord★★ 14:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I blocked the users under WP:DUCK and someone else removed the RFA. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 14:43, 15 July 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.

Editors/Administrator continually removing valid source.

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 made an edit as the year of birth was incorrect Lana Del Rey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and the cited source that was originally there added by Dr.K. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) {{cite news|title=Lana Del Rey|url=http://www.glamourmagazine.co.uk/celebrity/biographies/lana-del-rey |newspaper=Glamour Magazine} didn't seem to exist. It turns out I'm not the only editor that has tried to correct the year of birth but the same editors/administrators repeatedly remove the edit without adding a reliable source or even saying why they have reverted and removed the source; Kww (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Dr.K. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Thevampireashlee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Ulrikke1994 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Zak Hammat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

On supplying a very reliable source to the United State copyright office public records (which shows the year of birth for most people who have submitted a copyright claim) it was again reverted by Kww who cited no source in it's place and eventually blocked me for violating BLP guidelines which I clearly had not (the copyright source is a public record) and for adding what he referred to as a "strange looking source". I was then accused of having a few sockpuppet accounts which I don't and have now been unblocked. I agreed to gain consensus on the talk page.

My concern is that a very reliable source was cited in place of a source that didn't exist but these editors are removing valid sources and either replacing them with not such valid sources or leaving no source at all and none of these editors was treated in the way that I was by the administrator Kww.

I then received replies on my/article talk page which again didn't seem to be in line with Wiki guidelines. I was told I could not edit the year of birth as it was up to the 'owners' of the page and the year of birth can never be changed, could someone please explain this. Wikipedia is about facts and backing up those facts by citing reliable sources. After looking through all the guidelines I can't understand what these editors are doing. I am looking for some validation or explanation from other editors as the editors mentioned are regulars on this particular page and the way they are currently editing does not appear to be in line with Wikipedia guidelines and the editor/admin of the page have only warned/blocked editors who have tried to change the year of birth no other behaviour although not in line with guidelines has brought about warning/blocking. When I put this to administrator Kww (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) his response was not true or adequate. I'm getting the feeling that there is a lot of biased editing when it comes to wikipedia which is wrong shouldn't it be purely about facts, not peoples preferences? Thanks Deneuve15 (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Shouldn't, in this case, if there are reliable sources which support two dates, we should include both dates? I mean, it's basic WP:V. No comment about admin/editor behaviour here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• At a content level, that's a decision that consensus could certainly reach. All Deneuve15 was blocked for or warned about was repeatedly making the change without consensus, despite having been reverted 5 times by multiple editors.—Kww(talk) 15:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• • It is rather concerning that the fact that an apparently reliable source (a US government agency) was being used was ignored by the admins involved here. Does the fact that Kww reverted Deneuve twice before blocking him not make him "involved"? Number 57 15:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
    • No more than reverting vandalism would do so. Using synthesis to support a birthdate in a BLP is a very strong no-no.—Kww(talk) 15:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

June 21, 1986 has been listed as Lana del Rey's birthdate in the article since its inception, and is the birthdate found when searching around the web. The source that Dr. K used was actually www.glamourmagazine.co.uk/celebrity/biographies/lana-del-rey, which most certainly does exist. He also used http://www.allmusic.com/artist/lana-del-rey-mn0002784799 , which also exists. Both sources would normally be considered reliable for this sort of thing. Deneuve15 undertook an edit war to change the date, and has been using a one-liner credit from the copyright office (http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=grant%2C+elizabeth+woolridge&Search_Code=NALL&PID=8xYpq_HU7grCGwDoZNt2VzeLMxxw&SEQ=20130703162845&CNT=25&HIST=1) which reads "Grant, Elizabeth Woolridge, 1985- ", from which he synthesizes a birthdate of June 21, 1985. He proceeded to edit-war this change in six times over the course of a few days, including doing so after I had specifically warned him that he would be blocked if he changed it again before getting consensus. He proceeded to do so anyway, and was blocked. I unblocked him per the agreement that he would be be blocked again if he inserted the change again without getting consensus. He's been abiding by that, but he has also been completely unable to get consensus for his change.—Kww(talk) 15:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Other points for people to consider are the confirmed use of sockpuppets to support his position (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Deneuve15/Archive). His edit warring sequence is at

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lana_Del_Rey&diff=562036205&oldid=562020932
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lana_Del_Rey&diff=562742212&oldid=562607890
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lana_Del_Rey&diff=562297310&oldid=562230799
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lana_Del_Rey&diff=562227219&oldid=562220226
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lana_Del_Rey&diff=562165600&oldid=562138970
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lana_Del_Rey&diff=561959522&oldid=561923590

—Kww(talk) 15:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

That is not actually true, I added three different sources which all confirmed year of birth as 1985 the US copyright was the most valid source. You previously tried to argue that I had used one-liner credit (as mentioned above) but the history can be viewed and the sources I added. I do not have sockpuppet accounts and I believe you didn't adhere to the guidelines when you tried to prove this. I believe the reason I cannot gain consensus is clearly stated above. ThanksDeneuve15 (talk) 16:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

So you are denying that Clarablu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Carlablu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are yours?—Kww(talk) 16:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

They aren't my accounts I never said they were, you did, nor is the account darkparaside that you also accused as my sockpuppet account.Deneuve15 (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually Kww wasn't the one who said they were your accounts, a CU found the accounts were technically indistinguishable. Considering the only contrib appears to have been a post to your user page in reply to someone else in relation to something you appear to be actively involved in, I find it hard to imagine they are not your accounts. That being the case, your denial does not help you credibility in anyway and my comment below, which was made before I saw your reply no longer really applies since it's one thing to make a mistake or minor inappropriate sockpuppetry, it's another to continue to deny it. Nil Einne (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

(EC) To be fair, since the linkage with DarknessParadise is unclear and, unless there are deleted contribs, the only contrib by sock accounts is [129]. While this was supporting their position, I'm not entirely sure that the intention here was to generate false consensus. It looks more like either Deneuve15 wanted to say something they felt was inappropriate and so wanted to cover their identity which would be a clear violation of WP:SOCK but since the comment wasn't terrible and this only happened once, not the worst violation in the world, or alternatively they were just logged on to the wrong account. So the violation if there is one appears to be minor, whatever may or may not have been the intention. That said, the edit warring was inappropriate and I see nothing here for ANI to deal with. I suggest the OP use an appropriate form of WP:dispute resolution, since this is a BLP case, I would suggest a posting at WP:BLP/N a good place to start if it hasn't been attempted. Nil Einne (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

From OP's opening statement: and the cited source that was originally there added by Dr.K. {{cite news|title=Lana Del Rey|url=http://www.glamourmagazine.co.uk/celebrity/biographies/lana-del-rey |newspaper=Glamour Magazine} didn't seem to exist. What nonsense is this? The source exists as it is readily apparent by clicking it and gives the date currently in the article. The search of the US patent office records is clearly WP:SYNTH and Glamour Magazine is clearly a reliable source. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

That's strange when I used the link even earlier today it said there was an error and page could not be found. I knew this would be difficult as it states on wiki problems confirming D.O.B

Verifying birth dates and other basic biographical information can be a challenge. Birth certificates provide reasonably accurate information, but since two people with the same name could have been born, there is usually no way to prove that this particular birth certificate is for the subject of the article. Additionally, some sources, such as baseball cards and claims made by actors and other entertainers, are routinely and deliberately falsified to advance the person's career in an industry that discriminates against older people.
It seemed clear that the US copyright agreement would be the most reliable source as it would have been submitted by the person themselves. I'm not syre what WP:SYNTH means so I can't comment. ThanksDeneuve15 (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read WP:SYNTH, then? While I want to reiterate that the reason you were blocked was because you kept making your changes no matter how many times other editors undid them, most of your sources involve violations of WP:SYNTH.—Kww(talk) 16:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes I have :"A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. The last edit I made was left for a while until you undid it, this is what I am querying. Deneuve15 (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Primary documents should not be used in such a manner for biographical data, as there are all sorts of issues involving personal interpretations, misreadings, and original research. We have secondary sources that clearly state the birthdate, and I've found two more which I will add to the article. Gamaliel (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying a US government agency document is not a valid or reliable source? you can cross check many peoples year of birth which is how this whole thing came about a copyright agreement is a legal document, I can claim to be any age I want but legal documents state my true age. Deneuve15 (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not a legal document, it's a web catalog. This is not something that trumps all other sources. Even if it was, secondary sources are preferred as they are factchecked and vetted by editors. Primary sources are open to interpretation and may be erroneous. Gamaliel (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Since it may be lost above, I will repeat this here in slightly modified form. I see nothing here for ANI to deal with and suggest this thread be closed by someone uninvolved. I suggest the OP use an appropriate form of WP:dispute resolution, since this is a BLP case, I would suggest a posting at WP:BLP/N a good place to start if it hasn't been attempted. The OP should of course be reminded that edit warring would lead to them being blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, there's nothing more to do here. If the OP begins edit warring again, they can be dealt with through the usual channels. Gamaliel (talk) 16:47, 15 July 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 of user:Johnericlee

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 requesting a review of why this user was blocked, I'm not the user. 174.254.196.53 (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

You'll find it two steps up on this very page (here). A very well deserved block IMHO. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 18:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I find it rather hard to believe the IP above isn't a sock. In any case the deleted history of this RfA makes is obvious that this person created a sock to nominate themselves for adminship, which is a blockable offence. Hut 8.5 18:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with the nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.236.101.39 (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to consider overturning this block until Johnericlee requests an unblock. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:18, 15 July 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:Crimsoncorvid

Crimsoncorvid (talk · contribs) is a returning WP:SPA editor - 126 of their 128 edits have to do with circumcision and directly related topics. (I also have information regarding the previous account, which was used from March through June 2012, about 150 edits, for exactly the same single purpose. I'm happy to provide the details to any CheckUser who requests it if the edits of that account need to be reviewed as well.) Since about the beginning of February, Crimson has taken a wrong turn. Crimson has started expressing feeling separate from "You Wikipedians" ("You Wikipedians think 'stating the truth' is a 'personal attack'", "You folks at Wikipedia like to mis-use Wikipedia policy"), being "done playing games" ("I'm done playing games with you.") and exhibiting disruptive behavior.

Specifically, Crimson does not appear to be able or willing to set aside their own self-admitted very strong personal views on the one subject Crimson is interested in (There is no such thing as 'anti-circumcision propaganda' ... Babies are born with prepuce and doctors have no right to remove it without consent) and work within Wikipedia policy and guideline. Crimson has gone so far as to state that the circumcision status of individual Wikipedia editors calls into question their ability to edit (If the Wiki editors were intact, I guarantee you, this would all be a non-issue., Circumcised editors in-the-dark about the functions of the penis have allowed bias and pro-circumcision propaganda, What we have here is a bunch of circumcised men who don't want to admit they've been harmed or a functional part of their penis removed. Men always get upset when they're told their penis is inadequate. So, as a result, they ignore science/evidence that would make them feel inadequate.). In addition, Crimson regularly violates policies and guidelines such as WP:SOAPBOX (the blathering nonsense by a group of quacks trying to protect their precious cash cow...), WP:BITE (How about you get an account. Your IP carries no weight with me, So the anonymous troll mentions something that's not even in the article), WP:BATTLE ("I've been involved for long enough to know how you and others promote circumcision"), and WP:CIVIL (you pro-circ folks playing dumb...If you don't know that the Circumcision article significantly deviates from PROVEN SCIENTIFIC FACT, then you are not competent to edit it) edging toward WP:BLP problems (Morris has been discredited by his Australian contemporaries on numerous occasions, Morris/Waskett have a conflict of interest as they run a pro-circumcision propaganda website). Also exhibited are problems following WP:NOR (Just ask an intact man), WP:TPG (It is IMPOSSIBLE to "stick to the content" on article Talk pages, This is all part of an agenda to keep the pro-circumcision bias in this article), and regarding WP:TRUTH (You Wikipedians think 'stating the truth' is a 'personal attack'. Sorry, but I'm not playing that game., Wikipedians holds un-credible source in just as high regard as credible ones, Wikipedia is not interested in facts) without any self-awareness (I am not POV pushing). This has been occurring despite multiple warnings (from Zad68, from Jayjg, another after not accepting it, from Tumadoireacht) to avoid doing so.

Previously Crimson had been able to work well with others, but as can be seen, is now mostly disruptive, and has been getting more so. Circumcision is a contentious topic that is difficult enough to work on as it is, but Crimson's behavior issues have been making it far worse than it needs to be. Even other editors at that article who appear to share Crimson's view regarding the kinds of changes they'd like to see in the article have noticed Crimson's behavior problems (as above) and have asked him to stop, and those editors along with everyone else would benefit if Crimson were redirected to do his work elsewhere, especially given the disdain Crimson has expressed for Wikipedia policies regarding both content and behavior (pointing to inappropriate sourcing here after many, many explanations of reliable sourcing requirements, the Wikipedia definition of "reliable" is flawed, And in case it wasn't clear what I think of Wikipedia's policies, they seem to be inferior ... I couldn't care less if you suspend me - emphasis added).

Input appreciated on how to deal with this. Zad68 20:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Single issue account, rampant incivility, takes issue with WP:RS criteria, appears to have openly stated his contempt for if not willingness to openly defy what Wikipedia policies he hasn't already violated. I recommend blocking. Gamaliel (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Well first of all Zebulin agreed with me that Zad68 was out of line: "... I wonder if Zad has read his personal attacks link himself? I'm at a loss to see the personal attacks as defined there in anything we see from Crimsoncorvid here.Zebulin (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)"

Also, there are more than 40+ sources against the 4 cited in the circumcision article that show that the foreskin is erogenous tissue. Yet Zad68 won't allow any of these sources to be used. That's editor bias. Clearly, scientific and medical consensus are being ignored to promote a viewpoint. And I am absolutely correct to call it into question.

You folks let Jakew stay here for 7 years even though he ran a pro-cicrumcision website, openly admitted to having a fetish for watching circumcision, authored pro-circumcision research, openly admitted to editing Wikipedia to give it a pro-circumcision bias and yet you all told me he was a fair and unbiased editor. If that's how you choose to run your "encyclopedia", then I want no part of it.

You expect me to follow your strict rules while you don't require other editors to follow them? I'm going to call you out on it. COI is an important rule. Allowing all relevant source is an important rule. When sources are excluded for no other reason that they don't reflect an editor's viewpoint, then that editor is the problem. Crimsoncorvid (talk) 01:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

This comment describing (retired) Wikipedia editor Jakew as someone who "openly admitted to having a fetish for watching circumcision" is exactly the kind of thing that has earned indefs in the past, see this. It's amazing to me that there is still this sort of venom in the tank for a Wikipedia editor who hasn't edited in over a year. Zad68 02:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

reviewing. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

My head now hurts and I feel slightly ill, but I have applied an indefinite (but not permanent) block based on history of misbehavior and stated intent to disregard Wikipedia community and operating principles / core values. Any admin who re-reviews may unblock without consulting me if you disagree and feel that he is not going to continue disrupting in the future, but please notify a noticeboard and me if you do after the unblock... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban appeal

I wish to appeal a 3-month topic ban imposed on me by user Bbb23. [130]

I don't know if one is expected to provide lots of detail with such an appeal. Both sides are pretty much summarized on my talk page.[131] If more summary here is desired, I am happy to provide it. I will say that I take particular issue with Bbb23's implication that there was a consensus in favor of describing unspecified sectors of the Men's Rights Movement as "misogynist". The talk page for that article does not suggest that any such consensus exists.William Jockusch (talk) 07:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I see no plausible proof that the topic ban imposed was improper in any way - there seems to have been plenty of warning, and this topic area is both well-"policed" and highly volatile. As such, your responsibility for an appeal is to show that the topic ban is no longer necessary, which of course there's no evidence thereof (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Question Can someone enlighten me in 25 words or less how an Admin can impose a ban when WP:Banning policy specifically does not give authority to individual Admins to impose bans?? (Thanks.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation#Remedy and WP:General sanctions. Any more details would be beyond 25 words. Singularity42 (talk) 11:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Besides that, a unilateral ban can be something like "Stop doing X for the next three months. If you continue, I will block you". (24 words!) Nyttend (talk) 19:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per lack of any particularly convincing reason to do so. I see no evidence that undoing the topic ban would benefit the encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support The reasons given for the ban are a previous EW block, a comment confessing his own biases, and a bad faith assumption (by the ban imposing admin) that an RFC is "abusive". None of these things justify a topic ban, and the bad faith assumption by itself would make me question it's legitimacy. Arkon (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: The topic ban was necessary to put a stop to long-term disruptive and tendentious editing on that article by an editor who disregarded policy and consensus that certainly would have continued had the topic ban not been imposed. I see no credible reason to lift it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. If a topic ban is so grossly out of line as to justify an appeal 48 hours later, I'll undo it myself. That's not the case here, though. The best and simplest way to get out of a topic ban is through compliance with it for a time. Stay away from the topic for a few weeks (at least!) before appealing. Piling up a series of good and reasonable edits in other areas would tell me that you're willing to work within policy, and makes the decision to lift the topic ban that much simpler. Plus, honestly, some time away from the article might be beneficial, long term. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. I consider compliance with the topic ban, for its full term, to be a prerequisite for any sort of continued Wikipedia contributions by William Jockusch. If this disruptive editor cannot cool his heels for three months before resuming his work on the topic, then an indefinite block or a full community ban is the next step. Binksternet (talk) 20:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• OP comment Do any of the Oppose commenters want to defend the assertion that my RfC was against a consensus? As I understand it, the basis for the topic ban was, to quote the denial of my appeal on my topic page, "there's no reason to go to any further dispute resolution if a consensus has been reached". So, was there, or was there not, a consensus in favor of the material?William Jockusch (talk) 04:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
• OP request to any admin considering closing. I know it's easier to just count votes, but I would appreciate it if you would take the time to look at the relevant talk page as of the time I proposed the RfC[132] and decide for yourself whether or not there was a consensus. Since that time, it turns out that Federales was a sock, which I could not have known back then.William Jockusch (talk) 05:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Meta

This request looks headed toward a clear result. While I haven't formed a full opinion, I thought I would share with William why I am leaning oppose. William, you are relatively new, so deserve to be forgiven for not knowing all the nuances of Wiki-processes, yet I think some of my concerns aren't wiki specific. I'll share them with you, in case they are of any value. Iwant you to see your appeal through my eyes.

First, recognize that you are asking for an appeal from individuals who aren't familiar with you or your circumstances. You may be intensely interested in what you have contributed, but many, such as me, have not read a single thing you've written. Worse, I have no idea who you are, or what you've done, but I do know Bbb23, and, absent evidence to the contrary, assume that Bbb23 had some reason for the decision. I'll try to be open-minded and review the evidence, but you shouldn't assume that I start with a knowledge of your contributions.

You start off on the wrong foot. I have a lot of things I could do today. All take time, and you have asked me to spent some of my time reviewing your appeal request. That's fine, I think it is part of my responsibility, but I expect you, who have a lot to gain, to put in some effort to make your case. Instead, you provide a link to your talk page and suggest that the evidence is there. No context. No summary. So I start off knowing nothing other than you've received a topic ban form an experienced admin and you disagree. I don't know what precipitated the ban, or why you think it is flawed. I don't know whether you think you've spent enough time to deserve a rethinking of the ban, whether you think the admin mistakenly assessed consensus, whether the admin missed some crucial fact, whether the admin has a history with you and shouldn't be involved, or something else entirely. You give no hint, and expect me to trudge over to the talk page and figure it out.

So I go over to the talk page. It doesn't start with a summary of the issue, it jumps right into the imposition of the topic ban. That sentence has links, but you said the issue is summarized on your talk page. Does that mean your talk page and all the material at all the links, or just the material on the page? You didn't say. Remember, the issue is clear to you, but it isn't to me. I shouldn't have to play detective, you should hold my hand and spell out the problem. I won't simply accept your assertion, I'll dig deeper, but if you don't even spell out your position, I'm in the dark, and trying to guess.

Your first response isn't an assertion that the ban is wholly wrong, or an over-reaction, or process flawed or anything else, it starts with asking how to appeal it. We are getting into process and I barely know why you were topic banned, and don't yet have a hint as to why you disagree.

Finally, you mention something relevant. Apparently, part of your topic ban is the creation of an "abusive RfC". You note that RfCs are designed to solve contentious issues and there appears to be (an undefined) contentious issue. Sounds plausible, but so does the response. Unfortunately, we are now delving into the details of process, i.e. what steps should be satisfied before starting an RfC? Bbb23 believes it wasn't ripe, you disagree, but I don't see enough information on this page to conclude one way or the other.

Then it falls apart. You start talking about something called "sectors of the movement". That may be clear if I were familiar with your contributions, but I'm not, so this paragraph is mush to me.

After a diversion to a 1RR issue you respond "Your answers have not persuaded me that the topic ban was correct". That's fine, but it means you have completely misunderstood your goal. You are trying to persuade me that the topic ban is wrong. Asserting that you are persuaded is not evidence that helps me.

Do not infer that I've concluded your topic ban was right. I haven't. But you asked me to support the notion that it was wrong, and you haven't let me know why it was wrong, nor pointed to evidence that supports your position. While you might think it is unfair that you have to go to the effort to make your case, you have implicitly assumed that it is my responsibility to make your case for you. If you make your case, I'll try to assess it. If you simply point and say "see for yourself" well, I looked and didn't see anything out of order.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the detailed response. Frankly, I didn't know whether a lengthy screed here was considered good form or not. From your response, I will assume that it is. Let's look at the talk page for that article. As Binksternet helpfully noted in my post prior to the RfC, there were seven discussions on the talk page of that very issue. I'll repeat the links here. If it's bad form to do that, feel free to edit it out.

• Talk:Men's rights movement#Putting a weasel to rest--no, two for the price of one
• Talk:Men's rights movement#Edit request on 22 May 2013
• Talk:Men's rights movement#Lede again, no citations
• Talk:Men's rights movement#Removal of SPLC section and material in the lead.
• Talk:Men's rights movement#Does the closing sentence of the first paragraph have a legitimate purpose?
• Talk:Men's_rights_movement/Archive_18#perceived?
• Talk:Men's_rights_movement/Archive_17#SPLC_Criticism

So obviously, this is a contentious issue. Based on those links, there is no consensus on this issue. Then Bbb23 comes along and gives me a topic ban because "there's no reason to go to any further dispute resolution if a consensus has been reached." But if there are seven threads on an issue on the talk page, it strains credulity to say that a consensus has been reached. Now, from my point of view, I have a topic ban being imposed my by an admin who says there is a consensus. Yet the above threads make it perfectly obvious there is no consensus. I challenge the admin on the point, and the admin does not back down from the assertion. At this point, my trust in Bbb23 is gone. Destroyed. What can I do? I come here. I am happy take issue with other points that Bbb23 made in defense of the ban. But I find that when I make a post that takes issue on multiple fronts, opponents will pick out the single weakest link in my post and focus on that to the exclusion of the rest. In light of the above, I am afraid I view Bbb23 not as a neutral admin, but as an opponent. Because if he or she were not an opponent, he or she would have admitted that there was no consensus on the issue, then reviewed the situation in light of that new understanding. That didn't happen. To put it another way -- if the admin won't concede the falsehood of the most clearly false point made in imposing the ban, why should I have any belief that he or she will give way on anything at all?William Jockusch (talk) 03:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, on the "sectors of the movement" question, we are now getting into the underlying content issue that led to my topic ban. I'm not sure how much I'm allowed to say here, as I'm banned from that topic! But if you read the first paragraph of the Men's rights movement article, it should be clear what it is referring to.William Jockusch (talk) 03:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the issue is contentious—nobody who is inside the mainstream portion of the men's rights movement wishes to be tarred as "misogynistic" just because of some fringe groups who have demonstrated misogynistic language and actions. However, you cannot disagree that the following sentence is true: "The men's rights movement's claims and activities have been critiqued by scholars and others, and sectors of the movement have been described as misogynist." Sectors have indeed by described this way, by the SPLC. The multiple discussion threads always end the same way: the SPLC material is supported by consensus. The issue keeps coming up (because of "I don't like it" reactions) but each time it reappears it is that much more disruptive. You were shown a list of discussions not so that you would start an RfC but that you would see past discussions have always ended such that the "misogynistic" bit remains in the article. The RfC was not needed. The article was stable. In that light your RfC was purely disruptive. Binksternet (talk) 03:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Without commenting on the validity of either side of the argument, and in the spirit of the excellent explanation by SPhilbrick above, I'd like to advance the notion of a middle ground; especially when proposed by a relative newbie without extensive experience of the nuances of Wiki-process, an RfC can be unneeded without being "purely disruptive". I know that in my early days here, had I been told "we've had this debate several times, and each time we've come to conclusion X", I might not have taken that to mean "...and so we don't need to talk about it anymore." Faced with that statement, I probably would have taken it as "...and if you can convince everyone that conclusion Y is superior, then have at it," and done the same thing William Jockusch did. Just a thought... GJC 09:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the attempt at a compromise. But Binksternet's assertion above that "these threads always end in a consensus" is just not true. The number of users in favor of "misogynistic" is on the whole greater than the number against. But that's not the same as a consensus. The longest thread is probably the one entitled "Removal of SPLC section and material in the lead." Looking at that thread, I think it's fair to say that the amount of support for keeping the passage is greater than the amount of support for removal. But it's not a consensus [i.e., overwhelming support], and at least two users say that explicitly, including someone who describes themselves as a "sysop".William Jockusch (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:FPC

We could probably use more reviewers at Featured picture candidates at the moment. People go on holiday at the summer, which limits numbers.

The criteria are here. Use your best judgement. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe any administrative action is required. TBrandley (T • C • B) 07:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Possible legal threat from User:58.92.253.234

58.92.253.234 (talk · contribs), who has identified himself as the subject in Dav Pilkey (in this edit) has made what I read to be legal threat-y type statements in this edit to the article's talk page. The user has been attempting to clear up possibly false information from what the editor states to be an unauthorized biography about himself, and says, This was an UNAUTHORIZED biography of my life. I am Dav Pilkey. I do NOT want to use legal action to pursue this which I chose not to use against the unauthorized biography. Not certain whether this is in reference to the book or to the article content. It's fairly clear it's regarding the article content, and users overtly stating that they don't want to resort to legal action just doesn't look good to me. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Why is it so important to include that information in the article? The paragraph may very well be incorrect. Let's try to be sensitive to Pilkey's concerns. Zagalejo^^^ 05:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine. But this manner of reinforcing the change, correct or not, seems inappropriate. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, it would be a show of good faith to remove the paragraph for the time being as there is obviously some contention by the IP to its appropriateness. Regardless of the fact that it is sourced, a BLP concern should be dealt with delicately rather than just slap the usual "don't remove referenced sections as it is non-unconstructive" type warning. Whether the IP is the subject of the article isn't really salient, this can be determined by WMF. Blackmane (talk) 09:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no contention. There are three reliable sources that all agree with the fact that Pilkey moved to Eugene, Oregon where he lived with Cynthia Rylant and her son for several years. The anonymous IP has offered no evidence whatsoever that Dav Pilkey moved to Seattle in 1999 this information is wrong. This would appear to be an important episode in Pilkey's life, as well as Rylant's, and this IP's repeatedly deleting this well-referenced information from both articles without any evidence whatsoever to the contrary is whitewashing the article, not to mention edit warring. -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Beyond not biting someone who doesn't grasp wikiquette and wikiprocess (throwing the AGF bone out there)? Assuming the IP has already taken it up with WMF directly, then a request for clarification with the IP that no legal threat was meant and leaving it up to WMF is really all there is to it. I don't particularly care whether the material is in or out of the article, but I've seen to many editors pop in, make a declaration that they're the subject of the article, get buried by a veritable mountain of wikijargon and then thrown to the wolves. Blackmane (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I share the concerns about biting. However, the IP user has been editing disruptively not just the article on him, but Cynthia Rylant. He's been asked to provide alternate cites, and has instead argued from personal knowledge of the subject. He doesn't seem to understand Wikipedia's policies. This may or may not be correctable. His principle objection to the disputed content is that its (partly) sourced to a book which contents he strongly disputes, and hints (does not claim) isn't a reliable source. I don't think we have a full consensus on the RS, yet. I count one Support Ssilvers, one Decline User:58.92.253.234, and a few (like me) on the fence. If we remove the book cite, and retain the ORRT cite (and the paragraph) from Dav Pilkey, it would address some of the IP's complaints. It wouldn't resolve the core issues though. The core content issue is that there are multiple references citing the claim the IP disputes. The core conduct issue is the IP user continuing to edit war, while not seeming to grasp wikiprocess.--R.S. Peale (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

edit summary is interesting. There's certianly something else going on, unless it's a concerted effort by husband and wife to edit the article. I think this has gotten to the point that an ANI isn't needed but rather a post to DRN. Blackmane (talk) 10:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Help with troll?

2001:558:6002:6:D18:17AF:3100:58A3 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) — troll only account, apparently. Click on any of their three edits. I won't bother to notify them. Thanks,

- Wikidemon (talk) 01:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

They're about one edit away from a block, I'm watching them. Acroterion (talk) 01:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Nyttend took care of them. I'll stick around to decline their probable unblock request. Acroterion (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

(after ec) Looking further, they might or might not be trolling, perhaps just a newbie highly misguided about WP:FORUM, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA. I'd consider removing talk page access too if they won't stop accusing people of racism on their own talk page - - Wikidemon (talk) 01:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

[ec] Blocked, but when I came here to report what I'd done, I found that Acroterion had left his first comment, and in making this comment I conflicted with his second statement, as well as the one by Wikidemon. I don't think talk page access should be revoked yet, but I'd say one-strike-and-you're-out. Nyttend (talk) 01:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Good block. When their response to being blocked is to threaten to refer us to Eric Holder... man. Way to double down. I don't think we need to do anything with the legal threat, and do we indef IPs for legal threats? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

1600 pointless edits

Editor Mohamed-Ahmed-FG (talk · contribs) has made about 1600 edits over the last 2 months adding arabic interlinks, despite this being unnecessary and deprecated since wikidata took the role. Four people have tried to notify the editor of the pointlessness of their edits , yet the editor has persisted, and never responded to anyone to provide any sort of justification. Since the editor won't engage, can someone block this account until the editor justifies what they are doing? This will prevent the waste of further editor time, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Are the edits irrelevant(as in not needing an Arabic interlink still user is persistently adding them)? Are they vandal in nature (disrupting the article)?  A m i t  ❤  17:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

They are irrelevant since we have wikidata which handles the interlinks on the side, (i.e irrelevant good faith edits that are wasting the time of other editors). It's incompetence, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

are the links correct? Do they interfere in any way with the proper linking mechanism through wikidata? DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure irrelevant is exactly the right word in the sense that, for example, I didn't realize that wikidata needed updated for the Cascadia subduction zone article until I saw the editor add the ar interwiki link here. Obviously it would have been better if the editor had edited wikidata instead, and it looks like they have started doing that[133], but at least in that one instance I happened to notice, the addition of the interwiki acted as a kind of notification that wikidata needed to be updated. It doesn't strike me as very different from someone adding a lot of Template:Cleanup or similar templates. Either way, I think EmausBot will add the links automatically to wikidata using the interwiki links added by the editor (although I think it leaves the interwiki links there). Blocking them is probably not the best approach. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• I fail to see the problem if the links are correct. An editor is free to waste their time anticipating the work of a bot, are they not? There seems to be nothing actionable here unless the links are wrong. Carrite (talk) 01:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
• Agree with Carrite, wikidata can be confusing and non-newbie friendly. It might just be easier for the user to add them to the page and wait for the bot to update wikidata. Werieth (talk) 14:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

It would be a lot more newbie friendly for the editor if he showed some sign of being able to respond to anyone about anything at any time, rather than 2 months of silence. It seems he has now moved to wikidata as he should have done 2 months ago, so this can be closed, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm... Sometimes wikidata doesn't work perfectly. As of 2013 and how many ever decades on of machine translation, and it still relies on actual people translating natural language to natural language for its heuristics. Perhaps this thread should have been titled "1600 mostly pointless but in no way disruptive edits, except for the occasional good one that actually improved things"? Google-translating "legacy software" into Arabic then back into English yields "heritage program". The bloke might well be wondering what the heck the National Register of Historic Places has to do with this particular discussion thread. Just sayin', is all.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• I think Mohamed-Ahmed-FG does useful work actually. No way a bot could do this correctly by itself. Whether Mohamed-Ahmed-FG does his work here (and the bots migrate his edits) or directly on wikidata is not particularly important. I think this thread is a big chunk of WP:BITE and should be closed with a WP:TROUT to IRWolfie-. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• He is now adding links only to wikidata [134]. He was actually adding them in both places for a while (e.g. [135]), but stopped adding them to enwiki after being reported here, even though he has not replied. His earliest edits, e.g. [136] although were done only to enwiki, were correct and useful, and were migrated to wikidata by a bot. Mohamed-Ahmed-FG has been translating quite a few articles to Arab wikipedia [137] and has gotten a few barnstars over there for his work. I think this little drama thread can be closed. The "damage" to the English Wikipedia has stopped. In fact he stopped after being told [138] on his talk page by Dawnseeker2000; he's made no enwiki edit after that, but he edited wikidata and the Arab wikipedia. This ANI thread was completely undeserved in view of that sequence of events. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• Having dealt with wikidata myself, I noticed that there's sometimes a lag (usually a few minutes) before edits made there show up on all Wikipedias. This is probably why Mohamed-Ahmed-FG kept adding links to enwiki as he was translating articles to Arabic and adding wikidata links; the reverse link from enwiki to arwiki would not normally have shown up until a few minutes later. So he probably thought something was not working properly. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

User:74.218.250.83

Resolved

 – 6 month hard block—Kww(talk) 18:37, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

This North Carolina IP was blocked, along with several others, for persistently re-inserting false information into various Ohio State articles concerning one "Giovanni Strassini", claiming that Strassini (an actual individual who resides in NC) was an All-American Tight End and baseball player in the 1970s, and had scored a touchdown in a Rose Bowl. This was all a hoax - see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football#.22Giovanni_Strassini.22 for more. The IP was later blocked again for disruptive editing on its own Talk page. Things quieted down for a while after that but recently the IP has begun to edit again at WikiProject College football, claiming to be "FBI Agent John Dunn", investigating wrongdoing by Wikipedia editors in connection with this episode, diffs here and here. Giving even the most generous benefit of the doubt - namely that the FBI would begin to post from the same IP that the hoaxer had previously posted from - it would seem that the legal threats alone are sufficient to warrant a block. Thanks for the attention. JohnInDC (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Ummonk using Wikipedia:WikiProject Men's Issues to target Evolutionary psychology

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

This user has edited wikipedia in a sporadic way since 2006.[139] Discussions started in April 2013 about a possible WikiProject on Men's rights at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/WikiProject Men's rights. On July 10, before discussions had ended, Ummonk created a subpage and model for the WikiProject in his userspace with his chosen title.[140][141] At that stage Cailil had already asked a series of questions in the discussion which remain unanswered. The WikiProject raises serious problems because of its relation to the problematic article Men's rights movement, which has been under probation for a long time and has in the past attracted agenda-driven editing from off-wiki sites. Ummonk did not wait for any consensus to br established, but went ahead with the WikiProject with the title he had chosen unilaterally. He advertised his draft WikiProject on several user talk pages [142][143][144][145][146][147][148] A list of possible pages that might be of interest to the project had been added in the discussion. Then, without explanation, Umonk added a tag for WikiProject Men's Issues to Talk:Evolutionary psychology. There had been no previous discussion of adding that controversial article and so far there has been only one common editor, Memills. Ummonk has now added the tag three times, without engaging properly in discussion with other editors. He made an objection at [149] but has not been particularly responsive. Although it is early days yet, it would appear that the WikiProject Men's Issues, to which only he and two others have so far subscribed, is intended as an activist WikiProject. A related discussion on Evolutionary psychology is also happening at WP:NPOVN.[150] Ummonk has stated that he believes there is a strong connection between Men's rights movement and Evolutionary psychology, although neither article makes even a vague mention of the other topic. It would appear that Ummonk might be violating the probation conditions at MRM by his edits. Mathsci (talk) 06:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• I may be missing something, but it is not clear to me how these edits of Ummonk's are disruptive. They are certainly unusual, and I do not see any obvious relationship between the two subject areas, but I am also not seeing a need for administrator intervention. Can you clarify? Reyk _YO! 06:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be an incompatibility between this WikiProject and Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. The talk pages of that WikiProject or Ummonk's own user talk page are not suitable places for raising those concerns. Ummonk has suggested using those places to raise objections to the tag and is citing claimed WikiProject policy that is at odds with article probation.[151][152][153] If Ummonk supposes that EP is directly related to MRM, as he has suggested in this edit,[154] then he has not given an adequate repsonse to Cailil's question about article probation.[155] Should EP now be covered by the same probation as MRM? I don't think the tag is relevant, particularly since the article EP is controversial. The other WikiProjects mentioned on Talk:Evolutionary psychology are what would be expected. Edit warring to have a tag for the MRM WikiProject was disruptive. Mathsci (talk) 06:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

As an aside, Ummonk seems to be attempting to setup this Wikiproject as a means for pro-MRM editors to organize, which is obviously outside the spirit and intent of a Wikiproject. See User_talk:Memills#WikiProject_Men.27s_Issues. I explained already that this is not how Wikiprojects work but I figure it's worth mentioning here. N^oformation ^Talk 17:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Usmanwardag

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/Jordan Older (2nd nomination) was a farce of epic proportions, and Usmanwardag (talk · contribs) was found out to be receiving payment in order to keep the article from being deleted. The article was listed at Freelancer, and moments after it was pointed out at the AfD, the project was blanked - but this image was saved. Beyond this violation of WP:NOPAY, their activities in the AfD were incredibly disruptive. They constantly repeated points that they'd already made, they spammed various links to Facebook images and such, and made all sorts of unconstructive comments. This remark came after their sources had been thoroughly debunked, alleging a "conspiracy" - ironic, given that they were being payed for keeping the article. This is one of many comments made that claimed existence of sources, and yet never showed them. This is one of many comments made claiming that a blog shows notability - again, no links to these blogs were shown. This is an attempt to distract from the main debate by bringing up a film festival that may or may not be related - whilst making the comment "I've counted at least 3 irrelevent topics you've brought up." Given all of these things, I'm pretty sure this editor is WP:NOTHERE, and some kind of long-term block, or an indefinite one, is required, to prevent further payed editing and disruptive behaviour. I'm also pinging User:Stalwart111, User:Thomas.W, User:Ishdarian, User:MrOllie and User:FergusM1970, all of whom were heavily involved in the debate - if anyone else feels the need to ping extra users, feel free. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support block - Luke's summary pretty much covers it. It was fairly obvious from the start that Usmanwardag had a difficult-to-explain obsession with keeping the article at all costs and we eventually discovered why. It also became obvious that the subject was watching the AFD closely (directly or indirectly) and was trying to respond to things as they were said, removing certain content after it was linked and adding strange copyright notices to certain content. The meat-puppet-style relationship between the subject and the editors he had paid to "save" his article is unhealthy and stands in stark contrast to the goals of this project. They are obviously WP:NOTHERE to build WP. It might be worth pinging KDS4444 who nominated the article in the first place. Stalwart111 11:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Stalwart111, MrOllie, Ishdarian and ThomasW all supported deletion, so it seems highly unlikely that they were paid by the subject of the article. I felt it just made the grade (although it would have needed a lot of cleaning up, and on taking a second look at some of the sources I'm not as sure as I was) but I'd like to distance myself from the antics of Usmanwardag. His idiocy made me decide to just walk away from the whole mess.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 11:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• In no way I did state those users were payed to defend the article, and in no way am I insinuating you were either. Some other editors in there (namely the one who got blocked) may, however, have been being payed. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• No, I think FergusM1970 was just noting that he was in the "keep" camp with the disruptive editors (unlike the others) but wanted nothing to do with them or their campaign. He and I had a very civil back-and-forth about a couple of technicalities but he obviously wasn't part of the silliness. Stalwart111 11:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support block Of course; I participated in this really eye-wrenching AfD, and voted to delete, but this behaviour is over the top. Lectonar (talk) 11:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. I'd be curious to see User:Usmanwardag's response here, but I suspect it will be similar to their conduct at the AFD. One element to consider is that there was another editor advocating strongly on behalf of the subject - User:Fussballspieler11. This editor was blocked for disruption at the AFD, including many of the concerns under discussion here - walls of text, IDONTHEARTHAT, etc. So the AFD was already crazy before Usmanwardag began going off the rails. We had here a football player who was said to have played in multiple high-level teams in Brazil and elsewhere. We could confirm only one 4 game stint in a US developmental league. When asked for sources to confirm games and playing time with the other clubs, we were told that there was a conspiracy against the subject. He then went to the same argument as Fussballspieler11 - "This other user agrees with me, so he must be notable and you are all wrong", except that the other user did NOT agree with him (and, indeed, was the nominator of the article for deletion). So this editor's crazy included dragging other editors along with the crazy, and it was highly disruptive. Put another way, if I had happened across this AFD and seen the conduct, warnings would have come out - followed by blocks, in much the same was Fussballspieler was blocked for the duration of the AFD. I don't know that a block here would be preventative, as it should be, but I definitely think a conversation needs to be had. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I should mention that I participated at the AFD and recommended deletion. I also analyzed the sources, as did other editors. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the point to make is that Fussballspieler's block was preventative in that it was designed to stop disruption at the AFD. A block of Usmanwardag would also be preventative but in a different context. He obviously has a conflict of interest and the question is whether that conflict is causing him to edit disruptively. I think the AFD is proof that it is. He is editing here at the behest of his clients and has demonstrated a willingness to be disruptive to achieve his (and their) goals. That sort of disruption needs to be prevented. Stalwart111 12:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose block (for the moment) - User:Usmanwardag was quite disruptive at the AfD in question, but the AfD is over, and user's past history doesn't indicate that they will continue to be disruptive post-AfD. They probably should be been blocked for the duration of the AfD, as User:Fussballspieler11 was, but any block now in lieu of further disruption would be punitive. Also, it doesn't look like this is Usmanwardag's first instance of paid editing, but there's no rule against paid editing on its own, so we can't block for that. Usmanwardag should be blocked immediately if they cause further disruption, but not now. Bobby Tables (talk) 12:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support block as per the reasons given by User:Lukeno94, but also because a quick look at Usmanwardag's recent contributions shows the creation of articles about non-notable individuals that shouldn't have been created, one that was refused at AfC, and one that is a possible candidate for deletion since it, to me atleast, seems to be non-notable. Which might possibly also be paid editing. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 12:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• BLOCKED. Strictly speaking, paid editing by itself isn't against the rules, (although at the same time anyone willing to lie and disrupt and ruin their credibility for $34 has got to be just about the most pitiful creature on earth--seriously, how low can you get?) Misrepresenting sources and disruption however IS against the rules, and this editor is obviously WP:NOTHERE. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Note: I was initially just going to support a block, but upon looking at the user's deleted contributions I see some straight-up spam, posting links to sites hosting copyrighted material at the now-deleted Watch Naruto Online and Watch naruto episodes. I've gone ahead and done the block. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Good block. Someone not using his real name (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• I had strong suspicions that this user was indeed a long-term, albeit not a regular, offender, given how many CSD notices were on their talk page and such. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Good block. I would have done it, but felt myself involved since my participation in the AfD. Lectonar (talk) 14:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Should he get a {{Uw-soablock}} template? Stalwart111 14:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• I wouldn't say so. Finding the spam certainly made it easier to press the button, but the block itself is for disruption as much as for spam. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• By the way, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rachel D. Vancelette should probably receive some extra scrutiny for sourcing, etc. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/DJ Super Duke was already declined. I have the impression these were also commissioned ($$) articles based on the disparate fields in which these people are active. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Umm. Rachel D. Vancelette was then created in mainspace, probably because it had no AfC reviews. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Mainspace Rachel D. Vancelette was created by User:Usmanwardag (who according to what I saw on Freelancer.com lives in Pakistan), with additional content then being added by three IPs who all geolocate to Islamabad, Pakistan. So the entire article seems to have been created by Usmanwardag, using IPs to make it look as if several different editors had been involved. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 16:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. The AfD was interesting in more ways than one, with the most obvious one probably being that it showed how low some people are willing to stoop for $34. But the IMHO most interesting part about it was how a scrutiny of the sources showed that Jordan Older's soccer/football career extraordinaire (which he has been trying to tout on soccer forums in the US for years) was nothing more than a big lie. His claims about having played fully professionally in the top leagues in both the US, Brazil and Europe (Sweden) was reduced to nothing more than having played 12 minutes as a substitute in a semi-pro match in the US, while not having played a single minute in the Brazilian first division and not even ever having been signed by any team in Europe (he was tested by a lower division amateur/semi-pro team in Sweden in 2005 but was found to be not good enough for them...). Something he could get away with as long as he stayed in the quiet backwaters of Ventura county but was quickly exposed when he tried to get a wider audience to lie to through Wikipedia. So trying to get an article about himself on WP was probably the worst thing he could have done. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 14:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

  The really interesting thing is that if you look at the 2007 incarnation of the Jordan Older article, it argued only that he played for a list of clubs. That got deleted for non-notability, so the 2013 version was adjusted to claim the same clubs were at the highest levels. Apparently they thought bigger claims were more believable. As to Usmanwardag, most of their contributions seem promotional. Also telling was a significant edit to the article on Freelancer. Resolute 15:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Ah, what a sweet, sweet ANI thread. This doesn't happen often: vindication. I wish that some AfC reviewers would exercise more care in their reviews and look beyond just the bare surface of the article. Mindy Dirt (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support block. There's two kinds of paid editors. There's the ones who know that if they violate any policy and their article gets deleted, they're not going to get paid; with them, you have to be a little worried about one-sidedness and puff pieces, but if they're doing their job right, at the end of the day they're making the encyclopedia a better place. Usmanwardag, however, seems to be the other kind of paid editor, the kind who's here just to make a quick buck, and isn't professional enough to care about our policies. With most disruptive editors, there's some room to AGF on the basis that they just really don't get how things work here (Fussballspieler, the other disruptive user involved in this AFD, is actually a perfect example). With this case, however, we have all-but-irrefutable evidence that his disruption was deliberate and calculated, and that he readily prioritized outside factors over the wellbeing of the project. — PublicAmpers&^{(main account • talk • block)} 16:39, 16 July 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.

Khalidmahmood390 vandalizing articles

Editor Khalidmahmood390 was warned in May 2103 not to vandalize articles (see his talk page [156]). He has resumed the vandalism on two pages: the Khalid Mahmood page [157] and the Bollywood page [158]. Sorry if I'm adding the links incorrectly. I'm a sporadic editor and the new visual editor is confusing.

Here are the diffs for the pages:

• [159]
• [160]

He has the same name as a Pakistani politician and is inserting his own picture in the article. In the Bollywood article, he inserted his name throughout the article, and inserted his picture with a caption stating that he is an influential Bollywood actor.

Looking at his editing history, it seems that he has done nothing BUT vandalize articles. I trust that appropriate action will be taken. I will try to figure out how to post a notice of my complaint on his talk page :) Zora (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Zora, this shouldn't be posted here, it should go directly to WP:AIV as it is just vandalism. Prabash.Akmeemana 00:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and indeff'd the user, as clearly his only purpose here was self-promotion, which led him to vandalism when he started replacing valid content on a subject with the same name as himself with info/picture about him. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I posted in the wrong place ... WP can be hard to navigate. What does indeff'd mean? Zora (talk) 02:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

It means that Khalidmahmood390 has been indefinitely blocked from editing. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Zora, if Khalidmahmood was warned in May 2103, that means they haven't been warned yet... :P but for future reference, to elaborate on Gogo's point, see WP:INDEF. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Simpsons2010

Simpsons 2010 has been reverted twice on the article Figure It Out -- both by me and someone else -- for addition of unsourced speculation. Looking at their talk page, they've bad problems with adding both unsourced and copyright content previously. - Amaury (talk) 00:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

User Obitauri undoing redirect to unsourced article

User Obitauri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back undoing ([161]), ([162]), ([163]) proper redirects of article Matsoni containing unsourced material of their preference, after this was extensively discussed on various talk pages and after they were warned about unsourced content and edit warring. See also user talk page and archived case Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive216#User:Obitauri reported by User:DVdm (Result: Protected). After a final warning on their talk page and their three most recent reverts, also followed by this warning on my talk page, they yet again continued with this. Can this user be somehow stopped? - DVdm (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see anything disruptive here, it is just a content dispute. Obitauri days ago even started a section in talk page, Matsoni_and_Matzoon_is_not_same, let's discuss there. However your title is misleading, Matsoni is definitely NOT an unsourced article. Cavarrone 19:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Since, as far as I can see, the sources do not back the content, I'd call it an unsourced article. But that would need a review of Obitauri's entire yoghurt history, and I don't have the time for that, nor am I even remotely interested in the subject, or in this user's apparent agenda to somehow make Wikipedia declare that this kind of youghurt is of Georgian origin, which sources in one of the related articles say it is not.

So I will leave it at this, and in a few days I'll remove these yoghurt articles from my watchlist. If no admin thinks that this needs intervention, then my please accept my apologies for having wasted electrons on, this — nothing could be less important after all, and good grief, how TF did I ever get involved in this non-subject? Sorry. - DVdm (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Sigh… I feel your pain. I notice that by (repeatedly) creating a separate article for Matsoni, Obitauri left Talk:Matzoon (yogurt) as the talkpage for both Matsoni and Matzoon (yogurt). Great situation. I've reverted and blocked the user for 31 hours for edit warring. After noting their intransigence (perhaps made worse by language problems rather than ill will) on that joint talkpage, I considered protecting the redirect, but that would be a bit ridiculous. You might drop me a line on my page if the problem recurs when the user returns from the block. Bishonen | talk 23:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC).

Pain is hardly what I feel, but a sigh is what I produced too. Ok, will do. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 07:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Slow-motion vandalism by 124.30.185.146

Since 124.30.185.146 was last blocked two years ago[164] he has engaged in slow motion vandalism (counting a burst of editing as one edit, I get 17 edits in 2 years[165][166][167][168][169][170][171][172][173][174][175][176][177][178][179][180][181]). The nature of the vandalism leads me to believe that we have a combination of limited English skills and no comprehension of what Wikipedia is and why he should not vandalize it. Given his editing pattern (several quick vandalism edits and then nothing for a month or two) it is unlikely that a short-term block will be effective, which is why I am reporting this here instead of at WP:AIV. The good news is that he appears to have been on the same IP since 2009. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this is one person, I think it's a shared IP - looking back through the contributions, there's little pattern to them other than being mostly unconstructive. There's a few incompetent-style accidental deletions, a few "X was here" kind of childish vandalism, a few apparently constructive edits, a few bits of misguided rewording. The vandalism is so spread-out, and interspersed with good-faith edits - only an extremely long block would have any appreciable effect, and I just don't think the vandalism is frequent or bad enough to warrant it. ~ mazca ^talk 22:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

It looks like a school IP to me; it is most likely the SIES Graduate School of Technology in Mumbai. -- Diannaa (talk) 04:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC) ‎

evil, malicious, malodorous, racist troll

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.

---

Surely something like [182] deserves a permaban... DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

It does. And don't call me Shirley. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• applause* AlexTiefling (talk) 00:07, 17 July 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.

Men's 400 metres world record progression‎

Asking for protection on Men's 400 metres world record progression‎. Multiple users IPs and single purpose new registrants (most likely the same person) keep trying to insert the same name Milkha Singh into the article (Singh's article is also under protection). I have discussed the matter on talk, with no response. Just repeated insertions requiring reverts. Trackinfo (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done Semi-protected for a week. Per the points on the talk-page it seems like Milkha Singh has some loose claim to inclusion but it's really very dubious, and hopefully this will inspire this user (I agree that the various SPAs and IPs are probably the same guy) to join the discussion on the talk-page. ~ mazca ^talk 22:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Just a note for the future, but WP:RFPP is probably a more appropriate noticeboard. —Dark 12:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Bad non-admin closure on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wind Talker sound suppressor

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.

---

WP:NAC clearly states that "non-admins in good standing may consider closing a discussion on that page which is beyond doubt a clear keep". The AfD for Wind_Talker sound suppressor had two delete !votes, three merge/redirect !votes and just two !keep votes, all of them of about the same weight, yet User:Nathan2055 made a non-admin closure as keep, with no reason for it given, that is just "The result was keep". IMHO it was a bad NAC, so I request a review of the closure by an administrator, and preferably a close of the AfD as a merge with Vortex Flash Hider, which is what had the most support on the AfD. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 02:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Merge/Redirect votes are counted as keeps, so its more like 5-2. Post-keep it is up to the editors to form a consensus as to whether it merges/redirects or otherwise. If that was clear in the discussion it would have been closed as a merge or redirect instead. -- Nbound (talk) 02:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment, there are actually 3 keep votes, 3 merge votes and 2 delete votes. Which would be 6 to 2. Of those merge votes 1 asks to merge to Smith, 1 asks to merge to Vortex and 1 says either of those 2. There is no majority to merge it to Vortex, which makes the least amount of sense, anyway.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Nbound, which was why I closed it as keep in the first place. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 03:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

An acceptable NAC close. BWilkins' 09:52, 9 July 2013 "delete" !vote had a rationale for "merge and redirect". Before Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion, the merge options should be evaluated. A better close would have noted the calls for a merge. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by a passerby: Consensus is not always the number of votes, but also the logic behind the votes. What additional reasonable content does this article produce other than what is in existing articles, whats notably special to keep a separate page for this?  A m i t  ❤  04:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

It is a specific sound suppressor used by the US Military on Designated Marksman Rifle platforms. Its earlier variant was one of the first rebuildable suppressors that could be serviced by an armorer without going back to the manufacturer. The nature of its attachment using a locking coupler instead of threads means it can be used on other rifles which utilize the Vortex Flash Hider. I will admit that I was being bold with this article in that there were no articles on individual sound suppressors on Wiki and I thought this would make a good step in that direction, as sound suppressors or silencers vary greatly from one model to the next. I thought there were enough sources and enough content to make it a stand alone piece, rather than a lengthy subsection under the manufacturer.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Bad close, bad judgement. Seems pretty clear to me that this is exactly the type of debate a NAC is not meant for. NACs should not be closing anything close like this. Nathan Needs to back off on closures, because clearly the barometer about NAC is off. In fact, this seems like enough of a screw up I'd be annoyed if I saw Nathan NAC another one anytime soon. If you wanna close AfDs Nathan run for RfA. Shadowjams (talk) 08:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• Bad NAC close - I am not arguing that it was technically correct or incorrect. Procedurally, however, it was terrible. WP:NACD states " ... Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator." This was nowhere near clear cut enough for a non-admin to have popped in, particularly since merge is not exactly the same as keep and should be weighed seperately, even if Scottywong's tool counts it as a keep. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• Avoid drama Would I have NAClosed the thing? Most probably not. Was it a good NAC? Probably not. However I personally feel non admins' should have a bit more leeway to close stuff which is not necessarily a snow keep. Without having to drama-ize the thing, simply: if the NAC is controversial, then instead of discussing here or at DRV (why is this discussion here and not at DRV, by the way?) the AfD should just be reopened, and then re-closed or re-listed by an admin. -- cyclopia^speak! 09:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• Avoid drama#2 I echo Cyclopia, as this NAC is controversial let's reopen the AfD and let it closed by an admin. Note aside, IMHO the close is quite correct, as there is no consensus to delete (there is just one effective user who voted deletion outside the nominator) and there is no clear target for merging. Cavarrone 09:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to post after it's closed: before seeing this thread I had already re-opened the AfD, re-added the AFD tag to the article, and removed the "result" from the article talkpage. Note, I !voted in the AfD, but my actions were solely taken in a "this is not eligible for NAC-closure" manner (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

...and I've closed it as no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 13:51, 17 July 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.

Harassment from Lugnuts

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.

---

Lugnuts has been reverting my sourced edits, specifically to Mud then calling on his/her friend Boing! said Zebedee who hands down restrictions when I call Lugnuts out for it, citing unrelated matters from years ago as evidence for disruptive editing and repeatedly reverting my changes without explanation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mud_%282012_film%29&oldid=560264717&diff=prev

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Amd9012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amd9012 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC) --Amd9012 (talk) 02:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Editors who are unwilling to work with others will not be editors for very long. This does not demonstrate a collaborative attitude. If an editor disagrees with an addition you made to a page, you should follow the steps outlined at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, rather than simply insulting them. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

So someone can repeatedly undo my edits without any reprisal but getting angry and calling them out for it automatically puts me in the wrong? Pick a side. Amd9012 (talk) 02:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Everyone is allowed to edit, and that includes deleting just as much as it includes adding. The "adders" don't get some special dispensation. Building a page is just as important as chiseling away anything that makes it worse. Whether a sentence is better off included or deleted is something we leave to a consensus of editors. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Also note that Erik reverted you as well and explained why in an edit summary, and when you added the material back Lugnuts explained it, too. So no, Lugnuts is not harassing you, he's enforcing consensus. Woodroar (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Consider that you probably undid someone's edit by adding information that was removed from the article previously. And you're never, ever going to win points in a group effort like Wikipedia by "getting angry". Yeah, anyone can remove something you add. If you think it's a good edit, you start a discussion on the article's talk page. Get people to agree it's useful information and it will be added back in. Ravensfire (talk) 02:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Please see this. I raised a discussion about it, with the consensus not to include this data. Harassment? Chortle. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:17, 17 July 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.

implied (nonemergency) death threat?

An IP with a history of vandalizing Balkans articles updated Nataša Kandić's page to add a death date of 2013. [183] Kandic has been in the news today because she's been publicly threatened with lynching for her work; this edit appears to be an attempt to pursue those threats in another venue.[184][185] I have company in town, so I apologize that I can't stick around and sort this out myself more properly, but it seems like some action should be taken beyond the standard vandalism warning. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

It should be adequate that a few admins keep the article watchlisted for a while to see if anything more develops. I wouldn't make it into something bigger than what it is.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Quite honestly, not much that we can do besides reverting or protecting as required - if the IP persists, feel free to post at WP:AIV or WP:RFPP. —Dark 12:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth the controversial edit traces back to Serbian IP. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem, I didn't expect a police inquiry or anything; I just thought announcing someone will die on a day they're getting other death threats was worth flagging here. I'm fine with a warning instead of a block if the consensus is that that's all that's called for. Thanks to all who took a look. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Rather uncivil editor

Mindhax (talk · contribs · count) threw a strop after I reverted his/her edit and is now acting uncivil. Please take further action. Thanks. Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs) 16:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

You finally dropped a Welcome template on their page 4 minutes before posting here? If you're going to tell them they're breaking the rules, the least you could do is point them out (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I tried to explain to the editor why his edits were unconstructive, but he/she then just threw personal attacks. Attempts to calm him down didn't work. Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs) 16:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I posted a warning for being uncivil and am trying to talk to him in a polite way, also Insulam Simia and me both posted a welcomes, so he got welcomed 2 times. He is just removing every warning, comment and welcome. and as said above i tried to calm him down Redalert2fan (talk) 16:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I've just done the same, largely - explaining the why of what happened might help. The best bet, at this point, would be for both Mindhax and Insulam Simia to back away from each other and go do something else. The article can sit for a while. Maybe when things have calmed down, a meaningful discussion can be had - or, possibly, Mindhax may find another article that draws his/her interest. But the current exchanges serve no one. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll be happy to agree to that. Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs) 16:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Ill agree with that to, although you should take a look at the last post on his talk page, he didn't quite understand it I think, he appears to still be a bit mad/irritated (which is understandably as stated by UltraExactZZ on his talk page). Redalert2fan (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Bwilkins's handling of another unblock 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.

---

I'd appreciate a review by uninvolved volunteers of the handling of this unblock request by all concerned, but would be be particularly interested to know if Bwilkin's handling meets normal admin standards.

• 19:55, 8 July 2013, Adamsalti (talk · contribs) creates a new account and creates an article advertising his business (I think - I can't see any history of him making more than one article-space edit (to Psychic Today) but there is mention of him creating an article about himself).
• 05:52, 9 July 2013, Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) blocks Adamsalti "(account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ({{uw-spamublock}})"
• 05:52, 9 July 2013, Jimfbleak templates Adamsalti's talk page

The rest of the episode is on User talk:Adamsalti.
Accusing an editor of sockpuppetry to avoid a block when they just edited their talk page logged out, calling him a jerk, not unblocking when he acknowledged several times that he now knows Wikipedia does not permit advertising or marketing, blocking talk page access because the person asks good-faith questions, describing yourself as one of the most patient admins on Wikipedia, implying the person is insane, saying you used "fricking" because you're too polite to use the other word ... is this your usual standard? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• What does that have to do with this situation as a whole? You want to talk to me about an unrelated incident, talk directly to me about it on my talkpage and I'll tell you my take. Don't try to throw red herrings into this (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Per the above, I've moved this to its own section. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Why? It's not an incident, and as per the discussion on your talkpage - and per the instructions for ANI - you have not even tried to resolve this with me directly. You're taking something out of context, cherry-picking, and clearly now simply trying to make me look bad by doing so (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

How is it not an incident? You are behaving abusively to editors and I'd like it to stop. You don't seem to recognise that you do behave abusively to editors judging from your response in the above thread opened by Tariq, so I'd like other volunteers to review this incident and, if they share my view, tell you. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

If you want to try and prove I've behaved abusively to anyone (which I have not) then open an RFC/U/Admin ... don't randomly pick things like this that are clearly not abuse, and try to pretend it is to support some bizarre belief. In the thread above by Tariq, who is it that ANYBODY says/proves I have abused? You? Him? Pudeo? Nobody has put forth an inkling of abuse, and claiming otherwise won't make it so (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:19, 17 July 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.

Removal of Korean-language names

Somebody is making a concerted effort to remove Korean-language names from the lead sentence of articles about Korean people. I have seen opinions expressed that non-English names should only appear in an infobox or footnote, but the current guideline about the first sentence does seem quite clear: "Relevant foreign-language names, such as in an article on a person who does not themselves write their name in English, are encouraged." I reverted numerous edits yesterday and engaged an IP on its talk page. Today I saw a lot of similar edits, and from multiple IPs (see list above – this may not be complete – typically the edit is -23 bytes, but it may be combined with other changes). Am I right? Am I wrong? I'd appreciate another set of eyes looking at this. Thanks. – Wdchk (talk) 02:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

You're in the right. From the looks of it, there are three IP ranges here that need blocking, as this is also clear sockpuppetry. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

And because I have extra time on my hands, here are the ranges: 103.14.60.0/24, 125.212.121.0/24, and 203.215.116.0/23. I'm going to go ahead now and revert them as they are unexplained and disruptive. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

It might be problematic to block these because they're in the Philippines and the ISPs there (the whole region really) always have dynamic assignment. It might be prudent to ask a checkuser if the range is suitable for blocking because many people might be affected by this.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

When I calculated the ranges, each range block would affect 256, 256, and 512 addresses, respectively. I have reverted the unexplained removal of the names, as well as Ryulong, so everything should be fixed by now. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Caught another one napping here: 203.215.117.134 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 11:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I've given all three ranges 24 hour anon-only blocks. Hopefully that gives him a clue. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

103.14.60.132 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is making the same problematic edits. Looks like the ranges need blocking, again.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Repeated violations of NFCC 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.

---

• History of User page
• Personal Attack Directed at myself

EnglishEfternamn (talk · contribs) is repeatedly re-inserting non-free media to their user page (which violates WP:NFCC#9) I have warned them several times about it but am being ignored and most recently had a fairly nasty personal attack directed at myself for removing the file. I think the user needs a block for NPA and a final warning about NFCC and if its re-added they should be blocked until they understand NFCC. Werieth (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Notice I have not reverted this person's changes to my userpage which were done without my knowledge or consent. Calling for a block is way premature, and goes against WP's policy that blocks can't be punitive. The fact I have not reverted implies I will comply, however ridiculous I think his obsession with my page is.EnglishEfternamn_*t/c* 20:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Correct: blocks are preventative, not punitive. That said, when there's a pattern of misuse of non-free images, a block may be in order to prevent further misuse. —C.Fred (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

You reverted his changes 4 times; he pointed you to our policy that forbids non-free media outside of mainspace, and you personally attacked him for enforcing it. If you continue, a block would not be a surprise. --MASEM (t) 20:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Right. The last time of the four times you did revert him was less than 20 minutes before you commented here. No one needs permission to remove things that go against policy. Keep that up along with your personal attacks and you very well may find yourself blocked. Jauersock^dude?/_dude. 20:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Umm, I stopped the reversions, K thanks. I think this is ridiculous, but for the sake of stopping the coflict someone ELSE started, i'll comply.EnglishEfternamn_*t/c* 20:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, you started the conflict by re-inserting the file against policy. I brought this here due to your personal attacks. I only suggested the block because of the rather nasty personal attack you did against myself. I also only suggested blocking in regards to NFCC if you reverted again. Werieth (talk) 21:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• PS I have had to remove the file a total of 7 times not 4. Werieth (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Stop it, just STOP IT. I already said I would comply, what more do you want?EnglishEfternamn_*t/c* 22:10, 17 July 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.

Bwilkins' response to my unblock of Pudeo

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 seeking a review of an unblock, and more importantly Bwilkins' response to my unblock, of Pudeo (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log). Let me briefly summarize what happened:

• On July 10, Pudeo made an edit at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/WikiProject Men's rights that, as you can see, included the addition of the text "didn't prejudice a group of editors as a bunch of hooligans" within a July 2 comment by Cailil (talk · contribs).
• Less than an hour later, Pudeo was blocked for a week by KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs · logs) saying he "altered another editor's post to add a personal attack, and in the very same edit chastised him for the attack which [he], [himself], had added", adding "I do not have words for how wrong this is."
• Later that day, Pudeo posted an unblock request during which he lengthily said the edit was in error:

Apparently my edit has text inserted in the wrong place, after Cailil's message too. The "prejudiced as..." after Cailil's message is part of my original wording which I changed for the final comment. I must have written that in the wrong place after being disoriented by switching browser tabs while writing it. I apologize for not previewing changes and not noticing it before I posted it.

He also objected to the fact that the text he (accidentally) inserted into Cailil's comment even constituted a personal attack and pointed out that WP:PA says blocks should be applied only for egregious or repeated personal attacks.

• On July 11, Bwilkins (talk · contribs · logs) declined Pudeo's request, stating:

I'm sorry but your comment about this being accidental makes zero sense whatsoever. In the exact same post you modify someone else's comment, and then respond to that addition - there's not possible way to claim this was a mistake: it's clear and utter falsification of someone else's comments. [...] In short, the block is valid, and I find your reasoning to be wholly implausible, bordering on a lie.

• Less than four hours later, Pudeo posts another unblock request elaborating upon how the edit was in error.
• On July 14, I grant Pudeo's unblock request, stating that the offending edit was obviously in error, and the block thus unwarranted. I added that the piece added into Cailil's comment was not even an attack. Indeed, the sentence resulting from Pudeo's insertion was:

Given the history of offsite targeting of individual wikipedians who make edits that might be unpalatable to the Men's rights movement - what steps will this project take to uphold wikipedia's values and its standards for conduct towards others ... didn't prejudice a group of editors as a bunch of hooligans.

As far as I can tell, that is not coherent in English, let alone an attack, with the last eleven words haphazardly added.

I was personally shocked that (a) KillerChihuahua didn't think to ask Pudeo about the edit before handing out a block and that (b) Bwilkins declined the unblock request, almost accusing him of lying, despite Pudeo's explanation. However, at least Bwilkins still believes Pudeo had willfully inserted a personal attack in Cailil's week-old comment so he could then pretend Cailil actually make such an attack and admonish Cailil for it. And the way he imparted that continued disagreement was, let's just say, not in the kindest of manners:

After I notified him of the unblock, Bwilkins proceeded to remain persistent that the block, and his rejection of the unblock, was valid. He noted that, even after reading Pudeo's second explanation, the offending edit was "very clearly not" a mistake. He accused me of "trash[ing] [his] (and the blocking admin) ability to read the English language" and argued that I "let the editor off". Indeed, he used the word "trash" three times in the message (I apparently "trash[ed] the admins who actually did their job"), characterizing my actions as "disgusting".

As I was sleeping, two editors came to his talk page to add their input. First was Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs), who said the block was obviously erroneous and admonished Bwilkins for his use of the term "disgusting". A rather heated exchange followed, during which Anthonyhcole continued to admonish Bwilkins, OrangesRyellow (talk · contribs) chimed in to concur with Anthonyhcole, and Bwilkins ferociously rejected both editors' sentiments and criticized them for butting in. Bwilkins eventually collapsing the subthread with a characterization of the exchange as "Ridiculous edits with no apparent ability to read, or review the situation as a whole".

A couple hours later, I woke up, saw what happened, and chimed in with a very long comment. I sought to explain in further detail how it is possible for Pudeo's mistake to have been made. I also added that for the initial interpretation (made by Bwilkins and KillerChihuahua) to be correct, one would have to read an attack where there was none (and make sense of a nonsensical sentence) and fail to notice that Pudeo's response was an actual follow-up to Cailil's comment (even if one didn't agree with Pudeo's position). And, perhaps most importantly, I said that for the initial interpretation to be correct, one would have to assume that Pudeo would be stupid enough to think no one would notice his modification to a week-old comment.

As I said to Bwilkins, my initial notification to him served purely as a courtesy, and I expected him to just mentally acknowledge his error and move on. His insistence that he is still right is baffling, but his repeated lashing-out toward others who disagree is what is truly unacceptable. No one is perfect, and I don't pretend to be perfect either. However, administrators should not be insulting other people for undoing inappropriate actions, nor should they be berating editors for pointing out the errors in their ways. The shrill tone expressed by Bwilkins reinforces the (unfortunately widespread) sentiment that some admins see their actions as above reproach. Indeed, the exchange on his talk page highlights an unsettling KETTLE-like behavior:

He didn't assume good faith in Pudeo, effectively calling his explanation a lie, but then turns around to accuse Anthonyhcole and OrangesRyellow of not assuming good faith. He admonished me for what he perceived as me suggesting he was clueless, but then explicitly used that word to describe OrangesRyellow. And he then criticized me for allegedly saying that he didn't understand the English language, but turns around to say two editors have "no apparent ability to read". He continues to hold that his characterizations of the remarks by myself and others were appropriate (save for perhaps the word "disgusting"), while failing to see where they apply to him. And given some of the remarks by Anthonyhcole [186], OrangesRyellow [187], and, now, The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs) [188], there appears to be a recurring issue with the way Bwilkins addresses criticism of his actions. And, so, I am requesting some input on this entire matter. -- tariqabjotu 22:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Bwilkins is a Wikipedia admin, which I understand to mean that he can insult and unjustly block non admins at his whim. There is no equivalent of a mission statement or constitution on Wikipedia which defines what admins are actually here for, nor, as far as I am aware, are there requirements on Wikipedia that an admin should be able to justify how he or she treats content builders. No admin has been sanctioned in the history of Wikipedia for being uncivil to a mere content builder. However, Bwilkins should be more careful about insulting other admins. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• TBH Tariq I can see this from both sides. I can buy Pudeo's explanation & why you unblocked but frankly the wording of your unblock was grandstanding. Don't get me wrong - I think the unblock was correct - whether or not Pudeo made an error he requested unblock properly (in my book that's good enough). You've held your hand up saying part of your remark (disgusting) was not the best - walk away, because WP:Kettle applies - you described Bwilkins and KC's actions as "disgusting" 'first, then you say sysops shouldn't insult other sysops' actions. You can't have it both ways--Cailil ^talk 23:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

  Please point me to where I characterized KC's block and Bwilkins' rejection of the unblock request as disgusting. And I never said "part of [my] remark (disgusting) was not the best"; the statement you're presumbly referring to (...continues to hold his characterizations of the remarks by myself and others were appropriate (save for perhaps the word "disgusting")...) was about Bwilkins backing off a bit on his use of that word (Maybe the word "disgusting" was a bit beyond, but with some of the sickening things going on across this project, I'm literally becoming disgusted.). -- tariqabjotu 00:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Yep. Bwilkins used "disgusting" at 10:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC) referring to Tariq's unblock. Tariq's only use of the word was at 18:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC), where he is quoting Bwilkins. You're misreading something Bwilkins said as said by Tariq. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I was misreading struck as appropriate. I still stand by the core points above Tariq. You were correct to unblock but need not have used it to grandstand. I'm not saying Bwilkins' response was perfect either--Cailil ^talk 14:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Bwilkins is a nice guy, but he's strict and he's an admin. Both users were right and wrong at the same time. Me personally, I think this issue isn't a big deal and shouldn't be here on ANi, rather both of you kindly discuss about it without having to rant at each other, please try to keep things civil. its now a flicker of the past, Its over and he's unblocked!. I have to say the blocking admin failed to Assume Good Faith!! and Pudeo, shouldn't be blocked in the first place, because of one foolish decision, many useful editors have to face the burden of commenting here Prabash.Akmeemana 00:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not actually possible for both to be right on the question, Was it a bad block? when one says yes and the other no. And, in fact, it's not possible for them to both be right on the question, was Bwilkins's response to Tariq inappropriate? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the view of both sides are understandable here. Pudeo adds a piece to Calil's comment, right at the very end, talking about groups of editors being "hooligans", then chastises Calil for same. Truthfully, without that apparently mistaken addition, I don't see any reasonable way the original comment could be taken the way it was. So there is some irony in the fact that Pudeo assumed bad faith while admonishing Calil to assume good faith. I can, however, also buy the placement of that edit as being accidental. It looks like part of a comment that was meant to be rewritten but got misplaced. Tariq's unblock rationale was pretty blunt, but I'm okay with that. While Bwilkins' response was not optimal, it was greatly exacerbated by Anthonycole's decision to butt into that exchange, a decision that served no purpose other than to bait him. And, as usual, OrangesRYellow and TDA arrived to further inflame a situation they frankly should have just stayed out of. Not one of those three was ever going to help. They just wanted to rush in to throw rotten fruit. Resolute 00:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, just to be clear, you're saying that reading the following text from Cailil (as accidentally amended by Pudeo)

Given the history of offsite targeting of individual wikipedians who make edits that might be unpalatable to the Men's rights movement - what steps will this project take to uphold wikipedia's values and its standards for conduct towards others didn't prejudice a group of editors as a bunch of hooligans.

as meaning anything (it is meaningless), construing it as a devious plot to paint Cailil as abusive, blocking Pudeo, an editor with a clean block log, for three weeks without even asking what's going on, dismissing his very reasonable and clear explanation, and declining his unblock request is reasonable? You're fine with that, yeah? That's reasonable?

As for my commenting on Bwilkins's page, if he wants to put "disgusting" in an edit summary and broadcast it to his 404 page watchers, he can deal with whomever he attracts. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I am saying that Calil's comment, unaltered, contained nothing that I would reasonably infer as criticizing potential project members as being "hooligans". On its face, Pudeo does appear to be responding to a comment they added into Calil's statement, rather than to the statement itself. Even on the belief that the addition to Calil's comment was accidental, this entire episode still began due to Pudeo's assumption of bad faith. As to your participation, you seem attracted to controversy but your participation in this case was not constructive. Resolute 01:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah. I presume the two have history, and that Pudeo was referring to that. Pudeo wasn't assuming bad faith in that edit, he was (bluntly) reminding Cailil to assume good faith. But no, on its face, Pudeo has clearly made a mistake. And if anybody assumed bad faith here, it was KillerChihuahua, in reading an obvious mistake as sneaky weirdness and blocking without discussion.

That's a perfectly forgivable error, but it would be comforting to see a sign that she recognises it was a mistake. (I shall now take your advice and bugger off.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Just pointing out that there is no 'history' Anthony. We've had interactions previously but no negative ones--Cailil ^talk 14:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

"Talking about groups of editors being "hooligans", I have to point out that my unintelligble insertion in Cailil's comment actually has the wording "didn't prejudice as ... hooligans" (which would mean Cailil doesn't think the users are hooligans?), so it's even more unreasonable. How am I supposed to explain a chunk of nonsensical text in someone else's message? --Pudeo' 02:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

My view is that there was no reason to even speculate that Calil was disparaging potential project members the way you implied he was - thus the reminder for them to AGF was misplaced, and your attempt to argue that it was unwise to act as if such members would be hooligans implied that that was their view. I read Calil's statement as one of "we've had problems in this topic area in the past, and I hope you have a plan to guard against this." Things got heated, unfortunately, because a number of strong-willed individuals became involved. And FWIW, my view of how this should have resolved echos Jehochman's. There should have been a warning/reminder to be more careful with comment placement - and with it the opportunity to explain - rather than a block. Resolute 02:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Pudeo had a clean block log. They do not appear to have a history of trouble making, therefore, they should have received an assumption of good faith. If the comment was an error, it was an injustice to block them. If the comment was an intentional troll, it appears to have been the user's first, and they should have been treated as if it were a mistake, even if it wasn't. If they were trolling, the block, unblock and controversy has provided much amusement and will serve to encourage further trolling. There is no circumstance where the block would be helpful, and there are two circumstances where it was most unhelpful. I recommend leaving the user unblocked, learning from this incident, and avoiding further, needless conflict. Jehochman ^Talk 02:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• I am the user whose block was being debated. I'll skip explaining my edit and block appeal again; it can be read from above and from my talk page. I can only understand the initial ban from the perspective that one just looked that I had written some text on the wrong line, in someone else's comment and as such I'd be a harasser. However, atleast with the appeal and my explanation, the reviewing admin should use own judgment - is it likely that I did that on purpose or not? My text made no sense in the other Wikipedian's comment and it was almost exactly the same wording as my final comment below, and on top of that it was presumed that I had attacked the nonsensical sentence in the same edit on my own lines. I was rather irked with BWilkins' decline reason that stated that my explanation was "bordering on a lie" as I felt quite powerless there, but if he genuinely thinks I made that edit with harm in mind, no can do. As a Wikipedian who has been a member for 7 years and who had a clean block log before this, I did ask to be assumed good faith. It felt like the block meant that every detail was interpreted so that I had the worst intentions instead, even on absurd aspects with that nonsensical sentence. I have no previous contacts with BWilkins, Tariqabjotu or any of the other commenting users so I have no idea why the discussion after got so heated. --Pudeo' 02:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The reason for the discussion becoming heated is Bwilkins' inability to accept a mistake in reading your unblock request. There is/was no reason, policy based or otherwise, for you to be blocked. A black mark has been put on your clean block log (completely unjustifiably) and if it is not wiped clean, it would be so much easier for you to get blocked again -- and again..., and would be a formidable hurdle in your RFA (should you want to give it a try). Having a block log can have a crippling effect on an ed. Why do complete strangers take an interest in removing the unjustified black mark from your slate? Well, some people cannot support outright injustice -- because it has a demoralizing effect on good users and is harmful to the project. Tariqabjotu has explained the situation very clearly, I would not say much because I am unable to find a way to better it.OrangesRyellow (talk) 04:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Ive had little to do with Bwilkins in the past, and what I have seen has been generally positive. Forgetting the block itself for the moment (IMHO Pudeo looks to have made a mistake, and should have been given benefit of the doubt). The reaction to the unblock wasnt right, and it irks me from time to time when I see those with dissenting opinions to admin decisions (fellow admins, and content contributors alike) being admonished because they see things differently. While the admin role in general performs valuable service, it definitely is not an infallible position; if someone can see the positive side of a situation, unless there is some kind of history of questionable actions from that admin, we should just move on. Despite the claims of Bwilkins, these do not trash admin editors, at least unless they become regular occurences. The odd ban/block that gets reverted every now and then (once in a blue moon), is no cause for alarm. -- Nbound (talk) 04:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

(Note: Im not saying these things shouldnt be discussed reasonably though) - Nbound (talk)

• I will say that I don't think this really needs to be at ANI. I commented mostly to voice my disapproval for how BWilkins was responding to Tariq. He seemed to be putting forward the notion of a blue wall for admins and attacking Tariq for criticizing his and KC's administrative actions. That he re-asserted bad faith accusations against an editor for, what to any circumspect observer, would appear to be a normal mistake just made it worse. If Bwilkins, or anyone else here for that matter, would like to know how Pudeo's comment about "hooligans" was logically prompted by Cailil's original, unaltered, statement then I would be happy to elaborate. Cailil's "questions" were largely just poisoning the wells against the various editors supporting a Men's Rights Wikiproject, including mentioning the "history of offsite targeting of individual wikipedians" by MRAs. It certainly gave me the impression that the intent was to prejudice editors against anyone who supported the WikiProject by implicitly painting anyone associated with such a project as a hooligan.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

It is now undeniable that Pudeo had made no PA. If he/she can be blamed for anything, it is for accidentally modifying another person's comment. If that be such a blockworthy offence, Bwilkins should probably block himself without any further deliberations. Please see [189]. In the very thread discussing Pudeo's modification of Cailil's comment, Bwilkins modified my comment and placed it in such a way that its meaning was completely changed. In that comment of mine, I was countering Bwilkins. But Bwilkins sneakily placed it in such a way that it appears (at first glance) that I am supporting Bwilkins and opposing Anthonyhcole!!! What should I say about someone doing something as dishonest as that? To top it off, Bwilkins ignored correcting himself even after I pointed it out to him [190]. Very appropriate for an admin?OrangesRyellow (talk) 07:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

No way did Bwilkins do that on purpose, and(Deliberate, but justified and inconsequential.) Coming after my sudden intemperate dressing-down, close on the heels of the insult he felt at Tariq's response to his block review, I can understand him not being interested in reformatting that thread. Is there anything to be achieved by leaving this thread open? I notice from KC's talk page that she's unwell, and I don't think she should feel under any obligation other than to get well soon. And Bwilkins hasn't said any more on the issue.

I'd like to apologise for the brutality of my comments to Bwilkins on his talk page. He is a well-meaning and hard-working volunteer, and deserves my appreciation, which he has. I was upset by his edit summary, "disgusting," in response to Tariq and his "I find your reasoning to be wholly implausible, bordering on a lie" in response to Pudeo, but I chose a very confrontational form of address, which he didn't deserve.

That said, there is a problem here. Bwilkins berates Tariq, me, OrangesRYellow and Pudeo about assuming good faith while calling Pudeo a liar, in effect. He responds to Tariq's frank amazement at both the block and Bwilkins's unblock-decline by calling him or his behaviour "disgusting" in an edit summary on a talk page with 400 watchers. And, at least until this moment, he hasn't withdrawn the slur on Pudeo. But, I guess we just shrug and walk away now and leave him to carry on. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC) (I wrote this before seeing BWilkins's response below.)

I have done to Bwilkins nothing more than what he has done to Pudeo. My only purpose was that Bwilkins may be able to see how absurd it is to be ABFfed for something as minor as an accidental modification of someone else's comment. I believe Bwilkins did not do it on purpose as much as I believe Pudeo did not do it on purpose. And I believe both are equally blameless of modifying anyone else's comments on purpose. I only hope Bwilkins will understand why I do not offer an apology. They are only entitled to as much AGF, respect and sensitivity as they would extend to others.OrangesRyellow (talk) 11:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, so you were being pointy? No - your comment elsewhere about me yesterday does not corroborate this statement (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Why would you think that inserting words in another User's comment is "minor"? It's not. Mistake or no, it is a particularly egregious mistake of wiki norms, and a cause for real offense to the person who now for all is made to have said something they did not say. Whether it is cause for a block, opinions differ, obviously, although it certainly seems it all could have been handled better. And no, Bwilkens did not change your words and in effect sign your name to a comment you did not make; you have made a false equivalency -- and in doing so have only compounded error upon error, which is the what this whole chain of incidents shows needs to be learned from. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I never said that Bwilkins changed my words. By modifying my indenting, he completely changed the meaning of my comment. I have already explained how.OrangesRyellow (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

My response

Well, let's all step back from the brink for a moment, shall we. Tariq unblocked Pudeo with the statement "I am completely at a loss as to how the blocking admin, and another reviewing admin, completely failed to see that." - well, as already explained, that's because both the blocking admin and I (the reviewing admin) both saw it very differently - and that "differently" has already had more than one person state above is a possibility - so WP:AGF. As such, I took offense to Tariq's non-neutral, and what I felt to be a inflammatory statement (well, we're here at ANI - it was obviously inflammatory, wasn't it?). I was truly shocked that Tariq would say that.

After Tariq advised me of his unblocking, I responded that I still disagreed with the unblock, but was more shocked at Tariq's offensive statements in that unblock. As I have already said, I'm not averse to the unblock whatsoever, but I requested that Tariq be a little more careful with their phrasing. I am fully within my rights as an editor and as a human to request that others show the same level of respect towards me as they show elsewhere.

So, while I was feeling a little raw from the lashes across the back, a couple of editors showed up on my doorstep to throw vinegar on the wounds - REFUSING to read that my complaint was with Tariq's phrasing, and attacking my integrity about declining the unblock. One (Oranges) went so far as to accuse me of lying. I closed the discussion for my own protection. And oh, look - now he's accusing me of being "sneaky" and "dishonest" simply because rather than REMOVE a post to my talkpage, I moved into the same ridiculous and attacking closed discussion while I waited for Tariq to reply. That's offensive, and based on a number of Oranges' other snippy comments about me, I'm about this close to asking for someone to deal with them.

I was surprised that Tariq's response was to discuss the unblock - that was not, nor was it ever my issue with Tariq, and I made it quite clear in my reply. Next thing you know, here we are at ANI.

I am glad that others saw the wording that led to the block (and decline) the same way that I did. I am glad that Pudeo is unblocked (I've already stated that before too).

Yes, reviewing unblock requests is another one of those "thankless jobs" around here - and yes, I'll get some wrong - even when I read them a few times. I do not at any time deserve to be trashed for what I read, and the decision I made - it's fine to question me, politely, but attacks don't cut it. I especially don't deserve to have my reading skills trashed by a fellow editor or admin in the unblock request. I was well within my rights to request that Tariq review their future wording (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Others seeing your interpretation as a "possibility" is wholly different from you seeing Pudeo's as an impossibility; I don't see a single person above who finds Pudeo's explanation to be so implausible that it didn't warrant consideration.

Once again, I never "trashed" you or said anything about your "reading skills"; on the contrary, these are things you have done toward other editors who challenged your judgment about this incident. I simply said I was at a loss for how two admins (and, in particular, one [you] who was given an explanation) didn't see how what Pudeo did was (or, at the very least, could be) a mistake; that's "shock" and "surprise", not "trashing" or "an attack". Now, did it ever strike you as odd that you keep pleading for people to assume good faith, when your unwillingness to do so for another experienced editor meant an additional three days blocked? And just as you're offended by Oranges essentially accusing you of lying, did it every occur to you that Pudeo might have felt the same way, when he explained what happened and apologized for the mistake, and you turned around to say his explanation made "zero sense" and was "wholly implausible, bordering on a lie"? Your continued insistence that I "review [my] future wording", based on you mistaking bewilderment for belittlement, while saying nothing about your own words suggests you still feel the brash way you chose to address critics of your actions here was okay.

And it's really a shame that, perhaps to avoid further controversy, so many people here are willing to excuse this behavior of yours, opting instead for a broad statement about how Pudeo's questionable edit could have been handled better. It reflects poorly on all administrators when they are unable to see the flaws in their actions while simultaneously chastising others for the same. If the consensus here among admins is that this hypocrisy within our ranks is acceptable, or at least not worth discussing, fine, but be aware that the repercussions are a (continued) belief among many non-admins that admins see themselves in a position where rules don't apply to them. -- tariqabjotu 14:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why no one has brought up that this is a community article probation and as such it has certain limitations on undoing another admin's actions such as "Administrators are not to reverse such sanctions without either (1) approval by the imposing administrator, or without (2) community consensus" I'm not commenting on the merits of Tariqabjotu's logic in unblocking, but strictly speaking it was against procedure and is disruptive on the larger matter of community sanctions having any effect on article stability. Tariqabjotu has no other experience with this sanction and may not be aware of the full context of which Bwilkins and KillerC are. That's all I have to say about that.--v/r - TP 15:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

So... do you want me to block him again? I can do that, if you want, since, you know, I wasn't supposed to unblock him. So what do you suggest? (-- tariqabjotu 16:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)) -- tariqabjotu 16:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

That comment is as pointy as the comment you left in the unblock. Hypocrisy, thou ha'st a new name (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That was not WP:POINT. The only way to reverse the error existent in technically violating the probation instructions is to reverse the violation (that is undo the unblock). It's pointless to reference the sanction if you're not going to provide a suggestion, especially when there's the suggestion that there was a possibility that I may have missed something. So... Leave the unblock, because it was the right thing? Leave the unblock, just because it's already been done? Sanction me in some way? Reinstitute the block until there's more information? Would you prefer if I changed my comment to So what do you suggest?, as if that's any different than what I implied already? -- tariqabjotu 16:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Tariq step back. Seriously. That was way overboard. TP is correct - he wasn't being facetious. It's a technicality but clearly you didn't realize. Maybe you made a mistake - it's not a huge deal. But your response is illustrating my point above. You can't have this both ways--Cailil ^talk 16:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Way overboard Yeah, ok. Yes, I know he wasn't being facetious. -- tariqabjotu 16:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

On this specific case? Continue to discuss the matter as we are now. There is no benefit in backing the horse up. But in the future, we all need to be mindful of community sanctions. The fact that no one else brought it up sooner is evidence that you're not the only one whom was unaware. I'd chop it up as accident in this case. I wasn't calling you disruptive, I'm saying that the effect is disruptive to undo community sanctions because it desensitizes their effect by making it easier to get them undone. So future community sanctions will not be effective. We don't want that, so we all need to do better. I was trying to de-personalize the comments and steer clear of the specifics of this case because I meant my comments in the broader spectrum, perhaps I wasn't clear on that.--v/r - TP 16:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. To me, this just seemed to be an ordinary block that, had it not been for the apparent article probation, KC and Bwilkins would have still acted in the same manner (although perhaps with a shorter block). -- tariqabjotu 17:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

As an aside, I also notice that even KC may have forgotten about the rule for overturning sanctions, as he specifically left a note for a reviewing admin -- just pointing to the offending edit -- in his block notice. -- tariqabjotu 17:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually this gives me a question as to how we handle unblock requests from such pages. Since only the administrator who placed the block has the authority to remove the block without seeking consensus, should any admin who chooses to respond to the block appeal take it to ANI, or the blocking admin's talk page? --Kyohyi (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The situation only exists for WP:AE and WP:General sanctions blocks. The concept is that the blocking administrator already has consensus behind them when the community sanctions were created and that undoing the action without further community consultation would be going against the consensus. Kind of like how WP:CSD works. "These are the conditions on which the community has approved these actions without further discussion..." can be applied to both topics. Unlike CSD, though, general sanctions favor the original admin action whereas CSD favors undeletions. An administrator who wishes to undo the block should talk to the blocking administrator first, then the community. This doesn't apply to normal blocks, though, which have not had prior discussion by the community to determine a particular topic area is disruptive.--v/r - TP 17:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That explains the situation, but I don't think it answers my question, let me clarify. Under probationary sanctions, an editor may appeal to ANI, or the administrator who placed the sanctions. Thus wouldn't it be better for a patrolling admin who sees a block appeal that is placed by probationary sanctions take take that appeal to ANI or the appropriate admin rather than accepting or declining the appeal. The reason I bring this up is that by accepting or declining an appeal, the patrolling admin is making a choice which is not theirs to make. In other words, if a patrolling admin takes an action regarding the appeal, should that action be limited to contacting the sanctioning admin, or posting it to ANI? --Kyohyi (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

That is how it is intended to work, yes.--v/r - TP 18:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The technical issue, I feel, could have been avoided if there were a template like {{uw-aeblock}}, but for community-generated sanctions, which notes to both the sanctioned editor and any reviewing admins the correct approach to appealing the block. I'm actually surprised such a template doesn't exist already. -- tariqabjotu 17:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I was going to suggest exactly the same thing. The block was listed at Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation but I'm guessing Tariq only saw that after unblocking. We already have an ArbCom probation block template. It surely wouldn't be too much trouble to make a community sanctions one?--Cailil ^talk 17:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Such a template probably could've stopped this whole thing at the beginning. I think it's a good idea if we create one.--v/r - TP 17:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Admins blocking editors per any form of special enforcement regime should mark it as such. KC dropped the ball in not noting in the block notice or block log that her block was enforcing the MRM general sanctions and that it was subject to a more stringent appeal process. BWilkins appears to have also missed that given that he treated the unblock request like a normal unblock request. I think that probably attests to what I said at BWilkins' talk. KC was caught up in the moment when blocking Pudeo as often happens with our "civility" enforcement and not only misjudged the situation, but obviously forgot to properly mark her action as part of the general sanctions regime. No admin should be expected to notice KC logging the action on another page. The block log and block notice should already give that kind of crucial information. It was her mistake, not Tariq's.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

KC noted it on the article probation log which is the standard right now. That we've all just clued in that an additional template might make these situation clearer doesn't make her actions wrong ex post facto. This issue should be converted into a learning opportunity for everyone. Let's get a template knocked out and be done with it.--v/r - TP 17:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

{{Uw-csblock}} good enough for now?--v/r - TP 18:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it looks good, one question though, the generic template links to community sanctions, when applying the template, can the relevant sanction page be substituted in? --Kyohyi (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

{{uw-probation}} does this, so code-wise it is possible. The other way to do it is manually refactoring. But this is a step forward--Cailil ^talk 20:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I created a new log= parameter for the sanction page. I'll show you on your user talk page.--v/r - TP 20:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

It is standard to note in the block log and/or in the block notice that an editor is being blocked per the general sanctions. Only other time I don't see that with this topic area is one of your blocks, but you were quick to point out the sanctions when the editor filed an unblock request. KC made a mistake and Tariq was not the only admin who didn't catch that the block was issued per the general sanctions as a result.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you insinuating I make mistakes? Kidding.--v/r - TP 18:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Admins need to realize that block and unblock could also be done in with some formal words rather than trying to showcase that admins are doing a thankless job so they get the right to say anything. Every one here is doing a thankless job, some more and some less, so keep that thought out of all these things. I wish the admins had more sense of decency and professionalism (even for this thankless job) and not think the admin status get to their heads.  A m i t  ❤  16:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Professionalism is a good word for that which the admin corps lacks. Have you considered writing an essay?--v/r - TP 17:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

    Probably i should write one now seeing the kind of ANI's in here about admin actions.  A m i t  ❤  17:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• I think Pudeo has demonstrated he was a useful content contributor for years, so he could have been offered a bit more courtesy and assumption of good faith from the admin corps. As for the shenanigans intended to make this block unrevertable or unreviewable, I'm frankly disgusted. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

"Such a template probably could've stopped this whole thing at the beginning. I think it's a good idea if we create one" -TParis. If that means the block would have been kept, I have to beg your pardon. My block appeal had to do with whether the block is justified at all, whether there actually was a personal attack, not whether it's justified with the probation. I am aware of the article probation on the general topic, though nowhere did it say my block was based on it, and actually I'm rather surprised the probation also covers discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council, but again that's irrelevant to the core issue whether I intentionally modified the message or not. To be honest, I'm quite upset with the idea that any discussion anywhere related to probation is some outlaw wilderness where even users with no previous history of abuse are being handed 1-week blocks for negative comments (as you imply the block should not have been reversed?). So it's probably best to stay away from them completely.

As for Tariqabjotu being blamed for not browsing KC's edit history enough (apparently that's the only place where it was informed) to see the probation list? That's depressing. Tariqabjotu used considerable time and effort to investigate the details to clear the injustice, for which I am grateful. My second appeal had stood three days before that. I believe block appeals definitely need more attention from administrators as one quick review is little. It also seems that if there is a possible mistake in the block, it can be hard to admit it. --Pudeo' 22:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• • What is it with Bwilkins and his inability to ever admit he makes mistakes?PumpkinSky talk 22:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me he quite clearly has admitted to making a mistake and that what he is asking for is simply not to be harangued for it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Like when a block he made last month gets unanimously overturned yet he claims he was doing the blockee a favor and did no wrong eventhough he editwarred with the blockee, who only did 1 revert, and protected the highly trafficked page? PumpkinSky talk 23:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Bwilkins has continually referred to Pudeo's explanation as an impossibility and continually defended his abrasive responses to those who disagreed with him. I'd hardly call that admitting to making a mistake. -- tariqabjotu 03:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

My abrasiveness has only been to YOU Tariq, and it will continue until you yourself admit that the wording of your unblock could have been better - indeed, if one pays any attention to the entire sequence of events, that's the ONLY outstanding issue here - I've made my niceties towards Pudeo, have NEVER had an issue with the unblock, even though I disagree with it. This is a gigantic drama that NEVER should have been at ANI if it wasn't for the lack of professionalism by ONE person (I've admitted my own foibles, thanks very much). I closed a discussion on my talkpage because it was a series of attacks that had nothing to do with the topic at hand: Tariq's inappropriate commentary (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

@Pumpkinsky. Factual correction. Bwilkins does appear to have given an apology at least once, even if it was through a non-public e-mail. You see?.OrangesRyellow (talk) 06:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

<Per BWilkins's reasonable complaint, I've moved my question about his handling of another recent unblock request to #Bwilkins's handling of another unblock request at the bottom of this page. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)>

Reset

Ok, so let's reset here for 2 seconds:

About the block/declined unblock

1. Pudeo was blocked for an incident on a community-restricted article
2. The block was not necessarily in error, however the block was for what may or may not have been a copy/paste error by Pudeo
3. I was not the blocking admin, I was a reviewer who saw the latter. As much as I WP:AGF, due to the nature of the article under battle, the faith had to lean the other side
4. As such, I made a judgement call based on all the available evidence, PLUS added weight to the "faith" side of things - my call was to "not unblock"
5. If the situation was truly an accident as Pudeo claims, I do wholeheartedly apologize - however, the weight of the above was certainly showing something different

About the unblock

1. I am, and always have been, fine with the unblock
2. Pudeo was unblocked with the words "I am completely at a loss as to how the blocking admin, and another reviewing admin, completely failed to see that...the block is, and always was, unwarranted"
3. I personally found those words offensive, insinuating that I was unable to read, and they express Tariq's opinion is law as the reason for unblock. Both opinions are valid (as discussed above), and so berating 2 admins over clearly-divided opinion is inappropriate
4. Although I still agree with my reading, I do understand the other opinion

On the actions on my talkpage

1. My only complaint has been about Tariq's offensive wording on the unblock, and my original reply to them was intended to discuss that, nothing else
2. A few editors arrived there to lambaste and attack me for my judgement on the unblock. As there is significant consensus that what I saw was understandable (although possibly not correct), their attacks were wholly unwarranted - but that's past
3. Although polite, I was firm in my will to not accept attacks - rather than lash out, I hatted that discussion, wanting instead to deal directly with Tariq's inappropriate wording

What remains

1. I have more than once expressed my goodwill towards Pudeo, and have wished them a positive way forward.
2. I have expressed that I might have been in error, but have justified my decline, and others have indicated that my decision was understandable overall, but likely not correct in the big picture
3. Some issues related to the unblock being based on a community restriction are being dealt with separately
4. Tariq has outright refused to review his unblock statement to see where I (and others) found it potentially offensive
5. Tariq has outrageously accused me of being "abrasive" with others, related to this - my closing of a conversation is not abrasive, it's "defensive to prevent abrasive"

So what is the community's goal here?

• Is it to convince me to be more careful? I always am careful, and others have acknowledged where my "judgement" may have been valid - so this is really opinion
• Is it to get me to apologize? Done ages ago.
• I have not abused my "power", abused an editor, treated anyone as if this was some form of hierarchy, or put myself out as "better than anyone else"
• Slap my wrist for being abrasive? I don't see "politely defensive" as being "abrasive" - pushing someone to review their comments is not abrasive. Protecting myself is not "abrasive"
• Is someone ever going to hold Tariq's toes to the flame in order get them to actually review how offensive their words were? Really - this ANI is about me not liking Tariq's comment - which he has failed to respond to, ever.
• Or, are we simply going to close this drama? I long ago admitted my role and reviewed ALL of my actions related to this editor. If Tariq chooses not to, then I'll sleep better tonight knowing I'm the better man (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

This is not the first time that an admin has called out another admin's actions, nor will it be last. Please see (Restoring previous duration (which, for the record, I also strongly disagree with); indef block was in bad faith...(emphasis mine) You could take it with a bit more maturity. I also note that nobody agrees with your unblock decline.OrangesRyellow (talk) 17:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I think I'm the only one handling this with any maturity ... and don't put words in my mouth, nor try to twist things again: if you'll review the original discussion, you will see that OTHERS most certainly did understand why I saw what I saw ... that does not mean they agreed with the decline, nor have I claimed such ...but merely point out that OTHERS at least understood why I made that judgement decision (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I have already produced an example of an admin calling out another admins actions. I could show more. Why is it so wrong only when your admin action is seen as a mistake? There are even admins who invite other admins to undo their admin actions if they make a mistake. Usually, they just ask for an explanation as to why their admin action was seen as a mistake. Why can't you be like that?OrangesRyellow (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Have you read ANYTHING I have written in 2 days? I invite admins to fix my errors too ... however, I don't expected to be slammed against the wall when it happens. Read my lips: my only complaint with Tariq since day 1 of this has been the phrasing of his unblock...nothing else. It's been turned into a whole new drama over someone's misreading of my original response to Tariq. That's how stupid this whole thing is. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear Bwilkins. I assure you I have been diligently reading all of what you, and others have written here, and also examined various other relevant links and pages. Maybe I should have used more lucid language, but I feel you did not get what I wanted to convey in my preceding comment. So, I try again. I am saying that other admins are OK not only with their admin actions been undone, but also with their admin actions been seen as mistakes. Why can't you be like that? We all make mistakes, after all, even the greatest among us do. We are all humans after all. Other admins can live with their mistakes being pointed out, why can't you please?OrangesRyellow (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me re-state what I've said a billion times, including on my talkpage (where you accused me of not reading as well): I have NO issue with my actions being undone, NOR with my actions being seen as mistakes. I do however take great offense to someone effetively saying "I cannot fathom how anyone could have seen it other than the way I do, and thus anyone who saw it otherwise was just simply wrong", which is EXACTLY what Tariq's unblock acceptance suggests. That is the crux of this entire message, and to be honest, everything you have type on my talkpage AND on here shows that you never understood that simple concept. I even suggested to Tariq a better way to have phrased his unblock - completely, 100% ignored. Funny how I am asked to review and accept criticism of my actions, but the same doesn't apply to others? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

You too had accused me of not reading, and even questioned my reading abilities. But I do not see much value in recriminations of that sort. From what you had written on your talk page, I understand that you completely disagreed with Tariq's unblock decision. Not only did you disagree with Tariq, you were miffed because he pointed out the block, and well as the unblock decline, as a mistake. You seem to be saying that even if he saw it differently, he should have not pointed it out as a mistake. The "better phrasing" which you suggested was about not pointing it out as a mistake. I appreciate that you have now said I have NO issue with my actions being undone, NOR with my actions being seen as mistakes. But you did not seem to be saying the same thing back then at your talk page, the opposite rather.OrangesRyellow (talk) 18:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Question to Pudeo re their edit

Do you use WikEd, Pudeo? I did for a while, and found it made the placing of the text cursor very slow. Several times I started writing or pasting before the cursor had obeyed my click, and thereby came close to saving something in the wrong place, somewhere random — fortunately I caught it in every instance (AFAIK). Could it have been something like that? If I'd seen your edit, or your unblock request, that would have been my first thought. In any case, I'm with the people who think you should have been extended an assumption of good faith, a fortiori in view of your long and blameless history on Wikipedia. Perhaps the Puppy was in haste, being as she is unwell. Bishonen | talk 17:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC).

... and I merely got swept up in reading it the same was as the puppy PLUS have become rather sick and tired of dealing with MRM violations. Yup. It happens. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:57, 17 July 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.

I was not online and missed this party. FWIW, I have no issue with the unblock, I approve the new template and will try to remember it exists and use it in the future. Changing another editors post is serious; I have no regrets about my original block as I read the situation. I also see how Pudeo could have done so accidentally - which still leaves his strident ABF of Cailil hanging in the air, but eh. KillerChihuahua 13:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Falsification, disinformation and deception by Kansas Bear

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.

---

spurious complaints, reporter blocked
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is a continuation of a report Kansas Bear made about me. I answered his accusations with proof that he indeed falsified his report about me. But I got no response from any administrator, other than that of Future Perfect at sunrise, a known abusive administrator with a history of anti-Persian sentiments, warning me that i should retract the words "he lied". This is the link to the original report made by Kansas Bear: [[191]]. This was my post in that report: "Okay, Kansas Bear is simply lying about the source. The source I put was not provided by me, it was provided by Kansas Bear himself in the Battle of Erzurum (1821) entry [192]. The article on the Battle of Erzurum, the major battle of that war, was previously sourced before Kansas put another. The article states that the battle of Erzurum 1821 was clearly won by the Persians. The only major battle won in a war is a tactical victory for the victor is it not? Thus I added the source which Kansas Bear had put in the battle of Erzurum entry, in the entries on the Ottoman-Persian conflicts. Furthermore I suggested twice in the talk page to Kansas bear that we should get an arbiter to settle it. He instead made a provocative and baiting post in talk page and reported me. He lied here about the source, he never mentioned that it's his own source and claimed it was something I made up, as visible in his post above. Moreover, he is still reverting sourced information in the very same article but made by other users: [193] SomeGuy1122 (talk) 10:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)" As shown in the posts of Kansas Bear he never once mentioned that it was his own source, but claimed it was provided by me. And as you can see in my post and the links I put in it, he simply fabricated that, and it was his own source. Once again, I never got any response for my post above regarding what Kansas Bear has done, and he simply got away with falsification and got his way by making the article in question shape into his POV. As mentioned I suggested to him two times in the talk page of the article that we should get an arbiter to settle it. He instead kept posting provocative posts to me with personal attacks. And then asked for help form a "Turkish" user, considering the article is about Ottoman Turkish wars vs. the Persians: [194]. And again he is still reverting other sourced material, makes up facts and puts his own version of things: [195] . If you check that article in Iranica it clearly states that Basra was in the hands of the Persians until Karim Khan Zand had died in 1779, thus two years after that war, from Iranica: "In 1775 the Wakil sent his brother (Moḥammad) Ṣādeq Khan to besiege Basra in Ottoman Iraq, which after a yearlong siege was taken and occupied until Karim Khan’s death in 1779." I expect none other than another warning from another or same administrator for telling the truth here and not letting Kansas Bear get away with pure falsification and deception and POV pushing. SomeGuy1122 (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a follow-up of a thread from a few days back, now archived here. Reporter blocked according to warning given them back in that thread; see user talk for details. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:02, 17 July 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.

A user keep reverting to his version without taking part in the talk 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.

---

Hi everyone, this is about a user called User:Uishaki, who keep adding false information on FIFA related articles about Palestine and remove stats from Israel records as if they never existed. He was approched by more than 5 users about taking part in a talk that opened in Wikiproject Football here but he doesn't care what the sources say or what other people have to say as he revertes all edits to his own like the the others are wrong and he simply think he is right. In the article posted above you can see the issues and sources given to show him his mistakes in the confuse of the term Palestine as under British Mandate they played under the name Eretz Israel / Palestine national team, all players were Jewish, played under white shirt and played under the anthems Ha-Tikva which is currently Israel anthen and under God Save the Queen which is British. If its also possible to revert all his edit to a natural edits like I did but he reverted without any decisions. Thank you.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 07:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked the user for 31 hours for edit warring. That's a short block considering the amount of disruption, but it's their first, so it's supposed to be short. More can be done if the problem continues after the block. Thanks for bringing it to our attention! Bishonen | talk 08:15, 18 July 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.

Pearl Harbor

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

---

There is a big gap on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_attack underneath one of the images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.82.214 (talk) 12:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

 Note: This is something that should be brought up on the article's talk page, not here. — Richard BB 12:57, 18 July 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.

My block by Dark Falls

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 made an edit on Urmia after Dark Falls had warned in an edit summary about edit warring and was susquentially blocked for this one edit. The edit was reverted by another editor. Now my questions are,

• Is it appropriate to use edit summaries as warnings? I didnt read the history so I didnt see them.
• Is it appropriate that the admin still accuses me after my explaination?

There is another tech question that I cant answer, the edit I was making was solely to the infobox, yet my edit undone several edits, as can be seen, I dont know how this happened, after my messed-up edit was reverted, I done the correct edit I had intended WP:MOSFLAG on the infobox. All this happened and was visible before my block, but the blocking admin didnt ask me for an explaination, and has today still accused me of edit-warring, Do I simply just give a new warning every time another editor comes in with the intention of edit warring? No, of course not, as people will just abuse it. Apperantly AGF isnt valid if you have given warnings in places they cant be seen. As for the blocking guidelines "based upon reviewable evidence and reasonable judgment" wasnt used seeimg my second edit with the same edit summary as my messed-up one and "administrators should ensure that users who are acting in good faith are aware of policies and are given reasonable opportunity to adjust their behavior before blocking" no contact or effort towards myself was made, but a personal comment was made in the block notice, Since you felt it was appropriate to continue the edit warring on Urmia, I felt nothing of the thing nor should I have been accused of. Murry1975 (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Given the history of the article, you repeated your edit (started edit-warring) on a fairly controversial article. If your edit is reverted take it to the talk page before re-preforming your edit. I endorse the block given the heated nature of the issues involved. Werieth (talk) 14:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Timeline

• From 10th July an IP, 86.74.140.6, User:Arachkheradmand and User:Samak had been edit-warring over the demographics at Urmia, a north-west Iranian city, and starting 09:34, 13 July 2013 the war became quite frenetic, mainly involving the latter two.
• At 12:11 that day, User:DarkFalls (Dark) performed a null edit, leaving this edit summary: "Enough of this. Stop edit warring and discuss this on the article talk page or you will be blocked. Please use dispute resolution if you are unable to come to an agreement."[196]
• At 18:07 User:Murry1975, a very productive, no-drama content contributor with a clean block log made an edit reverting the last demographics edit and an MOS correction to the infobox, with the edit summary, "As per WP:MOSFLAG [197]. He had never before edited the article.[198]
• At 19:24 Sicaspi undid Murry1975's edit.[199]
• At 20:14 Murry1975 restored the MOS correction but not the demographics content[200]
• 05:00 the next day, 14 July 2013, Dark blocked Murry1975 for 24 hours [201]
• 05:10 Dark left a message on Murry1975's talk page, but didn't explain how to appeal the block
• 14:23 Murry1975 explained on his talk page that it was a mistake, that he was just trying to make the MOS correction and can't explain how the demographics got changed in his first edit, and that he hadn't seen the edit-summary warning.
• Dark made 8 edits in the hour and a half after Murry1975 posted his explanation and request for unblock
• 09:28 the next day, 15 July 2013, Dark explained on Murry1875's talk page that he doesn't believe Murry1975

Dark needs attention. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Bad block - Before jumping on the user, AGF is needed to be assumed. Secondly, Murry did not edit war and was not warned. The actual issue is a fairly simple one to be exact; Murry already had the page open during the time span revisions were made. This is what Murry saw as differences; highlighted by the edit summary. [202] Secondly, this same edit was repeated here.[203] The confusion of the user for the block and the lack of warning is demonstrable and the talk page confusion points to it. Murry should not have been blocked because Murry was active during the time and did in fact return and make the edit, only to have it undone, be unsure of how the other edits got reinstated and simply redo the MOSFLAG edit. It was editor error, but it was not malicious and in all fairness, probably did not ever see the edit history comment as a result. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• • With Anthonyhcole's detailing of the incident and my detail covering how the error happened, I think this matter shows that this block was not only bad, but shows that Dark did not perform correctly or properly given the circumstances. This never should have happened. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Terrible block and I have warned DarkFalls that another inappropriate use of the tools will result in a block for him. Everybody can make a mistake but this is one that must not be repeated. If this is a pattern (I haven't looked) we need to consider a desysop. --John (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
• Horrid block - Murry should never have gotten hit by the block hammer. Chris and Anthony have already explained why. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

This should be erased from Murry1975's block log. Who does that? Oversight? If Dark asks an oversighter to erase the entry, would they be allowed to? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

It cannot be undone; I was blocked in error before, it remains on my record, but I was informed that it cannot be removed, consensus about the blocks invalidity is about the best that can be done if Murry goes to RFA or anything. I know it is not much help, but it is unfortunate. I'm not an admin (never put in for it), but I think non-admin users can help prove that the block was bad. I'd actually like some more input on this because "an admin's word" is stronger then mine - in hindsight sadly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it can be oversighted in about ten seconds by an oversighter. If we don't erase that block log it's not because we can't, it's because we choose not to. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

It can be removed in the sense that we can hide the action, the account that performed it and its edit summary (or any combination thereof); however, it cannot be removed in the sense that, even if we were to do it, Murry's block log would still contain one entry (although one which, in part, would read "log redacted" – see the latest log entry here), which would, probably, look even worse. I think there should be a way to expunge clearly bad blocks, but, unfortunately, for the moment, none is available. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

They all look like typical block log entries to me. How many entries should I be seeing? I can see five, ending with "12:57, 2 April 2011 Salvio giuliano (talk | contribs) unblocked ThisIsaTest (talk | contribs) (test finished)" I was working off my very tenuous grasp of this discussion. But really I keep mixing up oversight and revdel and forgetting who does what. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

That's somewhat interesting, I did not know non-admins couldn't see the entry at all. When I put my special admin x-ray glasses on, it says "20:20, 15 July 2013 (Username or IP removed) (log action removed) (edit summary removed)". When I take them off, there is no entry at all for 15 July. Salvio, that was revdel'd, right? Not oversighted? I thought non-admins could see that there was a revdel'd action, just couldn't see what the action was? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that was revdeleted; if you want to see the original log entry, click here. And wow! I didn't image that when an admin revdeletes a log entry non-admins can no longer even see that something was deleted. I'm surprised! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah. OK. So, who can see what when a block log entry is oversighted? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also, Floq, can you tell me if you see anything clicking here? It's a log entry I just suppressed (and will unsuppress as soon as this test is over). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't see anything at all, even with my admin x-ray glasses on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you see anything with your super Oversighter glasses on, Salvio? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

To Floq: Thanks. To Anthony: yes. It was a block I had imposed on an alternate account of mine that I subsequently suppressed (and unsuppressed), nothing fancy. However, I now know that when an admin revdeletes a log entry, only admins and oversighters can see, from the affected log, that something has been deleted; and, when an oversighter suppresses a log entry, only oversighters can see that something was hidden. I never knew that, so I retract my previous comment. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Great. Would you be so kind as to oversight that entry in Murry1975's block log (linking to this thread)? :) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I'd like to, but I'm not permitted to, because the oversight policy is quite stringent as to what can be suppressed. If I did, the AUSC would have a field day... The only way to proceed now is a RfC on the OS policy. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I was teasing. I knew it wouldn't be that simple. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

And apparently I am sleep deprived. D'oh... Time to hit the sack... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Bad block, but not much we can do about it but apologize ...although let's not get out the pitchforks yet. Have similar bad blocks been handed out before? Is there a history of using their tools inappropriately? On top of that, while blocked, did the OP make a WP:GAB-based unblock request so that it could be reviewed by passing admins? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• A significant extra point after additional review: User:DarkFalls may not use edit-summaries to make formal warnings; period. There's no admin around here who believes they can rely on such. I would like Dark to acknowledge that using that method for warnings is neither appropriate, nor does it meet their requirements for admin accountability for the block. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• May or may not be relevant, but the situation at the article was was raised on AN where DarkFalls warned there about blocking. I did not see any post by Murry1975 there and they probably were not aware of the section. Ravensfire (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

  As can be seen in Murry1975s talk page, the warning that Dark shows for blocking is the edit summary and nothing else. This is not a proper notification/warning and surely doesn't assume good faith. A very bad block indeed. But I can suggest a better use for edit summaries - i.e. any one watching the block log of Murry975 can atleast read the comment in there and that the unblock comment should include an apology. at least to correct any wrong on the editor.  A m i t  ❤  19:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

So there are a couple of issues here, some of them easily solved:

• General warnings to multiple people in edit summaries: I plead guilty to doing this myself occasionally, usually when there are two groups of tag teams and I don't feel obligated to issue 4-5 individual warnings. I'm not sure it's evidence of horrible adminning, just of an attempt to avoid page protection that, in retrospect, doesn't always work the way Dark Falls or I would want it to. I know I'll grudgingly stop doing it myself, after seeing this happen to Murray. But I would claim it isn't evil or stupid.
• Blocking Murray1975 with no individual warning: if you assume that DF didn't think it possible to revert without seeing that edit summary, then the block without an additional warning makes a certain amount of sense. However, I (and everyone else in this thread) can easily imagine a case where it happened just the way Murray describes. When you look up "buggy" in the dictionary, there's an image of the Mediawiki logo next to the word.
• Blocking after Murray only changed the template the second time: That was a mistake on DF's part. You need to look into things a little more before you block.
• So, in retrospect, not DF's finest hour, but (IMHO) an understandable mistake. The thing that does bug me, more than the mistaken block, is that DF doesn't recognize it as such now, after a chance to read Murray's comments on his talk page. But unless this is part of some pattern that I'm not aware of, it's probably best to move on, secure in the knowledge that DF's karma will remain slightly damaged until he realizes his mistake and apologizes, rather than force him into a corner. But it's not my block log that got sullied, so that's just a suggestion.
• I wish it was relatively easy to remove a bad block from someone's block log, but since that is almost never done, it is actually relatively easy to make a note in a block log that a previous block was incorrect; you just block for one minute, explaining it isn't a new block but an annotation to the block log. If Murray wants that, I'll be happy to do it. The only drawback is that a casual idiot (there are one or two on this site) will look at the block log for 0.3 seconds and start referring to his "multiple blocks". So I won't do it unless Murray asks me to.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• • Oh, fiddle faddle Floquenbeam. I like the lilt of that. I've put a note in the block log referring to consensus here that the block was erroneous.[204] I hope the mention of "a clean block log" will deter the casual idiots, though I've admittedly been naive before. Bishonen | talk 00:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC).
    • It appears that this issue has blown up after I went to bed - and the established consensus is that the block is bad, so I will duly apologise to Murry after this post is done. But I would note my assessment of the situation and why I felt it was necessary to perform the block. Samak and Arachkheradmand started edit warring on Urmia and, having gained notice of this issue on WP:AN, I decided to intervene, issuing both editors a warning [205][206]. As an additional precaution, I used edit summaries in the article history in order to deter people from edit warring [207]. Short of full protection of the page (which in hindsight is probably a more sensible option), that's the only way I have to make sure people sit down and discuss the changes. Murry made an edit on the article 6 hours after this, which reverted Samak's revision of the page. At that point, I made a few quick assumptions. I assumed Murry was trying to hide his reversion under a misleading edit summary. As such, I assumed that, since he restored a previous version of the article, he was aware of the edit warring on that page and in turn, saw my warnings for all parties to stop and discuss. At the time of the block, I did not believe the edit were in fact, accidental or a mediawiki bug. —Dark 01:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Dark, you may have thought you had a good reason for putting a warning in the edit summary, but did you ever think that nobody will look at the page history before editing (unless someone picks up your warning in their watchlist)? As for assume... I'm assuming (ironically) about how that word can be split up into three to teach a lesson, right? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
        • As far as I know, there is no way of reverting to a previous revision of the page without first going to the page history, unless he sifted through Samak's contributions in order to revert, which is inconsistent with his statement. Regardless, consensus seems to be that the revert was as a result of a rare technical bug in the software and was therefore accidental - although at the time of the block, I did not believe that was likely. Obviously in hindsight, if I knew that such a bug existed, I would not have blocked. —Dark 07:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
          • Edit conflicts aren't quite rare... especially at this board. Good explanation for the note in the history, although it would not necessarily have been very prominent and would not have stopped anyone editing outside of simple reverting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
            • Considering that 6 hours had passed since the last edit and Murry's, and considering the nature of his edit (aside from the revert, it was a simple MOS edit), I excluded the possibility of an edit conflict. The aim of the edit summary was to ensure that people stopped doing "simple reverting" - I didn't think it was likely for anyone to restore the edits without being aware of the edit war. if I did, I would have full protected the page. Hypothetically speaking, let's say that Murry intentionally reverted. How likely was it that he did not see my warning in the page history and was not aware of the ongoing edit warring? As he was not reverting vandalism and it was not a rollback, he would have to manually revert, either by sifting through the user's contributions or by looking at the page history. If he was in fact sifting through the user contributions of Samak, it would have been grossly negligent for him not to have also looked at the page history. Undoubtedly, given the fact that the edit was due to a mediawiki bug, the block was wrongly placed. But I do find it deeply frustrating that people do not seem to understand my reasoning for my actions. —Dark 08:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
              • • I'm trying, which is why I'm asking. If it matters, I am not calling for any punishment of you as an administrator, just suggesting that this block could have been better dealt with. (You did not warn him on his talk page, for instance). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

This is my first comment on here since raising the issue even though I have been reading the comments while editing. Firstly I would like to thank the admins and community on here for their understanding and I appreciate the effort that has been made to highlight the err on my block log, so sincerely thanks folks. I have recieved an apology from Dark on my talkpage and I will accept it. Yes I still feel somewhat irked by the situation but hopefully we have, and I do include myself there, learned a few things from this and can move on and improve ourselves and the wiki community. Again folks thanks for your help and your time. Lets put this to bed and get back to what we are meant to be doing. Thanks. Murry1975 (talk) 16:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I will keep a record of this discussion and the discussion on my talkpage in an archive on my talkpage for further references just in case. Again thanks. Murry1975 (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• I misread the title of this thread. I thought it was "'My Block' by Dark Falls", as in a school essay: "'My Vacation" by Melissa Wainwright". Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:34, 17 July 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.

Repeated deletions of discussion and bad faith editing on the part of Zad and Dbrodbeck

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.

---

DENY
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Two editors have been repeated deleting or reverting posts I make to Talk:Autism and Talk:Causes of Autism. The original problem came about when I wanted to include mention of Maternal Antibody Related autism in the respective articles, and was told it could not be included because WP:MEDRS did not allow primary sources in medical articles, and I was referring to primary sources. Peer reviewed papers in respected journals but not review papers or review articles in respected journals. However, I looked at the rules, which has since changed, and found out they were being misrepresented. In fact, primary sources were allowed at that time, the main caveats being : A. They are not used to contradict a secondary source B. They are not given undue weight 3. They are not used to support a conclusion the author did not make. None of this was true of what I wanted to do so I pointed out people were wrong about the rules. I think this got me really hated because the other editors expected newcomers like myself to do as we were told. Anyway, whatever the motivation, this led to kind of a war, not where I reverted anything in the actual article but where they began to delete everything I posted in the Talk sections. The claim was repeatedly made I was rehashing the same old stuff about the theory, but in fact, I brought it up anew when new research came out. For example, there have been several reviews supporting this theory, so when they came out, I posted, to Talk only "Here is a secondary source, is there any reason not to include this theory now?" and these posts got deleted instantly. I felt then, and feel now, there is no good faith in considering the new research. One editor claimed I had not posted citations and links to support the claim there was new research, but I did, only someone deleted them INSTANTLY. This is how things now stand. If I put up anything, (and the latest papers have made the world press in a big way, true they are primary but still eligible for inclusion based on the rules that last time I read them) they take it down immediately. So, basically, rather than discuss the merits of the suggested edits, Zad and Dbrodbeck, and perhaps others, are punishing me for no actual misconduct, but disagreeing with them and bringing the subject up again and again, but I must emphasize, only when I had new supporting info. I think it's important to understand, there are a few hundred new science papers published on autism every month. There is a great deal of new info, in fact many things still included in the article are clearly out of date. So, if you go on PubMed.org and search "Maternal antibodies" and "autism" you get 47 papers, and about 30 support the edit I wanted to include, and I think 4 are secondary sources. Now as I say, the targets for the antibodies have been found so this area of research is of much more interest, much more valuable to the article, but because these findings kind of vindicate me in the long standing the dispute the same editors are much more determined to keep it out. What can I do about this? I will notify the two named editors as per the rules so they can respond. Also, I can supply the references in support but would want some assurance no one will take them down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.252.221.130 (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC) I have accidentally given the wrong name, it's Zad68 I have the problem with. Also, as regards Dbrodbeck and McSly, I do not know for sure but have suspicions they are the same person or acting in concert. These suspicions of sock or meat puppetry are based on very similar behavior but also on the fact they indicated they are from the same far corner of Canada. The chance of them acting in such a similar manner and being from the same area seem very small, so I asked them each about it, and they had simllar responses even to that, basically trying to scare me from raising the issue, while not denying it. What would you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.252.221.130 (talk) 18:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

As for the sock puppet accusations, yes I live in Canada. Feel free to open up an SPI with that as your evidence. I have done nothing wrong here. This IP is an SPA that has done nothing but disrupt this project for years now. Last I looked, two people who live in a country of 35 million people is not very strong evidence, but by all means open an SPI. (Oh and I live roughly right in the middle, east to west anyway, of Canada, not in a far flung corner....) Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll come back with the old ANI thread as soon as I find it, where the consensus was to revert this IP on sight, since s/he posts from multiple IPs, DOESN'THEARTHAT, hasn't heard that for years, and the next step is semi-protecting article talk pages, which would not be optimal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Handy shortcut to previous discussion WP:ANI AUTISM IP. --McSly (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• ANI isn't really a place for content disputes or evaluation of sources. However, as a broad overview it looks like Zad68 has acted correctly. Primary sources really shouldn't be used for material that is contentious or likely to be contentious. This is especially true about medical topics since the chance of harm to real persons is high if we include such information. I know this isn't what you wanted to hear, but Wikipedia takes sourcing much more seriously than it once did and, simply put, that isn't going to change. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, but this is not a content dispute-- it is a long-standing behavioral dispute. Wikipedia:ANI AUTISM_IP#Persistent dynamic IP at Talk:Autism, but there are more (for complete context): if I can find them, I'll post them. If others here think it appropriate, this IP should probably also be DENY'd here-- it is persistent and long-standing, and previous consensus has been that the only way to deal with IP is to revert on site. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Ah, I see, looks like I AGF'ed a bit too much on this one. It looks like the IP has heard the facts and if they choose to ignore them then it can hardly be considered our fault. I have no objection to DENY being applied here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

For the background on this, please see this ANI discussion started three months ago by the same autism-focused editor using dynamic IPs from the San Francisco area, and also this ANI discussion from seven months ago regarding the same editor. The consensus from both of those discussions was that this IP editor has a long history - years - of disruptive involvement at autism-related articles pushing the "maternal antibody" theory of autism, and also pushing mention of a commercial test for the antibodies, see for example [208] [209] [210] for the three most recent ones, all improperly sourced. Mention of this theory had been added here. The idea of semi-protecting the article Talk pages had been raised but instead it was decided to try to limit the disruption by simply reverting the IP's disruptive edits, which is what we had been doing. If anybody has any ideas about how to limit this WP:SPA dynamic IP's disruption, we'd love to hear it. Zad68 18:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) More history here. If this continues, the old idea of semi-protecting the talk pages might be necessary. ANd just dealing with edit conflicts because IP has refused to sign his/her talk posts for years is irritation enough. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protect proposal

Considering the years-long history, and the dynamic range of the IP, enough is enough. I propose to finally and unfortunately semi-protect the talk pages at Talk:Autism and Talk:Causes of autism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support ad-hoc semi's for periods of time, maybe a few weeks at a time, as needed. When the problem occurs, we can file a request at WP:RFPP pointing to this ANI discussion. This would be in addition to the existing strategy of reverting the IP's disruptive edits on sight as needed. Unfortunately dynamic IP SPAs do exploit a weakness in Wikipedia's open editing model. Zad68 18:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• The above-referenced pages have been semi-protected. I've never really looked at these talk pages, but on seeing the long history of disruption I agree this is warranted. --Laser brain (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Zad and Sandy, and thank you Laser-brain. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

thanks Laser ... IP's next move is typically to editor talk pages, so watch, revert, deny ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support Semi sounds reasonable. -DJSasso (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support Yes what else can one do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Are we talking indefinite semi-protection of the talk page? If so then it's probably worth creating a subpage for IP users. No comment on the merits of the proposal. N^oformation ^Talk 07:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Removed post where IP continued more of same, [211] DENY. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support, unfortunately looks like this is necessary. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:23, 17 July 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 needed

After being warned to stop creating hoaxes and other factual errors (see previous ANI), User:Peruvian1004 added Álvaro Negredo to Manchester City F.C., diff but that player is not listed at http://www.mcfc.co.uk/Players. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The best I could find are that there are talks [212] going on. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Today, this person created Renato Tapia, allegedly a player for FC Twente. The club's website doesn't know about him, and the article was a rather incomplete modification of Iván Bulos. I have sent the author off for a week. Favonian (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I really should have looked more carefully. According to this, Mr. Renato has indeed signed with Twente's youth squad. Apparently the club only sees fit to list its first team. In my defense, the article was a complete, unhelpful mess, so I won't undelete it. If Renato is deemed notable, an article should be written from scratch. Favonian (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Moderation Needed on Jehovah's Witness Talk Page by Person Never Associated with Jehovah's Witnesses

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:Hell_in_a_Bucket is harassing me with talk that I asked him not to continue in regarding declaring my refusal to speak as "concession". Even after I told him that I would speak to him no further on religious grounds, (He is an ex-Jehovah's Witness and I am a practicing Jehovah's Witness, which requires that I not speak to him about the organization or spiritual matters at all, as explained on the JW page,) he continues to harass me.

I also suspect that User:Jeffro77 is an ex-Jehovah's Witness, and his strong opinions about Jehovah's Witnesses, regardless, excludes both he and User:Hell_in_a_Bucket from being qualified to edit the Jehovah's Witness page objectively. Someone without strong opinions one way or another should be editing the Jehovah's Witnesses page and moderating the discussions on the talk page. --Corjay (talk) 10:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

By harassment he means that I as well as others are requesting, quite respectfully I might add, 3rd party and reliable sourcing. he is trying to make the point that as an Ex witness (which I am only inactive and not sanctioned in anyway) are not able to edit the article objectively whereas he as an active member with "Insider knowledge" found here[[213]]. I'm confident after review we can see that the problem doesn't arise from this end. I would suggest that he read WP:RS, WP:COI and WP:NPOV, of course these can also be applied to myself but I'm also confident that I have observed all of those precedents. Corjay needs to understand that he can't just stop discussion because people disagree and if he does the encyclopedia doesn't get resolution. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry was here to check on my thread above and read this, sorry but I have to comment,

"Even after I told him that I would speak to him no further on religious grounds"

What? No. Sorry. This isnt on. Wow in this day and age? Murry1975 (talk) 10:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I have also alerted the others involved with that discussion as Corjay has failed to do so. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I think OP also needs to read WP:AGF. Assuming that everyone who isn't JW is incapable of editing an article about JW is absurd; not everyone is out to get you and your religion. I'd also add that, regardless of your religious beliefs, you have to speak to him if you want to be able to work together on the same article(s), via the talk page. — Richard BB 10:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

No he doesn't have to but if it involves gaining a consensus he does. When he stated the discussion was ended with 3 editors in agreement against one dissension it logically means it was resolved. He disagreed, said he would come back to discuss and now we find ourselves here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course, this is what I mean. Realistically if there's a debate going on between two or more editors regarding the same article, they at least need to be able to communicate to reach a consensus. — Richard BB 10:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Hell in a Bucket advised me about this complaint. If admins believe I have behaved inappropriately at the article's Talk page, please let me know. Corjay's comments about objectivity are contradicted by his own self-identification as a member of the group. He became suspicious and aggressive when I would not respond to his irrelevant leading questions about religious affiliation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

User:BlackCab, another ex-Jehovah's Witness, has now joined the discussion in spite of my request and has made a statement he intends to make me look bad with because he knows I won't try to defend it. All I ask is for someone who has never been associated with Jehovah's Witnesses to moderate. Seeing as that's still a very large number, that should not be counted as an unreasonable request. --Corjay (talk) 10:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to soapbox for just a moment and do a personal vent. This is precisely why I am inactive in that organization and the sole reason I agreed with Jeffro and BlackCab. The publications are held up to a nearly equal standing with the bible. The publications hold that if you are not a witness you can't talk to them. Jesus never did. If a person is down you pick them up you don't cut them off. It's hateful and harmful. I attempted to express my deep respect for that religion and those who live by that lifestyle as I have in the past to other editors when they have had disagreements on that talkpage. I do not edit the article (other then one or two edits in four years of an extremely small nature), occasionally I edit the talkpage to participate in a discussion. Basically the editor is showing what we were trying to show and discuss on the talkpage. Corjay don/t try to make it sound like I started this you made the threat about reporting me for harassment and I only linked you here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree that the very point being argued (about Andrew Holden's study of the religious group) relates strongly to Corjay's objection to discussion with editors he imagines to be former members of his religion, which is specifically as a result of statements appearing in JW literature.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The harassment by all here is proof. My words are being twisted by the opposers of my faith. I never said "non-Jehovah's Witnesses" couldn't edit the page. In fact, I very clearly requested people who have NEVER been associated with Jehovah's Witnesses. (I'm excluding Jehovah's Witnesses as well.) I also never said anything about anyone being unqualified to be a part of the discussion about the edit. I said they were unqualified to make objective edits to the page. I only want someone who is objective to make a decision on that matter, and to get the ones I complained about off of my back. I have countered every argument. I didn't need proof of anything, because Jeffro77 already provided the links. I was using the links to refute his claims regarding those links. I refuse to talk to Jeffro77, Hell in a Basket and BlackCab on religious grounds. Am I not free to practice my religion and to have others respect it on Wikipedia? If any one of the ones I mention try to answer this, they will not get a reply and I would count such as further harassment. They have made their false accusations and I have countered. All night in fact, here and in that discussion.--Corjay (talk) 11:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

If Corjay holds religious beliefs that make him feel as though he must not speak to certain people or about certain topics, and if that prevents him from being able to meaningfully edit or discuss articles, then it his option to refrain from those topics. His religious beliefs do not preclude any other editors from editing or discussing the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

This is discussion. You're perfectly able to practice your religion but you can't cherry pick about the article if you choose to do so when you come out on the short end of the stick. We are objecting based on Wikipedia policy, You are objecting on the basis of the Religion. Huge difference. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 11:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I hereby state that I am not a Jehovah's Witness, have never been a Jehovah's Witness, and, as far as I can recall, don't know anyone who is a Jehovah's Witness (outside of the well-meaning people that stop by my door now and then). Corjay, so that you don't have to read what the other's above wrote, I'll re-explain it to you: you are absolutely welcome to practice your religion. Wikipedia, though, is a privately owned website, and thus can set any rules it wants. One of our rules is that when editors disagree about how an article should be edited, then they must discuss the matter on the talk page. You are stating that you categorically refuse to discuss article's with certain editors on certain talk pages. That's fine--but it means that you can't then fight about how the articles should be edited. You are welcome to edit the article, but if another editor reverts you, you have two choices--you can either leave it reverted, or you can discuss the matter with them. Those are our rules. You're welcome to stay or go, but if you want to stay, you have to follow our rules. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Um, just to point out here: someone who is a member of the organization has just as much (if not more) WP:COI than someone who is a former member. Requesting that only current members can edit most certainly removes any possibility of objectivity. There's a reason that we suggest that those with WP:COI not directly edit the article - and current and ex-members both have COI, and neither usually has a WP:NPOV. Current members, or past-sanctionned members of an organization CERTAINLY do not have neutral POV's. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I never meant for words regarding Jeffro77 to be counted as a complaint. My complaint is against only the two: Hell in a Basket and BlackCab. All of Jeffro's statements have been above board, and I do not find fault with them. But the other two made clear efforts to harass me. As for the last comment there, I am seeking an objective decision. That is all. I'm not saying anyone doesn't have a right to chime in. And thanks for clarifying. :) --Corjay (talk) 11:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to request an Administrator to please look over the talkpage and please read what harassment or otherwise inappropriate edits have been made. Please so we can close this. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 11:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I have made no such edits.

By the way, NO ONE ever informed me of what I needed to do to make that portion of the article in the discussion more fair, or what proof I might need to counter it. Now that I've read the NPOV, I can address such things after I get some sleep. --Corjay (talk) 11:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The WP:NPOV page makes clear that all editors have a point of view. I certainly have a point of view about the Jehovah's Witnesses. What Wikipedia seeks, and I strive to adhere to, is that the article relies on RS, and is fair, accurate, balanced and editorially neutral. I believe the JW article is. BlackCab (talk) 11:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

It appears to me that Corjay is clearly unfit to edit the JW article, and so are others with strong opinions on JW that affect their editing. LiquidWater 12:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

In reading through do you see anything in the discussion that was inappropriate or otherwise not neutral in the discussion? I really do my best to respect those that choose that lifestyle, because it isn't an easy one and I honestly believe that my comments were only aimed at keeping the article in a good state. When he misunderstood a comment I made, I immediately tried to clarify what I meant. I think that Jw's and non-Jw's, ex-Jw's etc need to be on that page to ensure it doesn't get totally unbalanced one way or the other. the key is being able to work together to accomplish that (WP:BRD). The main thing I'm trying to say is I do want to work with him and other Jw's to make sure this article is fair, that's extremely important to me. I'm very sorry he can't/won't see that. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing grossly inappropriate in the discussion, apart from that the discussion could have been far more civil. I urge you to take this matter to dispute resolution, where a third party can have a look. And BTW, if Corjay refuses to engage in a conversation with some users on religious grounds, it should be seen as refusing to cooperate with users with opposing views. LiquidWater 12:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I opened a request per your advice here [[214]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:51, 18 July 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.

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.

---

Resolved

Hi all, User:Boomer Patrol is making some personal attacks against me at WT:Main Page.

The relevant diff is [215]. It would be appreciated if an admin could have a chat with this user, and remind them of our WP:NPA policies and so forth. I would appreciate not being subjected to this abuse from this account in future. Thankyou, ★★RetroLord★★ 13:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMain_Page&diff=564786471&oldid=564785720 is an additional diff. Note such highlights as "Retrodumb" and "moron". ★★RetroLord★★ 13:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

""Word count is not a measure of encyclopedic value". You're not attending a special school are you? How dumb do you have to be to be able to make these sorts of claims? What the fuck are those 20,000 words detailing, if it's largely things of unencyclopedic value? Why don't you go and tell the people who wrote those words that they're just filling up Wikipedia with shit? Better yet, why don't you ask for the articles to be deleted? You won't? Why is that? Is it because you're full of shit?" Another gem from our good friend Boomer Patrol. ★★RetroLord★★ 13:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry. The user has been warned, and will be instantly blocked if there's another word of a similar nature. Bishonen | talk 13:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC).

"I just realised I'm talking to someone who calls himself "1st Lord Baron Wikipedia". Fucking hell. If only the real world knew that space cadets like you on the inside are the people deciding what Wikipedia looks like to the outside." He didn't stop after he was warned. Could we do something please? ★★RetroLord★★ 13:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

His Excellency will be pleased the disruption has been stopped. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• The user has been blocked, Your Majesty. Bishonen with her finger on the trigger, 13:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC).

Although, someone who calls themself "1st Lord Baron Wikipedia" is asking for cracks about it, as has already been warned ... but yes, in this case, the belligerant behaviour was above and beyond simple "cracks" and a block of some length was needed (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Bwilkins you have already made your point you dissaprove of my regal-ness. I don't think someones name/title/position or anything else on wiki excuses in any way at all this sort of abuse. ★★RetroLord★★ 14:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's what I said - you did read my comment, right? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Methinks it's time to salt the talkpage and possibly extend the block [[216]]. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Would be nice if he would stop spouting mindless hate from his talkpage. ★★RetroLord★★ 14:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

For goodness' sake, let the guy vent. He's already been blocked, so, thank God, he can no longer wreak havoc with our precious encyclopaedia. If what he writes on his talk page disturbs you, then don't read it. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

If we applied that principle he would never have been blocked in the first place. The guy was full on ranting non stop at ME and at wikipedia as a whole. I certainly don't appreciate some kid bitching because Trayvon Martin isn't plastered all over the front page of wikipedia, which is what he originally came to whine about. ★★RetroLord★★ 15:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You're most right! It's not like this trifling matter is in the news all over the world. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The guy was warned about 8 times. He was then reverted three or four more times. I think he had enough chances to stop his crusade before he was blocked. 15:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

It is all over the world, but it's the attacks and expressions of bad faith that got him blocked. I don't care about venting as long as he isn't spewing hostility directed at the entire community. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

...and that's exactly what I was thinking when I extended the block and removed talkpage access over a half-hour ago. Venting is fine within limits. Continued abuse is not (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:51, 18 July 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:Jphillips23

I wouldn't normally interfere in others affairs, but I have to report User:Jphillips23 for consistently edit warring to the point of vandalism on the Big Five (banks) page. This user is using bullying tactics, making up false tales of consensus, and providing false references. 24.114.78.29 (talk) 02:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Nothing might happen here unless you provide some more information and diff's to validate your claims.  A m i t  ❤  18:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to put this in context, the reporter is a single-purpose anon ip reporting me for "vandalism" (See contrib history; this is its first and only contribution to Wikipedia). Most likely, this is retaliation by another sockpuppet of User:UrbanNerd, who has a long history of being blocked and was banned indefinitely last week. Please see the linked discussion page for his history of uncivil behavior and evading bans with sockpuppets. In fact, his most recent sockpuppet ip was blocked just yesterday. Jphillips23 (talk) 03:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Threat of outing and real life retribution

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

---

In this comment, User:AviationHist1 appears to be threatening unnamed editors with outing in a book he's writing, and "alerting the major media" with their names and "insidious" actions. This is aimed at "a group of rogue editors that collude" to hinder his wishes at several articles, all on the topic of aviation pioneer Gustave Whitehead. The unnamed editors who have been opposing his are myself, User:DonFB, User: Carroll F. Gray, and User:GraemeLeggett. Binksternet (talk) 20:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

And do you think a genuine publisher would publish it? Have you any concept of how many books are threatened to be written - and how few actually see the light of day? There is an adage Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof which likely should be a byword for such stuff. Meanwhile, if you or others undertake real actions against this benighted person, then you vastly increase the odds that he will actually follow through. IOW, do not feed the trolls. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

If only there was a block for illogical threats too he might have got one - Agree on the above, don't feed the trolls. Currently there is no proof that he has any knowledge of your personal information so how does it become outing? He is free to write any book he wants about his opinion of Wikipedia and call editors what ever he wishes to call without outing personal information. Also at the same time beware of the BOOMERANG as it also looks like a content dispute going out of your hand.  A m i t  ❤  20:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Boomerang? Me? I have not threatened anybody. I stand by my editing at that article. Binksternet (talk) 22:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Of course someone who makes personal threats about real life retaliation for editing disputes need to be sanctioned no matter how likely or unlikely it is that they will be able to carry out the threat. A threat is a threat, and is one too many. If you make threats against other editors you have no business editing wikipedia. Unless the threat is retracted AviationHist should be blocked.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:26, 18 July 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 address saying racist and profane language

1.) "Wikipedia is armenian liars site. Fuck all armenians!!!!!" 2.) Removing huge chunks of information relating to Armenia and Armenians. With another edit here.

Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

IP hasn't edited in a couple days, and since it's a dial-up it may have moved on to a different user by now. Nothing left to do but revert and ignore. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Someguy1221 (talk · contribs), just for the heads up, it may be this user, [217]. Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

User has competence issues with reviewing

User:Lgcsmasamiya has reviewed quite a few pages but seems to have problems with the basics of page curation. Their talk page content going back to December 2012 consists largely of messages that one or another page that they reviewed has been unreviewed. I discovered this after looking at the Page curation log and seeing several pages reviewed by this user with no tags added, checked them. I wound up adding linkrot tags to four, Taiwanese Presbyterian Church in Asuncion, 2013 New Mexico Lobos football team, I'm on Fire (mixtape), and Evangelical Methodist Church in Bolivia, (and more needed them) before going to put a friendly note on the user's talk page and seeing all the previous messages. Seems to be an issue of CIR, and the user hasn't improved over the last six months despite many messages. A block seems draconian, but I'm not sure how else to get their attention and limit the need for do-overs on the articles they've touched. JanetteDoe (talk) 04:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

User notified. JanetteDoe (talk) 04:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Blocks needs to be made, to prevent users from doing further harm, if they have not already stopped the actions. I noticed many of his reviewed articles, they surely are not in good shape and he has not taken time to put maintenance tags on them either.  A m i t  ❤  15:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I have blocked the editor for 1 week. I don't do new page curation, so if anyone sees him doing this again, feel free to contact me directly--the user simply has to become a part of the community, and engage in processes collaboratively and correctly. It's a shame, because it looks like the user is creating some good content...but the causing significant amounts of work for others is a problem that has to stop. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot the other thing that prompted me to block: in over 2800 edits, they have only 4 actual edits to talk pages, despite the dozens and dozens of threads opened on their user talk page indicating problems with their editing. We need this user to communicate, and sadly it seems like only a block has a chance of making that happen. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/121.222.190.130

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.

---

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

A blatant copy-and-paster warned multiple times about copyright. A block is warranted a.s.a.p. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:03, 19 July 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.

Capt S D Wong

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

User Capt S D Wong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), admits here that he is either related to (though I think it is sarcasm) or is Sum ding wong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Sum ding wong was blocked for abusing multiple accounts in 2009. Aside for this, his comments at the first diff are awfully negative toward User:Baseball Bugs, and he may have a axe to grind given that he brought up a four-year-old post to AIV. His username(s) is a pun on "Some thing wrong", and in light of Asiana Airlines Flight 214, could be very insensitive. Contrary to his talk page, I don't think he is "here to improve the encyclopedia". Apologies if anything is out of order, this is my first post to AN/I to report someone. Chris857 (talk) 00:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for trolling. Tiptoety ^talk 01:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't recall the incident at all, but in looking at the short list of visible contribs he had 4 years ago, I'm guessing he had some more which were deleted by admins. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:52, 18 July 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.

Jehovah's Witnesses

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:Corjay is continuing on assumptions of bad faith, Blp violations and general WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior at the Jehovah's Witness articles. Blp consist of calling an academic person an opposer because he is judging him by his actions [[218]]. He has been shown the relative policy quote by myself [[219]] and his reply is [[220]] which states it's ok because he doesn't want him to be part of the article. He is calling anyone who disagrees with the organization opposers including article contributors. He is generally refusing to accept anything to the article that isn't positive as stated "If someone else wants to provide the third party positive assessment, then this discussion will be finally over.--Corjay (talk) 07:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC) " I'm not bringing this to the BLP because it's the user's generally inability to work with others with a dissenting view. He is also refusing to engage in dispute resolution stating "I don't care for maintaining multiple pages concerning one discussion. I have enough on my plate just addressing this discussion. Feel free to make me look as bad as you like on that page" I think that at this point a short term block or a strongly stressed warning is due. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

His most recent response to the policies is [[221]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not calling anyone who disagrees with the organization an opposer. I am calling those who have taken a clear stand in opposition to the organization "opposers". I appeal. --Corjay (talk) 10:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it might be germane to start thinking about a topic ban for this editor. They clearly cannot get along in the collegial/community environment that is Wikipedia, as of yet. They may need to go off and work in corners of this project that do not elicit such anger and poor behaviour, find a mentor, and learn to recognize that ALL backgrounds and ALL personal points of view are vital to the success of every article. Calling editors names and refusing to accept someone's edits because of their POV is unacceptable anywhere (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

There has also already been one discussion here [[222]]. I think if we do that it should at least have a limited timeframe as this is probably the first time there has been an issue with them. Still trying to assume good faith a bit Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

"Opposer" is not "name calling". It's an identification of position. "Jerk" is name-calling, which I have not called anyone. You're the one who attempted the insults. (Or was that BlackCab?) --Corjay (talk) 10:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Which is completely POV and as I've mentioned at least in my case and opinion, hurtful and defamatory about me personally. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• I've just read a great quantity of talk page content related to this dispute and found that it was unproductive argument over ideology. Both editors (Corjay and HIB) are cautioned to avoid using Wikipedia to argue about ideology. I hope that a word to the wise is sufficient. Corjay has a clear block log and has been editing since 2008. I think it would be premature to discuss a topic ban when this simple guidance might be sufficient. Jehochman ^Talk 10:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I contend that because Hell in a Bucket has been deeply involved in the discussion that he is too invested to be bringing my membership up for review. I contend that someone not involved in the discussion must be the one to do so. The ideology discussion ended yesterday when I found out he was an ex-Jehovah's Witness. You need to read more of it. --Corjay (talk) 10:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Which part of "his membership or ex-membership is 100% irrelevant to the editing of a Wikipedia article" are you having the most trouble understanding here. Get that into your head: your membership or HIS ex-membership are irrelevant. It's Wikipedia's rules that are at work here, not your beliefs (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

And the above is why I mentioned WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The two administrators here have had no involvement at all and it's still not sufficient, and as I have told him before I am not an ex-jehovahs witness which is still defamatory to me. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I won't be participating in the Jehovah's Witness discussion any further. It's clearly overrun. You very clearly stated you are inactive, and you stand regarding our policies very clearly puts you in opposition to the organization, which is automatic disassociation. --Corjay (talk) 10:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to try and state this one more time, I am not an ex-member nor have I disassociated myself. Your statements are cause for concern in my personal life and can have negative effects on it. I am asking you to abide by the BLP policy and refrain from stating that about me on this website. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Granted, Hell in a Bucket. You need to review pp.155-156 in Organized to do Jehovah's Will. (2005) --Corjay (talk) 11:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

No. He doesn't. This is Wikipedia, not JW-land. No editor here 'needs' to review anything in a Watch Tower Society publication about rules of conduct for JWs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't really mind what he puts up in that regard. I just cared about his defamatory statements, if he is willing to stop that I'm not going to push that. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 11:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Corjay has made multiple attacks on a published and widely-cited English sociologist, claiming he is not objective, not a researcher, opposed to Jehovah's Witnesses and a poison-pen writer[223][224]; can not be taken seriously by other academics,[225]; that he does nothing as an academic but obsess over Jehovah's Witnesses, has a clear bias,[226]; took part in a study initiative involving Muslims only because he was paid to, but would rather have attacked JWs;[227]; has a vendetta against JWs; [228]; an outright opposer of JWs[229]; and is an obsessed ex-JW.[230]. Corjay has brushed off my warning about personal attacks. Holden is a reputable academic and such personal attacks by an unrepentant bigot deserve to be sanctioned. BlackCab (talk) 10:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Calling him a bigot is pretty extreme. I think his zeal has it's place but not on this website in current form and would also point out [[231]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

No one has presented any evidence that Holden is "noted in his field of study" as per Wikipedia guidelines. --Corjay (talk) 11:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

University of Lancaster is one of the best universities for research in the world and he is a researcher there. It's pretty apparent he is an expert sociologist. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 11:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

No, what is clear is that he somehow has the qualifications to fill the position. But to say that he is "widely-cited" requires proof, not conjecture. The fact that he never had a published paper before joining the university shows that being published was not a requirement of his being hired. --Corjay (talk) 11:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The fact that he is widely cited is self-evident.[232]--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

That argument has been raised on the talk page and at a DRN which Corjay chose to snub. There is no reason to raise these issues again here. BlackCab (talk) 11:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't "snub" it, as you say. I said I don't have the ability to divide my attention to two different pages. I had my hands full with the one. --Corjay (talk) 11:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

"Self-evident" is not proof, Jeffro. It's a cop-out instead of providing actual proof. --Corjay (talk) 11:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

No, it is self-evident from the link I provided to the search results that demonstrate that Holden is widely cited. It appears that you do not have the sufficient skills to be here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Why are we even talking about this? Clearly no one has any proof of the claim that Holden is a quotable NPOV authority per Wikipedia guidelines. Being published is only one of the qualifications. --Corjay (talk) 11:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

He's been interviewed in multiple mediums over his books, and has said very nice things about them too. Here's excerpts one of his transcripts [[233]]

• "So when the Witnesses proselytise to us on our doorsteps, I think this has a very kind of positive role to play and a very effective role to play in reaffirming their belief. "
• I think I have to reiterate my point that I think that certain kinds of people that might be looking for certainty, looking for answers in a world that just poses kind of confusion and questions, I think once they start listening to the Witnesses and they start allowing the Witnesses to explain their theology, it does appeal to commonsense cognitive processes I think, and while I might not find that particular belief system appealing, I can see that it certainly appeals to others.
• I mean my books is primarily intended for an academic audience rather than people with very strict religious convictions.
• Well I think what I'm trying to do in the book is help to illustrate what I see as a social phenomenon rather than a theological one, so the validity of the Witnesses' theology, is not something for social scientists to worry about.
• Now I have met some awfully nice men and women who are Jehovah's Witnesses, I do have some kind of sympathy, if not empathy, with certain aspects of their theology, but most of the theology I don't go along with, and I hope I haven't written the kind of book that reads as though I am kind of making their theology appear very sane in some way, that wasn't really my intention, as I say, my main intention was to help to illuminate a social phenomenon, not a theological one.
• "No, though as I said earlier, surprisingly the Witnesses didn't really ask me about what I believed. I would describe myself as a kind of moderate Catholic rather than a kind of blinkered Catholic in that sense.

But no, that didn't really come out of any of the conversations I had with them, because I think that one of the reasons for that was that they knew that I was quite well versed in their theology, and they couldn't say to me, 'Well, you know, you're asking me these questions because you don't really understand us,' it was quite clear that I did understand what the Witnesses believed, quite a lot anyway, and didn't really judge them." Hell In A Bucket (talk) 11:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is not pertinent to the complaint. Issues over Holden's use as a source need to be taken to other noticeboards. BlackCab (talk) 11:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

My concern is this user's refusal to collaborate and a refusal to retract his personal attack on Holden. BlackCab (talk) 11:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it actually highlights the NPOV issues and if you see here [234] just one of his essays is cited in 44 other papers. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 11:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I mixed pages in my head on the Wikipedia guidelines. He is citable because of the publishing house, Routledge. I forgot about that. As for your quotes, they are belied by his use of the words "quasi-totalitarian" and "regime" in very unflattering ways in his articles. And I have read passages from the book when I went to the book store last year. It was quite offensive because it focused, once again, on negative aspects and highlighted the organizations flaws. He may not have ever been a Witness, but that doesn't mean he's not opposed. Maybe he doesn't even realize how negative he is being, but he is. --Corjay (talk) 11:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

You don't seem to grasp that neutral includes good and bad without discrimination. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 11:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• A subjective assessment of the article by a previously involved editor: Holden's book is the single best recent source about Jehovah's Witnesses. It is an academic analysis of JW believes and practices based on ethnographic research, and not an opinion piece for either a pro or an anti JW viewpoint. Indeed it could be used by either of the two camps for different purposes. The JW article has been maintained in a reasonably stable and neutral state because of a basically permanent standoff between practicing JW editors and ex-JWs and general Anti-religion editors. Care should be taken not to upset this balance. Jeffro77 is rather consistently a neutral and balanced editor in my opinion, who certainly always has the encyclopedia's best interest in mind User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• • My observation, is that Corjay is now attempting to disengage. He is dropping his claim that Holden is not an expert (let's be clear he doesn't have to agree with Holden, just not state opinions about him here on the pedia.). He has made BLP errors which hopefully will not be repeated. If he will assure the community that this will be the case regarding BLP let's let this go. It's time to let him and us disengage. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I wish to disengage. I still don't agree, (I think third party assessments require their own section and should not be mixed in with doctrinal information on any organization's page,) but yes, I must concede on account of the policy. I split hairs until I couldn't split anymore. My focus, as I'm sure you're aware, was to remove what I felt was a biased and inaccurate statement that I found offensive. (Inaccurate, but one can't argue that it was a "complete falsehood" because of the semantics involved and the lack of understanding of an outside observer not being able to comprehend the mindset.) I understand now, by seeing Holden's extra-textual statements, that he may not even be aware of his bias, the way a white person may not be aware of their giving off prejudicial signals in regard to black people. (I'm perfectly aware of my own bias against those with antithetical sentiments, but now I understand more the observer angle.) --Corjay (talk) 16:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for Corjay

LiquidWater 19:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC) I am uninvolved (I looked into this in the other thread), but I feel that Corjay should be topic banned to avoid further drama on JW articles and talk pages. I therefore suggest the following topic ban:

1. Corjay is banned indefinitely from editing articles related to Jehovah's Witnesses, including talk pages.

2. Shall he fail to comply, an indefinite block may be imposed on him.

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:TransVannian

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

---

I'm really, really beginning to get sick to death of this user deliberately misrepresenting everything myself and others say. Let's start with a bit of background: TransVannian (talk · contribs) was discussing a particular edit on the Talk:2012 Delhi gang rape case, which was an edit against consensus. There's a DRN open about the edit, but this really isn't the issue. The issue I have with TransVannian is that they're constantly ignoring what people say, misrepresenting what people say, or simply making things up. They're also throwing personal attacks around like nobody's business, and whilst I have perhaps been uncivil at times, I certainly haven't accused people of lying several times over without a shred of evidence - and with evidence present clearly proving that I was not lying:[235][236] The user seems to think that the Daily Mirror is a reliable source in that second diff, and, as with a lot of things, any attempt to inform them what Wikipedia's policies are was met by a weird response, and even accusations that the more experienced editors are the ones misunderstanding policy: see [237] as an example of this. There is definitely a competence issue here, as the user admits here. The user has had several "final warnings", or other strong warnings from admins for their personal attacks: User:Drmies most recently here, but also User:RegentsPark here and User:Qwyrxian here, in addition to the non-admin user User:TheOriginalSoni, who also left a final warning.In addition to this, the user will insult me/accuse me of various things on various talk pages, but does not link my name into it, despite me asking him to several times; an attempt to defend myself on their talkpage is met by a point-blank removal like this, and yet I don't recall him ever asking me to stay away from his talkpage; although I have requested that he stays off of mine. So, what should be done? He's had plenty of warnings about personal attacks and being disruptive, some of which were final warnings, and yet he still persists. I think he should get a lengthy block, but this is here for the community to discuss. I'm going to use Echo to notify the involved editors as I am not allowed to post on TransVannian's talk: so User:The Banner, User:Cabe6403, User:Khazar2, User:Gandydancer and User:I Jethrobot have all had some involvement in this dispute, somewhere down the line. If anyone else wants to apply templates, feel free. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I excuse myself from this thread. Any more TransVannian non-discussion and I get wild as I am losing my cool. The Banner talk 21:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but I didn't realize those comments were from Regent sparks and other users who were not involved in 2012 Delhi gang rape discussion. If I would have I would never have deleted them. Also I'll like to say during the whole discussion I have been the most civil and it is the above users who keepaking things up. They're trying to strong-arm because they think including the name of the victim is a disrespect to her. They're trying to enforce their views. I ask the admins to not to allow this and block them both. TransVannian (talk) 21:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• I blocked TransVannian for 24 hours for making personal attacks and for non-collaboration. The non-collaboration sticks out like a sore thumb. I took a narrow view of the personal attacks because I wanted to make sure that the attack occurred after the editor was warned. User:Qwyrxian warned] the user of his attacks on Lukeno94 at WP:DRN. Despite that warning, the user repeated essentially the same behavior, actually worse, in this subsequent edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:39, 19 July 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.

Kingstowngalway

Kingstowngalway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a longtime editor who for at least the last month has been adding numerous inappropriate categories to Wikipedia articles, and adding inappropriate entries to categories that he did not create, creating numerous BIO and BLP violations. I can do diffs, but there are many, and my contribs for today are almost all reversion of this user's activity. Therefore, I think it's reached the point where it needs to be addressed by admins and tools. There are several "police misconduct in <X country>" cats which are all about Gestapo officers and Nazi actions, which is not the same thing. KTG added "Catholic priests convicted of murder" to priests who were stated to have been defrocked prior to their crimes. He created two defamatory "Freemasons convicted of crimes" cats, and the majority of the people he added to those cats were objectively provable to not be members at the time of the crime by dint of the information in the article. He also added police misconduct cats to bio articles where the article indicated nothing was proven. I went back a few weeks of contribs, and I'm still finding issues, so this is probably too big for me to continue to work at individually. MSJapan (talk) 21:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Just for context this really relates to only two categories that came up on the Project Freemasonry board where a number of Wikipedians who also happen to be Freemasons co-ordinate efforts to combat what they perceive to be hostile edits on Freemasonry. Playing the man rather than the ball is a pretty typical MO for MSJapan (I've had this treatment myslelf). I'd recommend that this discussion be closed and MSJapan politely pointed back to category discussion pages, which he has already started. This is simply an attempt to besmirch a blameless editor, Kingstongalway, and should not be encouraged. JASpencer (talk) 07:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, while this spins out of two categories (which are being taken care of at CFD), the extent of the problem is much larger than those two categories, and relates to categories as far-ranging as Category:Police misconduct in Germany, Category:Police misconduct in France, Category:American police officers convicted of murder, Category:Catholic priests convicted of murder, and a few others. MSJapan (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I might also add that JAS is not here accidentally; KTG directly asked him for help rather than respond here on ANI. However, to allay any fears of "playing the man", here's some evidence of "the ball":

• The main CFD, where I have outlined every issue with every article in the cat, which was created and populated entirely by KTG.
• cats added without proof in article: [238], [239], [240], [241]
• cats added incorrectly based on article information: [242],[243],[244]
• Overall category issues - Category:Police misconduct in Nazi-occupied Poland is nothing but articles on Gestapo officers, none of which is police misconduct. Category:Police misconduct in France and Category:Police misconduct in Germany are exactly the same, nothing but Gestapo officers. In short, the category doesn't even follow its own function. Category:Catholic priests convicted of murder, as noted above, contained many entries of priests who were clearly defrocked before they committed their crimes, much less were convicted of them.

In short, the editor in question is not editing based on the information in the articles, and is often editing contrary to the cited information presented (meaning that subjects are in cats they simply don't belong in), and this is a pattern that has gone on for at least a month, if not more, in disparate areas. MSJapan (talk) 13:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

A look at Kingstowngalway's user talk page is instructive. It is full of CFD notifications related to categories he created, and complaints about placing people in categories inappropriately... It's clear that his concept of appropriate categorization is at odds with the rest of the community. There is cause for concern here. Blueboar (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

No Blueboar, his talkpage is full because he is an active and longstanding editor who does not archive his talkpage. Your talk page would be far worse if you did not delete without archiving all warnings and other talkpage activity against userpage guidelines. We can see that in comparing his block record (no blocks) with yours (3 blocks for disruptive editing). ANI is simply not the correct forum for this handbags at dawn behaviour. JASpencer (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) A few more items:

• One person placed in three different "police misconduct by country" cats: [245]. When a cat was removed by someone else as being inappropriate [246], KTG created a new one and put it in instead [247]
• Large questionable edits: [248] reverted for lack of sourcing. A block of text in George Sayer's bio that's a personal recollection of Sayer's about Tolkien [249].
• POV edit and blocktext without established relevance: changing "death" to "assassination" when the article indicates it was not, including a wall of text that appears to have no relation to the article subject or his death. [250]
• unsourced inflammatory material/language introduced in Death squad: [251], [252]
• changing cited material: [253]
• POV edit changing "alleged" to "known" and implying false pretense: [254]
• BLP violation with no citation, removed by a later editor [255]

I don't believe I've gone back more than a few weeks of edits on any of this. MSJapan (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Summary deletion of a former Ethiopian Minister of Finance

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 newbie user recently created a new article for Teferra Wolde-Semait, who was Minister of Finance for Ethiopia 1975-1982. The article was good and contained many facts, but not perfect, as the creator is a new user not entirely unaccustomed to encyclopedic writing, but already other users including myself had begun the gradual task of cleaning it up. Then suddenly User:Jimfbleak unilaterally deleted it without any discussion claiming it was "promotional". I asked him to restore it, but he says it is "spammy". Are some people like blind when cabinet ministers are from Ethiopia and not other countries, or can this article on him not be restored? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 06:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The above user didn't see fit to tell me that he/she was posting here, but I inadvertently stumbled across it anyway. I replied to him/her here offering to userfy the deleted text to Til Eulenspiege's or Woldesemait's userpage for improvement. I don't think it's appropriate to just restore the page as it stands when neither Til Eulenspiegel or Woldesemait has indicated the slightest intention of making it a neutral referenced article (which can be done initially in userspace). Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm also not sure why this posting is on this page. There seems to be an accusation that I'm anti-Ethiopian, but I would have thought that more evidence was required than the fact that I've deleted one article. On that basis, I'm also anti-American, anti-British, anti-French... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The article explained how notable and prominent he was in the Ethiopian government, because of the fact that he was very notable and prominent in the Ethiopian government, yet you called it a 'hagiography'. What, no second opinion? He was finance minister at a very crucial time for Ethiopia as the article explains. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 07:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Jimfbleak. Sentences like "After patiently serving for many years with prudence and competence..." or "Mr. Teferra Wolde-Semait gained admiration and respect by many in Africa and at the international level." or "After patiently serving for many years with prudence and competence, satisfying his job responsibilities while in a very difficult role and position" don't belong in an encyclopedia article, especially as none of them are actually sourced inline ... indeed there are no inline sources at all. I'm sure the person is notable, but this article as it stands isn't acceptable. Just ask for it to be userfied and fix the problems. Black Kite (talk) 08:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• Of course those parts you quoted as written by the newbie user, would have been removed before much longer, had the article not been so quickly deleted on the whim of a single person. Why does it have to be fixed in "userspace" when most problematic articles normally get fixed by editors in "article-space"? There definitely seems to be some kind of knee-jerk 'delete' reaction to articles about Cabinet Ministers from Third World countries around here - that we hardly ever see with say, EU country cabinet ministers. Maybe I should just stop contributing so much to the English wikipedia and stick to building more sensible language wikipedias, it's just too painful to keep dealing with these Neanderthal thick-as-a-brick attitudes of bias that I see recurrently. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• You're going to get nowhere with accusations of bias, and in fact you are running very close to violating WP:NPA. Personally, I would have deleted that article as well, regardless of which country the individual was from. Not to mention that quite apart from the hagiography aspects (and the fact it really does read as having been copied from somewhere - very probably a newspaper obituary), it's effectively simply unsourced. We do not fix problems like that in articlespace; if it had been presented at WP:AFC, it would have been rejected. Now, do you want the article restored to userspace (or that of the creator) so the problems can be fixed, or not? If so, just ask. Black Kite (talk) 12:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

NO - I want it restored immediately to article-space where it belongs, so the problems can be fixed. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:52, 20 July 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.

Hellomynameisandrew19991999

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 all,

This individual has engaged in a systematic war on terror consensus and is edit warring like mad. He has also recently done a few personal attacks. He has been banned once, and has used sockpuppetry in the past. Diffs below.

[256] " I'm not the dumb one you stupid retard"

He has pretty much rejected consensus at every turn, and evidence of this can be seen at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board. ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 06:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

(Also see block request below) ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 06:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Block request

Hellomynameisandrew19991999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This account was set up 14 July and blocked the same day for 3 days for "Blatantly logging out to continue an edit war at Thérèse Rein"[257] He returned 20 July (today) and is edit-warring on the same article[258], Tim Mathieson, Janette Howard and other articles. He posted a note on the talk page with an editor with whom he had a disagreement beginning, "Excuse me, I'm not the dumb one you stupid retard."[259]

I request an indefinite block.

TFD (talk) 06:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support I have warned this user, as have many others. He had plenty of rope and didn't use it all that well. Former sockpuppeteer also. ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 06:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
• I have blocked them for two weeks for the personal attack mentioned and disruptive editing, but any admin may feel free to extend the block if they see fit. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 07:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I postulated somewhere else that this username may indicate a birth year of 1999, and thus an age of 13 or 14. As an Australian high school teacher, I can confirm that the "stupid retard" comment would fit very well with this theory. I suspect we're dealing with some real WP:COMPETENCE issues here. I have nothing against teenagers editing Wikipedia. I encourage it. But the seeming inability to comprehend what he's doing wrong makes this person's participation problematic. HiLo48 (talk) 10:22, 20 July 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.

220.79.7.7/Cntiger100

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.

---

IP user 220.79.7.7 made three edits to page Gook that were clear vandalism and blanked their talk page to remove the vandalism notifications, then new user Cntiger100 made same vandalism to Gook page. 198.199.134.100 (talk) 08:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Cntiger100 blocked for a week. In future, WP:AIV is probably a better place to report this, but thanks! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:23, 20 July 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.

67.87.140.155

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.

---

67.87.140.155 has been posting fake volumes on Disney's Sing Along Songs recently. These are proven to be hoaxes. I warned him three times to stop it, but to no avail. He was blocked one time, and earlier today he was adding fake volumes to the said article again. Thankfully, I have reverted it. ACMEWikiNet (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

If true, the page needs to be semi-protected for a while. You might want to try WP:RFPP, as they are usually fairly prompt. Leave this here, too, in case someone sees it here first. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:46, 20 July 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:Archcaster

I - and others - have clashed with this editor on numerous occasions, and they seem unwilling to engage in positive discussion, and have even resorted to improperly using warning templates (Cause, Effect). Archcaster has been blocked in the past for edit warring, and they have gotten into situations with other users before. In the case of the Fairy Guy article mentioned previously, Archcaster is well aware not to create articles WP:TOOSOON (as is the case here). Archcaster has previously attempted to apply for Reviewer multiple times, the last time trying to suppress information which they then improperly warned me for, before practicing incivility one final time. They then suppressed my information a second time (all it really was were links to his past submissions). Ultimately, Archcaster was denied Reviewer permissions. While going through their edits to list here, I noticed Archcaster was the subject of a previous discussion, so there's that too.

The reason why I'm opening a discussion here is that I'm at a loss of what to do. Obviously Archcaster is not willing to edit collaboratively, so I'm curious as to what the next step should be. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 02:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I do edit collabratively, I just don't like users like you always stalking my edits for no apparent reason. Ok really, how can the article Fairy Guy be WP:TOOSOON? It was just announced on the San Diego International Comic-Con, like I mentioned before on your talk page. Also, do not tell me that I'm abusing the general/warning templates, if I put a general warning on your talk page, and you don't like me doing that, you don't have to be like your so important just because your a admin and tell me that I'm abusing my position working with TW. I tried talking to you about this, and the other discussions we had, but it seems you want to take this what ever this is to a new level, I don't mind, because I was just wondering how can a admin just report a user without even discussing what was the problem? --拱連鑄機談話 03:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator. In this case, you warned me for not using an edit summary and blanking the Fairy Guy page without reason (which there was a summary and a reason for both of my edits). This would be improperly warning someone. I'm not reporting you by opening a discussion here. That's what this is for. Discussing. With administrators. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 03:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

First of all, it was not a warning, it was just a general message saying about the blanking of Fairy Guy, not telling you that you didn't edit the summary. Second of all, I did explain to you why I send the message, it was because the episode was announced at the San Diego International Comic-Con 2013, as well as other episodes from different shows that I will be creating if it's official, I don't know yet. As well as last's year comic con, Family Guy creator Seth MacFarlane announced a episode called Into Fat Air which was the season premiere of Season 11, which is going to be the same as Fairy Guy as the season premiere of Season 12, or maybe not because Comic-Con isn't even over yet, they'll probably talk about more episodes that will be premiering on Season 12. --拱連鑄機談話 04:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

"It was just announced on the San Diego International Comic-Con, like I mentioned before on your talk page." is the very definition of WP:TOOSOON. Archcaster, you may want to consider toning down your abrasive attitude. Your treating this like a fight that can be "won". GSK is a pretty established, and fairly reasonable, editor around here and can be a source of advice. I suggest you listen.--v/r - TP 13:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I have had massive problems with Archcaster as well. He repeatedly tried removing cited information from List of American Dad episodes for no legitimate reason. I reported him for breaking the three revert rule, and he was promptly blocked. He then opened a request for unblock, which paints me in an incredibly negative light as opposed to showing reasons why he should be unblocked. I posted a comment, where I thoroughly analyzed his claims. However, he immediately reverted my comment, using the logic "not an admin" which reeks of censorship. He also later reverted a comment by Bbb23, who is an admin, so I'm unsure of his logic here. In short, it seems Archcaster is unwilling to edit collaboratively and is uncivil. Something should be done. Beerest355 Talk 02:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: behavioral issues, see Archcaster's contributions from today alone. I'm inclined to side with Beerest355 on this one, especially given my previous history with Archcaster. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 03:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

User Gogo Dogo' deletion

WP:DENY

User Godo Dogo recently deleted a reviewed article with over 20 notable references. This article had been on Wikipedia for years and was in regard to five or six national universities in the USA. I wanted to edit it, but it's gone. The article is: Wireless Internet Center for Advanced Technology(WICAT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noesmadge (talk • contribs) 02:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC) You've asked Gogo Dodo about this before coming here? You've advised Gogo Dodo about this posting? The article was created on January 10, 2013, and had precisely two edits. It was created by checkuser-blocked user Noshbrian (talk · contribs), and was deleted as a G5 How are you related to Noshbrian? Acroterion (talk) 02:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC) Can somebody please block this Mangoeater1000 sockpuppet? The article hasn't "been on Wikipedia for years". The original article, Wireless Internet Center for Advanced Technology, was written in August 2012, hardly "years". And it was determined at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wireless Internet Center for Advanced Technology (WICAT) for it to be a redirect. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC) ...and blocked. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Dispute over POV-section tag at Detroit#Decline

I consider this restoration by User:Thomas Paine1776 of a POV-section template to be disruptive behavior. What can be done?

We have discussed the complaint on the talk page at Talk:Detroit#Decline but Thomas Paine1776 and User:Lance Friedman, who agree with each other that there is something wrong, have not proposed an actionable solution. User:NeilN, User:Rjensen, User:Rmhermen and myself have pointed out that the arguments against the section's text are not strong enough. I pointed out that the POV tag is not to be used as a "badge of shame" for the section, which is exactly what it says at Template:POV-section.

Thomas Paine1776 has been posting walls of text, making repeated references to WP guidelines which do not apply to the situation: WP:FANCRUFT, WP:SOAP and WP:COATRACK. When challenged, he has not been able to quote the applicable portion of these guidelines (there is none), yet he continues to argue them. His complaint hinges on personal observations about how Detroit has lots of money, how it has a strong revitalization effort in progress, how its larger metro area is rich and populous, how Marxists, leftists and "Detroit bashers" have poisoned the media against Detroit, and so on. This has become tiresome and disruptive.

Among the notional POV complaints were ones that reflected on the article Decline of Detroit, and how its name is perhaps not neutral. Discussion of this naming issue spilled over to Talk:Decline of Detroit where a requested move is in progress, one without a snowball's chance of changing the name, specifically to anything suggested by Lance Friedman or Thomas Paine1776. In light of the all-but-assured failure of the requested move, settling the name "Decline of Detroit" as an appropriate one, I consider their POV arguments to have run out of steam. There were no "specific issues that are actionable within the content policies." I have twice removed the POV-section tag but Thomas Paine1776 has twice restored it. I am out of ideas here; I need to kick this dispute upstairs. Binksternet (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Its the other way around. The complaining editor postures, complains, has a history of causing problems noted by multiple editors, reverts POV tag posted and discussed by another editor, is a behavior problem reverting efforts to present a neutral point of view, reverts efforts to place relevant parts in their respective section to mediate the issue, or even balance the section which is controversial, etc.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem is with Thomas Paine1776, who seems to think that depictions of Detroit's problems are vastly exaggerated by POV editors. Rjensen (talk) 22:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

There's no justification for wiping well-sourced information on the economic decline of Detroit from our page describing the city. Even if the decline had stopped or reversed, the historical phenomenon would merit documentation. In this case Binksternet has been correct in protecting the page from section blanking and preserving an accurate description of the city. - Darouet (talk) 22:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Content disputes go to DR/N. Binksternet may well have a problem with wanting to shut down WP:Consensus discussions, as just recently he/she put an entirely bogus "warning" template on my talk page for seeking to promote discussion. He/she is the one who nominated the Decline article for a move to mutliple different titles (which is certainly unusual, and maybe out of process) while discussion was continuing. It is not disruptive to disagree with Binksternet, although apparently he/she thinks it is. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

If the results of the proposed name change are any indication, however, Binksternet's position supporting the word "decline" is clearly supported by the wikipedia community. -Darouet (talk) 23:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I just saw you voted there, but of course voting is a poor way to achieve consensus. It's also odd that no one discusses article title policy in that discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I saw the vote and added my two cents after following the link you gave, but you can see that with or without my vote, most other editors agree with Blinksternet on the title, which they consider to be neutral. -Darouet (talk) 00:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I did not link anything, except WP:Consensus. Well, it would not be the first time that users don't adhere to policy in a vote. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• Alanscottwalker, I brought the issue here because it is now about behavior rather than content. Thomas Paine1776 is being disruptive, insisting upon the badge of shame without an actionable suggestion in play. Binksternet (talk) 03:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Your continued use of phrases like "disruptive" and "an actionable suggestion" to mean "discussions you don't like" is a problem. No one is ashamed by the tags. Discussion is ongoing, try to reach something you can both live with. In good faith (meaning you're actually willing to listen), find a way forward with him (and he with you). Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

If you are saying that someone here is in WP:IDONTLIKEIT mode, you have the wrong guy. I like Detroit—I would be happy to see the city rebound and thrive. On the other hand, Thomas Paine1776 has demonstrated IDONTLIKEIT by his utter disregard for the weight of scholarship, his continual repetition of the same irrelevant arguments, and his dismissal of highly reliable sources such as Time magazine. He disparaged those who disagree with him, and the reliable sources, as "left leaning", "Marxist", "media hype", "outdated 1970s pessimism", "fakery", "pushing to create a false impression", "so called sources and blogs", "school papers", "obvious bias", "slant", "Detroit bashers", and "hysterical authors." Binksternet (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Arnold Reisman

This arises from a message posted at the Help desk by Lonyar (talk · contribs). Until 2010 we had an article on Professor Reisman; it was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnold Reisman (2nd nomination). The concern was failure to establish notability. In April 2011 he died, apparently. In June 2011 the article was re-created as a redirect to Judith Reisman, who was apparently his wife at one time, although her article never mentions him. Very recently Lonyar (who says that she is Reisman's ex-wife) changed the page to a biography, which cited no sources and in my view did not establish notability. Now Dismas (talk · contribs) has changed it back to a redirect. In my view what needs to be done is to delete this and salt it. (I will notify Lonyar and Dismas.) Looie496 (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I've deleted and salted the article. Note this article was previously discussed on ANI in 2010. LFaraone 19:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of it. Looie496 (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Lonyar, to answer your question from Looie's talk page, "salt"ing an article means to block it from being created again. Think "salting the earth" to keep things from growing. Basically, the article had been deleted before and there didn't seem to be any hope of Mr Reisman being notable, so to keep from having to go through the creation/deletion process again, the article would be salted.

That said, it looks like the article has been restored to User:Technical 13's userspace here so that he may work on the article and try to make it worth keeping. Dismas|^(talk) 00:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• I have had the previously deleted article WP:USERFIED to my draft space to try and make it worth saving. Due to my concerns about possible inadvertant WP:COI I've also had the draft semi-protected.

If there is anyway I can establish notability, I will run it through an AFC review before it goes live back into article space. Lonyar, I suggest that you enable emails from other editors if you haven't already then go on vacation for a couple weeks and avoid watching me work on the draft. If I have questions, I will email them.  :) Technical 13 (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• I want to note that admin Amatulic re-created the page as a redirect to Judith Reisman. I have pointed out on his talk page that there seems to be no need for such a redirect, since Arnold Reisman is not mentioned in that article - I'm bringing it here only because Amatulic's talk page says that he or she is busy on the weekends. Also, the page was protected as admin-only, but the edit notice says that it is only semi-protected, so either the protection level needs to be adjusted down, or the protection notice needs to be changed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The redirect has been deleted and salted, so I think everything's nominal at this point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

User:CamelBinky

Editing Wikipedia:Verifiability, User:Camelbinky made what amounts to a preemptive personal attack in an edit summary. Stating that 'trolls' will revert it. [260]. I nevertheless reverted, explaining on the talk page that I didn't think that it makes sense. [261]. CamelBinky concurred, and revised the material, while taking an entirely unprovoked swipe at me. [262] Meanwhile others were editing the page, trying to reach a compromise. [263] Alanscottwalker then commented on CamelBinky's preemptive personal attack, and on the need to be conservative while making changes. [264] CamelBinky's response: ":I've been on Wikipedia a year longer than you and you're personally attacking me and being a WP:DICK. Don't tell me how we do things around here, I've been working on policy pages for years and years. Policy is not supposed to be conservative, EVER, policy is supposed to reflect how we do things, and not proscribe how we will do things in the future. This policy wording has caused confusion for years and you are saying Blueboar has made it better when his hand was pretty much forced to put it back to what it was. Here's another "attack"- you're entire comment is assholish and you're a dick'. [265]

I see no reason whatsoever why contributors should have to put up with this obnoxious behaviour. It seems to be part of a pattern, where CamelBinky makes some sort of assertion or another regarding policy, and any suggestion that this might not accord with consensus is met with invective and the rest. It is not only contrary to WP:NPA policy, but disrupts discussions of policy-related matters, where the need to maintain standards, and maintain a cordial discourse is paramount. I suspect the only solution may be a topic ban - though given CamelBinky's willinness to get into policy-related debates, and engage in personal attacks while doing so, I'm not quite sure how to best define its scope.

I have no doubt that CamelBinky 's response to this will be to drag up the past behaviour of others, or otherwise try to divert attention from the fact that he basically forced others to engage in a slanging match via a preemptive edit-summary attack. Personally, I initially intended to let the matter rest (CamelBinky had after all conceded that I was correct regarding the edid concerned), but having seen CamelBinky's response to Alanscottwalker, I now feel that sanctions are necessary. We cannot permit CamelBinky's 'ownership' of policy disrupt discussions in this manner. It is simply untenable that such behaviour should be permitted in such sensitive areas. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• Well, Thanks for bringing this here. That response is certainly something I've never experienced before in my "meager years" here, so given that, obviously, I think it's egregiously offensive, blockable NPA, and not just for my own sake. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm tempted to block Camelbinky for egregiously disruptively mixing up prescribe and proscribe (which have pretty much opposite meanings) and then bolding the word, but apart from that I don't see much here. I never thought I'd say this, but it actually looks more like a case for everybody having a cup of tea. Andy, that "I have no doubt that CamelBinky's response to this will be b la bla" looks like, what did you just say... yeah, a preemptive personal attack. Please everybody just chill, it would be a pity if these shows of temper between constructive editors led to blocks. Bishonen | talk 18:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC).
    • Hmmm? There is nothing constructive about that edit. Perhaps you do not realize that Andy's presentation may leave a slight misimpression. I did not just jump in to comment. I was responding to another different comment by Camelbinky that was responding to a policy comment of mine (after Camelbinky's attack summary on all editors that revert him/her - which I along with others had done) in which he/she was talking about putting me on a list.diff -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm involved, partly in the policy-changing issue, and partly because every time I run across CamelBinky, their comments are inappropriate (weasel word). What I get most annoyed with is changing fundamental policy as blithely as we change articles with a minimal consensus, if any. CamelBinky can call me an asshole if they'd just leave the policy alone.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
• From my perspective, "what we have here is a failure to communicate"... on both sides. Andy and Alan are not listening to the concerns of Camelbinky, and Cammelbinky is not listening to the concerns of Andy and Alan. And all have taken the comments of others far to personally, and responded in kind. Bishonen seems to have it right... a nice relaxing cup of tea and a break from the discussion will help everyone involved. It's not like we need to come to a decision on the policy language right this second. Blueboar (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• How exactly am I supposed to 'listen to the concerns' of someone who states outright that anyone disagreeing with them is a 'troll'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• Andy, you're not altogether modelling the behavior of someone who listens to the concerns of others. How about the concern I voiced above, that your statement "I have no doubt that CamelBinky's response to this will be to drag up the past behaviour of others", etc, is a lot like CB's statement that "sure trolls will challenge anyways"? Both his sentence and yours are preemptive attacks, if you want to put it like that. They both attempt to pessimistically predict the future responses of people obviously seen as opponents or enemies, people of whom only the worst is to be expected. That's not gracious, and not likely to lead to anything good. Do you see my point? Bishonen | talk 21:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC).

• Ok, I'll strike it - then CamelBinky can prove me wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• Good point. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• I didn't respond in kind, so I don't know what you mean. Personally? I didn't take anything that way except the bizarre last comment, that was obviously meant personally, as he/she said. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

In the case of the edit summary how about we think of it like this 'it's unfortunate CamelBinky thought a troll would revert them, fortunately this did not happen and AndyTheGrump did so instead'? Nil Einne (talk) 23:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Well that's one way to look at it :). But User:Camelbinky needs to explain and justify his/herself, otherwise we have to take these comments on their face that they misunderstand and are incapable of policy compliant norms. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The edit summary being questioned says: No one wanted to work on better wording, but sure trolls will challenge anyways though they don't want to help compromise with What, Blueboar, or myself. He didn't single anyone out or name names, but said it predictively. This is just like saying "If the shoe fits wear it" or as they say in Jamaica "Who the cap fit, let them wear it." Sure enough, someone always recognizes that cap and decides to put it on, but you can't blame the person who says "who the cap fit let them wear it" for making a "personal" attack. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Whether "personal" or not edit summaries are not suppose to caste general aspersions on other editors for their laziness or lack of good faith, or anything at all. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC) Moreover, if you were to actually analyze the context (instead of Jamaican aphorisms) the 'meant personally' would be hard to miss. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Martinvl is wreaking havoc

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:Martinvl is wreaking havoc at History of the metric system, including making false allegations and taking the law into his own hands [266], [267]. He has been warring the article to death recently [268], [269], [270], [271], note too the dishonest edit summaries, and is still persisting. I have made reports at WP:RFP and WP:AN3, which have not yet been actioned. Can someone help please, he is now being seriously offensive and disruptive. 212.183.128.233 (talk) 09:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

*slowly watching the boomerang go by...* Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs) 09:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• As Martinvl has pointed out, this forum shopping is almost certainly by ipsocks of DeFacto (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Mathsci (talk) 09:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Blocked the latest sock, but please help up my memory, which banned sockmaster was this again that had a bee in his bonnet about metrication? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I protected the article for 3 days and blocked User:Martinvl for five reverts for 24h given that he had previous blocks for edit warring. I was about to block the sock as well, but Fut.Perf. beat me to it.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Uhm, wait, if we all agree the IP was an obvious ban-evading sock, then Martinvl ought of course not to be blocked for reverting them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

If we all agree, I will unblock them. So far, the discussion at the talk page is meaningful, and the edits by the sock are not vandalism, it is looking more like a content dispute.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

If the IP is a sock, then it doesn't matter whether they were engaging in good-faith content disagreement or in vandalism. Indef-blocked users are not supposed to be engaging in content disputes, since they are not supposed to be editing at all, so WP:NOT3RR applies. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure, the question is whether the sock was so much obvious that it justified breaking of 3RR. I see that Martinvl called them indeed a sock. But was it obvious to anybody else?--Ymblanter (talk) 09:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The trouble here is that Martinvl did the correct thing, filing an SPI, with quite substantial evidence, but that SPI then sat there without admin attention for several days. That's hardly his fault, and I don't think that just because no admin could be bothered to look at it must mean that a sockpuppeter must be allowed free rein in the meantime. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• I respectfully submit that the block on Martinvl was not necessary here. A word of warning would have been sufficient. --John (talk) 09:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The way I see it, Martin made a judgment call, acted on that call...and was right. His edit summaries note that it is a suspected sockpuppet he is reverting, so it is not as that wasn't his intent. Blocks are supposed to prevent further damage to the encyclopedia, and Martin was in fact protecting it with his reverts, so I think there is little point in him remaining blocked. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Good, I unblocked Martinvl and lowered the protection to semi.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Another sock? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:20, 21 July 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.

Tamilakam

User:Copperchloride keeps continuing Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing at Tamilakam. Per 21 july 2013 he made 30 edits to this page, of which 15 reverts, 3 without any explanation. Bottomline is reached at 21 july: eluding previous discussion at Talk Page; pushing POV by presenting suggestions as fact and removal of contextualising info [272] [273] [274]

His behaviour at Tamilakam is typical for his wider pattern of editing. Between 22 july 2012 and 21 july 2013:

• • 880 edits
  • three warnings for edit warring [275] [276] [277]
  • three advices on edit warring [278] [279] [280]
  • three advices on sources & references [281] [282] [283]
  • one advice on accusations of vandalism [284]
  • four warnings for disruptive editing [285] [286] [287] [288]
  • two warnings for duplicating pages [289] [290]
  • one warning for copyright violation [291]
  • two proposed deletions [292] [293]

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The above trivia by User:Joshua Jonathan is clearly a misleading compilation spectacularly composed so as to divert the real issue that is longstanding in the article, Tamilakam. My 'wider pattern for editing' has few number disputes, none that concerns User:Joshua Jonathan but all of them issues more or less related to Sri Lanka or the Sri Lankan Tamils, and involving Sri Lankan editors directly namely User:Blackknight12 and User:SriSuren to a lesser extent. In-depth insight will clarify how both the editors are more disruptive, than I'am accused of but I would like to make my stand more specific with this article.

The article Tamilakam has been subject of intense misrepresentation and POV pushing for quite a long time much before the start of my contributions to the article. User:SriSuren and User:Blackknight12 were much involved at the core of the dispute before I started contributing, later User:Joshua Jonathan.

Both the users have been involved for a long time in suppressing edits of other users to various sensitive Tamil-culture related articles often leaving very less scope for WP:NPOV. Discussions at the talk page often are not heeded to, nor are they at any point willing to reach any consensus.

Here in this article, User:Joshua Jonathan has been taking the law into hands of maintenance of the article and has completely deprived me of contributing to the article altogether. The accusations of edit warring on 21st July, cannot be backed by why he chose to remove content I have added plus sources backing my claim(the last time we were involved along with the Sri Lankan editors on what basis content was relocated from its sub-heading).

The Naga People were a Proto-Dravidian tribe that worshipped snakes, and it is well documented that being Dravidian, they spoke Tamil and were among the earliest inhabitants of the island. The ancient Tamil-Buddhist Epic mentions the kingdom of Naga Nadu, a prosperous Tamil kingdom in North Sri Lanka which had existed along with the several other Tamil kingdoms in India, Eg:Thondai Nadu, Chera Nadu etc. Both the Sri Lankan editors and Joshua have constantly rejected any form of citing to this fact, and my edits for this regard have been constantly suppressed while Tolkappiyam another equivalent Tamil Sangam Literature is being clinged on to define the boundaries of Tamilakam.

My latest edits present with sources on validity of the Manimekalai, as well as the existence of the Naga Kingdom along with the rest of the Tamil kingdoms in the ancient times, but these have all(6 edits) been totally reverted by User:Joshua Jonathan without any discussion in the talk page. Nor had he convincingly challenged them in the brief discussion we have held(are holding) in the article's talk page following his revert under WP:BRD again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Copperchloride (talk • contribs) 21 July 2013 11:00 (UTC)

The boundaries of Tamilakam, and the meaning of naga nadu have been extensively discussed at the Talk Page. There's a clear concemsus, backed up by sources, that Naga Nadu is merely mythological, and even if it existed, the Naga's were not Tamils, but Tamil-speaking people. The mentioning of Naga Nadu does not provide any prove of the habitation of Sri Lanka prior to the 3th century BCE by Tamils. Copperchloride has persistently refused to discuss about this, but chosen to revert over andover again, despite repeated warnings. Copperchloride has clearly a WP:COI, and to me seems to be a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so Naga Nadu is mythological; Copperchloride mentioned above,"The Naga People were a Proto-Dravidian...". But you say, "....the Naga's were not Tamils, but Tamil-speaking people." It is widely believed Tamils are predominantly Dravidian people. Then do you mean, "Nagas were Tamil-speaking Dravidian people"?Shivaass (talk) 13:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Historical records suggest that the South Dravidian language group had separated from a Proto-Dravidian language no later than 700 BCE, linguistic evidence suggests that they probably became distinctive around 1,100 BCE, and some scholars using linguistic methods put the deepest divisions in the language group at roughly 3,000 BCE. Russian linguist M.S. Andronov puts the split between Tamil (a written Southern Dravidian language) and Telugu (a written Central Dravidian language) at 1,500 BCE to 1,000 BCE.

The above Timeline of Language Separation between Tamil and Telugu shows, the existence of Tamil Language between 1,500 BCE to 1,000 BCE in Geographically Modified Ancient Tamilakam in the North of Naga Nadu. I don't think so if the Tamil could be there in 1,500 BCE to 1,000 BCE in Tamilakam why it can't be there in Naga Nadu just a few miles away from the Tamilakam just a few centuries back. Tamils are predominantly Dravidian with the admixture of other people at that time and later on with Indo-Aryan. I don't agree with Joshua Jonathan that, "The mentioning of Naga Nadu does not provide any prove of the habitation of Sri Lanka prior to the 3th century BCE by Tamils." He needs more home work on the history and the region involved more logically.Shivaass (talk) 13:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Jonathan's allegations: There has been nowhere a clear consensus, right before the times I have got involved in this article, 'Consensus' was only the voluminous citations to Tolkappiyam users such as User:SriSuren brought in to abruptly prevent anybody edit on a neutral perspective. The Nagas(backed by the sources) were Dravidians, and the Naga Nadu was an administrative entity in the island with a rich Tamil Buddhist heritage. The sources I present testify this to immaculate clarity. The mentioning of an Naga Nadu by itself a great testimony to a Tamil habitation of the island, and precisely why the Sri Lankan editors had always persistently removed its reference(just as Tamil Eelam so many times even some very desperately) from the article(by using Tolkappiyam, which ironically is a Tamil epic) so as to root out any neutral historic perspective that may arise. While Tolkappiyam is widely criticized for its historical inaccuracies (nobody knows who the author was or where he lived) and yet used for defining boundaries for the cultural homeland on the other hand, the version stated by Manimekalai one of the 5 greatest Tamil Epics in the history of Tamil language has been nullified by these editors. Jonathan has constantly almost altogether opposed me from making any edit to the article, just as User:Blackknight12 and User:SriSuren who revert edits without the slightest respect for the encyclopedia's policies.

These Sri Lankan editors(if their User Contributions go under scan) always engage in POV pushing and no amount of reasoning can get them to co-ordinate or bring a solution through dialogue. But here as I said, User:Joshua who has seemingly become the 'guardian angel' of the page(that since I raised the issue of vandalism by the Sri Lankan editors on the DRB) and has sided with the Sri Lankan editors engaging in wholesale reverting my constructive edits to depict a totally inaccurate chronology, and more interestingly blames me for not co-operating in the talk page, when it is him who does not explain his reverting each and every edit of mine. You can see how futile this exercise has been for a wikipedian like me(who is accused of WP:COI and WP:Edit warring, by the initial perpetrators themselves;the others have exceeded the WP:AN3 more than once and still thrive unblocked), and even while we are going through the issue here, see what User:Blackknight12 has come up with, no counter-explanation in the edit summary, no discussion at the talk page and the least respect for any of the policies we are doing with. --CuCl₂ ^{(talk . contr . mail)} 13:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Note: I've just fully protected the article for three days. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

This is more than just some content dispute in Tamilakam. It is the behavior of Copperchloride and his pattern of edits here on Wikipedia. He is persistent in disruptive edits, POV, use of unreliable sources, evading discussions, manipulating sources and edit warring, and I can verify Joshua Jonathan's claims. I too believe Copperchloride is Wikipedia:NOTHERE for the good of Wikipedia but for what he accuses others of, POV pushing. Similar behavioral patterns can be seen in his edits at the following articles, multiple of which he has broken the WP:3RR rule, and engaged in baseless edit warring.

• Tamil Muslim
• Tamil Eelam
• Tamilakam
• Naga people (Lanka)
• Tamil Buddhism
• Sri Lanka Army
• Riots in Sri Lanka
• Persecution of Christians
• 2013 ICC Champions Trophy
• Sri Lankans in India
• Bodhidharma

As he has accused us of not letting him edit and reverting all his contributions on the Tamilakam page, he has taken hostage of all the above mentioned articles claiming his edits are justified yet refusing to participate in discussions. The only reason there is now a ANI report under the Tamilakam article is because Joshua Jonathan volunteered to get involved and mediate with in the article, as Copperchloride would not come to discussions with me when he opposed my edits.

Copperchloride is also gung ho in "Tamilising" many Sri Lanka related articles, misrepresenting them through the manipulation of sources. Such as refusing to recognize the distinction between Tamil speaking people and ethnically Tamil people, which are highly loaded issues in Sri Lanka. Furthermore this is again highlighted by type of articles he has created (shown below), the pro Tamil-LTTE and anti Sri Lanka-Sinhalese. Obviously here with a motive.

• Jaffna Tamil dialect
• 2013 Tamil Nadu Assembly Resolution on Sri Lanka
• Mawanella massacre
• 1915 Sinhalese Muslim riots
• Jaffna Palace ruins
• Thondamannar Bridge
• Karaitivu (Puttalam)
• Haiti Sex abuse

I myself have given him multiple warnings [294] [295] [296], including others not involved. I and others involved have also been subject to personal attacks, even after an admin warning. [297] [298].--Blackknight12 (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with Blackknight12 that Copperchloride is "Tamilising" many Sri Lanka related articles, misrepresenting them through the manipulation of sources. I think even any editor involved on articles related to Sri Lanka with historical issues, they will be accused with same allegations.

How the following articles are pro Tamil-LTTE and anti Sri Lanka-Sinhalese?

• Jaffna Tamil dialect
• 2013 Tamil Nadu Assembly Resolution on Sri Lanka
• Mawanella massacre
• 1915 Sinhalese Muslim riots
• Jaffna Palace ruins
• Thondamannar Bridge
• Karaitivu (Puttalam)
• Haiti Sex abuse

It all associated with some myth Sinhalese can never be wrong-doers though I don't say Tamils are always good Samaritans.Shivaass (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd reiterate, User:Blackknight12 is desperate to conceal all the underhand stuff he had been trying to do so far, nor is he to the point of the current dispute we are dealing with. He has been dealt with a bad hand in attempts to POV pushing and fierce vandalism to several of articles he himself had listed to accuse me of disruptive editing. Please go through our respective edits(namely) in articles such as:

• Naga People (Lanka)
• Riots in Sri Lanka
• 2013 ICC Champions Trophy
• Sri Lanka Army

where he butts in to the page and tries to manhandle everything I've added apart from showing utter lack of good faith in discussions or third opinions. As for other articles he has mentioned is just absurd(such as Bodhidharma etc.(he has no business there) I was justified in my position and it were the others who were disrupting, and certain ones like Persecution of Christians where I had not made a single revert, and Blackknight12 both in his disputes with me and several editors has unfailingly exceeded the 3RR several times, showing total indifference to good faith, nor allowing a consensus that can be reached)

As for 'Tamilising' Sri Lankan articles I'am just gonna laugh it off(especially the list of articles he is offering to prove his point XD). This guy seriously is too immature and unreasonable for being on wikipedia. As for The three times he warned me for, I'am just ROFL. Anybody can flood others' talk pages with warnings without opening discussions or the intent to collaborate. And in case of Blackknight12, he plainly uses WP:TW, warnings etc to prevent collaboration in the first place.

This guy however has been very disruptive in various articles like Tamilakam, Tamil Buddhism, Tamil Muslim etc which are of utmost significance and sensitivity to the 50,000 year old Tamil-culture spanning South Asia. He simply blames me anti-Sri Lankan, but fact is he along with his minion(SriSuren) have been perennially causing damage and destruction to Tamil-history and culture related articles, and these are the sites where they intensely vandalize/engage in POV pushing with sheer indifference to good faith or any of the project policies. Deeper scrutinizing would lead to the truth coming out.--CuCl₂ ^{(talk . contr . mail)} 16:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Holdek

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 an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere

 – "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." Holdek (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The user recently developed an activity on merging articles without discussion and adding superfluous source requests. I note them yesterday, when they added a dozen of source requests to the article of Moscow 2011 elections. Some of the requests ask for sourcing of every sentence of one section; the section describes the election laws, and a really little effort can be made to find the sources; apparently, the user was not willing to make this effort. Several days ago, they merged an obviously notable article on the film Zvenigora to the article on the producer, Alexander Dovzhenko. Yesterday, I reverted this merger, and they opened today a merge request. During the discussion, it became clear that their understanding of WP:N is that a RS should be online cited in the article, see Talk:Alexander Dovzhenko#Merger Proposal. I also noticed that in the meanwhile earlier they removed without discussion a large chunk of the article on Southern Schleswig, citing the reason that the material is unsourced. The sources can be easily found in any textbook on the history of Europe, but apparently the editor was not willing to make this effort, and removed almost all material from the article. As a result, the article became a stub, and today they merged it into another article. The activity continues, and, as the discussion shows, the user considers this activity pretty much normal. I can not really agree, since we have a lot of unsourced material here, which can be sourced with little effort, and removing this material without this effort basically deteriorates Wikipedia. I believe that the activity should be somehow stopped. The user will be now notified.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Ymblanter, please read: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed," and "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material." (Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence) Holdek (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

May be removed is not equal to must be removed. You somehow fail to see a big picture. Only material which is really doubtful, or BLP material should be challenged. Everything else should net be challenged and should not be removed, it should be sourced. As I explained above, your activity leads to deteriorating the quality of Wikipedia and is best stopped immediately.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. In any event, this isn't the place to discuss this. Rather, you should do so on the talk pages of articles where you have issues with these edits, or on my talk page. Holdek (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• During the process of checking and improving articles I routinely hunt down the targets of the citation needed tags first and other likely to be disputed pieces. Some of these tags date back years, but the material is actually correct.[299] If it was removed the content would not exist for me to cite it, the material was a good faith addition from years back. Removal of the material is all but required of wholly negative unsourced or contentious claims that are really outlandish or on BLPs. It is best to AGF and always try to cite it before removing it yourself. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) May be removed is may be removed. Material may also be sourced or tagged as needing a source. I don't see anything wrong with stubifying an article if it's mostly unsourced. I think good-faith tagging or removal of unsourced content is a good thing for the encyclopedia. If the user isn't stalking or harassing another user or trying to prove a POINT, and believes that the content should be sourced to be included, it's okay. Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

To be precise, do you personally find this edit constructive?--Ymblanter (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. It removed years-old unsourced material. Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Then I obviously need a break from editing Wikipedia, at least the articles I did not create. For me, this is a destructive edit, which removed correct information and eventually lead to an elimination of an article about a historical state.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Chillax, I can't say I disagree with the even harsher measure subsequently taken by User:Deor here [300]. Southern Schleswig is not a "historical state". Sometimes articles need to be merged or axed. Compare with Northern Schleswig. There plenty of better written and more detailed articles about that piece of history, including Schleswig-Holstein#History, History of Schleswig-Holstein and Duchy of Schleswig. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Fine, if nobody else cares, why should I care? I never edited that article, and it is outside of my usual interests.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good, are we done here? --Malerooster (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Since my name's been mentioned here, I'll just say that I completely failed to note how much material Holdek had deleted from Southern Schleswig before merging the rest to Duchy of Schleswig. I was led to the Duchy of Schleswig article because the merge resulted in the article's containing two sets of title coordinates, which threw up an error message; and my concern was that the material he added there didn't appear to fit well with the article, so I deleted it there, added a bit to the Schleswig-Holstein article (where most of the material was redundant), and retargeted the redirect to that article. A sheer oversight on my part rather than an intentional "even harsher measure". Deor (talk) 20:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to chime in on all of this, I believe that the Wikipedia project and its readers are served well by having a reputation for some factual reliability, that a reader can open up an article confident that the material he or she is reading is at least authenticated by reliable sources. The Southern Schleswig article had material that was completely unsourced for six years, and at any time that material could have been sourced by its contributors. Sometimes I source material, sometimes I template unsourced material, sometimes I remove old templated unsourced material, etc., and depending on my interest, time, and familiarity with the subject, all within Wikipedia guidelines. If someone believes I have stepped out of those guidelines, he or she is free to notify and discuss with me on my talk page. Holdek (talk) 21:47, 20 July 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:Catlvr6969

Could an admin revoke this user's talk page access? He's been insulting editors since being blocked, such as what he added with this edit. Thanks. Lugia2453 (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Uninvolved review requested

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, it's really none of my business, but having been alerted to an indeff that seems to be insufficiently explained, and may be rather harsh, I've taken an interest in it. The blocking admin, Toddst1 has agreed that an uninvolved review is in order. There's an unattended block appeal of two days' standing, too. Aren't they centrally logged? I don't know much about the history of this, and I don't want to—but here's an editor in distress about it who might be saved. I hope in retrospect I won't be seen to have stuck my neck out. Tony (talk) 02:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• What a piss poor block this was. The stated block reason was for "multiple instances of IP sockpuppetry", but nothing provided by the blocking administrator can actually link an abusive IP to his account, through CheckUser or any other means. The only evidence is an old IP used back in 2010 that was self-admitted (where the user says they also no longer is associated with that IP), and a couple edits that were not abusive on another IP showing support for Badanagram. Overturn it. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 04:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
• Sockpuppetry blocks are rarely, if ever, undone except by checkusers. Even when no checkuser is run before making the block, one is typically run before performing an unblock.—Kww(talk) 05:20, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
• Does anyone have a link to the ANI discussion where 203.81.67.123 (talk) was blocked by Toddst1? I've seen this mentioned but can't find it myself. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

  No, but I found something related: user talk:Dennis Brown/Archive 26 #Proxy servers. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure we can trust Toddst1 with the tools anymore. He has a long habit of blocking people on the smallest pretexts, this being one example (i.e. accusing somebody of sockpuppetry). He also has strained relations with quite a few editors, and a list of ANI complaints a mile long. As such, he should resign his tools. His block violates the definition of a good block in a myriad of ways, the two most obvious being that the sockpuppetry is unconfirmed and that Toddst1 is an involved admin. It should be undone and Toddst1 should be admonished for doing it. pbp 05:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

  Could you give a few choice links to the evidence which you believe substantiates your claims? Making accusations without evidence is actually a violation of policy - see WP:WIAPA point five - and posts backed up by links and diffs will be given a lot more weight than those without. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

  Also, could you explain how you think Toddst1 has violated WP:INVOLVED here? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

  • In matters unrelated to this, I have also found that blocks made or block settings changed by Toddst1 have been very poor, especially related to blocks on school IPs. I did not bring the matter up because bringing things up on this board or any others usually fall on deaf ears considering the rampant number of "administrator abuse" claims. Personally, I may seek a review of this block extension, considering how long he extended it for, and for the single edit the shared school IP made. [301] Regards, — Moe Epsilon 06:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I did not bring the matter up because bringing things up on this board or any others usually fall on deaf ears considering the rampant number of "administrator abuse" claims. LOL you think someone up there will eventually clue in to how bad PR, mysteriously leads to, bad PR? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedians! I found the following facts:

1. Badanagram (talk · contribs) and Toddst1 (talk · contribs) had a long history of strained relationship. In July 15 yet another their clash occurred.
2. In July 16 Toddst1 indefblocked Badanagram with the substantiation “multiple instances of IP sockpuppetry”.
3. In the ensuing discussion the only “IP sock” named (and labelled by Toddst1 as a suspected sock) was 203.81.67.123 (talk · contribs) with one edit in articles and two posting at AN/I.
4. At Toddst1’s talk User:Tony1 pointed that the block lacks a substantiation and deviates in many aspects from the established practice. There was no substantial response (sarcasm not counted).
5. Me, User:Incnis Mrsi, pointed two times that a formal investigation was not started (that is a standard practive for any acc with noticeable positive contributions) and no IPs with WP:signs of sock puppetry were demonstrated. Again, there was no response.

Whereas Toddst1 now departed for a vacation, I ask the community to assess this situation. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding text originally posted on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (diff)

BTW I now regret that provided Toddst1 with some moral support during the 76.189 campaign. Such admins have to be restricted from dealing with users, and especially from using the tools for it. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a long history of problems with that Admin. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to stretch things too far, forensically, but as a result of the comments above I flicked through Toddst1's contribs for the past few days. Could someone attend to this problem, please? Tony (talk) 11:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

IMHO a sysop who blocks IPs of an ISP’s NAT pool for 3 months without serious and persistent problems from there, without any signs of negotiation with affected ISP, demonstrates a rampant incompetence. It now the time for a motion of no confidence? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Why not? pbp 15:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

FYI Comment I received this request on my Wikivoyage account which seems to be connected to all this. --regentspark (comment) 15:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• I am commenting as partially involved, I think, due to initially blocking three open proxies in Burma. see [302], User talk:203.81.67.254, and User talk:203.81.67.249. There is a block of 6 IPs, the other three were inevitably blocked by another admin as confirmed open proxies once the block appeals were looked at. As far as I know the original block does not apply to any particular user (per WP:PROXY). I am aware of the high risk of collateral from this block, as an ISP proxy in Asia, and find the block of all 6 IPs regrettable. I recommend a checkuser take a peek and help out with IPBE, and that the IPs are regularly checked to see if the block can be lifted. I have not fully looked at this current block by Toddst1. The IP address appears related, however "Confirmed proxy server" is not a bad thing, and not a plausible basis for a block. Neither is evasion of any block I have applied, nor as far as I'm aware the blocks of the other three IPs. Other IPs challenging this block have previously checked negative for open proxiness. It's only the six IPs as far as I can tell. There doesn't seem much argument about the open proxiness of these 6 IPs, nor any problem avoiding the technical block :), so I return to my wikibreak. If in doubt ask WP:OP or a checkuser. I consider there to be excessive collateral from all these Burma blocks, and would lean towards not having them there, or minimally softblocked. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

  zzuuzz, can you specify which ports are open for proxies at 203.81.67.254 and 203.81.67.249? Possibly by Email. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

  Please see the 254 talk page where I confirmed it myself. I confess I haven't checked it since I last checked. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

  I see the specified IP:port open and speaking HTTP, but I do not see a functioning open proxy. It apparently broke before July 14, see http://proxylist.org.ua/?v=203.81.68.203 Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

  Works for me. I just got .249 on my first throw and .250 on the second. Does someone have a link for instructions? Someone else confirm it? The IP is right, it is a pain to edit your own talk page from the affected IPs. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

  Yeah, I can confirm it's still wide open, albeit godawfully slow. 203.81.68.203:80 is the entry and I exited onto 203.81.67.250. Sailsbystars (talk) 19:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

  Aaaaand my second attempt landed on .251..... so I think it's a fair bet that the 249-254 are all still exits for the same proxy. Sailsbystars (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

  I would also add that 203.81.67.123 does not appear to be an open proxy, but I would assume good faith in terms of "Confirmed proxy server" because there are certain websites that seem to label almost everything a "confirmed proxy server" and many wikipedia users and administrators mistakenly assume these websites are authoritative. Sailsbystars (talk) 20:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

  I'm not sure where to ask this, as the thread is getting rather long, but what about these "open" IPs. From what I have seen, about two-thirds of the internet cafes and WIFI spots use them. It is amazing to see people sitting under thatched roofs with dirt floors, using their android phones. The government-sponsored power goes off, a generator is started, the remote internet connection is lost, and there is a huge amount of down time, but they still love the internet. In the meantime, Skype is illegal (but they all have it, maybe not on the desktop though) and so is a USB modem, not to mention the difficulties in getting a SIM card. The country is on the cusp of ...something. They are doing as much as they know how to do, and I wish WP would do everything possible to remove even small obstacles, especially for IP editing. 203.81.67.123 (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

  I’ll try to bring some order to these things. First, there are several legitimately blocked open proxies in 203.81.67.248/29 (i.e. from .248 up to .254), and there are IPs .123 and .114 blocked illegitimately: they are not open proxies and are likely (although not certainly) NAT exit points. Second, an IP or an account, but authorities in Myanmar in any case have sufficient clues to identify who of the country’s subjects edits which articles in Wikipedia: I’ll not make it public, but can explain by request from WMF. To some extent the use of IPs instead of accs disrupts (primitive ways of) surveillance, but I’d not rely on it to outrun a state censorship. Third, registered users may enjoy some forms of protection that are denied for IPs. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion deviated towards the question whether Toddst1 should be trusted in principle, but there is less said about the initial question except Sailsbystars’ opinion that 203.81.67.123 unlikely is an open proxy. Note that for 203.81.67.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Toddst1 provided no compelling evidences at all. And nobody provided a single argument supporting an alleged policy violation by the owner of Badanagram account. What to do with blocks? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion the blocks of User:203.81.67.114, User:203.81.67.123, and User:Badanagram should be lifted immediately. The sockpuppetry tags should also be removed all round. These blocks appear to be baseless, unsupported, and being generous, like a big fat mistake. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Comment Perhaps not a sock, but Badanagram's behaviour has been significant enough to warrant a block on their own (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

  Do you mean his behaviour of 2010? Perhaps. But I do not see serious problems recently. If you’ll examine each editor with a magnifying glass, then you ever find something inappropriate. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

  • The confession that was extracted in 2010 was obtained with the promise that it would not be used for a block.203.81.67.123 (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Based on a CU done by User:T. Canens ("On a more detailed look, I'm convinced that they are most likely Unrelated."), I have unblocked Badanagram and the two IPs. I have removed the tags (there were two - one IP did not have a tag).--Bbb23 (talk) 11:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for your quick attention to this. I wasn't sure if I would have to file a new request. There is still the matter of the strange open Myanmar IPs, and I'm not quite sure how to go forward with that. Is there a way to get them unblocked? 203.81.67.123 (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

BWilkins Do you really want to get involved in this again? I made a bad faith comment on Toddst1's page and apologised afterwards from a mobile and that was difficult to edit wikipedia from. I have seen behaviour under your account including calling wikipedia editors 'commoners' that doesn't seem to be in good faith. Calling for yet another block against me seems incredibly vindictive, especially considering how close you are to that admin.. Can I go now???? I have things to do this weekend. Badanagram (talk) 11:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Pardon me? Did you just accuse me of calling any Wikipedia editor a "commoner"? Either provide a diff to me ever saying such a thing, or retract your accusation immediately. You are also accusing me of being "close to that admin" (say what?), calling me vindictive ... in fact, you're doing the exact SAME things that led me to suggest that your block should NOT be lifted (note: I never called for a new block - I commented before this one was wrongly lifted). If this is your way forward, then perhaps Wikipedia is not for you .. and indeed, it won't be for you for long (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

OK retracted, only because I cannot immediately find the reference. .... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badanagram (talk • contribs) 12:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Now that I am free to edit here thanks to the unblock by Bbb23, I really don't think that any sanctions against admin Toddst1 are called for. He was only doing his job, but in the circumstances it would have made more sense to get another uninvolved admin to do whatever what was necessary in the spirit of the community. As I have already said off-wiki:

It's a bit of a hollow victory though because the whole affair has put me off editing wikipedia, especially if it somehow implicates me in some international scandal involving a country with very disputed human rights issues!

I am totally clueless about this Burma open proxy, whoever it was just happened to agree with me at the wrong time and it looked far too convenient for Toddst1.

I am trying my best to not have too much of a negative opinion of that admin despite what has happened here. He is only human, just slightly overzealous and should perhaps reconsider the whole admin thing.

That is all. If I return then I hope it will be in better circumstances and more positive edits all round, that's what we're here for isn't it?!?!?!?!? Badanagram (talk) 11:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

BWilkins, Badanagram is understandably upset. I'm writing to the editor to urge calm and good faith. Tony (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. If unsubstantiated allegations are bad for admins, they are bad for Badanagram as well. And there is a lesson here to be learned by everyone about responding to provocation. 203.81.67.123 (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it doesn't matter if they have "confidence" of the people, as long as they have "confidence" of each other. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Huh? Only 3 of the 11 editors who !voted "oppose" below are admins. So 8 of "the people" opposed, and only 3 of "the people" supported. Looks like "the people" simply didn't agree with the motion. Thus speaketh "the people". Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:14, 21 July 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.

Motion of no confidence against Toddst1

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.

---

Support

1. Support pbp 15:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support - I just happened to see the conversation linked just above, noting that virtually every internet user in the entire nation of Myanmar is now blocked from access. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support - Just the fact that an IP or user is indeff blocked and the admin blocking says that a second opinion is needed is quite telling, this motion is needed to bring clarity.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I have yet to see specific evidence of misdoing ("admin abuse"). That Ihardlythinkso comes by to chime in is no surprise, given the fact that they've been blocked by Todd before (for edit warring, if I remember correctly), and given some recent shenanigans involving a friend of theirs. Let's get some evidence, and let's hear from Todd, before we kick yet another admin in the balls. (I'm speaking figuratively, of course, and if Todd is of the female persuasion they have my apologies.) Or, if Todd is on vacation and can't respond (admins can have vacations too), then there is no need for immediate desysopping action since they're on vacation. Drmies (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

   Is all right with Badanagram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Or with 203.81.67.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? If you do not trust my opinion that “Confirmed proxy server” resembles a cynical lie (the IP is unlikely an open proxy), then read Dennis Brown’s opinion. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

   It was an INDEF block Drmies, and edit-warring wasn't part of the medley of rationales Toddst1 made up to accomplish what he wanted. (Oh, he also took away my WP Email access based on "abuse", I'd love to see that Email made public so everyone can see another example of his judgement when wielding his tools.) Of course these experiences surely invalidate any opinion I could have, and render me totally incapable of being objective regarding his conduct as Admin. (Ad hominem much?) And regarding "shenanigans", the only that existed was on Toddst1's part, with unjustified sockpuppetry tag on User:Diogotome. (See Todd's willingness to consider he made a mistake here.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

2. I have found Todd to be a pretty good admin, as admins go. He needs to provide some evidence, but he shouldn't be booted yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Display of admin abuse has not been backed up with diffs (typical of at least one editor in this discussion) and calls by Mr. Stradivarius for more information have been left unanswered. And frankly, this whole discussion has been non-technical experts testifying about their ill-informed opinion about what a proxy is and then backing it up with another non-expert's opinion because they happen to be an admin (sorry Dennis).--v/r - TP 19:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

   TParis opposes… it is a good sign, folks. Rather predictable (to me), TParis on yet another occasion tends to disregard explicitly substantiated grievances and resorts to denigration and personal attacks towards opponents, instead of addressing specified points. The indefblock of Badanagram is a bluff (per its grounds) and a revenge for critical remarks (per its motivation). Blocks of 203.81.67.123 and 203.81.67.114 created problems for several editors (per their consequences) and were an attempt to shun a possible outcry (per their motivation). What is not clear to the great technician, the Heir to the Edit counter? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

   Zero diffs, when will you learn?--v/r - TP 20:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

   Diffs from 2010 are better than my no diffs, are they? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

4. This is pretty pathetic. A thread is started to review a block. It descends into anti-admin, anti-Todd free-for-all. And now we have a "motion of no confidence". What the hell does that mean? Are we here to vent or what?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

   agreed, what even happens if we have "no confidence". --Malerooster (talk) 21:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

5. This sounds more like something that should be dealt with via a dispute resolution board or, worst case, arbitration. At any rate, I want to hear his side of the story before we take any further action. There's certainly nothing presented so far to justify convicting him in absentia. —C.Fred (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

   A dispute resolution board? Do you speak about content disputes, or ? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

6. Copied from User:Badanagram's talk page: "I am in agreement that the admin should probably not have a vote of no confidence in his absence, it doesn't seem particularly fair."--Bbb23 (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Not at all appropriate in the circumstances. Mathsci (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
8. There are things to be resolved here, to be sure, but no indication has been given of actual abuse of admin tools. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

   Do you deem the “Confirmed proxy server” a honest mistake? Do you really? Or it is just the default assumption? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

   Isn't that exactly what we're supposed to do until evidence shows otherwise? And you don't have any evidence, really, just that - apart from a grudge you seem to be holding on to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

9. Wrong place, no real grounds, all rather silly. Rsloch (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
10. This is why we have such a hard time getting support for any community desysopping proposal. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  23:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
11. "Motion of no confidence." Are we following parliamentary procedure now? People could be making better use of their time by constructively editing this encyclopedia. Taroaldo ✉ 06:22, 21 July 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.

Deletions without notice --

Overland to the Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

With Eyes at the Back of Our Heads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Denise Levertov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have been adding tables of contents to volumes of poetry on the Denise Levertov page. Someone added a "redirect" away from that back to the main page. Someone else recommended one for deletion, and someone else delted.

In neither instance was any communication sent to me until after the fact.

Tables of contents are not "interpretaions" or "opinion". They are simply a listing of the contents of a volume. Nor am I the first to have added tables contents -- those not having been deleted. Nor have others I've posted been deleted.

And after doing all that work, I'm expected to tolerate such rudeness -- especially from one who presents as, "No suffering fools gladly"!? How about finding out what is being done before meddling with it. JNagarya 01:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JNagarya (talk • contribs)

I've added some much needed context to With Eyes at the Back of Our Heads.--Auric talk 01:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) JNagarya: Lying about not being notified and rudeness, and you being uncivil won't help your case. This noticeboard is the wrong venue, and I have nothing else to add here except a link to this thread. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Kudpung gave some very good advice. Redirecting is the best solution for now. We don't use TOC as article contents. If proper articles should be created in the future, that can be done, but the articles need to be proper articles. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

ip resuming bad habits

First reported here and subsequently here, a combination of a registered user Skellands (talk · contribs), and now various ips, have attacked the article James King (Royal Navy officer) to insert falsified information. With the last ip still under a six month block for vandalism, up pops 216.129.211.44 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to resume this pattern of behaviour ([303], [304], etc). Though the ip should probably be blocked as a fairly obvious sock, I wonder about page protection since this is a perennial problem. Given the long gaps between these attacks I don't know that it would be the ideal solution, but perhaps admins might have a different view? Benea (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

As the article has been stable for years, other than this ongoing problem, I think some fairly long-term semi-protection should be done. I will put it under semi-protection for six months to start, and if the problems resumes when the protection wears off, please ask for another round of protection at the WP:RFPP noticeboard (here is ok too, but the specific noticeboard is the best place to go). -- Diannaa (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Frustrated by the protection of the page, he has now taken to refactoring comments on the article talk page here. The sock puppet investigation into the ip was closed on the reasoning that "It's unlikely that this user would make any edits outside of this topic. I see little reason to block them now that the protection is in place." Well intentioned, but the ip found a way around to push his falsified information. Protect the talk page or block the sock? Benea (talk) 03:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP and watchlisted the talkpage. Based on the other IPs they've used, a rangeblock might be feasible if disruption continues. They're using a more dynamic IP to avoid the block on the static IP. Acroterion (talk) 03:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks and allegations of mental illness or other impairment

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:pantherleapord made the following post: [305] and after i removed it he RESTORED his personal attack, [306]. Anna Frodesiak thankfully then removes the personal attack a second time.

I am requesting that this user be warned that this sort of conduct is unacceptable. ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 03:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

It was mild invective at most, saying another editor has a superiority complex is not an "allegation of mental illness. From what I've sen just today of you here in WP:ANI, you are becoming more of a detriment to the project rather than a benefit. Not every spat once gets in around here necessitates admin intervention, which is what ANI is for. Tarc (talk) 03:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Please do something. Urgently. ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 03:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

You will note that this user RESTORED the personal attack after it was removed, it had to be removed TWICE! Please warn this user this is NOT ACCEPTABLE, as per WP:NPA!. ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 03:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

It was an honest mistake. I have already learned from it. Please remember WP:AGF in the future. PantherLeapord (talk) 03:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

If you are going to go down the AGF route (Which suprise suprise, no admin would accept on IRC regarding my block yesterday), atleast apologise. ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 03:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done here PantherLeapord (talk) 03:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest that this user has NOT learnt. In his edit summaries (excuse the language), they are always terribly 'smart ass' in nature. When I removed the PA, he restored it say, "Dont refactor talk page comments!", when he comes here, he bitches about us not AGF. This guy has been harrasing me for a LONG time, as evidenced by his posts on my talkpage. ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 03:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Panther's comment was a very mild personal attack, if that. Frankly, given that it wasn't on your talk page, you probably shouldn't have removed it. If I were you, I'd avoid opening up anymore ANI threads for a while. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  03:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Retrolord, if you don't want to be accused of having a superiority complex, don't give yourself the title of KING and then place it in your signature. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  03:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry? I must have misread WP:NPA, I didn't see the part where it said "You may make accusation of mental illness, provided they have a fancy signature". I assume that was the part you were reffering to? ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 03:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Would you please point out where anyone claimed that you have a mental illness? AutomaticStrikeout  ?  03:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

When I was accused of having "a superiority complex". DO SOMETHING. ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 03:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

What do you want me (or anyone else for that matter) to do? AutomaticStrikeout  ?  03:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

WARN this user that his continued harrasment and stalking of me on Wikipedia MUST STOP IMMEDIATLY. Whereever I go, PantherLeapord appears. TELL HIM TO STOP. ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 03:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

That is up to the admins. However, I think you may be misinterpreting his "Superiority complex" remark. He might not have really meant that you are mentally ill, but simply that you think you are better than the other editors out there. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  03:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × a gazillion) Retrolord, first of all, if you'll forgive a brief tangent: An allegation of mental illness isn't itself a personal attack. Using such an allegation in an attempt to discredit a fellow contributor is, but I think there's an important distinction. There are tons of Wikipedians with various psychological conditions, some of whom even serve as administrators (and at least one of whom serves as a functionary), and it's disrespectful to act like it's an insult to be compared to us. Anyways... moving on to your complaint here: Well, for one thing, you can't request a warning, really. Anyone can warn anyone else, provided they do so civilly. Of course, PantherLeopard seems to have learned his lesson here, so I don't think a warning's really necessary at this point. More importantly, WP:CIVIL is a very very fickle policy, and people have vastly different views on how it should be enforced. Suffice it to say that remarks like this are a grey area. Personally, I think that per the "comment on content, not contributors" principle, it was acceptable to remove the remark, but I don't think anything further is warranted at this point. Seeing as this is the second time in about 24 hours you've been told that you were overreacting to incivility, I think you might want to reconsider some of your approaches here. It sucks when people say mean things about you, but sometimes the best thing to do is to simply move on. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 03:47, 22 July 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.

Urgent revdel required

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

---

See [307]. Please revdel it, thankyou, ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 14:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if these comments were removed swiftly, thankyou. ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 14:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is really necessary. The second criteria for revdel does allow for the deletion of grossly offensive material such as smears, but not "ordinary incivility...or personal attacks". This comment has already been removed from the talk page and so it isn't readily visible. As an aside, I think it would be for the best if you reviewed your use of the {{adminhelp}} template. I can't think of any reason why it should be used here or at AN. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

This is grossly offensive material. Can you please remove it immediatly? I do not appreciate being called a "cunt" by a sockpuppet. ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 15:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate that personal attacks can be upsetting; none of us like being called names. That isn't a reason for revision deletion, though. The comment has already been removed. I've deliberately left this open for someone else to review if they want. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

This would be a serious misuse of revision deletion for a simple, vulgar insult. One does have a right to be free of such insults on this project, but demanding that they be sent down the memory hole is a wee bit of an overreaction. Revert it, block the offender, and go on your merry way. Tarc (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I've seen less-obscene attacks than that rev-del'd. So, too, should this one be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Rev deletion is terribly misused. The policy clearly states that RD2 is:

not mere factual statements, and not "ordinary" incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations (emphasis in the policy)

This, and I would say a majority of the material deleted under RD2 or RD3, should not be revdeleted. Prodego ^talk 17:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

If you don't rev-del it, it tells the world that that kind of abuse is perfectly OK, thus encouraging more of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

This is one time for us to disagree, Bugs. RBI. Tiderolls 17:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Bugs. It has no redeeming value whatsoever and disturbs the wiki's character. Why keep it? Wouldn't you want it deleted if it was on your page or at your expense? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:27, 21 July 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.

For the future

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 admins have just declared that gross obscenities are perfectly acceptable and don't harm Wikipedia. And they wonder why Wikipedia is ridiculed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I recall saying no such thing. The user making the statement was blocked. If a removed comment saying mean things is too much for you, then this is not the right project for you. Prodego ^talk 17:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Think of it this way — revdel is generally a simpler way of getting rid of a diff that qualifies for selective deletion. Would you suggest that we delete the page entirely to get rid of this incivility? The context shows that it's generally meant for things like "_____ collects child pornography" or "_____ murdered _____"; exceptions apply as always, but if we found this a good candidate for revdel, we'd either leave tons of eligible stuff undeleted or we'd be going crazy deleting all of it. Nyttend (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

If that's your bar for revdel Bugs, there's almost nothing that can be both offensive and yet not qualify for revdel. Someone using a bad word is not a reason to revdel, or more broadly, to go crying to a higher authority. Shadowjams (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't go crying to any higher authority, the OP did that - and was effectively told "F.U." by those higher authorities. Another proud moment for Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite proud at the moment, actually, as I view this as an anti-whining and pro-grow-the-fuck-up moment. Yes, bad words are mean, but that's what a simple revert or rollback can fix. A vandal that posts "so-and-so is an <insert insult here>" just needs to be removed from view, it does not need to be obliterated from history for all-time. Contrary to the cartoons of your namesake bro, people don't really call the fire department to get kittens out of trees. And on top of that, looking thru this user's talk page, I see a lot of Chicken Little stuff, like badgering the WMF's emergency e-mail address because he got blocked by an en.wiki admin. IMO further posts of this nature are going to see a WP:BOOMERANG. Tarc (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Actually, lowering oneself to obscenities is the opposite of acting "grown up". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

While when I was more active I was often in agreement with Bugs and often found myself at odds with Tarc, I do have to say I agree with Tarc in this case. But I do have this question for Tarc, or anyone who wishes to respond- should we have a set of words, similar to [George Carlin]]'s set of seven words you cant say on TV? Of which if those words are said about someone, it would allow for a revdel? Could this be a policy change that would heal some of the animosity found here between those who say not enough was done and those that say if a revdel WAS done then it would be a slippery slope to revdel'ing something every second of every day?Camelbinky (talk) 20:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

We shouldn't have such a list; besides the WP:BEANS issue, we shouldn't delete stuff simply because of bad language. Revert it, but don't make it invisible to non-admins except in the most egregious cases; each situation is different, so "most egregious cases" will have to be decided case-by-case. Nyttend (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I see the "beans" issue, I was just trying to figure out some sort of way where Bugs did not feel like Wikipedia let everyone down, he's a good editor and means well.Camelbinky (talk) 21:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

For whatever it matters, I've always felt the language of RD2 and RD3 was way too subjective to implemented in a consistent manner. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Then let's start a discussion at the VPP or some place on how to make it consistent.Camelbinky (talk) 00:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I have to disagree entirely with the above claim that "If you don't rev-del it, it tells the world that that kind of abuse is perfectly OK, thus encouraging more of it". The block and initial removal of the comment show that this isn't acceptable. Revdel isn't there for every little insult. — Richard BB 08:44, 22 July 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.

Urgent revdel required

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

---

See [308]. Please revdel it, thankyou, ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 14:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if these comments were removed swiftly, thankyou. ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 14:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is really necessary. The second criteria for revdel does allow for the deletion of grossly offensive material such as smears, but not "ordinary incivility...or personal attacks". This comment has already been removed from the talk page and so it isn't readily visible. As an aside, I think it would be for the best if you reviewed your use of the {{adminhelp}} template. I can't think of any reason why it should be used here or at AN. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

This is grossly offensive material. Can you please remove it immediatly? I do not appreciate being called a "cunt" by a sockpuppet. ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 15:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate that personal attacks can be upsetting; none of us like being called names. That isn't a reason for revision deletion, though. The comment has already been removed. I've deliberately left this open for someone else to review if they want. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

This would be a serious misuse of revision deletion for a simple, vulgar insult. One does have a right to be free of such insults on this project, but demanding that they be sent down the memory hole is a wee bit of an overreaction. Revert it, block the offender, and go on your merry way. Tarc (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I've seen less-obscene attacks than that rev-del'd. So, too, should this one be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Rev deletion is terribly misused. The policy clearly states that RD2 is:

not mere factual statements, and not "ordinary" incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations (emphasis in the policy)

This, and I would say a majority of the material deleted under RD2 or RD3, should not be revdeleted. Prodego ^talk 17:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

If you don't rev-del it, it tells the world that that kind of abuse is perfectly OK, thus encouraging more of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

This is one time for us to disagree, Bugs. RBI. Tiderolls 17:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Bugs. It has no redeeming value whatsoever and disturbs the wiki's character. Why keep it? Wouldn't you want it deleted if it was on your page or at your expense? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:27, 21 July 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.

For the future

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 admins have just declared that gross obscenities are perfectly acceptable and don't harm Wikipedia. And they wonder why Wikipedia is ridiculed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I recall saying no such thing. The user making the statement was blocked. If a removed comment saying mean things is too much for you, then this is not the right project for you. Prodego ^talk 17:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Think of it this way — revdel is generally a simpler way of getting rid of a diff that qualifies for selective deletion. Would you suggest that we delete the page entirely to get rid of this incivility? The context shows that it's generally meant for things like "_____ collects child pornography" or "_____ murdered _____"; exceptions apply as always, but if we found this a good candidate for revdel, we'd either leave tons of eligible stuff undeleted or we'd be going crazy deleting all of it. Nyttend (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

If that's your bar for revdel Bugs, there's almost nothing that can be both offensive and yet not qualify for revdel. Someone using a bad word is not a reason to revdel, or more broadly, to go crying to a higher authority. Shadowjams (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't go crying to any higher authority, the OP did that - and was effectively told "F.U." by those higher authorities. Another proud moment for Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite proud at the moment, actually, as I view this as an anti-whining and pro-grow-the-fuck-up moment. Yes, bad words are mean, but that's what a simple revert or rollback can fix. A vandal that posts "so-and-so is an <insert insult here>" just needs to be removed from view, it does not need to be obliterated from history for all-time. Contrary to the cartoons of your namesake bro, people don't really call the fire department to get kittens out of trees. And on top of that, looking thru this user's talk page, I see a lot of Chicken Little stuff, like badgering the WMF's emergency e-mail address because he got blocked by an en.wiki admin. IMO further posts of this nature are going to see a WP:BOOMERANG. Tarc (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Actually, lowering oneself to obscenities is the opposite of acting "grown up". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

While when I was more active I was often in agreement with Bugs and often found myself at odds with Tarc, I do have to say I agree with Tarc in this case. But I do have this question for Tarc, or anyone who wishes to respond- should we have a set of words, similar to [George Carlin]]'s set of seven words you cant say on TV? Of which if those words are said about someone, it would allow for a revdel? Could this be a policy change that would heal some of the animosity found here between those who say not enough was done and those that say if a revdel WAS done then it would be a slippery slope to revdel'ing something every second of every day?Camelbinky (talk) 20:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

We shouldn't have such a list; besides the WP:BEANS issue, we shouldn't delete stuff simply because of bad language. Revert it, but don't make it invisible to non-admins except in the most egregious cases; each situation is different, so "most egregious cases" will have to be decided case-by-case. Nyttend (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I see the "beans" issue, I was just trying to figure out some sort of way where Bugs did not feel like Wikipedia let everyone down, he's a good editor and means well.Camelbinky (talk) 21:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

For whatever it matters, I've always felt the language of RD2 and RD3 was way too subjective to implemented in a consistent manner. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Then let's start a discussion at the VPP or some place on how to make it consistent.Camelbinky (talk) 00:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I have to disagree entirely with the above claim that "If you don't rev-del it, it tells the world that that kind of abuse is perfectly OK, thus encouraging more of it". The block and initial removal of the comment show that this isn't acceptable. Revdel isn't there for every little insult. — Richard BB 08:44, 22 July 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.

Urgent revdel required

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

---

See [309]. Please revdel it, thankyou, ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 14:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if these comments were removed swiftly, thankyou. ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 14:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is really necessary. The second criteria for revdel does allow for the deletion of grossly offensive material such as smears, but not "ordinary incivility...or personal attacks". This comment has already been removed from the talk page and so it isn't readily visible. As an aside, I think it would be for the best if you reviewed your use of the {{adminhelp}} template. I can't think of any reason why it should be used here or at AN. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

This is grossly offensive material. Can you please remove it immediatly? I do not appreciate being called a "cunt" by a sockpuppet. ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 15:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate that personal attacks can be upsetting; none of us like being called names. That isn't a reason for revision deletion, though. The comment has already been removed. I've deliberately left this open for someone else to review if they want. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

This would be a serious misuse of revision deletion for a simple, vulgar insult. One does have a right to be free of such insults on this project, but demanding that they be sent down the memory hole is a wee bit of an overreaction. Revert it, block the offender, and go on your merry way. Tarc (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I've seen less-obscene attacks than that rev-del'd. So, too, should this one be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Rev deletion is terribly misused. The policy clearly states that RD2 is:

not mere factual statements, and not "ordinary" incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations (emphasis in the policy)

This, and I would say a majority of the material deleted under RD2 or RD3, should not be revdeleted. Prodego ^talk 17:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

If you don't rev-del it, it tells the world that that kind of abuse is perfectly OK, thus encouraging more of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

This is one time for us to disagree, Bugs. RBI. Tiderolls 17:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Bugs. It has no redeeming value whatsoever and disturbs the wiki's character. Why keep it? Wouldn't you want it deleted if it was on your page or at your expense? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:27, 21 July 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.

For the future

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 admins have just declared that gross obscenities are perfectly acceptable and don't harm Wikipedia. And they wonder why Wikipedia is ridiculed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I recall saying no such thing. The user making the statement was blocked. If a removed comment saying mean things is too much for you, then this is not the right project for you. Prodego ^talk 17:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Think of it this way — revdel is generally a simpler way of getting rid of a diff that qualifies for selective deletion. Would you suggest that we delete the page entirely to get rid of this incivility? The context shows that it's generally meant for things like "_____ collects child pornography" or "_____ murdered _____"; exceptions apply as always, but if we found this a good candidate for revdel, we'd either leave tons of eligible stuff undeleted or we'd be going crazy deleting all of it. Nyttend (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

If that's your bar for revdel Bugs, there's almost nothing that can be both offensive and yet not qualify for revdel. Someone using a bad word is not a reason to revdel, or more broadly, to go crying to a higher authority. Shadowjams (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't go crying to any higher authority, the OP did that - and was effectively told "F.U." by those higher authorities. Another proud moment for Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite proud at the moment, actually, as I view this as an anti-whining and pro-grow-the-fuck-up moment. Yes, bad words are mean, but that's what a simple revert or rollback can fix. A vandal that posts "so-and-so is an <insert insult here>" just needs to be removed from view, it does not need to be obliterated from history for all-time. Contrary to the cartoons of your namesake bro, people don't really call the fire department to get kittens out of trees. And on top of that, looking thru this user's talk page, I see a lot of Chicken Little stuff, like badgering the WMF's emergency e-mail address because he got blocked by an en.wiki admin. IMO further posts of this nature are going to see a WP:BOOMERANG. Tarc (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Actually, lowering oneself to obscenities is the opposite of acting "grown up". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

While when I was more active I was often in agreement with Bugs and often found myself at odds with Tarc, I do have to say I agree with Tarc in this case. But I do have this question for Tarc, or anyone who wishes to respond- should we have a set of words, similar to [George Carlin]]'s set of seven words you cant say on TV? Of which if those words are said about someone, it would allow for a revdel? Could this be a policy change that would heal some of the animosity found here between those who say not enough was done and those that say if a revdel WAS done then it would be a slippery slope to revdel'ing something every second of every day?Camelbinky (talk) 20:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

We shouldn't have such a list; besides the WP:BEANS issue, we shouldn't delete stuff simply because of bad language. Revert it, but don't make it invisible to non-admins except in the most egregious cases; each situation is different, so "most egregious cases" will have to be decided case-by-case. Nyttend (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I see the "beans" issue, I was just trying to figure out some sort of way where Bugs did not feel like Wikipedia let everyone down, he's a good editor and means well.Camelbinky (talk) 21:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

For whatever it matters, I've always felt the language of RD2 and RD3 was way too subjective to implemented in a consistent manner. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Then let's start a discussion at the VPP or some place on how to make it consistent.Camelbinky (talk) 00:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I have to disagree entirely with the above claim that "If you don't rev-del it, it tells the world that that kind of abuse is perfectly OK, thus encouraging more of it". The block and initial removal of the comment show that this isn't acceptable. Revdel isn't there for every little insult. — Richard BB 08:44, 22 July 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.