Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive762

User:Gadfium

Obvious to me, too. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
HELP..This men is harassing me in real life and also on wikipedia...Plz plz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Defenseforchicken (talk • contribs) 17:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Obvious "we didn't land on the moon" sock is obvious. Nothing to see here. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 17:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Deepblue1

Deepblue1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a follow-up to an issue that was raised here about a month ago. The advice given then was simply to take the issue to the article's talk page to try and reach a consensus, and the article was given temporary protection from IP edits. This user has, in the past 2 months, continued to instigate several needless content disputes on the article Not Your Kind of People, and has demonstrated a complete inability to compromise, abide by the rules of WP:Own, or even have a rational debate. When a consensus he doesn't like is reached on the article's talk page, he uses IP's to continue reverting to the version he does approve of, such as (77.49.254.23, 111.196.174.79, 111.196.174.232, 178.128.76.165). As mentioned, these actions previously resulted in the page being protected. His attitude is often uncivil and he seems completely incapable of any rational debate. At one point he insinuated that another user was a paid advocate for a website, simply because the user added a negative review. He has stated several times that he "will not allow" other users to make their contributions:

• "I will NOT tolerate your attempts to insert your shitty review"
• "GTFO! ... I will not allow that."

His tone when communicating with other users also leaves much to be desired [1], [2], and [3].

He and his IP's were involved in 2 different edit wars [I believe unpunished] in that article in the past 2 months and he shows no sign of stopping. Now that the protection has expired, he has again resorted to using anonymous IP's (178.138.33.54, 93.112.52.162), to avoid any sanction. All IP's are from Romania (his location) and their only contributions to the site are to reinstate his previous version of the article. The chances of two other users from the same country making the exact same edit in less than 24 hours? I think permanent IP protection for the Not Your Kind of People article is necessary. If he wants to continually revert multiple other contributor's work on the article because he doesn't feel like abiding by WP:OWN, he should have to deal with the ramifications of warring with his own account, or even sockpuppeting - instead of playing this game month after month. Or perhaps an article block for the user altogether, if deemed appropriate? Thanks. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Semiprotected the page for a week to stop the apparent IP-socking while this is discussed, for a start. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Homeostasis07 is one of the most annoying persons I've ever seen in my life. Why I have a problem with this user? This user has an unhealthy obsession with this particular page. First of all he started to add a lot original research text of Not Your Kind of People page about a supposed Loudness War. He even added his own screenshot with waveforms from a song. His edits were rejected from the page. After a while he insisted to add a very bad review on 10 reviews panel by removing a 5 star review. He succeeded being helped by another user. And now he started to add even more negative content to this page by writing 2 more quotes from bad reviews and adding a waveforms snapshot. Not Your Kind of People is not his own page (WP:OWN) to add EVERYTHING he wants, right? By the way, he didn't reach consensus about his recent edits. If he saw that his edits were reverted why didn't he ask for consensus on Talk Page first? If I remove his non-constructive edits, I'm the bad guy in his opinion. I'm not a vandal because I don't want to see some of his edits here. It's my right to not like his non-constructive edits. I actually tried to keep the page as clean as possible. In my opinion his edits do more damage than help build a neutral wiki page. If there is someone that must be blocked, Homeostasis07 is the one. Deepblue1 (talk) 09:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

(More to come soon). Deepblue1 (talk) 10:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding the IPs: not all IPs posted by H07 are mine. I simply wasn't logged when I edited the page. Is that a problem?

• H07 said: "At one point he insinuated that another user was a paid advocate for a website, simply because the user added a negative review." Not any negative review but exactly the SAME review over and over. The reviews panel from the right was already written and it was just fine then he came with that bad review. That made me to believe that he had some interests to push that review with any price. Why so insistent? And why ALWAYS negative reviews? (I admit I'm a Garbage fan) A question for H07: why are you so insistent to add your negative edits?

• Regarding the strong language when I talked to him: he made me angry. A bit of context is needed. He used to write his opinions about the mastering of the album Not Your Kind of People on a board where I'm also member. I had some issues with him here. The admin banned him from that board for his behavior. He acted very uncivil with me and he wants respect? He's not what he seems, that's for sure.

• H07 also said: "His tone when communicating with other users also leaves much to be desired". This is tendentious. Out of context.

• In fact, I think I will also report this user to Wikipedia admins to block him for disruptive editing. He tried to add his suspicious edits and I reverted the page back to normal. That's all I've done with his disruptive edits. He was the vandal, not me. All I want from H07 is to stop sabotaging the page. Thanks. Deepblue1 (talk) 11:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

"Regarding the IPs: not all IPs posted by H07 are mine. I simply wasn't logged when I edited the page. Is that a problem?" When you're involved in an editing dispute, it's very much a problem. It gives the impression, rightly or wrongly, that you are editing as an IP to escape scruitiny and to dodge 3RR. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

His response only serves to illustrate perfectly the reasons why I made my original complaint. In all that mess, he has just admitted to using several different IP addresses to revert edits from different users. His excuse of simply not being logged in doesn't explain how his edits have appeared under 6 different IP's in the space of 3 months. Doesn't an IP only change once every 3 months, on average? He has clearly familiarized himself with enough of Wikipedia's rules in order to avoid sanction, but when it comes to assuming good faith, conversing politely or WP:OWN, those terms might as well not exist. Homeostasis07 (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

My own IP address changes every time I break/re-establish my Wi-Fi link, geolocates 300-1,800 miles away, and is highly variable; the numbers are visibly different when the closest connection is unavailable, but such randomization is, in and of itself, not negative. Dru of Id (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Wrong Homeostasis07. I have a wireless connection. Also sometimes I use other computer, or my mobile phone or go to an internet cafe (it depends). Ever heard of dynamic IPs? Also your original complaint is quite ridiculous considering your disruptive editing. I guess you already know that page is not your property to add everything that crosses your mind. On your complaint you also added various facts/opinions unrelated to your real complaint (which is: I reverted your edits) to put me in a negative light. Not cool. In fact I blame myself for not complaining here before you. The only thing that I regret is the strong language used. I'd like to know the reason why you insist to add only negative elements to the page. Just because other users didn't undo your latest edits YET, that doesn't mean you're right. It's clear as the light of the day that your edits are biased. Write some positive text for a change. Deepblue1 (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• And finally: now that you opened this complaint how we should solve it? Deepblue1 (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

If I were an admin, and having read your interactions above alone, I think I know how I'd be tempted to solve it ... dangerouspanda 22:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

How? I'm curious. Deepblue1 (talk) 00:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Something else I think should mention at this point: Deepblue1 actually used one of these IP's (77.49.254.23) to agree with himself on the article's talk page at one point. The IP used similar language (not swearing, but in their tone and general attitude) in their edit summaries, and also misused the word "destructively" in the same way Deepblue1 once did. So his excuse of simply not being logged in when sometimes editing goes out the window: this is a clear sign of sock-puppeting with IPs? Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• That IP is 100% NOT mine. I already mentioned before: not all IPs are mine. It was another user that happened to have the same opinion with me. According to IPLocation "IP address "77.49.254.29" is located @ Greece Messinia Kalamáta". I don't live in Greece and never lived. Plus the style of language used by that user is not my style. So, H07, don't make statements as facts when you have 0 arguments. Thanks. Deepblue1 (talk) 08:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
• To be clear: I don't know what you try to prove with this complaint H07. The reality is that you're angry that I reverted your edits. This is the #1 reason you wrote all that long complaint, lawyer-style. Not the swearing, not using "hidden" IPs [sic], not "he insinuated that another user was a paid advocate for a website" and whatever. But it's my right to revert your edits as I don't agree with them. I "peppered" also some of the reverts with some swearing hoping that you'll stop. It's your fault that you didn't ask at Talk Page for consensus for your edits. You already know that thing but you didn't do it. Right? I know that you want me to be blocked as a revenge. But if I'm blocked even for 24h I will ask also for your blocking. Because you deserve it. Deepblue1 (talk) 08:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

As far as your IPs are concerned, I've presented whatever evidence I could find and hopefully some sort of solution will be provided by an administrator here soon. Another user (Dru of Id) has already helpfully explained how a user can obtain an IP from "300-1,800 miles away." Your edits [whether through your own account or with your admitted IPs] are constantly disruptive. Instead of ever adding to an article, you delete other users work, citing hypocritical accusations of vandalism. In the simple case of adding a negative review, instead of deleting someone else's work up to 5 times with different IPs, it never even occurred to you simply add something of your own to balance it out? That's practically the Wiki definition of a disruptive editor. I can't recall anyone ever swearing at you, while your foul language is immediate to anyone who is ever "annoying" to you. And every little thing added to an article shouldn't and doesn't require consensus. You just have massive problems accepting that WP:OWN applies to you. Homeostasis07 (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• "Instead of ever adding to an article, you delete other users work, citing hypocritical accusations of vandalism." I wrote some content on Wikipedia. I wrote even 90% of an article last year and I opened few pages. I didn't delete any kind of other users work, but the negative-biased ones. With your edits you made that album to appear in a more negative light than positive. That album is one of my favorites released this year so that's the reason why I defended it against exaggerated criticism. I don't consider my reverts as vandalism but some resets of the page in the previous state. It would be vandalism if I added text unrelated to the page. Or malicious text (like you did).
• To be honest I'm sick of all this talk. I have more important things to do. From now I promise that will not revert your edits on Not Your Kind of People page. Hope that will end the issue. Deepblue1 (talk) 22:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I suspect you will still be free to edit the page when all this is done, and I have no problem with that. Any user should be free to add whatever constructive content they want to add to an article. You've always been free to add whatever relevant, positive content you wanted to. It's the constant, angrily-toned reverts from multiple IPs I've had a problem with. In order to ensure this stops now, I think it best the article be given an extended period of protection against IP edits. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Merger of "Metrication of British transport" into "Metrication in the United Kingdom"

Would an administrator please close this merger proposal (Discussion here) and (initialisation here). The proposer of this merger is User:Pother who is now banned. Other editors who partipated are myself (Oppose), user:Kahastok (Support) and User:Ornaith (Support, but now also banned). The discussion leading up to the banning is [4].

May I draw to attention that the earlier deletion proposal was made by user:Kahastok, with Pother and Ornaith supporting the deletion proposal.

Martinvl (talk) 16:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems that the evidence that they are both socks of DeFacto is contested. Secretlondon (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

They were both blocked by the checkuser AGK after he reconsidered his CU results.--Atlan (talk) 07:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Would somebody please close the merge request? Martinvl (talk) 06:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Would somebody please close this merger request. I believe the request to be null and void as it was opened by a sockpuppet of a banned editor. I tried to close it , but somebody else has reopened it. Martinvl (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring: Is it time to start a new debate regarding Talk:Gdansk/Vote?

As this AN3 thread entails, there seems to be an issue regarding the vote, which was done 7 years ago. As consensus can change, it may be time to revisit the issue. Note: I'm completely uninvolved in this argument, merely visiting this as a bystander. Additional note: I know that this may not be the best forum to revisit the argument, but the underlying issue is still there, however. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 09:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Volunteer Marek, Illraute, Estlandia , as well as Piotrus - all editors that commented at the AN3 thread - are notified. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 09:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
• While the Gdanzig vote is in some ways an oddity from today's point of view (a straight vote determining naming usage), I don't think the consensus on the naming of Gdanzig really has changed. The compromise is easily acceptable to most German and Polish editors. Before the content decision is revisited, I would like to see examples how it does not work. (I am happy to believe that editors exist who turn Wikipedia into a WP:BATTLEGROUND over this, but that is a conduct issue, not an issue with the ruling of the Gdanzig vote). —Kusma (t·c) 10:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
• Largely irrelevant is it not? Why would the vote on Gdanzig be binding anywhere else on Wikipedia? At best its a precedent for compromise. It certainly doesnt over-rule 3R and the other policies/guidelines. Trouts all round for edit-warring anyway. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

  There are various ArbCom rulings that contain binding decisions and exceptions to ordinary editing practices. The voting on conventions reminds me of Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll, which was encouraged in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways. I don't know if we had any recent large-scale debates of this type, but essentially you'd expect people to follow the result of a formal RfC. —Kusma (t·c) 11:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

  The "modern" approach would probably be discretionary sanctions as imposed in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands. It may be better to just block edit warriors instead of giving 3RR exceptions. Still, the question is what best keeps the peace in this German/Polish mess. —Kusma (t·c) 12:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Gdansk/Vote is from 2005 and it is not marked as being a policy page. It is not clear whether the section announcing that certain edits are exempt from WP:3RR can be viewed as policy. The main WP:Edit warring policy does not say anything about Gdansk. If a single editor were to embark on a project of undoing names consistent with the Gdansk vote, their edits would fall under WP:ARBEE. This might expose them to discretionary sanctions, which are well-established under current policy. If further disputes about Gdansk-related names were to arise, in my opinion it is better to take them to WP:Arbitration enforcement for review than to expect that a Gdansk exemption to 3RR would be accepted at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 14:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I think Ed has a point about that 3RR exemption. It may have been useful at the time, as a quick and dirty measure to aid rapid enforcement of the rules when they were new, but we should make clear that the exemption is now deprecated. By the way, there's an interesting parallel to another more recent case where a naming convention was buttressed with a tweak to the reverting rules: ARBMAC2. But here it's not 3RR that is being waived; there's a general 1RR for naming-related lameness edits, with edits that serve to restore an status quo unambiguously mandated by the community-endorsed naming rules being exempted from the 1RR, but not from 3RR. In the Macedonian case that's been fairly successful and is still working well, and it might work well for EE too, if it weren't for the fact that in many of the recent naming lameness cases where people have invoked Gdanzskxzigkc, editors on both sides were claiming the rule favoured their side. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Gdanzig vote works relatively well, although I think it due to simple luck - the fact that that the two main revert warriors dancing around it and never creating any real content (Matthead (talk · contribs) and Space Cadet (talk · contribs)) got topic banned (from Poland and German shared history topics), and another editor associated with the area, MyMoloboaccount (talk · contribs), actually got a hint after a series of blocks and also moved away from regular reverting; some others I can think of became simply inactive. Unfortunately, this could last only as long as it took for another similar and active user to (re?)appear; personally I think that IIIraute (talk · contribs) contributions to that area of Wikipedia add nothing but reverts, but knowing that it took several years for Matthead and SC to get their topic bans, I don't expect anything to change here till at least 2015 and 5th or 6th ANI discussion involving that user.
• Now, regarding the Gdanzig vote itself... it was probably good for its time, as I think it stopped a number of edit wars, but even so, this could have been handled back then by some enforcement of the 3RR rule. 3RR rule exited back then, but we were just getting into the habit of enforcing it, as far as I can tell the 3RR noticeboard was created around the same time that Gdanzig vote was. Since then we have also developed a more general WP:NCGN. It should be enough, particularly considering that the Danzig vote was unfair from the start. Consider this: Germany has twice as much population as Poland, and there have always been more active German Wikipedians than Polish. I am pretty sure that the results of the vote were significantly affected by this, and as usual, I expect that the interest from general (non-Polish, non-German) community was not sufficient to outweigh the fact that majority of voters came from the two affected countries. I think the Gdanzig vote should be repeated, excluding editors from those two countries, or simply discarded; WP:NCGN is good enough for the rest of Wikipedia, why not for Polish-German topics? (Also, NCGN does not have the "revert exemption", which is hardly needed for such situations, 3RR has actually been enough to deal with the issue in all other situations).
• So, to sum up, I suggest that we retire Gdanzig vote, and let our regular policies (NCGN and 3RR) deal with anything that creeps up. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
• It seems the simple solution is to conduct a new RFC on the talk page to decide if the old Vote is still binding. Monty₈₄₅ 14:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

"...the two main revert warriors dancing around it and never creating any real content (Matthead (talk · contribs) and Space Cadet (talk · contribs))..."

Hm, you really can't compare the user Space Cadet with Matthead. When in 2009 I developped a first interest in various Wikipedia articles, I admired Matthead's large detail knowledge in many articles. At that time he apparantly was one of Wikipedia's top contributors. (I don't would be always of the same opinion in the talks.) A quick look, which pages he had created, stops at the possible maximum of 100 articles. For Wikipedia it's a loss, that such able editors increasingly loose interest. (As a valuable contributor you should know it.) But as a former member of the EEML list - in this case you had been desysopped and blocked - you can hardly pretend to be a neutral party. According to M.s remarks, tactics to get him and others unliked editors blocked, were one of the topics of the EEML protocols.

Regarding the Gdansk vote: It was a reasonable compromise and stopped largely chaotic edit wars. But this is only possible, when it is followed.Henrig (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

If the intention is to keep the decision then I would agree, it may be good to have a separate discussion confirming each of the main points. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, generally speaking the Gdansikz vote is a sensible, albeit imperfect, compromise. And it works pretty well when people apply it in good faith with common sense. Problem is that sometimes they don't. This usually happens in two cases:
  1. Applying the vote over literally in situations where it's clearly not meant to apply. Here are some examples [5] [6] (it's not quite as bad as having "Gdańsk (Danzig) Lech Wałęsa Airport" but the gist is the same). And there's more like this. Here it's really just the mindlessness that annoys, though the "territory marking" can get irritating too.
  2. Using the vote as an excuse for edit warring and reverting, in particular the erroneous and self serving belief that the vote gives immunity from the 3RR rule. As Magog the Ogre has pointed out, the Vote is an agreement between editors, 3RR is policy.

Hence overall I think the vote should be treated as "suggestions" not some kind of absolute. Common sense should trump mindless applications of the vote. Standard naming policy should apply. And it shouldn't be used as an excuse or a pretext for generally disruptive edits and reverts.VolunteerMarek 17:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• I have no actual opinion on the matter at issue & no intention of participating in any vote, but if we have a workable solution on anything involving ethnic conflict, or naming generally, it should not lightly be discarded. It is difficult enough to come to a workable conclusion about such issues once; having to do it repeatedly encourage attempts from one side or other to break consensus. The few naming disputes, the more time & energy for substantive contributions. The key to DR in general is getting it to stick. DGG ( talk ) 23:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• I support the solution proposed by Future Perfect at Sunrise. Talk:Gdansk/Vote does not work. It never did. To claim that it did, simply because it has been around for so long, would be a misrepresentation of fact. Productive editors have been driven up the wall and permabanned because of it. That's how the rule was kept alive. It is still being used by problem users to piss off their own perceived and imagined enemies in totally unrelated matters, often against basic common sense.[7] Poeticbent talk 03:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Massive editions made by Diego Grez

User Diego Grez has recently made a massive (automatized?) intervention on articles, templates and categories regarding Chile's regions. I do not see why Aisén region should in every instance be named by its full name Aysén del General Carlos Ibáñez del Campo Region (the same is true for O'Higgins Region and other). As far as to my understanding Chilean usage for refering to its regions is commonly the short name of regions. Despite any possible disagreements on this would like to request that all of the abovementioned recent activity of Diego Grez regarding Chilean regions should be reverted until the question has been solved at Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Chile. Chiton (talk) 05:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Chiton - ANI is an advanced step for incidents that are particularly bad or for which dispute resolution has already failed. For normal content disagreements, it is always required for you to attempt to resolve it with the other user(s) involved, on their talk pages or the article or topic talk pages.

You might be right on the usage / expansion there, but you need to talk to Diego Grez at least, and possibly others on the talk pages for the Regions of Chile article, and determine what the best course forwards is. If you are fair and diligent about that discussion and you feel a great wrong has occurred and it's not resolved, then it can come here.

You notified Diego, please follow up on that and discuss with him in more depth.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Without comment on the current report, it should be noted that Diego Grez [8], formerly MisterWiki [9], has a long and checkered history at AN/I, and was only released from the last of his editing restriction in January. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Re this - I am certainly aware of Diego / MW's history, it doesn't seem like we have an abuse incident here on first impression, just a failure (so far) to communicate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Diego Grez has been notified on this discussion and on the naming convention discussion. I don't see why we should wait to undo his massive edits, I can't see where he has proposed these changes and they are far to drastical and many to be regarded as trivial edits not requesting discussion first. Since he is appparently using some sort of autmatized method to edit these articles I will not manually revert all of these (which I otherwise would have done), and therefore I doing this request here. Chiton (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Chiton - Please, talk to him about it, and use the article / topic talk pages and/or his talk page. This is not the right place to bring it up unless you try discussing it in those arenas and he refused to discuss it constructively. It's not an incident now, it doesn't require administrator intervention. It just needs discussion. So please, it's your responsibility to discuss it, with him and others on those topical pages. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

If this is not the place which is the place to request a massive revertion? Note that I have already asked him to revert his massive edits. I really think he is messing up articles with overly long official names for regions. Chiton (talk) 22:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Little harm is done in reverting tomorrow, or next week, even if it looks a little ugly or is wrong today (and I don't have any stance on the problem, yet). If there's a problem, we expect and require you to talk to the other user about it. Coming here is a last resort, if and only if you went to talk to them and that failed (they would not respond or were abusive and ignored you), you went to talk to other editors on the article or topic talk pages and those discussions failed or nobody responded, etc.

Administrators aren't here to override users any time there is a content dispute of some sort. We're here for dealing with truly disruptive stuff, users abusing each other, etc. So far there is no evidence anything happened that administrators should intervene in "officially". Again - you asked him once, make more effort to talk to him. Try that for a while ( a few days ). I asked him on his talk page to please constructively and proactively engage with you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• This will be my only comment here. First of all, I was simply bold by doing that really hard work (believe me) to move categories, move articles, replace instances of the real, and official names of the regions. Secondly, Chiton failed to talk to me before this "incident". I don't believe ANI is the correct instance to solve problems like this. It seems to me rather a content dispute, isn't it? And thirdly, and finally, I'll make the point as to why did I move the regions articles and categories. The official names of the regions I moved are "Arica y Parinacota", "Libertador General Bernardo O'Higgins", "La Araucanía", "Bío Bío" (as used in Government websites, more often than other spellings, including "Bio-Bío", "Biobío", "Bio Bio", "Bío-Bío", and so on.), "Aysén del General Carlos Ibáñez del Campo" (original title was "Aisén", which was anyway wrong, as "Aysén" is more popularly used in Chile - consider too the case of "Coihaique", which the municipal government itself does not use. Isn't that what is called in Spanish "arcaísmo" or something?), and "Magallanes y la Antártica Chilena". I wouldn't have done all of this if it wasn't necessary. Would you spend a whole afternoon clicking a button? I don't think you would. And if I did it, it was for the reasons I aforementioned. Want references or something? I can do that, but not right now. Diego Grez (talk) 02:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
  • @DG: Just one question regarding a subject I know nothing about: Are there English-language common names for these regions? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

No, there aren't. However, the following links may seem interesting to you: English websites (and even journals) which make use of the regions names I have proposed.

• Aysén del General Carlos Ibáñez del Campo: A company which works at the region. "... will be located in the Aysén municipal district of the Aysén del General Carlos Ibáñez del Campo Region and will provide Chile ..." - Chilean journal of agricultural research versión On-line ISSN 0718-5839 "...murta has been reported from the Maule Region to Aysén del General Carlos Ibáñez del Campo Region (Seguel and Torralbo, 2004)..." (Note: Aysén Region of General Carlos Ibáñez del Campo is also used.)
• Libertador General Bernardo O'Higgins Region: Chilean journal of agricultural research versión ISSN 0718-5839 "In the dryland of the Libertador General Bernardo O'Higgins Region in Chile, most farmers rely..." Merrian Webster Geographical Dictionary (or something) - Page 977. "Rancagua. City of Libertador General Bernardo O'Higgins Region." Chile, a country study. "...the provinces of San Felipe de Aconcagua, Colchagua and Valparaíso, as well as Libertador General Bernardo O'Higgins Region and...."
• Bío Bío Region: Towards Life Cycle Sustainability Management "...and at Talcahuano port (Bio Bio region)..." The Cambridge History of the Native Peoples of the Americas, Volume 1. "...and the banks of the Río Colorado and sold in the Bío Bío region." [http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/1/59/43694606.pdf "The Bío Bío region presents a diversified economic structure that has..."
• Arica y Parinacota Region As the region is kind of "new", there are no book references which use "Arica y Parinacota Region". World Monuments Fund "However, San Pedro de Esquiña, like many other churches in the Arica y Parinacota region, is at risk." Alto Andino Nature Tours (doubt it is a reliable source, but meh) "in the transverse valleys of the Region of Arica y Parinacota (Region 15)." UNESCO "...several women’s public organizations and agencies from the Chilean region of Arica y Parinacota."
• Magallanes y la Antártica Chilena Region: Yahoo! Education "Punta Arenas, city (1990 est. pop. 120,000), capital of Magallanes y La Antartica Chilena region" InfoGlobe "The town of Punta Arenas is often tourists´destination (capital of Magallanes y la Antartica Chilena Region)."

That might be enough. Diego Grez (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I just wanted to make certain that WP:COMMONNAME was not applicable in this instance. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I know nothing about the names of the regions of Chile, but I can observe it's quite credible that in most contexts, a region might be referred to by a common shortening of its name rather than the full official name. After all, for example, the full name of Rhode Island in the United States is "the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations," but we wouldn't write in an article "Jones was born in 1973 in Rhode Island and Providence Plantations," or list Brown University in the category "colleges and universities in Rhode Island and Providence Plantations." I suspect that this may be a similar situation, where common sense and common usage govern whether in a given context the longer-form or shorter-form name ought to be used. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

You are all invited to continue the discussion on the names of Chilean regions at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Chilean regions. However as the dispute last I would like to point out that Mr.wiki/Diego Grez massive edits should be reverted until the dispute has been solved. -Chiton (talk) 04:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I have not used the username MisterWiki for years now. Thank you. Diego Grez (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Ghajinidetails

Ghajinidetails (talk · contribs)

I became involved with this user after he/she made several sweeping changes to cricketer articles which attracted the attention of the cricket Wikiproject. They were made without discussion and went against established consensus and were reverted when the user seemed unable to enter into discussion with us. His user talk page and WT:CRIC hold records of the discussion. I have since then been keeping an eye on the user's edits and noticed what appear to be at least two copyright violations: one at Chakravyuh where the plot section [10] appears to be lifted (with a couple of minor changes) from [11], and another at Anurita Jha where the content appeared to be lifted from [12]. The user has been blocked once already for 3RR. But I'm bringing it here now as the user refuses to engage, his activities have moved beyond the scope of WP:CRIC, and I fear I may be too involved as I've been following his edits for the last couple of days since he first came to light.

Thoughts? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) - The material mentioned is certainly copyvio and wildly WP:PEACOCK-y - should probably get a rev-del for Chakravyuh to avoid easy-reverts. Nikthestoned 13:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Block proposal

I have seen some of the chaos caused by this user, who refuses to discuss and insists his way is right in every matter. I suggest an attention-grabbing block to prevent further disruption, which can become indef if the user doesn't pay attention. Proposal is one week. --Dweller (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Seconded. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thirded. The user's talk page consists of a long list of warnings. The user has never made a response there. A week should be the minimum considered. EdJohnston (talk) 15:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• +1. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

User:McKhan

This editor is a SPA and has been highly disruptive, he has been blocked for sock puppetry and edit warring on the Al-Ahbash article which he kept at a stup for six years. He has taken to logging out to edit war (as he previously did as one of his socks was an IP) thus continuing his old behavior. He has violated 3RR on the Abdullah al-Harari article by using this IP sock[13] I know the IP is his as he has used it to launch two extremely unpleasant personal attacks on me. This attack shows it is User:McKhan [14] as the style of writing is exactly the same. I reported him for socking again and he responded on my talk page with this attack [15] User:Beeblebrox has blocked the IP but not the User:McKhan account, which is still editwarring on the same articles he always edit wars on. I propose a full topic ban on this user on all articles related to Al-Ahbash broadly construed. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• So is this user going to get let off with "Get off my fucking back.. You God-damn little Indian RETARD"? Will no admins step in here? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Maxviwe

Drop the stick, and walk away. --Rschen7754 07:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
That's enough community.How much you are going to harass a innocent editor just like this? I am retired and never want to contribute to Wikipedia at all.Also, I have to write this from Web cafe as my range is blocked. First of all, stop tagging all disruptions from my IP range which is between 219.91.128.0 - 219.91.143.255 and 123.201.208.0 - 123.201.223.255 as my sock-puppet.I am a university campus student, so was using a shared network.Many of users are clearly vandal and do such disruptions for time passing.I have no interest in editing with or without any account.So, please stop tagging them as my sock and block the range for at least one year. Thanks a lot. 14.96.183.173 (talk) 06:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC) If you are blocked, then by definition you, as a person, may not edit Wikipedia anonymously either. Nobody is forcing you to click "save", yet if you do it, it's the act of a block evading sock. Simple plan: stop editing from anywhere so that other people who are not blocked may continue to enjoy editing. dangerouspanda 06:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC) How about this: Click the little "X" on the top right-hand corner of your computer screen and be done with it? It's you against a whole bunch of us, and you will lose, plain and simple. --MuZemike 06:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC) Also your university should be ashamed in your conduct, and they should dismiss you as a result. --MuZemike 06:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC) Enough is Enough MuZemike. No single word about my personal life or anything personal attack. Block on Wikipedia is not end of life. I don't want to fight war with anyone over here.OK? What if I would criticize about your family? Remember that there's a live human being at the next end of computer screen, who has emotions and feelings. Such thing hurts a person lot and for your comment "Click the little "X" on the top right-hand corner of your computer screen and be done with it? It's you against a whole bunch of us, and you will lose, plain and simple." I have already retired from here, but It's thing, that you're just marking all disruptive edits as my socks, forced me to write here from web cafe. Lastly, you know what single thought struck in my mind ? Was my all donations of 250 $ worth such criticize ? 14.96.180.202 (talk) 07:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Several anon edits to BLP that should probably be deleted

Would someone mind taking a look through Special:Contributions/74.118.167.134? The edit to Irina Slutsky was already deleted, but I realized that there are several to Sandra Oh and maybe some others that are pretty offensive too. The IP hasn't edited since 2007 so it's not an ongoing problem. Thanks. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 08:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The most recent edit from this account was more than five years ago, and all of the edits have long been reverted. Why make an issue of this now? RolandR (talk) 13:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the Irina edit has been taken care of, but to answer RolandR's question- the history of that article has only recently been restored (it was deleted in 2007, then recreated a few days ago), so presumably the problematic IP edit didn't become generally visible until now. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

This. And only the Slutsky edit was reverted before I posted, User:Edgar181 just took care of Sandra Oh. There isn't a time limit on deleting revisions for BLPs that contain racist and grossly offensive comments. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 18:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

RogerThatOne72

RogerThatOne72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User RogerThatOne72 has been attempting for a long period of time now to edit war promotional content about a certain spiritual teacher into the Kundalini Yoga article, including WP:FRINGE claims about the alleged health benefits of kundalini yoga (as taught by this spiritual teacher's school). Examples: [16][17][18][19][20] He has continued to do this for almost two years now in spite of the fact that there is clearly no consensus for these additions on the article talk page. Some suspicions have been voiced that RogerThatOne may at times have resorted to socking in pursuit of his goals, but I'm not sure the evidence is sufficient for that. Regardless, I think his conduct is problematic. Gatoclass (talk) 10:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

These edits of Affinity909 and the subsequent reliance upon them warrant close attention. These edits are also not encouraging. Ankh.Morpork 11:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

All of my edits have been consistently backed by references. I would counter that it is actually Gatoclass who has consistently and stubbornly refused to discuss changes in the talk pages or try to reach consensus on the edits despite numerous requests to do so over 2 years [21]. These **is** clear consensus on the matter in the Talk pages with at least 5 different sources backing the facts [[22]] (see: CactusWriter | needles 21:47, 10 February 2010, TRANSPORTERMAN 21:09, 2 February 2010, Morganfitzp (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC), Comment added by Ycartreel (talk • contribs) 21:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC), 201.230.249.233 (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)levtar kaur201.230.249.233 (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC), in addition to Affinity909 and my own editorial contributions. - That actually makes 7 people). There is little refutation besides highly suspect and repetitive deletions by Gatoclass himself whose knowledge on the subject matter is ridiculously limited, bordering on ignorance. Meanwhile he has used his influence and knowledge of Wikipedia structures and policies to intimidate me several times with threats, and attempts to block me with acts such as this without once, ever trying to reach consensus. This is a shame to all editors of Wikipedia if it supports editors abusing their power. RogerThatOne72 (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• RogerThatOne72 is a reincarnation of Fatehji who disappeared after this ANI report. See the SPI that has the CU findings (from CU talk page) on the two accounts. Given that the change in accounts happened right after the earlier ANI, it's clearly to avoid WP:SCRUTINY, and of course there's the returning to the same behavior part too. I'll enform EdJohnston on my way out. —SpacemanSpiff 17:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

More eyes on Maximus Inc please?

Could we get some more eyes on this article, please? I can't make heads or tails of what's going on, but there's a whole lot of content churning, reversion, and redlinked accounts popping up nonstop on my watchlist and I have a feeling something might need to be done about...something. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• I left a message to the user, but this was only about their last edit (removing sourced content + edit warring). A careful analysis of the whole history is needed, and I am definitely not an expert.

User Fastballjohnd

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

Note- This account also has two socks, Drjohndacquisto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Johnd34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), plus an IP 98.167.164.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which has been used for the same purpose as the main account. A sock puppet investigation[23], resulted in the indefinite blocking of Johnd34 and Drjohndacquisto and a two day block on Fastballjohnd.

Fastballjohnd has exclusively done edits involving former Major Leauge Baseball player John D'Acquisto. The editor has on more one occasion, here[24] most recently, claimed to be the retired athlete.

In the 1990's(after his playing career was over) John D'Acquisto had several run ins with the law. They are chronicled in the article with supporting references. Here[25], here[26], and here[nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=NewsLibrary&p_multi=APAB&d_place=APAB&p_theme=newslibrary2&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0F8A15FC51053B7C&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM]. Beginning in August 2008 Fastballjohnd began editing the John Acquisto article. Part of his edit[27] was the following

He was sentenced to prison in 1996 for trying to pass off a forged certificate of deposit and was also indicted on charges of defrauding investors of about $7 million and on 39 counts of wire fraud and money laundering. In that case it was found that D'Acquisto was not responsible for any of the charges in the 39-count indictment and out of the 39 counts 37 were dropped and two were taken with no additional time, for misrepresentation. It was later found that the people who perpetrated the civil lawsuit and criminal investigations as well as the convictions against John D'Acquisto were arrested and are still serving jail sentances in Europe. The consensus is that John D'Acquisto was set up and used to cover up a larger scheme by others; according to the court documents in his sentencing memorandum [1], he never stole any money or committed fraud.

That edit was reverted[28]. In January 2009, Fastballjohnd again edited the article [29] giving a version of events that noone has been able to verify. I, and I only became aware of these edits about a month ago, have tried verifying the claims of Fastballjohnd using Google News archive, High Beam Research(which thanks to WP I have a subscription), and Newspaper Archive. My searches have found nothing verifying fastballjohnd's edits.

From Jan 2009 to May 2012 other edits were done to the John D'Acquisto article. I won't run them all down, just the highlights.

• [30] Feb 2009 claim that news article was incorrect
• [31] edit by Drjohndaquisto account putting in liks to court documents.(link is dead)
• [32] Johnd34 putting in link to google documents.(link is dead)
• [33] Additional commentary added by IP account. This was reverted here.[34]
• [35] IP blanks the part of the article referring to John D'Acquisto's legal problems. Then the IP edited in a new version.[36] Again this was reverted.[37]

It was shortly after that I got involved. Note I did make edits to the article before June 2012 but they were not involved in any way with Fastballjohnd's or his sock's edits concerning John D'Acquisto's legal problems. If you want to see them, click here[38] and here[39].

Then on June 16 2012 I became aware of information edited in by fastballjohnd and did edits here[40] and here[41]. I made one last edit here[42].

After becoming aware of Mr. D'Acquisto's edits, I brought the matter to the attention of the Baseball Project here[43] and asked[44] for WP administrator The Bushranger to advise us. Which he did[45] and he wrote As for his editing his own article, both the conflict of interest noticeboard and, given he's used three accounts, WP:SPI might be applicable.

So I took it to the COI board and got no response[46]. As I stated earlier, I instituted a sockpuppet investigation[47]. When I did each of these, I left messages[48][49] on Fastballjohnd's talk page to notify him.

On June 29th, Mr. D'Acquisto aka Fastballjohnd responded[50] on his talk page, I wrote back one day later[51].

Fastballjohnd edited the John D'Acquisto article again[52] making claims again which I reverted because they can't be verified. I asked The Bushranger for advice again asking if I should come to ANI, The Bushranger replied[53] that he thought it had risen to that level. So I brought it here today....William 14:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

As this user has not yet been notified, I have done so. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 14:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Now that I've done that, I want to weigh in. On the one hand, you have a whole bunch of COI edits. On the other hand, he is sourcing them; by the same principle that allows us to take sources under a paywall, we should be taking these. I guess the problem is that the COI makes it harder to just WP:AGF and take his word for it. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 14:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. I did mean to notify him but forgot. In his last edit he claims a 1999 San Diego Union Tribune article would back up what he's say. The SDTU archives are behind a pay wall and I'd be willing to put up the small amount of cash to peek at the articles but the words I used for the search don't give me much confidence that I'll find anything verifying what D'Acquisto is saying. Plus If he was exonerated, this would have made news outside the SD area. His pleading guilty made the news wires....William 15:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

His sources are always broken links or like here[54] inaccessible. Their inaccessibility I pointed out[55] to him but got no reply. He instead changed his tune to it being reported in the newspaper. It's very hard to AGF considering the COI plus broken links and shifting edits....William 16:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed remedy

I propose that all other accounts being used by Fastballjohnd be indef blocked if they haven't already, that Fastballjohnd be formally restricted to a single account (no legit alternates), and that they be banned (not just discouraged) from making edits to articles in which they have a conflict of interest. Fastballjohnd is still permitted, of course, to make edits to talk pages of articles in which they have a COI, as long as those edits do not violate WP:BLP or any other relevant policy or guideline (such as WP:TPO or WP:CIVIL). - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 04:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• Restored from archive with post-dated datestamp. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Why is this here, and not at WP:COIN? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 05:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It was brought to COIN and I mentioned that up above. Nothing happened....William 10:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Note also that the POV-pushing socking puts it a bit beyond the usual COIN case. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Just found another of his socks but it is stale. Compare this edit by Jddsc3434 with this edit by 98.167.164.178 which has been Fastballjohnd's persistent IP since last September.

Isn't this thread a bit premature though? He has only made three edits since the SPI case ended...two as his account and one as the IP over several days. Shouldn't he be allowed a bit of rope? A CU advised to refile an SPI if the IP continued to edit. If it were me, I'd overlook the one IP edit and be patient.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Fastballjohn is in denial. He says[56] that is his only account. That was after the sockpuppet investigation. He has a clear COI and he thinks the rules don't apply to him. Not doing anything now is just postponing the matter IMHO....William 17:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Berean Hunter here, there have only been a couple of edits and no indication as of yet that he is not complying with WP:SOCK. He is claiming sources, and WP:V clearly says contentious facts must be verifiable not easily verified. Since the edits appear to be in good faith, and COI editing is clearly not prohibited by policy, action here would be premature. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 15:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Before anything is done, we might have another sock sighting.[57]. I'm going to bring it up at SPI....William 14:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

gaming of my 1-rr restriction by user ankhmorpork

user ankhmorpork has a long history of tag-teaming against me, hounding me and follow my edits. this behavior has been confirmed by administrators and other editors [58].

i have been baited into edit warring several times due to this tag-teaming. last time i felt into this trap and got blocked, i made the decision to abide by the 1-rr restriction and to use administrative venues when i was harassed and hounded [59], rather than getting into a fight,

originally, after a dispute on the british-pakistani page, ankhmorpork started to follow my edits and started edit warring on the dhimmi-page, together with user shrike. i have the diffs to prove this. after a warning by an administrator [60] concerning ankhmorpork's tag-teaming things calmed down. however, he is now edit warring and hounding me again. the only reason for this is the fact that i have today edited on this page, [61], a page created by ankh (see the discussion on about its neutrality on the talk page). he has at least followed me to 3 pages i have edited today.

one of them is the dhimmi-page. he is now trying to edit war content into the dhimmi-page which has been removed by other editors before [62] before. i reverted him and told him that the burden is on *him* not others, as his edits has been rejected before. instead of discussing he reverted back the content, knowing very well that i'm under a 1-rr restriction. could someone please revert ankhmorpork as he is blatantly edit warring and adding content without any consensus. content that has been removed by other longstanding editors. could someone please block him for this continuous hounding? shrike should be warned as well. -- altetendekrabbe  13:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Typical misuse of sources by Ankhmorpork. s/he is using a source which discusses the way "classical Islamic law" had discriminated against both Muslim women and dhimmis - but conveniently ignores the former, in spite of the fact that much of the surrounding text relates to discrimination against women. s/he uses the source to justify a claim that dhimmis "would also face humiliating and discriminatory distinctions" when the source actually says that the degree that such "discriminatory distinctions" were legitimate was a matter of dispute amongst Islamic Jurists - and ignores entirely the fact that the same source also points out that such discriminatory practices were unevenly applied. The book cannot be cited for categorical assertions that dhimmis 'would' face anything - and if it were to be cited for the fact that they 'might', should also point out that so might Muslim women. In any case, this is a total red herring. There is nothing remotely unusual in any system of "classical law" discriminating against women (as seen from the modern, Western 'perspective'), and likewise nothing unusual in legal discrimination on the grounds of religion either. To make out that this was somehow a significant feature of "classical Islamic law" is a highly dubious proposition, and certainly doesn't belong in the lede, particularly when the body of the text (which the lede is supposed to summarise) makes clear that the situation was much more complex, and that dhimmis were sometimes at a legal advantage under systems of "classical Islamic law" - and indeed sometimes had their own legal systems, with Islamic courts constrained from interference. The proposed edit to the lede is nothing more than spin, intended (as with much of ankhmorpork's 'contributions') to portray Muslims in as negative a way as possible, through selective (mis)reading of sources. That Ankhmorpork is still permitted to misuse Wikipedia to push such an agenda is a disgrace to the entire community. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

::: Your use of AN/I to attempt to resolve a dispute is in direct contravention of one of your two editing restrictions. I hope this results in a block for yourself. Iamthemuffinman (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, I completely misread your restriction. Iamthemuffinman (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

A notification of this would have been preferred. Altetendekrabbe has accused various editors of tag-teaming, a common denominator among them being that they do not share his view. Among them are myself, Estlandia, Frotz, Shrike and others. This is often cited when explaining his frequent disruptive editing.

Addressing his concern that I have been following him today to various pages,

• In response to a talk page discussion at Talk:Rochdale sex trafficking gang and altetendekrabbe's content removal, I added content based on the Times source as requested. I explained this on the talk page. This article was on my watchlist seeing as I created it. Note: Altetendekrabbe had made mass deletions to this page before against consensus.
• At Dhimmi, a page I have made a number of edits and introduced various sources, I explained on the talk page why a source was inaccurately presented. I then amended the article according to the source. I was immediately reverted by Altetendekrabbe who stated I was 'edit warring' and that the issue had been discussed, despite me starting a thread to discuss this source. I asked him to direct me to the pertinent discussion or explain his grounds for removal. He declined.
• Altedendenkrabbe broke his 1rr restriction today. This was pointed out to him by Shrike who advised him to self-revert which he did. This is a cynical attempt to cover up his continued disruptive editing.

I have not reverted any of his edits but improved the sourcing in one article and sought to accurately reflect the source in another, something I discussed on the talk page. His claims of edit-warring or hounding are not correct and are frequently employed when facing a content disagreement. Here are a sample of comments he has said about me in the past, 12[63].

Andy - I have no idea what you are talking about. The source and material based upon it was already in the lead and was not under dispute. What I did was alter it slightly per the source Please take a look at the edit in question before accusing me of misusing a source that various editors have agreed should be included. If you object to its inclusion, please address your concerns to the relevant talk page.

Ankh.Morpork 14:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Is that supposed to make sense? If the material was 'not under dispute' before you 'alter[ed] it slightly' then clearly there is a dispute if people disagree with your 'alteration' - and your 'alteration' is clearly misrepresentation and spin, per the usual habits of you and the Islamophobic tag-teamers that conveniently follow you around. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Look at the edit in question. You are clearly barking up the wrong tree seeing as the the source had long been introduced and included in the article and my edit was simply amending a couple of words exactly as source stated. Ankh.Morpork 15:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

excuse me but you're missing the point. your edit was reverted by other editors weeks ago, [64]. you didn't bother to discuss at all. you are now, forcefully trying to add the *exactly* the same content back. i reverted you as you have *absolutely no consensus*, and the burden is on you. instead you reverted me, knowing very well i cannot revert you back due to my self-imposed restriction. you are gaming the system, you are hounding me. regarding the so-called breach of my 1-restriction: i self-reverted![65] i forgot i was under restriction. ok? oh yes, once more: you have *consensus* and the burden is on you.-- altetendekrabbe  15:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Bollocks. I asked you twice to direct me to the relevant discussion so that I could participate as I could not see it anywhere and you instead ignored this and decided to take this to ANI. I still don't see where the issue on how to present this has been discussed. Ankh.Morpork 15:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

when i reverted you, you should have stopped and discussed. instead, you reverted me, when you don't have consensus, and the burden is on you. you made exactly the same addition weeks ago...and they were thrown out..u were asked to participate in the discussion then but you didn't.-- altetendekrabbe  15:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Not true. I did discuss it, I first started a thread directly related to my edit, a thread you have still not participated in discussing your objections. You were twice asked to show where this had been previously discussed and to explain your objections. You refused.Ankh.Morpork 15:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

you reverted the content back in without any consensus. consensus is not reached in 10 minutes. you took advantage of my restriction. you cannot revert back in disputed content under the cover of "i started a thread on the talk page"...-- altetendekrabbe  15:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Ankhmorpork is at it again, on the Rochdale sex trafficking gang article, citing The Times for an assertion that "A report conducted by The Times found that most convicted offenders of child sex grooming in the North and the Midlands have involved British Pakistanis, with the victims mainly being white girls". [66] Not only is this a gross misrepresentation of what the source says, but Ankhmorpork knows full well from previous discussions of this source that it is. Still, who cares about the truth, or what the sources actually say, if you are out to spew vile propaganda... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

yes, several editors are disgusted by his behavior [67].-- altetendekrabbe  15:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

And while we are at it, this edit [68] by Ankhmorpork looks a clear copyright violation: a copy-and-paste job from the source cite, with only trivial rewording. Then again, it is entirely unclear why the speculative opinions of an ex-MP on the possible relevance of arranged marriage to the issue (or more accurately a cherry-picked sample of some of her opinions) even belongs in the article at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Why are you referencing an edit from over two months ago and yet you have the temerity to tell other editors to stay on topic? Here is the source, how was this a "copy and paste" edit? Why are you discussing a topic previously discussed at ANI, which prompted this sanctimonious retirement, only to resurface and make exactly the same accusations. Ankh.Morpork 15:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

because you are part of the topic. your edit warring, your gaming of the system, your tag-teaming and your misrepresentation of sources.-- altetendekrabbe  16:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yup: Telegraph: "Ann Cryer, the former MP for Keighley, who first came across the issue nearly a decade ago, believes the practice of arranged marriages may also have a bearing on the issue. This, she says, is because such marriages often involve the arrival in Britain of young, uneducated young men suddenly transplanted from remote villages in Pakistan. While the age of consent is the same in Pakistan as it is in Britain, girls can be marry [sic] in the former as soon as they reach puberty".

Ankhmorpork:"Ann Cryer, the former MP for Keighley, posited that the practice of arranged marriages, involving the arrival of young, uneducated men from villages in Pakistan, might have a bearing on this issue. Although the age of consent is the same in Pakistan and Britain, girls can be married in Pakistan on reaching puberty".

How is that not a copyright violation, or at minimum a violation of Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing: "Close paraphrasing without in-text attribution may constitute plagiarism, and when extensive (with or without in-text attribution) may also violate Wikipedia's copyright policy, which forbids Wikipedia contributors from copying material directly from other sources". As for when the edit was made, so what - it is yot another example of your cherry-picking of sources for the purposes of spin. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

For info, the original statement and source were introduced by User:Pudeo, to replace a much worse reference and as a compromise. That was in the best of faith, but I am not sure that the source is ideal for the article, so have opened a thread on RSN. Note all of us who are trying to ensure NPOV and policy-compliant editing are being subjected to incivility and accusations. For examplbye ants by User:Whatdafuq - a sock puppet investigation remains open, and attention to the offensive username seems to be waiting on that. The whole spat seems to have started in May, when an editor with just 13 edits brought in a lot of material sourced to the fringe author Rodney Stark. Altetendekrabbe reasonably reverted, and Ankh-Morpork reverted back, with an accusation of vandalism, no less. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Ankh Morpork did say soon afterwards that the vandalism accusation was in error, I missed that, sorry. I don't want to misrepresent anyone. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::Comment I'm not going to squeeze this point, but he actually did it twice, making the apology a little harder to believe.[69][70]

And yet you conveniently omit this edit made soon after. If you have a complaint, present it fairly and don't ignore an obvious acknowledgment of this error. Ankh.Morpork 20:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Acknowledged, I've stricken it. Please accept an apology. benjamil ^talk/_edits 21:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

yes, but he continued with his edit war...-- altetendekrabbe  16:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

here is another (!) discussion that exposes ankh's misrepresentation of sources, his tag-teaming, his blind reverts [71].-- altetendekrabbe  16:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all why no one was notified of this discussion is clear violation of the policy by User:Altetendekrabbe.

user:AndyTheGrump trying to revive some topic that was closed by admin long time ago, his edits uncostrctuve to say the least and have nothing to do with the topic at hand.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Please try to write in at least an approximation of the English language. That makes no sense whatsoever. 17:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It read to me like "AndyTheGrump is trying to revive some topic that was closed by an admin a long time ago, his edits are unconstructive to say the least and have nothing to do with the topic at hand". Not the best grammar in the world, but not incomprehensible (not intended to take a position on the issue, just to clarify it). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal of topic ban for user Altetendekrabbe

Altetendekrabbe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for edit war multiple times and was described by an uninvolved admin as "edit warrior who may not be able to control himself"[72] Only today he broke 1RR [73],[74] though he reverted after I informed him. He clearly tries to test the limits of his restriction and game it and right now he is using AN/I to circumvent his restrictions User:AnkhMorpork is not under any restriction and restored sourced information after discussing it on the talk page but Altetendekrabbe didn't provide any meaningful explanation to his edits.

user:Altetendekrabbe was already blocked several times for constant personal attacks. He has attacked other users as "minions" [[75]] and constantly poisons the article talk page atmosphere with baseless personal accusations [76],[77],[78],[79].Though he removed most of his posts it’s very hard to edit with him in collegial way and try to improve the article. Because of the above I propose to ban user:Altetendekrabbe from all Islam related topics broadly construed

• Support-As proposer--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment You pointed out his violation of 1RR and then he self-reverted. What is the issue here? Fasttimes68 (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The issue that he trying to WP:GAME the restriction either via testing it and hoping no one will notice or via WP:AN/I like now --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

shrike, you are now lying. you know that i know that you are constantly monitoring me..."testing"... "hoping no one will notice"..my foot.-- altetendekrabbe  17:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for providing another clear example of you personal attacks [80]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose for Altetendekrabbe, Support for User:Shrike (the boomerang effect) (Non-administrator comment) dangerouspanda 17:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)— EatsShootsAndLeaves (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This user have made 20 edits at all suddenly returned today with perfect knowledge of wiki markup and welcomed himself.Very strange--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC) amended my comment

Does that supposedly make me incapable of reading? Tagging me as an SPA make very little sense dangerouspanda 17:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. A ridiculous proposal from an involved user, clearly intended to distract us from the issue here - the POV-pushing behaviour of Ankhmorpork and the rest of the tag-team, of which Shrike is clearly one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

yes... shrike is *extremely* disruptive and destructive. he has no limits whatsoever.-- altetendekrabbe  17:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose for Altetendekrabbe, Support for User:Shrike. Shrike has been playing games on this and related topics (I believe he already got topic banned from Israel/Palestine topic, which is why he switched to picking on Muslims in non-directly-related-to-Israel articles) and his activity has long pasted the "disruptive" threshold and is very quickly reaching the "exhausted people's patience" level. He dodged a few boomerangs, but one of them is going to come back and get him eventually, and the sooner that happens the less trouble and disruption.VolunteerMarek 17:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not topic banned all my editions based on scholary sources you tag teaming User:Altetendekrabbe to WP:CENSOR information--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Please write in English. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

He has never been banned or blocked regarding his disputes with altetendekrabbe and always makes extensive use of the talk page. On the contrary, you have. Ankh.Morpork 18:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

He was topic banned from IP [81] I just couldn't remember whether it was permanent or if it expired.VolunteerMarek 20:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Altetendekrabbe who is clearly pushing a pro-Islam agenda contrary to WP Rules about soapboxing and pushing points of view, also propose 48 Hour posting ban in relation to his breach of the 1RR Restriction today. Iamthemuffinman (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Would you care to provide evidence for this supposed 'pro-Islam agenda'? None has been offered in this thread. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at these 123 for starters. Ankh.Morpork 18:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

interesting. the fact that i asked people to replace "muslim" with "jewish", in order to make people understand the racism involved in some edits, somehow make me pro-islam? the first diff is a good one, do you want me to list up edits from the british-pakistani page where you maligned a whole racial group?-- altetendekrabbe  18:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

user iamthemuffinman is clearly tag-teaming with ankhmorpork and shrike here. iamthemuffinman joined wikipedia yesterday, [82]. still, he is so eager to get me banned that he didn't even took the time to read what my restrictions really are [83]. and he knows wikipedia very well, even striking out comments a day after joining [84]. this is extremely strange.-- altetendekrabbe  18:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:DUCK, chances are the brand spankin' new SPA User:Iamthemuffinman is SOMEBODY's sock.VolunteerMarek 18:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I doubt it is a sock, more likely a meatpuppet. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I love that, if anyone sides against you they are "tag teaming" and Meat/sockpuppets. Someone with your attitude shouldn't be editing wikipedia, hence why I decided to support. Your reaction to my post has only made my position more solid. For the record I have never dealt with Shrike or AnkhMorpork in the past. Iamthemuffinman (talk) 07:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Al is a good editor. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I oppose sanctions against Altetendekrabbe or Shrike. -- Frotz(talk) 22:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Altetendekrabbe is capable of intelligent discussion, but does not take opposing opinions very well. Notice that he's not including me in this tag-team cabal anymore. Shrike merely got in Altetendekrabbe's way. -- Frotz(talk) 18:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

shrike has been tag-teaming with ankhmorpork ever since the british-pakistani dispute. you and i have our differences, and i endorsed your version on the dhimmitude-page. now, who has been altering that version ever since? -- altetendekrabbe  18:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This is bullshit. I have never edited this article before so I have no idea what you are suggesting. Ankh.Morpork 19:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Ankhmorpork has never reverted in this article at all but you and Volunteer Marek did and removed sourced information --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

er, what? i was speaking of you shrike. you have constantly tried to destroy any consensus on the dhimmitude-page.-- altetendekrabbe  18:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose for Altetendekrabbe, Support for User:Shrike. During the last two months there have been 6 filings at AN about Altetendekrabbe, this one included. User:Shrike has filed 2 cases [85] (unsubstantiated) [86] and argued in 1 more (not counting the current) [87] for sanctions against him, while being just as disruptive himself, but far less apt when it comes to use of WP:RS. (As a side note, Ankhmorpork's count is 2 filings [88] [89] and 1 count of arguing this instance included) There are major interaction issues here, and the guilt is definitely not all, or even mostly, on Altendekrabbe's hands - all but one of his blocks have seen the involvement of either of these users. NB! The updates at the user page of User:EatShootsAndLeaves give a good explanation of the edit history vs. knowledge of WP markup and policies. benjamil ^talk/_edits 18:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Then he should disclose his account to vote in the ANI--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

All cases were substantiated the admins already had the suspicions and did the CU.So if the admin have the sucspicions then I have every right to have one.You just vote because you don't agree me as I not violated anything.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

All cases were probably substantiated, but there was edit warring going on in all of them. It takes two to tango. Frankly, I'm appalled that it took so long as this [90] for that to be acknowledged. And I still cant get my head around what happened here [91][92]. I'm not voting because I dislike your POV. I've worked perfectly well with people with a similar POV. I'm voting because I've been watching several of the articles where you've been interacting with Altetendekrabbe and because I've seen a modus operandi of which I strongly disapprove.benjamil ^talk/_edits 19:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't take part in this edit war , I have never was blocked for edit warring and if takes two to tango why you vote only against me?Its not clear what I have violated in Islam related articles and why should I banned from it--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Someone else made the point a lot clearer than I did [93], so I'll strike the diffs. For instance, these edits sum it up quite nicely.misrepresentation 1 at Dhimmitudemisrepresentation 2a at Dhimmitudemisrepresentation 2b at Dhimmitude coatrack at Dhimmi in view of [94] and [95] It's clear that either you're unable to read the talk page and try to understand what other editors are objecting to, particularly the complexities of interpretation, or you're deliberately working against consensus. As an alternative to a topic ban, I think enforcement of FuturePerfect's suggestion of discussing all edits before making them would be reasonable.benjamil ^talk/_edits 20:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

you didn't get blocked because you *tag-team* and get away with it.-- altetendekrabbe  19:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose for Altetendekrabbe, Support for User:Shrike Per Andy and Marek. Sædon^talk 21:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support for Altetendekrabbe (and just to be clear, and to fit the format of how other users are doing it, Oppose topic ban for Shrike) - a lot of people here are distracting from the main topic, by simply saying they oppose it for Alt, who, to quote an admin, is an "edit warrior who may not be able to control himsel," but they support it for Shrike. The issue isn't that Alt made a "good-faith edit" and mistakenly violated 1RR, but self-reverted. Alt is under restrictions, which you can view on his user page, which include not violating WP:1RR, and engaging in dispute resolution, and it is expected that he hold himself to higher standards and be more careful. This was part of an unblock condition, if I am correct. Shrike does not have these restrictions, because he has not warranted them, and it seems that the people commenting here "oppose for Alt, support for Shrike" aren't actually listing reasons for this, which calls into question whether they have pre-existing biases or have gotten into previous conflicts with these editors before. It's welcoming that Alt did self-revert, but it's questionable what his motives were in violating 1RR in the first place when he knows that's a specific restriction against him, and he is not allowed to violate it. And instead of trying to cooperate here and explain himself, he's just going about hurling insults at editors, and it's even worse on talk pages. I haven't personally engaged in such discussions with Alt on talk pages, as I'm too intimidated by the behavior and assaults there. I know about his actions since Ankh's page is on my watchlist (I commented on his page once, and since then it's been on my watchlist), and I noticed there was a dispute about the article dhimmi or dhimittude there, so I checked it out. Alt has a history of being blocked for these types of reasons, and it's regrettable that he still continues this behavior, rather than try to cooperate in a friendly and kind way to help benefit all of Wikipedia. I have no doubt that this post in which I expressed my sincere opinion will be attacked and assaulted as well... --Activism1234 21:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

^^^ Another very recent account.VolunteerMarek 01:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Your comment is very insulting. Since March 2012, I have had over 976 edits. Why that would disqualify me, I can't answer... Please try to refrain from these personal attacks on me, so we can have a lively and friendly discussion that results in appropriate enforcements. Thanks!--Activism1234 22:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

If you and your cohorts are so confident that people are using sock/meatpuppets, run a checkuser, otherwise, you need to stop with the accusations as they remain baseless and are bordering on personal attacks. Iamthemuffinman (talk) 08:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment Iamthemuffin, you're a newish account and until recently was editing under an IP and nearly got into some hot water here. ANI regulars are always suspicious of "young" accounts (not editor age-wise, but tenure-wise) that pop up suddenly and throw themselves into a contested discussion. Too many times the suspicions are warranted hence the long standing near-tradition of questioning new contributors here. WP:AGF only goes so far and the distance it goes here is a hell of a lot shorter than anywhere else on wikipedia. Blackmane (talk) 08:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Reply I'm sure they are, but unless they can find any proof to their claims regarding myself, I fully expect the accusation to be withdrawn without delay. Iamthemuffinman (talk) 09:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that you take that to their talk page. Otherwise that'll just derail this discussion. Blackmane (talk) 09:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Note WP:BOOMERANG, this seems to bean opportunistic proposal and the proposer clearly has unclean hands. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose This is just an attempt to deflect attention from the "Typical misuse of sources by Ankhmorpork" (as explained in detail above by Andy)—if someone from your side is in trouble, create a smokescreen to drown the discussion. Why has there been no attention to Andy's comments at "14:36, 23 July" and "15:16, 23 July" and "16:03, 23 July" above? Sure, it's a content dispute, but it appears that normal dispute resolution is entirely unsuitable for an issue like this where severe distortion of sources to enhance a POV appear to have occurred. Johnuniq (talk) 08:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• BOOMERANG on shrike, this reeks of vengeancemongering.Lihaas (talk) 12:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support for Altetendekrabbe and oppose for user Shrike. Altetendekrabbe is a repeat offendor, and what is Shrike supposed to have done? Crystalfile (talk) 13:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This user, Crystalfile, that is, has registered a total of 15 edits since her/his first, at June 7. How interesting. benjamil ^talk/_edits 13:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose for Altetendekrabbe, Support for Shrike. GiantSnowman 14:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• support for A and maybe shrike needs a talking to and an editor? i would be happy to have him submit to me, offline, what he wants to present, i will edit into usable english.... Soosim (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Indifferent re Altenkrabbe sanction, Oppose any sanction re Shrike. Alt self-reverted at Shrike's insistence, i.e. Shrike made a constructive contribution to the content of the article on Alt's behalf. At the same time, Alt's 1RR violation prior to Shrike's notification arguably exceeded the bounds of good faith, so Shrike's proposal is certainly reasonable under the circumstances.—Biosketch (talk) 04:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for Altetendekrabbe, Support for Shrike. Altetendekrabbe is a good faith editor who sometimes makes errors of judgment. I see no grounds for a topic ban for him. If Shrike is acting in good faith, then his proposal of a topic ban for Altetendekrabbe seems incomprehensible. The principle of WP:BOOMERANG seems just and fair.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose both. Though really I should be supporting both, since both of you seem to be way too involved in this topic area. Silverseren^C 22:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for Altetendekrabbe; he's a good editor and simply banning opposing editors from the topic area to get past content disputes is not the way to go (even if they editwar - if a user editwars he's blocked for that and then there's escalation). I would however support a topic ban for Shrike, who has not only started this section as harassment along with many other filings per benjamil but also proven his incapability to edit in the topic area in harmony, per WP:BOOMERANG. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Does Shrike have sufficient competence in the English language to be a worthwhile contributor?

Per this diff, [96], it appears doubtful. Regardless of content disputes, an editor lacking the necessary language skills to recognise such poor material should probably not to be involved in such controversial topics - or arguably, in any direct input into article space at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You're taking one diff in which he made two grammatical mistakes and going crazy over it? People make mistakes in grammar all the time; feel free to correct any mistakes you find. As far as I'm aware, there is no rule against making good-faith edits that comply with all the policies but have a grammatical error... --Activism1234 21:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not 'taking one diff' - I'm giving it as an example of a wider problem. See Shrike's comments in this thread for further examples of incomprehensible postings. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I can understand everything he says. You are right, users should do everything they should in order to make their edits top-notch, and grammar plays a large part in this. But those who aren't fluent speakers in English but understand the language and can edit Wikipedia, and who have been part of the community for a long time as well, should not be discriminated against, especially for that reason. --Activism1234 00:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I think this case is a bit extreme and beyond simple mistakes. This is an editor who is unable to write a sentence in an article without making several basic grammatical errors. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I would say that Shrike is conversational but not fluent based on what I've read in this thread. If it is the case that he consistently adds incorrect language to articles then that would be a problem, but unless that's happening there's not much to discuss. IOW we wouldn't sanction based on this unless it was demonstrated to happen on a regular enough basis. Sædon^talk 00:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I went through some of his article space diffs. His additions are to a poor standard: [97][98][99][100]. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

And note that the first one is apparently quoting "Israel government" [sic], but gives no source. Clearly, edits like this have no place in controversial articles. And excluding someone from editing because they lack fluency in English isn't really a 'sanction' as I see it - merely a way of ensuring that article content quality doesn't suffer. Note that any problem in writing fluently is more or less certain to be paralleled by a difficulty in understanding English-language sources - at least to the level of detail that we'd expect for a contributor writing on controversial topics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, as far as this one goes, I've seen users with much worse English language skills contribute positively to Wikipedia. In fact, I've helped a number of those. However, the two key differences between those users and Shrike are that 1) They weren't editing highly controversial topics or at the very least were not engaged in what could be called POV pushing; they stuck to simple direct, factual, edits, and 2) they weren't engaged in this gaming and WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT that Shrike does a lot of. I know this is a bit of dancing on the AGF boundary but sometimes I honestly have trouble telling whether Shrike just is not communicating/understanding views expressed in English very well, or if s/he's being purposefully obtuse and obstinate since it serves their purpose to ignore other people's comments (see also [101]). So while the lack of English proficiency is a complicating factors, it's not really the underlying issue here.VolunteerMarek 01:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

off-topic suggestion

Regardless of this case, can I suggest that the general 1RR restriction that applies in the Israel-Palestine domain (see Wikipedia:ARBPIA) be extended to all the sorts of articles that the same edit-warriors frequent? I'm not sure of the best definition, but anything related to relationships between Muslims and Jews (such as Dhimmi) should definitely be included. Zero^talk 15:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You could suggest it - but not here. This is outside the remit of this noticeboard. Can we please stay on topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting proposal, but as Andy said above, not the place for it. I'm sure this proposal can get a lively discussion in the appropriate forum. --Activism1234 21:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Moving forwards

This is getting us absolutely nowhere, generating more heat than light. Please remember that, if we are to find a resolution here, we need to work together and not treat Wikipedia as a battleground. That will mean compromise, and will probably mean that most editors will not get exactly what they want. However, if we continue like this, we get nowhere. I would encourage all involved to stop and take a step back at the moment; the initial discussion has just made matters worse, and the topic ban section is too full of accusations from involved users for any admin to judge consensus at. It seems to me that we have a complex interaction issue here, which has gone on for some time, between a number of editors. Until we resolve that, the content dispute (which a completely separate issue) will remain unsolved). While maintaining good faith and without making any accusations, perhaps we could talk about how this interaction issue might be resolved. It would be good if we could leave the past behind us and focus on developing a better relationship now. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions how editors that share similar interests can avoid the appearance of hounding? I am all ears. Ankh.Morpork 09:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, as one of the AE admins these are all names I'm familiar with, and I don't see a typical ANI thread resolving what's going on here. There are a lot of very deep-seated issues that require both some subject knowledge and a very good understanding of the machinations of the ARBPIA topic area. What it really would need is an AE-type setup of comments and responses, with a couple admins willing to read over everything and a section for some uninvolved non-admin comments, but unless someone really wants to set that up an attempt to restart will probably end up being an all-out brawl like before. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

A simple question for Ankhmorpork

With this edit [102] you added the following paragraph to the Rochdale sex trafficking gang article:

"A report conducted by The Times found that most convicted offenders of child sex grooming in the North and the Midlands have involved British Pakistanis, with the victims being white girls. Of the 56 offendors convicted since 1997 for crimes involving the on-street grooming of girls aged 11 to 16, 3 were white, 53 were Asian of which 50 were Muslim and most were from the British Pakistani community".

Do you contend that this paragraph (particularly the first sentence) is supported by the source cited: [www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/crime/article2863058.ece]? (note that this article is behind a paywall - I have seen the source however, and I'm sure that others in this discussion will have seen it too).

This is a simple enough question, and it should be possible for Ankhmorpork to answer with little more than a straight yes or no - I await his reply. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is a copy of the source for anyone who cares to judge for themselves. This very source has been the subject of a previous ANI, in which this was lengthily discussed, and like previously, you have not deigned to explicate your criticisms on the talk page. Ankh.Morpork 14:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You have not answered the question. Is the first paragraph of your edit supported by the source or not? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is the bit from the source "Most of the victims are white and most of the convicted offenders are of Pakistani heritage," I would say that supports the first line. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

If you are claiming that the paragraph in question is supported by the source cited, I have to question your competence as an editor - see the discussion below.

Meanwhile, I am still waiting for Ankhmorpork to answer the question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Andy, you asked "particularly the first sentence" was supported by the source, obviously it is. I am done commenting here. A question was asked and was responded to with your usual personal attacks. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

If you think that, once again, I would question your competence as an editor (hardly a 'personal attack' given that you have clearly failed to comprehend what the source actually says) - though evidently this would be best pursued elsewhere.

Meanwhile, I am still waiting for Ankhmorpork to answer the question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You like calling other users' competence into question, don't you? It goes hand in hand with your baseless accusations and personal attacks. Iamthemuffinman (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I happen to agree with Darkness Shines. If we're talking about the first sentence that Ankhmorpork wrote, and we're using this source, then it appears to accurately fit the source, which states "Most of the victims are white and most of the convicted offenders are of Pakistani heritage, unlike other known models of child-sex offending in Britain, including child abuse initiated by online grooming, in which the vast majority of perpetrators are white." The second part of the sentence compares one type to the first part. What exactly is the issue? The wording "child sex grooming" as opposed to "sexual exploitation?" It appears the wording was taken from "involving groups of older men who groom and abuse vulnerable girls aged 11 to 16 after befriending them on the street."

Either way, it seems like a typical dispute between two editors that is best to be resolved between the two editors, or on a talk page, or in a third party opinion forum. As I said, I agree with Darkness Shines and the edit is close to what the source says, so I recommend that any issues be taken up at the talk page or with Ankh, rather than try to cause a distraction, inflame, and spread a battleground mentality in a discussion concerning a user, not Ankh, who was reported by another user, not Ankh. Thanks. --Activism1234 22:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. The Times article doesn't state that "most convicted offenders of child sex grooming in the North and the Midlands have involved British Pakistanis". It says that in relation to a particular type of child sex grooming, in some towns and cities in the Midlands and north of England, "most of the convicted offenders are of Pakistani heritage". It says absolutely nothing about the proportion of child sex offenders in general which are of Pakistani heritage, but instead explicitly points out that in other forms of 'grooming' "the vast majority of perpetrators are white". This had already been discussed repeatedly. And in case you hadn't noticed, the initial complaint here did relate to the behaviour of Ankhmorpork and his followers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

And for the record, I am still waiting for Ankhmorpork to answer the question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Off-Topic: I asked Ankhmorpork the question

Clearly it is. What you have quoted is word for word what is written in the article Ankhmorpork linked to. You clearly have a vested interest in this matter and are conducting yourself in an almost obscurist and intentionally antagonistic manner. Iamthemuffinman (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Liar. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Muffinman - copying word for word, eh? WP:COPYVIO then. Andy - please remain civil. GiantSnowman 16:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

If it copied word for word, it would include the phrase "unlike other known models of child-sex offending in Britain, including child abuse initiated by online grooming, in which the vast majority of perpetrators are white". It would also make clear that it is referring to a particular type of child sexual exploitation carried out by a men from such backgrounds in some towns and cities of the midlands and northern England. The source categorically does not support an assertion that "most convicted offenders of child sex grooming in the North and the Midlands have involved British Pakistanis" (even allowing for the appalling grammar), and it is an outright lie to claim that it does. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump is clearly right insofar as Akhmorpork's edit changes the meaning of the source from a statement about one specific sub-type of child grooming into a statement about child grooming in general. This constitutes a pretty severe distortion, as it makes the proportion of Asian/Pakistani offenders among the entirety of criminals appear larger than the source actually says it is. I would chalk this up to a mere mistake, if it hadn't been for the fact that this exact passage was already discussed a couple of weeks ago, and the same mistake was pointed out back then, so at this point this is no longer so easily excusable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Precicesly: this was discussed repeatedly - and Ankhmorpork was one of the most involved in these discussions. This is why I am asking for clarification from Ankhmorpork on whether he thinks his edit reflects the source. If it was an error, he should say so, if he doesn't consider it to be an error - or refuses to actually explain the discrepancy - it only seems reasonable, in the light of previous events, to see it as intentional misrepresentation of material in a highly-controversial topic area. Taken in conjunction with other actions which clearly indicate a battleground mentality, and an unwillingness to work within Wikipedia policy and guidelines, it is difficult to see why Ankhmorpork should be allowed to continue to edit in areas where he clearly has a close emotional envolvement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

tangential
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
To be fair, out of anyone involved in this discussion, you have shown more of a battleground mentality than anyone else. So, let's add hypocrisy to your love of questioning competence and baseless accusations. Iamthemuffinman (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC) The irony of your pointing out someone's battleground mentality and then following it with your second sentence isn't lost on me. I'm trying very hard now to think of a reason not to start handing out a bunch of blocks and topic bans. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Muffinman, I highly suggest that you stop posting to ANI. As a new editor on wikipedia, the last thing you want to do is to be seen as someone who does little else than stir the pot here. If you have a reasonable point to make, make it, otherwise it's wiser to keep your trap shut otherwise, in the best case, you'll find yourself topic banned from posting here and in the worst case, blocked for disruption. Blackmane (talk) 08:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC) I could not care less about what other editors see me as. Nor do I care for their opinions, or yours. I'll post to wherever I feel I want to, thanks. By the way, you might like to alter your tone and work on your civility. The tone of your message is a large reason why I will not pay it much attention. Iamthemuffinman (talk) 11:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC) If you don't care about other editors opinions, then you obviously not here to collaboratively build an encyclopedia. Fasttimes68 (talk) 11:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Oh is that right, Fasttimes68? Care to back that up with some evidence? You might not like me posting here, but there's no rule that says I can't, and until such a time when one exists, you're just going to have to get used to my contributions :) Iamthemuffinman (talk) 13:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Incivility and bluntness aren't the same thing; sometimes it takes the latter to get the message across. That you don't seem to have an issue with being blunt yourself makes it all the more confusing. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Andy is correct about the source. What the source does say is about one specific type of child sexual grooming and not in general (in fact it appears to state the exact opposite). It just isn't in the source and doesn't verify the text. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Are we seeing a systematic pattern of disruption in this ANI thread?

I have to ask, because it is notable that several of those taking part seem intent on dragging discussions off-topic at every opportunity. I'd cite the section above as an obvious example, but it isn't the only one. Naturally, it isn't up to one individual or another to decide the flow of discussion, but comments like "I'll post to wherever I feel I want to, thanks" from what is almost certainly a throw-away account from a 'new' contributor (who seems very familiar with inner the workings of Wikipedia) appear to me to be intentionally phrased in such a way to distract from discussion of the underlying issues. If this is the case, it appears that ANI may not be the best venue for this discussion, and it might best be continued elsewhere. Clearly, a RfC/U on AnkhMorpork might be a starting point, but I feel we need to address the broader issues in some way too - as Zero suggested above, an extension of 1RR into the subject matter here might make sense, for a start. I think more needs to be done though, to find a way to systemically deal with coordinated POV-pushing and gaming the system in the ways evident in this thread and in relation to the articles concerned. Exactly where and how this should proceed I'm unsure - maybe others (amongst those that actually wish to see an honest and reputable Wikipedia) can offer suggestions? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Reminder: Civility is a pillar

You guys need to focus on the content of the arguments and not one another. I'm seeing a lot of problems with civility in the above thread, and it isn't simply the fault of one 'side' in the debate. You guys know the rules here, you know that civility and assuming good faith are central tenets. Hopefully this will be enough of a reminder. -- Avanu (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

This is ARBPIA territory; most of you are sheltered from it because almost no one dares venture into AE where most of these come up. If this were an AE thread I know exactly what I'd do, but I don't think it would fly too well here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Do tell? I am curious now what you're thinking. -- Avanu (talk) 00:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd personally issue a warning for Ankhmopork about properly representing sources, advise Shrike that one should be very wary of proposing things with unclean hands, issue either a warning or a 90 day topic ban from ARBPIA articles for Altetendekrabbe (I'd seek opinions from other admins, but I'm leaning towards the latter), and finally issue a notice to all parties that 1. it's extremely unhelpful to pile multiple tangentially related topics into one thread and 2. admins aren't going to make decisions based on who has the highest word count or level of vitriol. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for being a voice of reason. -- Avanu (talk) 05:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining your reasoning, Blade of the Northern Lights? I don't understand why you think that exactly this would be the best way forward. The main topic here is (or rather, was, seeing how it has progressed) Altetendekrabbe's claim that Ankhmorpork was gaming his voluntary restriction, which as far as I can understand, Altetendekrabbe has filed per his unblock conditions. All of the three most involved editors have previous dirt on their hands (yes, I am also involved, but have so far escaped becoming the topic, hopefully not by chance). When Shrike entered this discussion, he immediately proposed that Altetendekrabbe should be topic banned, thereby effectively stopping the discussion of the main topic. The involved parties mostly voted as one would assume they would, and after that more or less retired from the discussion. The previous bright line crossings are all on Altetendekrabbe's hands, but seeing that he accepted voluntary restrictions and self-reverted when notice was given, that shouldn't count too much, should it? When it comes to content-related errors/misconduct points, all evidence points in other directions than Altetendekrabbe's. (As a side note: I don't take all content misrepresentations as evidence of willful distortion, confirmation bias is probably the most common cause. That is an understandable part of human psychology, but still a problem to the encyclopedia). This has been noted in several instances by several editors previously or still uninvolved. Does your assessment mean that you have concluded that Altetendekrabbe is beyond doubt more disruptive than Ankhmorpork and Shrike, or are there other arguments that I fail to discern? If the former is the case, what factors play the decisive role in the distribution of guilt? benjamil ^talk/_edits 12:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Given the long and tedious previous discussions of the Times 'child grooming' source, given that Ankhmorpork's recent edit cited to it has been confirmed by multiple contributors (on multiple occasions) to be a clear misrepresentation of the source (the same misrepresentation which led to the earlier discussions - and which Ankh was heavily involved in - unsurprisingly, since he created the article, and was needless to say responsible for adding the misrepresentation in the first place, in the British Pakistanis article), and given the repeated refusal of Ankh to confirm whether he considers his recent edit of Rochdale sex trafficking gang, to be supported by the said source, I see no reason whatsoever to ascribe this to 'conformation bias' - or if it is, it has then to also be taken as an indication that he is incapable of writing material in a neutral manner, and should be topic-banned accordingly. With all due respect to Blade's comments, and acknowledging that my tendency to blow my top/emit vitriol has added to the problems in this thread, I think Blade may have missed a fundamental point. Name-calling, disruption, and even sock-puppetry are clearly all net negatives to the project, and need to be dealt with accordingly, but intentional misrepresentation of sources is on a whole other level: if our articles state (in Wikipedia's voice) that 'most of the bad guys doing A in B are of ethnicity X' when the source actually says something else (in this case 'most of the bad guys doing one form of A in parts of B... - and qualifies even this with statements regarding another form of A where ethnicity Y are the overwhelming majority), we are misleading our readers - and doing it in a highly charged and contentious topic area. Which is worse - annoying the heck out of each other, or presenting false and inflammatory material to our readers as a 'fact', allegedly sourced to one of the country's most prestigious newspapers? I hope that the answer is self evident - this is an encyclopaedia, and our primary responsibility to our readers is to get things right. AnkhMorpork is apparently either unwilling to do this, or unable (per 'confirmation bias') - even after repeated discussions of the particular problem. How many ignored 'warnings' are we willing to issue? Is there any evidence that Ankh takes the slightest bit of notice of such warnings? None whatsoever, from what I can see. Another warning, with no further action, is in effect a licence to continue misleading our readership, and in a most offensive and inflammatory manner. Is this what we want? And if it isn't, what are we going to do about it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

You are correct that in the end, we need to have accurate articles. However, name-calling and incivility are not just 'net negatives', they prevent us from working together to get those accurate articles. And that is why Civility is a pillar. A lot of people on Wikipedia treat civility as an afterthought or a policy that can be disregarded when other issues are more important. The fact is, we have 5 pillars, and 3 of them relate directly to content, but none of them should be casually disregarded. If you don't know how to be civil here, learn how now. Because the thing that gets in the way of good improvements more than any puppet is people creating a culture where "my edit" is more important than anything else. The unfortunate motto of too many Wikipedians: "Using logic and reason isn’t enough. You have to be a dick to everyone who doesn’t think like you." (from this episode of South Park) -- Avanu (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Avenu. but I don't think that makes sense. The overwhelming evidence is that Ankhmorpork isn't interested in "working together to get those accurate articles". And by the way, I think your endless repetition of that alleged motto is in of itself uncivil. How about actually addressing the substantive issue here (the intentional misrepresentation of sources to our readership), and taking your 'campaign for civility' elsewhere? I've admitted I was wrong to be uncivil. Nobody is saying incivility is right. That isn't under debate. (and BTW, I have at no point suggested that 'my edit is right' in this discussion - I have merely pointed out that Ankh's have been not merely wrong, but intentionally so, in as far as can reasonably be determined) AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The overriding factor in my thoughts above is that Altetendekrabbe has had repeated issues with edit warring, whereas I can't find anything like a similar history with Ankhmopork. I'd be willing to consider imposing a similar 90 day ban on Ankhmopork as well, if other admins think it would be beneficial. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

you are wrong about me. i accepted to abide by the 1-rr restriction. i also accepted to use appropriate administrative venues rather than continue to fight. see my unblock conditions here [103]. i brought the issue of ankhmorpork gaming my 1-rr restriction here, just like i promised i would. edit warring is not the issue here (where have i edit warred after i accepted my restrictions?). to block me for using the ani, like i was advised to by other admins, would be completely unfair. besides, i am not the one who "pile multiple tangentially related topics into one thread.".-- altetendekrabbe  16:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that Ankh has been doing his best in very challenging circumstances, in an area fraught with danger. A block would not protect the encyclopedia. More will follow, I have been rather busy lately and need a few hours to collect my thoughts - but that needed a quick response. Egg Centric 19:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

View of an uninvolved editor

It pains me to say it, but the only reasonable interpretation of what I'm seeing is that Altetendekrabbe has been consistently edit-warring, and that at having been offered advice by various editors. See e.g. Kuru after a block: "This is the third recent edit warring block" [104]

Since that he was blocked again, unblocked after agreeing 1rr restrictions... then immediately breaking them! Is this diff pugnacious or what? [105]

Even more ironically, it seems that he has been hounding editors himself. In his only edits to the article that Ankh was heavily involved in, it looks like he has followed to Ankh to revert to "his version". They are his only edits to the article or talk page. [106]

Ankh has no history of disruptive editing and a topic ban seems wholly unjustified. What he does have is a history of other editors finding fault with him for perceived bigotry and similar, suppositions that I think reflect more on the accusers than the accused. In the recent edits to the Dhimmi article, he opens this thread [107] and makes his first edit in over a week. This was immediately reverted [108] reverted by Alten...be who claims 'edit-warring' (but doesn't bother actually adding anything to the talk page).

I also feel I need to say something about the Times source. My interpretation (and it's the only fair one under AGF or imo common sense) is that Ankh was improving the sourcing in the article from the Sunday Guardian (lol) to the original Times report and basing the text upon that. The headline of the previous source explicitly said, "Most UK girl child abusers are British Pakistanis" and when reading The Times which said "For more than a decade, child protection experts have identified a repeated pattern of sex offending in towns and cities across northern England and the Midlands involving groups of older men who groom and abuse vulnerable girls aged 11 to 16 after befriending them on the street. Most of the victims are white and most of the convicted offenders are of Pakistani heritage" it is understandable that he thought it said something similar. Several editors in this discussion have also stated that the edit seemed to be supported by the source. Andy, who I must say despite this I still hugely respect as an editor, imo jumped the gun and decided Ankh was a bigot, so took a fairly simple edit discussion to ANI under that faulty assumption. I think if he looks at things again he'll see Ankh is a good faith editor, almost certainly with not a bigoted bone his body. Time, imo, for those two to get off to a fresh start with one another. Egg Centric 21:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Wrong, simply wrong. Ankh added material which had already been discussed, and which had already been shown to be a misrepresentation. As for the rest of your comments, I suggest you actually look at what else Ankh has been up to, and ask yourself if it looks like 'good faith', or POV-pushing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

on the dhimmi-page, ankh re-added the *same* content that was discussed and rejected weeks ago! this is edit warring. he re-added it again after i had reverted him. opening up a thread, and use it as a cover to add disputed content is not allowed. it takes time to gain consensus...and the burden of proof was on ankh. in addition, it turned out that he was *misrepresenting* the source as well (check andy's first comment in the relevant thread). all of this is clear, if you had taken time to read what really happened.-- altetendekrabbe  21:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me try to explain this one more time. Ankhmopork clearly had issues with the source in question, but since he doesn't have a history of source misrepresentation outside this article and instance added for clarification at 22:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC) I'm more inclined to simply remind him to be extra careful, especially in a topic area like this. You, on the other hand, are under restrictions (and though you say they were voluntary, you agreed to them to get unblocked) due to repeated issues with edit warring, and you're going back at it again. That's why I think 90 days away from this topic will do you a lot of good; it'll give you time to step back, find some place less controversial (i.e. just about anywhere) to edit, and give you a chance to get a handle on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

"since he doesn't have a history of source misrepresentation"? Not only does AnkhMorpork have a history of source misrepresentation, he has even added the same material again after being told by multiple contributors that he is misrepresenting a source - this is the whole point of the discussion regarding the article in The Times about the Rochdale sex abuse case. AnkhMorpork misrepresented the source in the British Pakistanis article (not that it would have belonged there even if it had said what he claimed it did), but even after multiple discussions over the issue, chose to use exactly the same source to make exactly the same false claims in the article about the case. And note that Ankh has refused to clarify whether he now concedes his interpretation was wrong - what is to stop him doing this again? Ridiculous... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

And in response to the 'clarification' added by Blade to his post above, can you make clear which 'article and instance' you are referring to: the Dhimmis one, the British Pakistanis one, or the Rochdale sex trafficking gang one? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Andy, coudl you supply more diffs for me? I try to remain open minded and if you could let me look at say the "five worst 'uns" it would be handy. Ta, Egg Centric 01:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I mean outside of the issues specifically brought up in this brouhaha. If there were other examples than the ones already mentioned, that would push me to go for a topic ban. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

i am simply doing what i was told to do: take the matter to ani or other boards. i am not edit warring, edit warring is not the issue here. to topic ban me will be unfair and against consensus.-- altetendekrabbe  22:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't understand why EggCentric doesn't touch upon this case [109], thorough as they have been in looking for fault in Altetendekrabbe. And no, the case with the Times article is not unique, see Talk:Dhimmi#Recent_reverts, although in my opinion, the issue is more the choice of sources than their use. And no edit warring? What is this? [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] In my opinion it looks a lot like a protracted edit war to get in the phrase "humiliating and discriminatory" despite that having been thoroughly discussed on the talk page, the point about historical context being noted for the first time several weeks before Ankhmorpork's last talk page entry, in Talk:Dhimmi#Recent_reverts. This pattern of behaviour was also pointed out quite explicitly Talk:Dhimmi#Oy.2C_come_on_guys. This case doesn't just concern "bright line" violations, the issue that was first raised is whether there is a pattern of disruptive editing in Ankhmorpork and Shrike's work. I'm disheartened by what I see as a one-sided approach, especially seeing that there is absolutely no consensus for this in the vote above. benjamil ^talk/_edits 22:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC) updated 08:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

As a general question to admins, is "consensus" really necessary for admins to take action? I can't picture that, since there are a few controversial topics that have users strictly either for or against it, and tend to vote the same way on administrator noticeboards, thus creating no consensus in any case. Blade of Northern Lights said above what he feels is the correct response from admins, and was wondering if consensus really is necessary for this. Thanks. [and preferrably, I'd rather an admin respond, and not the editors involved here] --Activism1234 23:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Benj, although you have some good points when taken together I tend to disagree. I have to go to bed now but I shall be back in the next... oooh... I dunno... let's say 24 hours with a response. Egg Centric 01:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Because there's an element of time...

The following discussion is closed. 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

I'm posting this here only because there's an element of time, in which an administrator needs to help with a simple task before it becomes too late. Please see: MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details#WP:V RfC. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done T. Canens (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much, T. Canens! I appreciate it! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Plutoofnight

Plutoofnight (talk · contribs) is closing AFD debates that have only been opened today and so have not had any discussion on them. When I left a message on his talk page - the response was this. NtheP (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I notice the "closed" AfDs have not followed procedure - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jolla still had the AfD tag on the main article. I have boldly re-opened the invalid close for this specific AfD and suggest others do the same. I suspect sockpuppetry given the only thing this account has done is improperly close AfDs. --Ritchie333 (talk) 16:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

CarlBrutchetus (talk · contribs) was doing similar yesterday briefly before he was blocked. The contribs pages for those two look quite similar. Not sure what other socks are involved, but I think that these two, at least, are out of the same drawer. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

There's a whole lorry load of sockpuppets. Wouldn't surprise me if another one turned up tomorrow doing exactly the same thing. --Ritchie333 (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Danceking5

The following discussion is closed. 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

 – Danceking5 blocked indefinitely for making legal threats. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Collapsing legal threats
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi all. The incident I require some help on is as follows: I noticed yesterday that the Tiësto article had been literally covered by {{Fact}} templates, including many places I would consider inappropriate. Looking at the history, I found it was completed by User:Danceking5, and after checking out their contributions, found the same on the Paul Oakenfold article. I then notified the user that their additions were inappropriate and reverted both articles to the version before their edits (1, 2) This morning I find that, not only have they reverted both, but they've simply ignored my (I feel, reasonable) talk page discussion and added a message to the talk pages of both articles. (Talk:Paul Oakenfold#Monitor This Guy & Talk:Tiësto#Gossip Column - Citation Request) I would kinda like those messages removed, as I don't think they're fair, but am reluctant to do so myself. I'm also not sure how to respond given the attitude of this user... Some help would be appreciated! Some links: Nikthestoned (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Danceking5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Cheers, Nikthestoned 08:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Wow. That page is basically unreadable due to the number of Fact tags, many in entirely inappropriate places. I've reverted the disruptive edits, and warned the user (and directed them to the relevant portion of policy saying "It must be possible to attribute all information in Wikipedia to reliable, published sources that are appropriate for the content in question. However, in practice it is only necessary to provide inline citations for quotations and for any information that has been challenged or that is likely to be challenged.[1]"⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 10:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Thanks for backing me up Dan; ace username also! Any chance you could remove the inappropriate talk page notices also? I don't feel my edits deserve me being "Monitored", as per Danceking5s request on both talk pages... Nikthestoned 10:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC) It's really difficult to justify removing someone else's talk page comments, even when they're wrong. Better to just ignore them. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 10:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Fair enough, shall do so; thanks again! Nikthestoned 10:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC) And upon looking further User:Danceking5 has in fact been doing this across all sorts of articles beyond those two. Probably thousands of inappropriate templates at this point. I am rolling back where I can. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 11:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Ah yes - I missed those yesterday as they were done in one massive edit... Nikthestoned 11:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC) I've added a note on his talk page telling him this is WP:POINTy and disruptive and strongly advising him to not continue. I will assume that if he doesn't, he will earn a short block while others clean up his mess. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Thanks Dennis! Nikthestoned 08:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC) In response to the efforts by all of you: 1. The term 'overuse' of citation request is subjective. 2. The broadcasting of Original Research is more dangerous than having what you call excessive inline citation requests. I can assure you that the appearance of a page looking bad or not very legible, is far less of a risk than the potential fallout that may occur by leaving it the way it was. I am not talking about dangerous to the person creating it (although this could be a possibility too), but dangerous to the DJ himself. 3. The time frame that OR has stood standing does not in fact make it published or acceptable for publication. Wikipedia is not a publisher. 4. You could potentially be creating civil liabilities for the DJs in question, as well as yourselves by ganging up (note that you can only affect change if a group of you work together - as one of you alone is too small a voice. Also note that you are not a court of law, and are executing decisions without allowing defense of your claims. For example do you guys work for these DJs, or their agents, we'd like to know?) to effect change, for perfectly legitimate challenges to edits. If nobody in the world could challenge original research, then Wikipedia would in fact become a first hand publisher. If this happened, then Wikipedia or the DJs now become liable for the 'truth defense' in a court of law. I am warning you guys, that the statute of limitations starts to run from when the tort was first discovered, so if you want to gang up to try and create a tort on yourselves or the DJs, be prepared to one day down the line accept responsibility for the actions that took place in July of 2012. There is absolutely nothing wrong with someone challenging original research, and 2 months allowed for editors to add the citation is more than adequate. We are even more than happy to allow more time if needed but the requests should stand. There is also absolutely nothing wrong with adding MULTIPLE requests at once. Swatjester, your quote to verifiability is noted, but understand that the Original Research rule is a legal rule that Wikipedia abides by for a reason. This Original Research rule trumps your claim that SOME original research should be allowed to stand. Note from this posting, today, on July 27 of 2012, that the multiple requests for citations equates to information that we are CHALLENGING, each and every request, on each and every page the requests were added to in the month of July 2012. Swatjester, understand that within the statute of limitations, we have the means to locate and find who you are, and serve a statement of claim if we deem you are working in the interest of the DJ, or even your own personal emotions. Currently there are a small group of lawyers analyzing a potential civil case. The first step to avoiding this tort is to take measures necessary to prevent the causes of action from propagating. Wikipedia is a highly useful resource to the world, but a small group of business interests (possibly yourselves) could potentially cause damage to certain parties, without you even knowing it. Please try and see all angles of this case before taking actions that might come back to haunt you down the road. 2 Years clock starts running from today.Danceking5 (talk) 01:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC) And you are indef blocked for violating WP:NLT. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Editor consistently making bad faith assumptions

Per Ncmvocalist's suggestion, section closed; editors still interested please note Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bittergrey - WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

<span id="Per Ncmvocalist's suggestion, section closed; editors still interested please note Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bittergrey - WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)"> The editor User:Bittergrey appears to be making a number of bad faith allegations against editors including me. Initially he created this WQA request: [118] and so I responded. After responding to the initial posts, I saw later that a number of involved editors had commented: I asked on IRC what would be the best course of action and an admin (Fluffernutter) responded. She felt the issue couldn't be solved at WQA. I closed the thread and asked participants to take things to ANI if they wished. Most participants moved on except BitterGrey, who has kept posting bad faith assumptions about me. "... IRWolfie has a long pattern of taking WLU's side in these matters", "Oh, and the trick of tagging open issues closed to avoid discussion is getting old[17][18]. Didn't work there either". I then manually archived the closed discussion and posted on his talk page: [119]. The talk page contains a later post which also makes bad faith assumptions against me: "He seems to believe that it is OK for WLU and WAID to make cracks about my sexuality as part of ongoing ad hominem attacks."

He also appears to be hinting that other editors are sock puppeting: "WLU uses the British spelling, as did the person who briefly but energetically supported him at the article. It would seem that a lot of editors taking WLU's side use the British spellings. What are the odds". Also [120] (my interactions with both editors are minimal: [121], [122]) IRWolfie- (talk) 10:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a pretty consistent pattern in my experience - anyone who disagrees with Bittergrey's opinion, where even the most tenuous connection can be found and no matter how reasonable the interpretation, is classified as "too involved" to give an opinion and is ignored. See for instance, the reply to Slp1 (talk · contribs)'s comments at talk:paraphilic infantilism [123] and SPI [124]. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Although I think Bittergrey should reconsider his approach, IRWolfie has not helped this situation (throws into question whether he should be responding to WQAs). IRWolfie had no good reason to be manually archiving that thread at the time at which he did, and some of the statements he has made during the course of the WQA and at Bittergrey's user talk page ("Do not tell me what I need to do", "Grind your axe elsewhere", etc) acts to aggravate rather than resolves disputes. On the face of it, I think such escalation was unnecessary, and the concern/frustration Bittergrey expressed on his user talk page about IRWolfie's role in forcefully archiving the thread does appear to be justified. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I made no comments on Bittegreys user talk page during the course of the WQA. Your reading of the order of events is incorrect. Those comments were made days after I had closed the WQA section since it required somewhere like ANI to resolved the dispute, and after I had archived it and several days after most other editors had moved on bar Bittergrey. Also manually archiving is acceptable and mentioned as part of the volunteer instructions when using {{nwqa}}. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Also note that I had already informed Bittergrey and all editors in the dispute several times that the appropriate venue was ANI. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Right, so what you worded as a demand - "Do not make baseless accusations against me, or involve me in your dispute. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)" - was made several days after the WQA was it? If not, then perhaps your general approach (both during and after WQAs) is what is in dire need of improvement. You are not an arbiter; if others think it should go to ANI, they too will pipe up or close it as appropriate. Manual archiving is used in cases where a thread has died down altogether (eg for 4 days without any activity), and threads are being marked with tags after this time - in those cases, it makes no sense to leave threads open for an additional 5 days. This was certainly not such a case, and you've given no argument to suggest you have helped resolve this dispute by manually archiving the thread. Aggravating disputes in this way undermines the very purpose of Wikipedia dispute resolution (WQA); you would be better advised to take the advice on board instead of buying yourself a more formal trout. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I archived the talk four days after asking all editors to take the issues to ANI if the editors wished: every editor did stop and move on bar Bittergrey. It is clear that a dispute of this sort can't be resolved at WQA and all other editors had moved on. It was four days after this that I archived the discussion because Bittergreys comments were focussed exclusively on me, and starting to make demands about what I should do, (after he made more bad faith assumptions about me). I felt a comment on Bittergreys talkpage was appropriate so as to provide my reasoning and make any further points. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

If you wanted to make further points on his talk page, then rather than make the comments that you did on 23 July at WQA, you should have responded directly on his talk page. The complainant will either take the feedback you have given on board, wait for more feedback before it dies a natural death, or keep it going - in the latter scenario, others will pipe up to tell him he should give it a rest (and if there are still issues, at the worst the thread will be hatted). In this case, you should have known when to let it be instead of forcefully archiving it in response to his last comment. You will note I said any activity - that especially includes activity from the person initiating the WQA. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist, a review of BG's timing and order of contributions might be illuminating, specifically the ones made to Wikipedia space for the month of July [125]. More simple might be a review of the sections involved at WQA and WT:MED. I don't think any of the diffs listed as "personal attacks" at WQA are anything of the sort, and Bittergrey's attempt to co-opt an unrelated discussion at WT:MED into an attack on me (which I removed, leading to the WQA) suggests that the interest is less in writing a good page on DID and more related to a personal grudge against me. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

There are two issues here - one is the issues with Bittergrey's approach which was clearly already part of a dispute, and the other is IRWolfie's approach during attempts at dispute resolution. The latter has contributed to the escalation here (which is in part why IRWolfie has initiated this thread), so that's where I have started. I have some comments to make about Bittergrey's approach too, but I am waiting to see what he says here first before continuing with those. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment I'd agree that BitterGrey's approach to dispute resolution and failure to assume good faith is deeply wanting. Apparently this has gone on for years in conflicts with different editors (see this "final" warning given in 2009), but recently has focussed on User:WLU and the article Paraphilic infantilism. There have been multiple posts to various boards including two SPI reports (closed as a "fishing expedition" [126] though insinuations continue -direct and indirect- that the editor "got away with it" [127][128][129]). Other recent forums include Wikiquette assistance (closed as inappropriate for that forum)[130] and Wikiproject:Medicine [131], which included deletions of personal attacks made by BG by User:Colin.[132][133]. In each case, editors who disagree with Bittergrey are said to be biased, hounding him or part of a gang/mob [134][135][136] The last straw in my view has been an inappropriate and ridiculous insinuation that respected medical editor User:Colin-who removed the posts about gangs and mobs, but otherwise has had no involvement in the dispute-is somehow linked to WLU (a sockpuppet?) because they both spell "behaviour" the same way [137].

A final thing. BitterGrey makes repeated claims that editors make personal attacks and slurs about his sexuality. For example, this is described "ad hominem attack"[138]. As noted by User:WhatamIdoing here, BG self-discloses on his WP userpage as the owner of a website about Paraphilic Infantilism. Mentioning this fact in relevant contexts is in not an ad hominem attack nor a slur "unless you believe that having an apparently harmless paraphilia is somehow dirty or shameful"-as WAID puts it very well. Slp1 (talk) 13:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that on the website BG is the webmaster of, there's a page explicitly stating BG is the name of a practicing infantilist, and a link there on the front page of the understanding.infantilism website. So basically from BG's wikpedia page, it's two very short, very obvious clicks to get to a public disclosure about his sexual identity. It's not like it's hidden and you have to dig for it. So claiming that pointing this out is a personal attack is kinda absurd, akin to saying I'm allowed to say I am bald, but anyone else doing so is insulting me. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

BG is a practicing paraphilic infantilist and an activist for a particular view of the practice that seems at odds with the academic view. They have been allowed to edit as they see fit here for a long time without any consideration of whether this is wise. If they were a PR person for a corporation or a sports star they would have been booted long ago. In practice, wikipedia makes a distinction between paid and unpaid activism that I've never been able to understand. It's another systemic failure.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• If Bittergrey repeats allegations that users are socks where the user has been cleared at SPI, or where no SPI has ever been filed, I'll quite cheerfully block him for WP:NPA. Editors cannot work in that environment Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
• I'll echo the other editors here regarding BG's behavior. In the past I've tried to mediate/offer advice to BG and explain to him why his behavior was problematic but of course I was part of WLU's cabal so there was no need to take me seriously. I eventually gave up in frustration when he was unable to understand that, for whatever WLU's supposed shortcommings, his behavior was an entirely different topic than BG's behavior. Since this seems to be an ongoing problem with no end in sight, and now that I'm aware of BG's COI, I would support a topic ban of BG from infantilism pages, broadly construed. Otherwise I think we're going to end up back here in a few months.

As Elen says above me, "Editors cannot work in that environment," but the problematic behavior goes beyond simple SP accusations. Also note that in the SPI that BG filed about WLU there is some disturbing behavior that I would describe as paranoid and a fishing expedition. At one point BG tried to tie User:Ludwigs2(!) to the IP accounts because at some point last year he had edited the PI page and supported WLU's position. Take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/WLU/Archive for more. Sædon^talk 20:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Do we do interaction bans here? I'd be very happy with a mutual interaction ban, and am perfectly happy if that means I am prevented from editing paraphilic infantilism ever again. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

This filing is an act of WP:KETTLE, since IRWolfie is guilty of many of his own bad faith assumptions. For example, "the person who briefly but energetically supported" WLU later changed her mind and, in her last relevant edit, reverted him. She was clearly not a sockpuppet. Had IRWolfie asked, I would have told him so. IRWolfie's interpretation of my comment as an accusation of sockpuppetry was itself an assumption in bad faith.

The reason I did not consider taking WLU's harassment of me to ANI is that I already had.

As for WLU accepting interaction bans, I'll point out that WLU is the one who has been hounding me across Wikipedia for over a year. He followed me to every article that we've had conflicts at, and to every article talk page that we've had conflicts at. He's always had the option of simply leaving me alone.

WLU knows that Wikipedia has interaction bans - he has received one[139] from arbcom that seems to be the archetype of interactions bans[140].

I'd like to ask IRWolfie, SP1, Bali ultimate, and Sædon to concede that they are involved, at least in that they've taken WLU's side against me previously. If they deny this, I can go through and gather diffs.

Regarding infantilism, in this context I am not an infantilist. Here is why: Outside of Wikipedia, infantilism is defined by widely accepted authorities and publications such as the DSM as either a type of masochism or its own separate condition. WLU fought to remove the DSM, and to replace it with a dozen citations to three publications, all from a cluster of coworkers at one Canadian facility, CAMH. Two of the three never use the term 'infantilism', and one isn't even peer-reviewed. Only one of these sources uses the term infantilism at all, and then only on one page. It describes infantilism as a form of pedophilia. ( The quality of that source is such that all citations of it on Wikipedia are due to either WLU or its author. No independent sources have been offered to support this fringe theory. WLU fought to have the pedophilia description in the article from August to Dec 6th. The representation changed on Dec 6th. The fringe sources are still cited, but are misrepresented. ) I am not a pedophile, so in the context of the current Wikipedia, I am not an infantilist.

However, WLU and friends have called me so, many times([141][142][143][144]...) They did so not to qualify me as an expert, but to disregard me as a criminal queer - a personal, ad homien attack repeated many times in multiple locations on Wikipedia. Generally, as here, infantilism wasn't even the issue being discussed. The facts didn't support his/their position, so poisoning the well was necessary.

Now it is time to go to bed: I'm a volunteer, and have to make my living with an unrelated, full-time job. BitterGrey (talk) 06:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I have not taken anyones "side" and still haven't. I have previously asked you on another noticeboard (FTN) not to report on the behaviour of other editors at that noticeboard for a different incident, a comment which you thanked me for: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_29#Paraphilic_infantilism_.28shorter.29. I don't have the sort of memory to remember small incidents like that and so I forgot about it. Somehow you have twisted this comment into me being a supporter of one side or another. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I am not WP:INVOLVED per the definition. My only involvement in this issue to provide evidence in the SPI investigation you started- which was closed as a "fishing expedition" [145], and later to remove comments from an article talkpage where you repeated the same allegations after the SPI had been closed.[146][147], something that arbitrator User:Elen of the Roads has said she will block you for if you do it again. Oh yes, and I commented on your talkpage about the inappropriateness of your behaviour, and responded to your amazing allegation that I might have a financial relationship with WLU based on my use of the word "checks" in a post.[148] A final observation: you are very inclined to use strawman arguments. The current Paraphilic infantilism article makes it crystal clear multiple times, including in the lead, that PI is not paedophilia, and that the two are distinct entities. Your comment "I am not a pedophile, so in the context of the current Wikipedia, I am not an infantilist" is therefore a total non-sequitur, and going from that misapprehension to accusing people of personal attacks and slurs for mentioning your self-disclosed status are chilling and inappropriate. Most particularly when editors have been repeatedly to pointed out that they agree that PI is not pedophlilia and there is absolutely nothing wrong with being a paraphilic infantilist.Some e.g.s [149] [150] --Slp1 (talk) 14:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

BitterGrey, you need to stop responding to criticisms of your behaviour by commenting on the behaviour of others. Take the criticisms and demonstrate that you accept you've done something wrong and won't do it again. For example, there are differences between (1) an editor agreeing with aspects of another editors points; (2) taking that editor's side in an argument; (3) being part of that editors gang; and (4) those editors forming a mob against another editor. You've gone from 1 to 4 without justification or evidence. You claim editors are part of someone's gang as a way of dismissing that editor's comments because of who they are rather than because of what the comments say. Such behaviour is never acceptable on WP. I'm still waiting on an apology from you on this. Can you explain what you meant by "It would seem that a lot of editors taking WLU's side use the British spellings. What are the odds?". I'm failing to see any reasonable interpretation of this apart from some accusation of sock/meat puppetry. What's your innocent explanation? Can you explain how my removal of your personal attack comments on a talk page can be construed as "taking WLU's side" ((1) above) and how that makes me part of WLU's "gang" ((3) above)? In your response to these questions, please don't comment on anyone else. I just want to know how you think your statements are justified, and if you accept they are not, then I'd like an apology. Thanks. Colin°^Talk 10:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Bittergrey, who is the person you claim "briefly but energetically supported me" but later reverted me? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Re WLU: That would be FiachraByrne, who, in addition to reverting WLU's edits to her draft[151], didn't rejoin WLU against me when invited to do so[152]. While her initial motivations might not have been the best, her style was different from the start - unlike WLU, she contributed new sources and showed an indication of having read them. (For contrast:[153])

Re Colin: The accusation of FiachraByrne being a sockpuppet was read into what I wrote by IRWolfie, as a bad faith assumption. I merely commented about her spelling. If you think I am in error, that she uses the US Spelling, feel free to present diffs. Also, deleting my comments[154] as a way to silence me is generally not a good way to demonstrate neutrality. BitterGrey (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Why are you treating a revert to a user subpage as if it expressed a preference for a main page? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure if that is particularly relevant, or if the assumptions of bad faith are quite there as made out in the currently framed ANI. More care was needed when handling this situation as I said above (and if Colin had initiated this thread, I would have made some comments here in relation to his role in this, but I think we need to all move forward rather than dwelling on the handling of this much more). This seems to come down to Bittergrey needing to take more care to avoid giving the impression (if he is not actually) misusing talk page(s) (specifically his user talk page). In fact, I think BitterGrey would be better advised to remove the comments/threads on his user talk page which prompted this ANI, and agree to avoid making comments/threads like that in future. I also think all users who are even peripherally involved in this set of disputes need to make a greater effort to collaborate (and improve the project in accordance with its policies and guidelines); some form of mediation may be useful here, but if that also does not work or the parties are unwilling to go through that, interaction bans may need to be imposed. It is entirely possible that there are other conduct concerns concerning BitterGrey which warrant examination and that topic restrictions are not unreasonable - but I think a more appropriate venue is RfC/U if that wants to be pursued. I don't think this is ripe for any other intervention at this stage. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Bittergrey, you have completely failed to answer my questions. You were not "merely commenting on [someone's] spelling". Add once again mischaracterised other folk by claiming my edit was "a way to silence [you]". If you are unable (deliberately or otherwise) to engage in a useful interaction with other editors on WP, then I don't really see much purpose in allowing you to edit here. It seems to me you are just wasting everyone's time. Colin°^Talk 15:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

RFC/U might be a way forward, though in my experience they don't usually accomplish much and I think BG would pretty much ignore any critical input or suggestions. Based on my quite extensive experience with BG, nearly everything is approached as a battleground rather than a discussion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Even where RfC/U can't accomplish much by itself, that is usually as there is no willingness to consider feedback by at least one party - but even then, that does not mean such dispute resolution is totally useless (as it can help demonstrate that the situation has gone to the next stage where other intervention is helpful). Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Whoop whoop pull up

User:Whoop whoop pull up, who clearly should know better, is insisting (or possibly edit-warring) to keep a question he asked on the help ref desk active, [155] and won't accept the advice of others to drop it: the question is "How would one go about converting a semi-automatic firearm to fully automatic fire"? It seems self-evident to me (and others) that we shouldn't be answering such questions on a reference desk, but WWPU seems to think otherwise. Would some kind admin please try to talk some sense into him, and/or impose the necessary sanctions to ensure he stops this. Regardless of his motivations, and his dubious claims that 'automatic weapons aren't even illegal' (where?), this sort of abuse of what is supposed to be an encyclopaedia reference desk can only do harm to the project. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I should have gone to bed hours ago, and am unlikely to respond further until I've either slept, or failed to yet again (see insomnia, an article to which I could add a great deal of WP:OR, were it permitted) AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I am trying to get an answer to a question I don't know the answer to. If you don't want to answer it, why won't you at least give me information on where to find an answer to it? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 05:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)While there does seem to be a rather dull POINT, I doubt Whoop whoop pull up asked it in bad faith, especially since he's been a great editor to work with on chemistry-related topics. Of course, a second offense is another story. I'd like to mention that he did indeed acknowledge that he broke 3RR, but I do not suggest a block or anything unless he does another revert.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

That's the Ref Desk actually. Pull Ups has earned a reputation for asking some pretty off-the-wall questions, but they've been mostly harmless. The problem with this one is that he appears to be asking how to break the law, and it is not appropriate for anyone at the Ref Desk to answer a question like that. If he really wants to find out, there should be no shortage of google entries on the subject. But given the Aurora, Colorado, incident this certainly seems like bad timing to be raising such a question. Also, he should know better than to edit war, especially there. There are plenty of spirited debates on the Ref Desk, and normally they are conducted on the Ref Desk Talk Page. That's where this one belongs too. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

It may or may not have originally been asked in bad faith, but his continued insistence that we must answer it looks that way: still, since he asks, how about this answer: (a) Modifying semi-automatic weapons to fully automatic certainly is illegal in many parts of the world, (including mine). (b) Modifying firearms is dangerous - and anyone answering such questions risks a lawsuit if some idiot tries it and things go wrong. (c) Without knowing the firearm in question, there is no sensible answer. (d)... need I go on?... The reference desk is there to help readers find answers to encyclopaedic questions, it is not a chatroom, and WWPA should know better than to edit-war over a question that either shouldn't or can't be answered. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

It's fairly ridiculous to ask such a question on the ref desk, and more ridiculous to expect someone to answer it. Someone really should warn Whoop for this behaviour. While I probably couldn't find any one policy that says "users should not ask ridiculous questions at the ref desk and revert war to keep them in", common sense should apply here. OohBunnies! (talk) 05:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I've posted to this talk page asking him to stop and search somewhere else. I've also pointed out that if he continues to ask, that becomes disruptive editing and he can be blocked. Dougweller (talk) 05:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

As the editor who hatted this question after seeing User:SemanticMantis object to it, I obviously find it problematic. But seeing the bald-faced lie that this posting was "coincidental" in view of the talk page discussion on illegal activity that he himself created makes me think that a serious response is in order. Trolling-for-fun is one thing, starting a thread on the inappropriateness of violent advice and then asking for it yourself is something else entirely. μηδείς (talk) 06:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't think firearms modifications were illegal, I just saw something on Browning Automatic Rifle saying that rifles were converted to full auto by filing down the "sear", however it makes no attempt to explain what this "sear" is. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 06:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The question was almost certainly pointy, but I don't think any further action is required since the OP now seems to recognise that there is a clear consensus to remove it from the desk. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 06:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The user is still continuing his dissembling directly above you. Some formal action is justified. Or do we have to simply have to resort to an ANI every time an experienced user requests advice on how to carry out violent and criminal activity? μηδείς (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I was just explaining why I asked that question, nothing more. I'm not looking for an answer anymore. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 06:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

He's certainly entitled to explain himself on talk pages. It's not the request so much that bothers me, it's the pointy nature of the request and subsequent edit warring. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 06:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I occasionally scan the science ref desk and read a few things of interest—it has been impossible to miss the fact that WWPU is a frequent contributor. Some discussions have seemed of marginal value to me, and this comment may indicate that the user is not well suited to judge whether taking more volunteer time with another question is desirable. According to a quick scan of contribs, WWPU has asked 69 questions this year, with this possibly being the weakest. May I suggest a self-imposed limit of one "sensible" question per week? Also, if an established editor removes a question, do not revert them. Johnuniq (talk) 07:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I think this comment conveys more clearly than any other how little he values other editor's time. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Although the point has been raised here recently, I'm going to reraise the issue of the reference desk being a place where many editors consider AGF to be a suicide pact. I distressed both about the two threads that Johnuniq has linked to in his comment above mine and the number of people giving answers to WWPU's question on his talk page. I understand that WP attracts individuals who want to demonstrate their knowledge to others (and I am one of them), but allowing the Ref Desk to be anarchy like this potentially creates all kinds of legal issues for the foundation. Chillllls (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that we firmly ask this editor to stay away from the reference desks for awhile. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

WWPU had the reputation of asking too many questions a while back (about a year ago), but recently I haven't seen him post frequently (at least not on the Science Desk). The legality issue is something we should ignore because Wikipedia is not censored. If it is illegal to own guns or to only possess certain type of guns and you want to know how you can change the gun you legally own in your country so that it becomes something that is illegal to own, it is your responsibility if you act on that. Giving the technical information on how to do something is in itself never illegal in a free country, unless this involves leaking classified information. Count Iblis (talk) 21:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're wrong. If you provide info to someone on how to commit an illegal act, you could be charged as an accomplice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you read Wikipedia's ToS? Fasttimes68 (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

That abbreviation does not ring any bells. But aiding and abetting criminal activity is illegal pretty much everywhere. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

[156] Enjoy. Fasttimes68 (talk) 23:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Utterly irrelevant. It isn't possible to place oneself above the law by claiming it doesn't apply - and in any case, that would only apply to 'civil proceedings, against the Wikimedia foundation. As Bugs says "aiding and abetting criminal activity is illegal pretty much everywhere". AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Simply giving general information is not "aiding and abetting criminal activity", it is protected as free speech under the First Amendment. E.g., in the local library here they have a book on how to program computer virusses. If people don't want this and want to have extra security, they are free to emigrate to China. Count Iblis (talk) 02:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The situation in the US is that mentally disturbed people can buy stockpiles of guns and ammunition over the internet. It is unlikely that prosecutors are going to crack down on the Ref Desk here, as the First Amendment is even more sacred than the Second Amendment. Count Iblis (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

If you're willing to stake your freedom on your assumptions about the extent of first amendment rights, knock yourself out. But try not to get wikipedia into legal trouble in the process. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

If you ask the question here on the ref desk about how to rob some specific bank and an editor here happens to be an employee at that bank and he helps you in the planning by giving specific details about the security measures, then that's different from asking a general question about how bank robbers circumvent certain generic security measures. The latter if freely accessible information that the government isn't allowed to censor, the former amounts to involvemet in the planning of a crime. Count Iblis (talk) 23:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

That we chose not to answer such questions on reference desks has nothing whatsoever to do with 'censorship'. It has everything to do with behaving responsibly - do you think that the reference desk not giving medical advice is a result of 'censorship'? Or legal advice? Is not allowing people to spam articles with tenuous URLs 'censorship'? Is the whole raft of things we don't permit in BLPs 'censorship'? Of course not - we are building an encyclopaedia, not providing a web-hosting service or an open forum. The reference desks shouldn't be answering questions that one wouldn't expect to find answered in an encyclopaedia - and I doubt an article on How to modify semi-automatic firearms to fully automatic would survive long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 23:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The way semi-automatic firearms can be modified to make them fully automatic can in principle be encyclopedic information, if this is common knowledge that can be found in (specialized) external sources. In that case, it can appear in Wikipedia in some appropriate article about firearms. Count Iblis (talk) 01:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

As long as instructions on sythesising illegal substances are protected by the first amendment, I'm sure instructions on making illegal weapons are too. I totally agree with Count Iblis that the illegality of the subject matter of the question is not what makes it unanswerable, and anwering it certainly wouldn't make us complicit in a crime. Wikipedia gives advice on how to circumvent the Great Firewall of China which is illegal there. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 02:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any particular encyclopedic value in such specific information as has been requested -- we don't need to say "Here's how you make the conversion", we merely need to say "In some case converting a semi-automatic weapon to be fully automatic is possible." We are not a DIY guide, whether the information is about installing your garage-door opener or tinkering with your gun, so the question is entirely out of baliwick.

In any case, the entire First Amendment part of this discussion is a red herring. The question is not is X information legally publishable, but, rather, do we want to publish the information here. That's not a legal question, it's a moral one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me like a good faith curious question, but a terrible question to ask here that editors shouldn't answer, as it may be illegal, and such questions should not be asked in the future. I don't feel it warrants action or sanctions here, just close the question and try not to pose such questions in the future. Also the timing was pretty bad... --Activism1234 23:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree. It would seem to me that instead of chasing constitutional rabbits down holes about a question that was ill advised, but doesn't seem to violate any policies, the best response would be just to ignore it. Don't answer it, "take the Fifth", patiently wait for it to go into the archives. (I should point out that my opinion on the right to bare arms is well-known.) --Shirt58 (talk) 06:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC}

Problems with File Upload Wizard

The following discussion is closed. 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 tried to load the logo for a radio station page 3 times in the past 10 minutes. Each time I get the error message "Upload failed" This file did not pass file verification (Filetype-mime-mismatch, png, image/jpeg)". Not sure what the last part means, but what is a "file verification"? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

You're trying to upload a file with the extension .PNG but it's really a jpeg. Rename it to .JPG. This question has nothing to do with admins, and should have been on the help desk. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 12:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it is a PNG file. Just checked. I would be here all day with the "help" desk, ANI is faster. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

As a Help Desk regular, I object to the insinuation that we are slow off the mark over there...--ukexpat (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Unless your uploading of this file was a life-or-death situation, I don't care how long the help desk would take. Please try to keep your reports/questions on the right board, regardless of the waiting times. ;) OohBunnies! (talk) 13:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter the board right now, there is a problem with the upload wizard. As I pointed out it is a PNG file, though according to Finlay McWalter above it is showing as a JPG file. Something is wrong with the wizard if it is identifying PNG files at JPG files, which would require an admin. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

It isn't checking the extension, it is checking the MIME type. Try uploading it as a .jpg anyways, it must just have been named wrong. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 16:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I object to the abuse of process. In an emergency, it might be valid to post to a high traffic board if the proper board is lagging, but this is no emergency, and the help desk is one of the more responsive boards we have.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow response, but I resent the insinuation I was abusing any process. When the wizard is showing an image type as something it is not, that's a problem for a high traffic board. Apparently not fixing things is the new way of ANI. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Legal Threat

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

---

Legal threat for reverting spam - [157] --Anbu121 (talk me) 12:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

They've been blocked by Materialscientist. Number 57 12:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Legal threat by 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.

---

• Spootnik the sadalite (talk · contribs)
• Adventure massage therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Recently, I was on the Special:ArticleFeedbackv5 when 207.228.21.92 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) posted a legal threat about the History of the bikini article. I hid the feedback. The whole feedback message is located here. I have notified the IP. -- Luke (Talk) 14:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Orangemike properly blocked them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Narayan Dutt Tiwari semi-protect 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.

---

Narayan Dutt Tiwari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article is being repeatedly vandalized by IP's. A court released a paternity test of his that has caused a lot of excitement, I would think this will be calmed down again in a few days. Can we semi-protect this please? (If this is the wrong place for this request, point me to the right one please). Thanks. -- Maelefique^(talk) 17:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I've semi-protected it for a month but the venue for requesting protection is WP:RFPP. --regentspark (comment) 18:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by IP user 99.226.214.165

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

---

Hello.

IP user 99.226.214.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps reverting the women's Olympics football tournament articles and artifacts (templates) back to using inferior sources – women.soccerway.com instead of the more official london2012.com and fifa.com. In addition, the result is worse visually in the template (no "References" heading).

• Template:2012 Summer Olympics women's football game A1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:2012 Summer Olympics women's football game A2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:2012 Summer Olympics women's football game B1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:2012 Summer Olympics women's football game B2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:2012 Summer Olympics women's football game C1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:2012 Summer Olympics women's football game C2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Since the attendance info differs slightly, he consequently keeps reverting the main page back to the number that is supported by womensoccerway.com:

• Football at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Women's tournament (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've tried to talk him out of it, but to no avail. He doesn't even respond. A block would be welcome.

HandsomeFella (talk) 19:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

User is notified. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

This seems like a case of edit-warring to me. I'll issue a warning and if it continues, report it to WP: ANEW. Electric Catfish 21:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I've backed your comments up on his talk page. Good approach, by the way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

User reverted back to worse article versions again over night. No response on talkpage. Reported on WP:ANEW, but a temporary block would be welcome. HandsomeFella (talk) 11:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Harassment/Stalking

The following discussion is closed. 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:NoBearHere, appears to be on some sort of personal vendetta. This user's edits are made up of reverting my edits.[158] --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The name would suggest the possibilty of a grudge against some user with 'Bear' in their username. NoBearHere (talk · contribs) for reference. Kansas Bear, you should have notified NoBearHere of this discussion, I have done so. - 220 of ^Borg 06:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello. First of all, all my edits have necessary explanations, and they're not intentional actions against Kansas Bear. In the meantime, I'm afraid of bears, so I use this username. Regards. :) NoBearHere (talk) 06:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

My suggest NoBearHere is that if that you want to be considered a legitimate contributor and not a possible single purpose account, it's best to venture off onto the encyclopedia and edit constructively. While we do extend good faith upon new editors, it is highly unlikely you just happen to have a username related to a user you're reverting on several different articles (over the course of an hour, no less). — Moe ε 07:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Out of solidarity with fellow bears, I have blocked this account. It was plain obvious that it had only been created to troll and harass. (Oh, and don't chide me for the block summary; I couldn't resist.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Harassing editing by 77.254.201.1

The following discussion is closed. 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

This IP is specifically targeting all of my (and only my) recent edits and falsely calling them 'vandalism'. Farolif (talk) 08:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Blocked.  Sandstein  08:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Gun Powder Ma and University of Al-Karaouine‎‎ and associated articles

For some time now, Gun Powder Ma (talk · contribs) has been removing any reference of Islamic universities as having been "universities". The user claims that, despite several sources disputing his view, that they were only "madrasas" and that only European Christian institutions were "universities". This was attempted at University of Al-Karaouine‎‎ in March 2010 (also [159]) and a discussion held then (here) Unsatisfied with the result, the same thing happened in January 2011 (also [160]) with a talk page section opened back then here. Again, unsatisfied with that result, the same thing is happening today, with Gun Powder Ma making three rapid reverts ([161], [162], [163]) to restore his favored version of history, damn what the sources say. Can a user repeatedly attempt to force in his or her favored POV as though it were the only valid position to hold? And if they are unsuccessful the first time around, can they come back many months later and try to edit-war their favored version back into the article? nableezy - 21:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The user is unaware of the full picture: this topic has been thoroughly discussed by many users in 2011-12 on the talk pages of the two relevant articles which define the subject: university and List of oldest universities. The result of these discussion was that a madrasa, Muslim mosque school, is a very different institution from the university which has been a Christian creation of the Middle Ages. In a nutshell: The madrasa has been the institution of higher learning of the Muslim world and the university has been the institution of higher learning of the Christian world.

Why specifically Al-Karaouine‎‎ cannot be considered an university in the strict an historical sense of the term has been discussed for example here and specifically here.

That it is consensus that a Muslim mosque school or madrasa was no university can be gleaned for users unfamiliar with the subject from two things: Both university and List of oldest universities have been regularly cleaned from such edits by an array of users, not just me, but a number of them. University also lists the madrasa issue a minority view which is generous given the shallowness of the claim. In a word, the user is not well informed either about sources nor about current consensual Wikipedia practice. Regards. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, apparently non-European Christian institutions must be cleansed from that page regularly. Last I checked, WP:NPOV was still a blue link. But that distracts from the issue of a user edit-warring in a favored version of an article, after multiple discussions rejected his favored view. That is what brought me to ANI, not the cleansing of any less than lily white institution from that list. nableezy - 22:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I was involved in previous discussions about this and there was no consensus at all, it just sort of petered off. But the case for excluding non-Christian institutions was extremely weak - there are certainly good quality sources which include them. Formerip (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I recommend closure of this thread. This dispute is about content and needs no immediate administrative action. The closest thing might be the edit-warring, which should be referred to the 3RRN. To my uninvolved eyes, the claims of "NPOV" that do not address GPM's source-based argument here are particularly shallow. Nableezy should familiarize himself with the long and complicated history of disputes at the "university" and "list of oldest universities" pages, and make his fresh case for the inclusion of madrasahs on the article talk page. Shrigley (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but this isnt "about content". I can deal with the content dispute. The issue that brought me here was GPM made the same disputed edit that gained no support in March 2010, then again in January 2011, and when reverted made two additional reverts. That is a behavioral issue, not a content one. Can a user simply attempt to outlast any opposition to their edits and edit-war in material that failed to gain consensus several times? nableezy - 18:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

And this has continued at Morocco, with the user making 3 rapid reverts without anything resembling a consensus for his changes. See 1, 2, and 3. The user has also blatantly misrepresented a source at University of Al-Karaouine‎‎, saying that a source that says that the university became part of the state university system in 1947. supports the claim the the university was founded in 1947 (see here). That is straight forward lie, and a purposeful one at that. Is repeated edit-warring and lying about sources not enough to attract any attention at ANI? nableezy - 18:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

As Shrigley has pointed out, the issue is about content and should be sorted out on the appropriate article talk pages. Nableezy seems to wish to pose the content dispute as posing Christian / European universities against Muslim / Asian and African universities. In fact, as I have pointed out several times[164] in similar disputes over the years, the issue is concerned with the distinction between universities, which it is almost universally agreed arose in Europe in the course of the twelfth century from earlier forms of education, which did not have the institutional structure and the consequent organizational and intellectual autonomy that arrived with the medieval European university. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

That is incredibly dishonest. I am not here about a content dispute. I am here because an editor is attempting to "solve" a content dispute by repeated edit-warring. That is a behavioral dispute, something that is in the scope of this page. The only people that have brought up the "content dispute" here are you, Shrigley, and GPM. nableezy - 20:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• As a previously uninvolved editor (though I've had interactions with nableezy in the past I believe), I'm seeing mostly a content issue but one that has non-trivial behavioral problems too (mainly WP:OWN). I'm certainly not seeing the claimed consensus on the issue at the oldest university list. There appear to be only 2-3 people talking about the topic and there is certainly no consensus to be found there: it has been a case of which side reverts the most.

The key question is if "university" in this context is in the modern and more generic sense of "...a center of higher education and study" or specifically means one in the European model. One side is arguing for the historical sense another for the generic sense. Sadly, they are talking past each other and both sides have sources that indicate that they are correct, mainly because the sources don't agree on a definition. Some options would be to A) list both definitions B) just delete the list article (really this is a haven for OR as the exact definitions of founding etc. aren't at all clear) or C) rename the list article to make it clear it is referring to European-style schools. I'd say an RfC on the topic would be the best way forward, ideally with an announcement made pretty broadly (all talk pages of schools that currently claim to be a university maybe?) So for now I don't think there is much for ANI to do. I'd recommend keeping the status quo (keep the list as is, restore university to the Islamic schools' pages) until an RfC is finished. My 2 cents.Hobit (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, right? Logically enough, it has a Western (English-speaking world) bias to it. The history of Western civilization is clear that the university is a Western invention. This in no way minimizes the antiquity nor the academics of Asian and African schools of higher learning. The page is a WP list of limited scope. The scope is Western universities, as the lede makes abundantly clear. As I commented on the talk page, we don't see Italians grousing because Tarquin the Proud isn't on the List of pharaohs. Yopienso (talk) 22:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

What exactly does that have to do with repeated edit-warring at University of al-Karaouine (and dishonest source misrepresentation) and Morocco? For all this noise about not discussing content disputes here, several people seem intent on discussing a content dispute here. nableezy - 18:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Jaguar 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.

---

We previously had to mass delete stubs created by this user, after which they retired. Yesterday, they returned and continued the mass creation. Whereas I do not speak Chinese and may not appreciate the problems, I think it is worthwhile to alert the community. Please move this thread if appropriate. The user will be notified.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

See User_talk:Thumperward#Autopatrolled and Special:Contributions/Jaguar. JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to Thumperward's talk page. Especially interesting is that Jaguar said "I am not going back to China" three days ago. It is not clear to me what was meant by that. —Kusma (t·c) 14:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I checked one (Dongjinzhuang Township) and it doesn't seem to contain any major errors (unlike previously). However, it does not contain any information that is not in the parent list, not even the possible (and fairly obvious) interwiki link zh:东金庄乡 or the coordinates. Also, it is odd that the Chinese website given as source was apparently accessed last year. (That source is also on the parent article, Beishi District). In my view, even without errors, these stubs are still worthless. Jaguar should probably try some content creation instead, perhaps in an area where he/she understands the language. —Kusma (t·c) 13:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh my god - what is everyone's problem here!? User:Thumperward gave me some advice saying that I need to gain some trust from the community, and that is what I am doing - creating some good quality stubs with no errors, like I had done this morning. I created 18 good quality stubs, with a valid reference, Chinese included, and better quality wording - what more could you ask for? I am creating these stubs nice and slow so that I can regain everyone's trust, get my Autopatrolled back and hopefully move on creating more. You are right; I am not going back to China. I did, however, create those 18 articles to demonstrate what I can do. They are perfectly fine. They are not worthless.

When I get my Autopatrolled back, I will assure you I will create some more slowly - but I don't know. I don't know what to do with my life. It should be sensible to close this discussion seeming this is not going to go anywhere. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 14:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Er, shouldn't you first create pages more slowly, then ask for autopatrolled rights? And why did you access all the source websites last year instead of now when you created the articles? —Kusma (t·c) 15:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought the sources would be fine - they are the same from what I was creating last year. Anyway, I am on the right track now, I think everything is fine. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 15:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The answer to Kusma's question is that you copied the reference from an article created last year by another editor. Creating articles based on sources you can't read is certainly not fine. Please don't do any more. Kanguole 15:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The source seems to be List of township-level divisions of Hebei. Which is not really a good thing to base articles on -- several of the newly created stubs have incoming links from other places, showing they need to be disambiguated properly (sometimes even the characters are ambiguous, and zhwiki has disambiguation pages in place). This is a mess. —Kusma (t·c) 19:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I will be embarking on a cruise shortly, so I'll leave it to others (Kusma, you should have already seen this) to read what I explained at WP:NC-ZH. In short, stop treating merely ambiguous titles as mistakes, which are quite uncommon, and even going as far as describing the disambiguation situation as a "mess". GotR ^Talk 13:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Your "good quality stubs" are in fact worse than nothing. What you did is replace perfectly good redlinks in some list articles with pretty-looking, but contentless stubs that contain precisely zero additional information compared to the parent list article. This has been explained to you several times. You did not even do the almost trivial work to link your substubs to the relevant zhwiki pages, where more information can be found. Please find something else to do than creating pages for the sake of creating pages. Probably we should delete this batch again as you seem to listen to deletions better than to words. —Kusma (t·c) 17:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the concern. If I am searching for something on the internet and see that there is a Wikipedia article with that exact name, I have an expectation that going to the article will tell me more than simply the item exists. That's virtually all you get with these stubs. You don't even get a location on a map. The article is worse than nothing at all.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thoroughly agree with the two statements immediately above this one; these substubs need a good case of WP:TNT. They discourage others from creating better articles, they provide no useful information to the reader, and they have sourcing issues. If your source were a PDF, I would assume that you'd just been using a downloaded PDF and kept citing the date on which you downloaded it (which is appropriate), but in this case, you need to look at the page and update your citation. Nyttend (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I've had a look at the stubs and taken to correcting the ref that he used. It links to the main district page so rather than badger him about the incorrect link, I'm linking it to the correct pages. I may do some content addition at some point. I've suggested to Jaguar that he not create stubs at the same ferocious rate that he did previously and also to get help from the relevant wikiproject. There really isn't a whole lot wrong with the stubs, excepting for the serious lack of content, which I think I'll take a look at. I'm working on another article translation, which I've been woefully neglecting lately. If Jaguar agrees to not create any more town stubs until the current batch has had some content added, I believe this would be a suitable compromise that would allow the articles to be kept. Anna Frodesiak has made some very good suggestions on his talk page and I have added encouragement that he work with her to learn more about content creation. Blackmane (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

These mass creations have gone on long enough by Jaguar. He doesn't have bad intentions, however the past few months of these over 10k+ creations of dubious value, and some with glaring errors, have created massive amounts of work and steered volunteer hours away from more fruitful activities. This is why we have a Bot policy (whether it's technically a bot or not, the premise is the same) so that one individual can't create massive amounts of work in such a short amount of time.

I really don't want to discourage Jaguar from working here, but these mass creations like this need to stop. If that means a topic ban on those creations... I'm not sure. But lest we forget how much discussion this generated last May, I'm dismayed to see it starting again so quickly. Shadowjams (talk) 00:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I have seen this kind of mass stub creation before, most recently with User: Carlossuarez46 creating mass-articles on Iranian communities like this, the exception being that Carlos provides a small amount of census information. I believe there should be an official policy dictating against mass creating poor articles with templates. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 00:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

That's one for the Village Pump. Well, I've just corrected all of the ref links and titles on his stubs plus moved one due to a misspelling of the pinyin. I agree with Shadowjams that Jaguar should be discouraged from mass creations, especially those in a foreign language. Blackmane (talk) 00:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Very well. I believe that a policy against template created or "inadequate" articles would help Wikipedia on the whole, and I will submit that idea to WP: VILLAGE tomorrow. I didn't catch a wink of sleep last night, and i'm dead tired. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 03:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Writing such a policy sounds very difficult. I'd prefer to continue handling on a case by case basis.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:TNT may have been appropriate in the previous round, because most of Jaguar's creations were totally lacking in Chinese, which is an absolute MUST in order to access more detailed sources and look up locations on a map, only had administrative detail up to the prefecture-level, which is two levels above the township-level, and least important, used the province's entry at XZQH, which has frequent gaps. However, many of these issues have been dealt with this time around, and if free of errors, describing the new stubs as "worse than nothing" is misleading.

Such a policy is not going to happen when even 1-million+ cities and counties are virtually one-liners. Of course, there is the almost total lack of articles on towns and townships, each of which usually have a population into the thousands, which is an unequivocal demonstration of the horrid systematic bias here on EN-Wiki—I even suspect some of you here are willing to keep portraying China as a monolith with no detail or variation, as much of the media does when showing a non-Alpha-global city (Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong, and Taipei) on the map of China without any provincial-level boundaries. Not to mention, township-level divisions number into the tens of thousands, and are subject to changes every few years because of China's urbanisation. Maintaining this attitude will only ensure that we never have significantly greater coverage than at present.

However, I do support a potential WP:VILLAGE policy if it applied literally to villages only. At least in the Chinese case, villages may be subject to far more frequent changes than township-level divisions are. GotR ^Talk 13:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we can close this now. On his talk page, Jaguar has [165] to move on from making stubs in this area and recognises the difficulty that they have in working with a language they don't understand. Personally, I laud Jaguar's efforts in their attempts to add content, or at least the beginnings of some content, to the encyclopaedia. Blackmane (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Seeking feedback on mass messages

Hi, I'm trying to avoid winding up at this noticeboard. Here's the situation:

I want to mass message 1000 specific editors with User:EdwardsBot (to which I have access), asking those editors the below message. Would it be canvassing or otherwise problematic?

"I'm contacting you because you have participated in the WP:HighBeam, WP:Credo, or WP:JSTOR partnerships where those research databases donated free accounts. I think you should know about a current Community Fellowship proposal to create a Wikipedia Library--a single point of access for approved Wikipedia editors to gain free entry to all participating resource providers. Your feedback on the proposal would be appreciated. I should note that the feedback is for the proposal, not the proposer, and even if the Fellowship goes forward it might be undertaken by presently not-mentioned editors. Thanks for your consideration."

Proposal: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Fellowships/Project_Ideas/The_Wikipedia_Library

Thanks for your guidance! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Please get approval at WP:BRFA for launching an operation like that. 67.117.146.199 (talk) 07:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't thought a messaging operation would need approval at BRFA, but that's not a bad idea. Thanks for the tip! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 12:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

IP keeps removing information from Paraskevi Papachristou

User:46.198.54.220 keeps removing sourced information concerning Paraskevi Papachristou's expressed support of Golden Dawn on Twitter, claiming that the information is not relevant because "she's not a politician". However, considering that Papachristou has been expelled from the Greek Olympic team for posting racist comments on Twitter, and at least one article says her support of Golden Dawn was a factor in the team's decision to expel her, it seems like someone should intervene and tell the IP to quit removing sourced, notable information. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I removed the specific section since she here denied that. I also searched google for interviews of her expressing support to golden dawn but i couldn't find anything. --46.198.54.220 (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Just because she denies it doesn't mean the sourced information should be removed. It just means that the fact she's denied it should be added. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

It should only be included if its relevent, in context, and improves the article. This notion that "its sourced so it belongs in" really needs to addressed and settled in the porject, as this notion is the number one used reason for including material in articles it seems. --Mollskman (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

request delete and change visibility of defamatory statement at science ref desk

The following discussion is closed. 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

An editor, User:70.179.170.114 has posted a defamatory statement at the science ref desk comparing a named car repairman to a mafia gangster. This is defamation per se. I have deleted the information which seems like an intentional attempt to embarrass someone using wikipedia. But I believe its visibility should be changed, and the user admonished to say the least. Can someone please help? μηδείς (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC) s

I have filed a report at BLP requesting they change the visibility of the comments, thinking on the second hand that they might act more quickly, but please help if you see this is still visible. μηδείς (talk) 01:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I have to say, this is an overreaction. The IP indicated an that the customer salespeople at a named dealership act like members of the Mafia. This is actually not defamatory as it is not a factual statement about an individual. And of course you're assuming without knowing that it isn't true. Truth is a defense, just saying. Anyway, I decline to revdel this, and while I won't disturb it, I won't even have collapsed it. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

You have a very different understanding of BLP than I. So, because the dealer might be a member of the mafia, we let the comment stand? Given this is a question at the reference desk, would it be appropriate to contact the dealership and ask them for their comment? Truth is a defense--that means the one accused of libel could attempt to show the comment was true--if he couldn't the comment is defamation per se. Our standard is not to make claims for which we have no reliable evidence, and not to make even the semblance of personal attacks. μηδείς (talk) 03:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

There was no accusation that anyone was a member of the Mafia. The IP made a comment that simply was meant to illustrate that the customer sales people were unhelpful. It was hyperbole, and neither defamatory nor a violation of WP:BLP. Of course if another admin disagrees they are free to act as they see fit. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict. I couldn't have said it as good as Xymmax, but he's correct; thanks, Xym.) First, he wasn't a "dealer" - just a service advisor in the dealership. That's how I felt about his overall aura, but I suppose I let out more about my feelings toward him than necessary. I'll remove it, and have since made a newer version removing references to the Mafia and gangs, and the specific dealership. Now that I'm chilling out about the issue a little, I realize some comments were stronger than they needed to be. --70.179.170.114 (talk) 03:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Basically, this is just some nut-job who thought that Wikipedia was the right place to rant about some bad service instead of Facebook or Twitter. I have to agree, taking this to ANI is a little bit of an overreaction. It's just trolling. If you would like, an oversighter could delete any information which you find to be violating privacy. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 03:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought the BLP concern was more the fact that the question was basically, "is this person defrauding me or commiting some professional misconduct?" 203.27.72.5 (talk) 03:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

If the BLP concern is indeed defamation per se, then that would definitely be an allegation of injury to trade/business/profession. But the stated concern is allegations of criminal activity (in this case, the Mafia). Where does it say this so-called poor salesman has anything to do with crime? Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 03:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, fraud is a crime, but the OP also said something about how the guy seemed like was a collector for the mafia or something to that effect. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 04:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, thank you for showing us that. My main point is that all of these allegations, however absurd they may be, must be removed and/or oversighted, but only if the community agrees that the content is defamation. I certainly agree that they are indeed defamatory. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 04:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The IP user has graciously removed the original question from the science desk and resubmitted it on the miscellaneous desk without the problematic information. He has also requested that the visibility of the original post be changed. If some admin here can effect that it would be appreciated. μηδείς (talk) 04:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Revision deleted. I am an oversighter as well, and I have reviewed the case and determined that it doesn't merit suppression. I think this can be closed now. NW (Talk) 07:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Harassing editing, part 2

Thanks for the quick response from Sandstein about 77.254.201.1, but there's more to it. I suspect that situation was retaliation for an editting war I've been engaged in with what is likely the same user (from Poland, according to the IPs) over the inclusion of minor earthquakes on the Current Events page under the following:

• 77.255.124.159 - The first IP whose addition I deleted.
• 77.254.218.156 - Which also posted an improper 'final warning' on my talk page earlier this week.
• 77.255.106.112 - Used once.
• 77.254.204.88 - Used once.
• 178.37.103.227 - New as of this morning, and like the previous MO, the IP is labeling my edits as vandalism when I am clearly tagging my edits with a WP:Notability link.

Farolif (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Too large of a range for a range block without cutting off tens of thousands. WP:RFPP might be an option if they come twice with two different IPs, but they are cycling through the IPs too fast for blocks to be anything except symbolic. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

AConservapediaEditor

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

---

AConservapediaEditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - troll, SPA, likely sock on talk:Barack Obama. Can we please deal? Sorry, I cannot notify right now, but they are on notice. Thx, Wikidemon (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

User notified.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

And it looks like he was already blocked by User:Acalamari.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Muslim Brotherhood

For some reason I forget, I've been coming across Muslim Brotherhood-related articles over the past few days and I'm shocked at the amount of, well, shit is in these articles, treating people like Frank Gaffney, who claim that CPAC is a Muslim Brotherhood front (no, seriously), and other crypto-Dominionists and racists as completely reliable sources. I'd ask that all admins and people watching this page be very vigilant of these articles, as stuff like this could be potentially very problematic for the encyclopedia. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Be careful about the terms you use to describe those people per WP:BLP please. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I really should be, though I should also note that these conspiracy theories, if they existed 80 years ago, would refer to Jews instead. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I hate it when Communists like Sceptre make idiotic statements like anti-Semitism doesn't exist anymore and has been replaced by "Islamophobia." As a Jew, I am offended.

Future Perfect at Sunrise (closed)

The following discussion is closed. 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 ongoing discussion of an image (File:Bane_Tom_Hardy5.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) going on here due to a dispute over the image size. Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has opted to become involved in the content dispute, but is now threatening blocks on my talk page to enforce his chosen point of view. He is also using his admin tools to force things his way (deleting prior revisions of file uploads, protecting the page, etc). All this while the discussion is still unresolved. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• His comment on your talk page does not dispute the content, rather explains why others dispute it. You should provide a diff where/if he disputed related content before giving you an administrative warning. If you think your edits are within the policy, you can start an RFC on the talkpage. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
• As a fair-use file, large versions can not be used on Wikipeida, and in cases where a reduced size has been supplied larger versions in the history must be deleted. Fair use requires low resolution; 300px on the longest side of the image is, IIRC, the generally accepted maximum size for a fair use file. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I consulted the policy and guideline, and it merely said anything approaching 1.0 megapixels (height times width in pixels) would need an expanded fair use rationale. Anything below that then would meet the policy/guideline... there seems to be some confusion amongst editors about what the text of the policy/guideline actually says... —Locke Cole • t • c 01:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
• @Locke Cole: Would you be so kind to explain what you would like the administrators or experienced editors to do in this case? Arcandam (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
  • At the very least validate that I'm not losing my mind in thinking an involved editor is using his admin tools inappropriately... —Locke Cole • t • c 01:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
• Future Perfect is following wiki policy. nothing wrong with that. in addition, you deleted a no-fair-use-rationale tag without offering a rationale [166]. that's highly disruptive.-- altetendekrabbe  18:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention uploading the full high-resolution version of the image in retaliation, which also is highly disruptive. --MuZemike 19:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll admit, it was a little WP:POINTy, but you can understand my frustration of dealing with an admin involved in a content dispute, can't you? —Locke Cole • t • c 01:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

How is he following Wikipedia policy? Which policy is he following, and how specifically is the original image not meeting policy? I checked, and the image (at 0.4 megapixels) is well below the criteria for being an inappropriate resolution. Also, I didn't realize the image was being used in an article without having a FUR, and you'll note I added one once I realized that.. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Future Perfect has had to delete that file 4 times in 24 hours. At this point, what you are doing is clearly a form of edit warring. Simply using the basis of 3RR, he could have just blocked you. Instead, he gave you a proper warning and made it clear what the consequences would be. In this case, choosing to warn you first was the right thing to do and I would support his actions. Oh, and his interpretation of non-free files is exactly right. That isn't really a discussion topic, that is a policy. I suggest you quit while you are ahead. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Quit before you're further behind, I'd suggest. Locke Cole, you may like to read WP:STICK. Tonywalton ^Talk 00:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• • Er... he "had to delete" the image? Why did he "have to"? 3RR doesn't apply.. at all, not even close. And keep in mind, there's still ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:Bane_Tom_Hardy5.jpg as to whether a lower resolution image is even necessary. That discussion has not concluded, but this admin has taken it upon himself to delete the image, all the while protecting the page and leaving a link to a discussion that, given his action, is apparently moot (even though there's no consensus there that the larger image is bad)... —Locke Cole • t • c 01:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Since you chose to re-open the discussion after I closed it, read and understand WP:NFCC 3b: "Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement)." He is not involved in a content dispute with you, he isn't violating any policy and is actually reflecting what the majority of editors at that discussion and on this noticeboard already know. The image you tried to upload repeatedly to make a point does not meet NFCC 3b. 300px length-wise is a rule of thumb for reducing large-resolution non-free images. You do realize there is a bot that automatically does what Future Perfect at Sunrise did, correct? The bot reduces the files to that size, roughly, and administrators delete the past revisions. You are exaggerating wholly saying we are reducing it to postage stamp size at the content review page. It's about as big as you're ever going to need it for Wikipedia within our guidelines. What exactly do you need a non-free image that large for? You aren't going to even use the full size of the reduced image in an article, much less the larger image you were trying to upload. Again, my suggestion is get more familiar with large non-free images and what we do with them, rather than trying to hammer the point of Future Perfect at Sunrise being a bad guy. — Moe ε 02:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
• Discussion or not, policy stands. If a group of 6 people on some talk page decide that a 1000px x 1000px is fine for Fair Use, that is meaningless as the policy dictates the limits, not consensus. There might be room for discussion on some minor point, but in general, the policy is pretty clear. The real problem is you reverting back over and reuploading multiple times. Even if you thought he was wrong, the very act you did IS edit warring. Period. To change the content of a file is no different than changing the content of a page, and the act of reuploading the same or larger version is the exactly parallel to reverting to your preferred version. In this case, he didn't have a preferred version and was implementing policy, just like reverting vandalism, so is exempt. You are greatly mistaken and the consequences of continuing this battle should be quite clear by now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• @LockeCole: I would hardly call myself a fan of FPaS, and I hold firm opinions about the inanity of some of our NFCC policies, but this seems straightforward to me: non-free images are allowed under stingent circumstances, one of which is that they be of the minimum possible size to be usable. As someone pointed out above, 300px is the generally accepted parameter for the short side of the image (although I'm not sure that's written down anywhere), and that's a reasonable size for almost any use within articles. If there's a reason that some specific image needs to be a bit larger, I've had some success with explaining why on the image's page -- but, really, I see little need for significant overage, especially since a large number of non-free images are used in infoboxes.

  In short, I don't see where FPaS has done anything wrong, and I agree with Dennis Brown's analogy between edit-warring on text and multiple re-uploads of images: they're basically the same thing, and continuing to do what you've been doing seems likely to get you blocked, for entirely no reason at all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Wikipedian Impersonation and bogus request to admin

The following discussion is closed. 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 28 July 2012 at 19:51GMT an unregistered Wikipedia user identified as User:67.218.41.166 posted an unauthorized request on the talk page see (here) of Wikipedia Administrator User:Tiptoety to have my Rollback privileges removed. User:67.218.41.166 then forged my signature and saved. Approximately 1 minute later at 19:52GMT they reverted their edit then reposted the same request again. In response, on 29 July 2012 at 00:12 I posted a message on User:Tiptoety's talk page informing them that the request to delete my rollback privileges was bogus and that the signature in that message was a forged. I would like to request immediate assistance from a Wikipedia administrator to stop this person from committing further acts of impersonation. I DO NOT know them and I don't have a clue why they would choose to forge and impersonate me. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 04:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Don't worry. Drmies (talk) 04:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Edit about a gun in a school

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

---

I just noticed this edit, which is a little troubling. I'm not sure if it's a cry for help, or what. Any thoughts? Zagalejo^^^ 05:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• 7th grader in an elementary school?... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, what are you asking? (I've sent an email to emergency@wikimedia.org, just to be safe.) Zagalejo^^^ 05:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not a cry for help. It is probably referring to this news story. This can probably be closed. Arcandam (talk) 05:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

But that was Ohio. The school in the article is Chicago. Zagalejo^^^ 05:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but... but.. eh.. Meth is a hell of a drug. Arcandam (talk) 06:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

A soft pellet gun is not by any means a deadly weapon. However there are numerous models that are made as replicas of real firearms, so there are obvious issues with bringing them to a school. (Just adding some background here.) Looie496 (talk) 06:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• The edit appears to be an attempt to introduce a "fact" into the story, but I don't see how this is a cry for help or threat in any way. It has already been forwarded up the chain, but normally I wouldn't think it would be needed here due to the nature of the edit. I don't see anything else that needs doing here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

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

User:50.9.65.145

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

---

I've refrained from escalating my dispute with this user into an all-out edit war, and I know that this is not the appropriate place to solve the dispute. I must however object to this user's confrontational and aggressive attitude, as illustrated in the history section of this article here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Howling_III:_Echoes&action=history

Mariomassone (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

A warning for NPA should be issued. Fasttimes68 (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

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

I dunno

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

---

Someone else should take a look at this. Arcandam (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Nothing but trolling - reverted. GiantSnowman 17:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

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

FC Steaua București 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.

---

Hello!

The user Jjmihai violate wikipedia policy and is responsible for removing my work. Is not the first time when he did this, when disrupt my editing. Please, help me. Page FC Steaua București in Europe.

Liviu Marius Dobrea.

User talk:Liviu Marius Dobrea. —Preceding undated comment added 22:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It is far from obvious what policy is being violated: this seems to be an edit-war over the formatting of tables or something. Perhaps you could explain more fully? Have you discussed this on the article talk page? I can't see how any action can be taken unless it is made clear what the problem is, and even then, you need to show that you've tried to resolve this through discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Liviu Marius Dobrea is a lier. This page was created by me and all informations are mine. he removed my work and posted his table over mine. I have only one account, I don't understand why i was blocked. See my contributions here. I just upgraded the page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FC_Steaua_Bucure%C8%99ti_in_European_football&diff=504429618&oldid=504414065 and I added to page a "infobox European football" table, what is wrong? And i revert the page beacause don't respects wikipedia policy... "scoreline endashes should not contain spaces, per WP:NDASH; </'br'>" is an incorrect tag, <'br' /> is the correct version. What's wrong? Jjmihai (talk) 06:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.137.13.82 (talk)

Disruptive editing by user Jjmihai

Hi.

User Jjmihai keeps reverting FC Steaua București in Europe page.

He is responsible for disruptive editing against me and other users. Mortifervm (talk) 01:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC +3)

Per the instructions, you are supposed to notify the editor when you open a topic here. I've done so for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I know nothing about these sorts of articles. That said, I see one reversion by Jjmihai on July 26 and then nothing until June 29. You started a topic on the Topic page (good idea), with a terrible title ("Disruptive editing by user Jjmihai" - neutral titles are a little more collaborative), and a very funny question: which version do you like better, mine or Jjmihai's? (heh) A bit short on analysis, don't you think? Two people, uh, voted for your version, including one WP:SPA. The non-SPA at least said why they liked your version better. I think you need more in-depth, constructive discussion on the Talk page, including hopefully comments from Jjmihai. At this point, I see no need for administrative intervention.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand. No one has commented here since Andy's and my comments. Yet, they are still fighting with each other. It's spilled over onto my Talk page (and Andy's) and at WP:3RRN. None of the group of editors seems to be following the rules. No one notifies each other. The one who submitted the 3RR report did just about all of it wrong, although I believe at least one of the editors is in fact edit-warring. They all speak Romanian to each other on their Talk pages, so I can't understand what they're saying. I think the dispute may even be more trivial than I had at first thought - something about dashes? And they happily call everything the others do vandalism. I'm tempted to lock the article and tell them to work it out on the Talk page, but I'm not sure if there aren't other related articles - so many articles about Romanian sports clubs, none of which I can follow.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• I would support full protection for a few days or so. It isn't the only option, but a viable one since the problem is communication and protection forces them to communicate to get changes made to the page, and hopefully to find compromise without an admin making content decisions for them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• I left a message on the article Talk page hours ago to try to get them to focus on the content disputes and try to work them out. Since that time, it's been eerily quiet - no edits to the article or to the Talk page. I guess quiet is good, but I'd like to see them collaborate with each other, or at least crystallize the nature of their disputes in a civil manner. Otherwise, it may just be a temporary lull.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Even the heartiest warriors must sleep sometimes ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Sept 26th 2011 establishes the pattern, and recent activities use the same pattern. There is a clear case of multiple account abuse using an IP. Blocking Jjmihai and an IP for a couple weeks for first time offense, sockpuppetry. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

my edits are from 06:48, 21 September 2011, not from Sept 26th 2011.

look here, when i added informations from steaua's competitions in europe link - 22:07, 11 December 2008‎. see history here informations was taken from this page, was not work of this guys — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.215.109 (talk)

You were sockpuppeting. Period. I don't care how accurate your posts are, you abused multiple accounts. Then you were silly enough to make legal threats. And every time your IP pops up, it will be blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

block evasion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
FC Steaua București in European football informations added by me and removed by Liviu Marius Dobrea Liviu Marius Dobrea is a lier. Informations from FC Steaua București in European football was stolen from FC Steaua București statistics and posted on FC Steaua București in European football, all informations was created by me. He removed my work and posted his table over mine. My table format is like to all the teams that have similar pages. Second, I don't understand why you have thought Liviu Marius Dobrea he said that i have multiple accounts, is a lie, i have only one account. so, why i was blocked? See my contributions here. I just upgraded the page [167] and I added to page a "infobox European football" table, what is wrong? And i revert the page beacause don't respects wikipedia policy... "scoreline endashes should not contain spaces, per WP:NDASH; </'br'>" is an incorrect tag, <'br' /> is the correct version. What's wrong? Jjmihai (talk) 06:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.233.219 (talk)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Spshu

User:Spshu has determined on his own, with no consensus from WP:TVS, this board or any other, that subchannels (ex: WHSV-DT2) are not notable. With zero consensus or discussion, he/she has unilaterally decided all subchannels (no matter their programming) are non-notable, even edit-warring in some cases. I gave a finale Only Warning after finding numerous articles marked with GNG templates with zero discussion. The user has not come to us at WP:TVS or any other board to establish consensus and is relying on old discussions of this board (dating from 2006 to 2009) to show his consensus, which there is none. As we all know, consensus can change.

As edit-warring and near-vandalism like deletions continue, I am asking ANI to deal with this. This near the same kind of edit-warring that User:DreamMcQueen participated in no more than a week ago (he was blocked for 24 hours). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• has been notified of this thread. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit-warring continues on numerous articles to the point I have issued a 3RR warning as the user is either at 3RR on some articles or nearing 3RR on others. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like note that Neutralhomer is the one mainly edit warring over this. He's edit warring with me at the WVIR-DT3 article. I've tried to discussed this with him, but he would not have a constructive discussion about it. I started a discussion at Talk:WVIR-DT3 and got no reply. I've asked him to stop edit warring in my edit summery, but he continued to revert without explanation. There is also an ongoing discussion about this at WikiProject Television Stations. Powergate92Talk 02:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It takes two to tango. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

When I first came into a discussion about this on your talk with my opinion as an involve editor, you replied and then archived the discussion not even giving me time to reply back. So I started a new discussion to response to your reply, and you would not say where this consensus you were taking is, or how an unsourced article meets the general notability guideline. In the end of discussion you said "all further posts about this will be deleted." That's not what I call having a constructive discussion. Powergate92Talk 04:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I was kinda hoping you'd get it on your own and I wouldn't have to explain it to you, as I just did on WP:TVS. As someone who claims they know alot of television stations, you don't know very much. Let's just say I was trying not to embarrass you. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I think Neutralhomer's reverting of Spshu edits is getting out of hand. In this revert he removed Spshu comment in an article merge discussion, and in this revert he removed sourced info from an article, both without explanation. Powergate92Talk 20:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The first one, yeah, that was my mistake; but the second was a revision of a wholesale deletion of sourced information by Spshu in a continued editwar over subchannel articles. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Jamesdbell8

Nothing to see here. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Account appears to be sockpuppet of indef-blocked editor User:James dalton bell. The reason for asserting this is not merely the obvious similarity in names but that both users are raising essentially identical arguments at Talk:United States Bill of Rights, namely [168] and [169] Crispmuncher (talk) 04:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC). Are there any other objections, other than this? You know, like rudeness, bad language, hostility, or anything like that? NO??? And, you should go back to the original "indef-block" to see if it was done to a person who began using WP less than 2 weeks before, and was attempting to correct a clearly-libelous set of postings in violation of the current WP: BLP policy. (Maybe it was even a violation of WP:BLP policy BEFORE the incident.) Indeed, the reason the BLP policy was changed around then was that WP had a very seriously-flawed policy that allowed trolls to post libelous comments, and as long as they could get some colluding WP administrator to back them up, have such a VICTIM indefinitely banned. Also, the WP policy on 'appeals' is clearly flawed, because a banned person cannot force an appeal to occur...if no administrator cooperates. Finally, the whole idea of an INDEFINITE ban so thoroughly smacks of abuse that it is truly breathtakingly improper. Finally, I say: Prove it! WP administration apparently works like the Church of Scientology, it wouldn't be surprising that there's a connection somewhere. Jamesdbell8 (talk) 05:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC) I'll be the first to criticize the tiny minority of our admins that is clearly incompetent, but comparing them as a group to the Church of Scientology is a personal attack. Arcandam (talk) 05:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC) Blocked indef as a block-evading sockpuppet by SarekOfVulcan, and I've just declined his unblock request. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP: CIV/WP: NPA issues with User:81.108.7.13

The following discussion is closed. 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:81.108.7.13, an IP that has spammed ANI before, has committed a series of WP: CIV violations at Talk: Gotye (diff here as well as personal attacks against me and User:Jim1138 (here and here). The user has had civility and NPA problems in the past. I suggest a more longterm block for this IP. Perhaps 3 to six months. Also, can we please oversight the thread on Talk: Gotye? Nobody wants to see the extremely derogatory and offensive word that I shall not say in the page history. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 19:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 months for asshattery and gross incivility. I haven't broken out RevDel for this, but if someone really feels the need to I won't reverse it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 20:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

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

User:184.161.10.194 again

User 184.161.10.194 (talk) has returned July 27–28 with more of the same nonsense for which s/he was previously blocked (see July 4 ANI report): crystal balling, hoaxing, and posting general nonsense about Disney attractions. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a shared IP. I propose a 1 month anon-block. Electric Catfish 20:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I blocked the IP for a month from July 11 at Wikiquote, but administrative procedure there is more seat-of-the-pants than it is here. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Continuous vandalism by user Irānshahr

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

---

Hello Wikipedia

I am writing due to the continuous vandalism by the user Irānshahr in 3 threads regarding Iraq and Iran.

Greater iran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Iran-Iraq relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Persian people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As clearly demonstrated by his edits in those 3 threads he promotes false claims that are all unsourced and not in accordance with the reality. When told so he ignores it just to restore it.

I suggest taking a closer look at his edits.

I do not only suspect, but I am pretty sure, that the user is an Iranian nationalist. Even his name points to such a connection. Moreover he clearly has an pan-Iranian agenda.

--83.95.250.247 (talk) 03:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to make it known for the administrator board that the user Iranshahr has now reappeared under a new alias - this time an IP (109.60.7.172) and continues to add false and unsourced material while he removes sourced material.

This unacceptable behaviour has extended to another thread - this time the Islam in Iraq thread. :Islam in Iraq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Moreover he makes grave personal insulsts, claim I live in Hjørring, Denmark (which is obviously not true) and threatens me with police because I rightly oppose his vandalism. Claims that I am an Arab and Salafi while I am neither.--83.95.250.247 (talk) 01:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not Irānshahr, admins can check it. They can also check your false claims about residence because before just one week teachers from Læreruddannelse received Wahabi threats which are identical to your comments. Admins can also check that you proudly used nickname SalafistKSA with identhical contributions, and now you deny it. User:Ian.thomson has posted suspicion of sockpuppetry at your talk page, and you removed it twice calling us as "extremists" and "racists". Your edits are clearly politically motivated because you deny Greater Iran is Western concept of cultural region and you've made at least 20-30 reverts claiming it's related to "irredentism" [170]. --109.60.7.172 (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Canoe1967

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

---

Canoe1967 (talk · contribs) continues to move a discussion about sources used in the 2012 Aurora shooting article from his user talk page to Talk:Gun laws in Colorado.[171][172][173][174] While he is welcome to delete the discussion from his talk page, I've asked him not to move it to the article talk page without my permission.[175] My understanding is that it is a violation of basic talk page etiquette and civility to move a discussion from a user page without the permission of another editor, to a page that a user does not wish to edit. The relevant article is Talk:2012 Aurora shooting, but Canoe1967 is trying to make a WP:POINT by arguing for a WP:POVFORK. In any case, I would like Canoe1967 to ask users in the future for permission to move their comments to other article talk pages and to stop moving my comments at this time. Viriditas (talk) 04:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Wait one second, check the helpdesk, I will post a permalink without moving anyone's comments in a few minutes. Arcandam (talk) 04:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Feel free to slam my edits all over if need be.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I asked a question here. Arcandam (talk) 04:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I will refrain from moving comments around. The issue is appearing in dispute forums all over WMF the same as the 'ethno-taggers' and 'tabloid pushers' etc. When it carried on to my talk page thought I could move it to the proper discussion page citing WMF policy on all text being free licensed. The arguments on both sides I thought were valid on the only two pages that many feel they should be on. If an article has a gun issue then it should be discussed on a gun law page or a gun debate page not in the articles about incidents with guns. If the debate on guns is spread through every article that mentions a gun and every dispute forum that can be found, then that does not help the project. It just forks the debate on how much we should include it in all of these articles. In other words it should be in the proper forum. I hope this makes sense.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The best thing right now would be for you to simply drop it, ignore and avoid Viriditas, and move on to something more important. Arcandam (talk) 08:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem at all if they will stop pestering my talk page with yet another dispute tag since this one. I am trying to keep an article under control while other editors are trying to help with good faith edits. Some editors insist on pushing their WP:POINT which is not helping others that are trying to follow consensus, guidelines, and policies.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

That is why I used the word "ignore". Ignore Viriditas, whatever Viriditas does, even if Viriditas posts on your talkpage. If you see Viriditas somewhere, avoid Viriditas. Forget that this ever happened, stop giving a fuck, and move on. This is a technique that has been proven to work over and over again. If you see any better options, please let me know, but my gut is full of truthiness. Arcandam (talk) 09:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I have never had a problem following that advice. If you have time you may wish to read Talk:Sondra Locke, the 6-8 dispute forums it was discussed at, the toilet I flushed on my talk page, the laughable/failed sock and ANIs filed on me, etc, etc. I finally stopped giving a fuck because I had far better things to do with my time. This article should be kept under control. We should not waste his and my good editor time on POV issues with it. I do believe he is a very good editor and contributor but if you feel I should not give a fuck then I feel he should WP:STICK.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

But you should too! Just drop it. And to be frank, neither of you should really give a fuck about articles on Wikipedia and if they are in the WP:WRONGVERSION. Its just not important enough. Remember, this is the internet. If someone is wrong on the internet and you point it out but you do not get the result you want there is a good solution: just stop caring. This may seems like a weird strategy but in the long run it really works. You are not responsible for keeping that article under control. Wikipedia won't fire you if it is the wrong version. Someone eventually will come along and fix it, maybe. That summarizes our philosophy here pretty well. Arcandam (talk) 10:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I am confused. "But you should too!" = ? I don't have a wp stick, wp pov, wp point. It is the 'maybe' term that you used that scares me the most. There is no reason for a wrong version to exist. If editors don't like a version then stub it and start from scratch. I did this with an article at the blp board recently after someone wanted neutral input but didn't want to blank it themselves. I trimmed it by 800k to 1mb down to 2 paragraphs I think. Now they are building it ground up from the talk page because they had no choice. If they revert I will blank it for them and create even more editing, talk, consensus, etc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

POV means point of view, so I think you have one. A point is not something you have, it is something you make. And it doesn't matter if you have a stick or not, just drop the topic. The word "maybe" is the important part. You shouldn't care about if it happens or not. Just forget it. There is a reason for a wrong version to exist: life is not perfect. I think that you can spend your time much more productively elsewhere if you want to improve this encyclopedia. Arcandam (talk) 11:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

What you think is not important to what others think. I think anyone that doesn't have any faith in perfection should take a long look in a mirror before they even attempt to judge others that can actually make it happen.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually I do have faith in perfection. I got it by looking at a mirror, just like you suggested. Look, if you don't want to take my advice that's fine with me, but I honestly do think you can spend your time much more productively elsewhere. We currently have 6,903,518 articles. Arcandam (talk) 11:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

"Perfection" is subjective. This "there is no reason for a wrong version to exist" misses the point. Each person has an opinion about what is correct and incorrect on an article, and when these don't mesh is where content disputes come from. "Wrong version" is a way of saying "No matter what version of an article is protected in a dispute, someone will think it's not the right version". There's no way a wrong version can't exist in a content dispute. Looking at it from the "my version is perfect" perspective leaves little room for discussion and consensus building. Your version is not perfect. The person you disagree with? Their version is not perfect. It it was, everyone would agree on it. - SudoGhost 11:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Canoe, you're really not helping your own case with comments like this. Saying that if someone else reverts your stubbing an article you "will blank it for them and create even more editing, talk, consensus, etc" strikes me as very combative. As to your "mirror" comment, Wikipedia is built on criticism and debate. Judging edits (and sometimes editors) is inherent to Wikipedia. That's not going to change. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

That also falls under disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Canoe, I seriously suggest you reconsider that (at the very least) as pointy disruptiveness is the fast-track to blocking. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Part 2

I was hoping that the discussion died down and people would move on but unfortunately that wasn't the case. Canoe1967 decided to create Wikipedia:Gun debates in article space. This resulted in a MfD: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Gun debates in article space. Arcandam (talk) 04:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

That creation had nothing to do with the other article. I feel we have a need for policy/guidelines to follow every time discussions like this come up. I don't see how creating a proposal or 5 can have any effect on discussions elsewhere. I have stated many times now that I am neutral on gun debates. Where I do have a point with is why they are brought up every time a gun is mentioned in an article. I thought I would propose a policy that cites existing policies to make the consensus to include/exclude material and to what degree. I don't know why so many editors have issues about 'the gun thing'. They have opinions on both sides and any material included in articles with guns should be discussed as to whether to include it, how much, and make it neutral POV. People are still crying over poor Seamus and she died in 1993. They are trying to POV animal rights on a dog that has been dead for 20 years?--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Please don't pretend that that stuff is unrelated; I am weird, not stupid. If you want to make a policy or guideline you can do that in your own userspace. You can state you are neutral on gun debates, but that actually slightly decreases the chance people will believe it. If you were truly neutral you wouldn't have to state that many times, right? Again: I suggest you move on to something more important. Drop that stick. Arcandam (talk) 05:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I keep repeating that I am neutral because you keep repeating I have a POV. I have never owned a gun but fired many in the infantry over three years, as well as grenades mucho bigger guns, etc, etc. I probably never will own one unless I find a use for buying one. I have been shot at, sometimes hit, sometimes not. Sometimes I had a gun, sometimes I didn't. I have faith that the next time if it happens I will have my quick reflexes, my own gun, or the aim will be off on the one shooting at me. It is no different than someone trying to hurt you with a rock, stick, or knife except the latter three are usually more effective. To hurt someone with a gun: You need to have one, know how it use it, load the proper ammunition, aim well, trigger correctly, hope they don't run, hide, shoot back or kill you with a stick while you try to figure out that your gun didn't work because you left the safety on or forgot to cock it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point. Please read some of our policies and guidelines and helppages. Wikipedia:Glossary is a good start. You seem to misunderstand abbreviations like "POV" because Wikipedia has a weird jargon, it takes some getting used to. You have a POV. I have a POV. Almost everyone has a POV. The abbreviation POV means point of view. Wikipedia strives to use NPOV, a neutral point of view. Please read WP:NPOV, everything is explained in detail. Arcandam (talk) 06:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Semantics, when I use the term POV I am referring to the one that you think I have about the 'gun thing'. Are you saying that people who own nice dogs compared to those that have been bitten by un-nice dogs will have different opinions on dogs? A dog is a dog. If it bites you there is always a reason and many times it is not the dogs fault. Many people fear, hate, and try to hurt dogs anyway and that is their fault and POV.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It becomes harder and harder to understand you. Please stop writing all that offtopic stuff. Do you know what a point of view is? Arcandam (talk) 06:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC) p.s. I have the impression you do not follow the links and read the stuff you are asked to read. Is that true?

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

Continuous vandalism by user Irānshahr

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

---

Hello Wikipedia

I am writing due to the continuous vandalism by the user Irānshahr in 3 threads regarding Iraq and Iran.

Greater iran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Iran-Iraq relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Persian people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As clearly demonstrated by his edits in those 3 threads he promotes false claims that are all unsourced and not in accordance with the reality. When told so he ignores it just to restore it.

I suggest taking a closer look at his edits.

I do not only suspect, but I am pretty sure, that the user is an Iranian nationalist. Even his name points to such a connection. Moreover he clearly has an pan-Iranian agenda.

--83.95.250.247 (talk) 03:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to make it known for the administrator board that the user Iranshahr has now reappeared under a new alias - this time an IP (109.60.7.172) and continues to add false and unsourced material while he removes sourced material.

This unacceptable behaviour has extended to another thread - this time the Islam in Iraq thread. :Islam in Iraq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Moreover he makes grave personal insulsts, claim I live in Hjørring, Denmark (which is obviously not true) and threatens me with police because I rightly oppose his vandalism. Claims that I am an Arab and Salafi while I am neither.--83.95.250.247 (talk) 01:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not Irānshahr, admins can check it. They can also check your false claims about residence because before just one week teachers from Læreruddannelse received Wahabi threats which are identical to your comments. Admins can also check that you proudly used nickname SalafistKSA with identhical contributions, and now you deny it. User:Ian.thomson has posted suspicion of sockpuppetry at your talk page, and you removed it twice calling us as "extremists" and "racists". Your edits are clearly politically motivated because you deny Greater Iran is Western concept of cultural region and you've made at least 20-30 reverts claiming it's related to "irredentism" [176]. --109.60.7.172 (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Canoe1967

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

---

Canoe1967 (talk · contribs) continues to move a discussion about sources used in the 2012 Aurora shooting article from his user talk page to Talk:Gun laws in Colorado.[177][178][179][180] While he is welcome to delete the discussion from his talk page, I've asked him not to move it to the article talk page without my permission.[181] My understanding is that it is a violation of basic talk page etiquette and civility to move a discussion from a user page without the permission of another editor, to a page that a user does not wish to edit. The relevant article is Talk:2012 Aurora shooting, but Canoe1967 is trying to make a WP:POINT by arguing for a WP:POVFORK. In any case, I would like Canoe1967 to ask users in the future for permission to move their comments to other article talk pages and to stop moving my comments at this time. Viriditas (talk) 04:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Wait one second, check the helpdesk, I will post a permalink without moving anyone's comments in a few minutes. Arcandam (talk) 04:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Feel free to slam my edits all over if need be.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I asked a question here. Arcandam (talk) 04:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I will refrain from moving comments around. The issue is appearing in dispute forums all over WMF the same as the 'ethno-taggers' and 'tabloid pushers' etc. When it carried on to my talk page thought I could move it to the proper discussion page citing WMF policy on all text being free licensed. The arguments on both sides I thought were valid on the only two pages that many feel they should be on. If an article has a gun issue then it should be discussed on a gun law page or a gun debate page not in the articles about incidents with guns. If the debate on guns is spread through every article that mentions a gun and every dispute forum that can be found, then that does not help the project. It just forks the debate on how much we should include it in all of these articles. In other words it should be in the proper forum. I hope this makes sense.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The best thing right now would be for you to simply drop it, ignore and avoid Viriditas, and move on to something more important. Arcandam (talk) 08:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem at all if they will stop pestering my talk page with yet another dispute tag since this one. I am trying to keep an article under control while other editors are trying to help with good faith edits. Some editors insist on pushing their WP:POINT which is not helping others that are trying to follow consensus, guidelines, and policies.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

That is why I used the word "ignore". Ignore Viriditas, whatever Viriditas does, even if Viriditas posts on your talkpage. If you see Viriditas somewhere, avoid Viriditas. Forget that this ever happened, stop giving a fuck, and move on. This is a technique that has been proven to work over and over again. If you see any better options, please let me know, but my gut is full of truthiness. Arcandam (talk) 09:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I have never had a problem following that advice. If you have time you may wish to read Talk:Sondra Locke, the 6-8 dispute forums it was discussed at, the toilet I flushed on my talk page, the laughable/failed sock and ANIs filed on me, etc, etc. I finally stopped giving a fuck because I had far better things to do with my time. This article should be kept under control. We should not waste his and my good editor time on POV issues with it. I do believe he is a very good editor and contributor but if you feel I should not give a fuck then I feel he should WP:STICK.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

But you should too! Just drop it. And to be frank, neither of you should really give a fuck about articles on Wikipedia and if they are in the WP:WRONGVERSION. Its just not important enough. Remember, this is the internet. If someone is wrong on the internet and you point it out but you do not get the result you want there is a good solution: just stop caring. This may seems like a weird strategy but in the long run it really works. You are not responsible for keeping that article under control. Wikipedia won't fire you if it is the wrong version. Someone eventually will come along and fix it, maybe. That summarizes our philosophy here pretty well. Arcandam (talk) 10:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I am confused. "But you should too!" = ? I don't have a wp stick, wp pov, wp point. It is the 'maybe' term that you used that scares me the most. There is no reason for a wrong version to exist. If editors don't like a version then stub it and start from scratch. I did this with an article at the blp board recently after someone wanted neutral input but didn't want to blank it themselves. I trimmed it by 800k to 1mb down to 2 paragraphs I think. Now they are building it ground up from the talk page because they had no choice. If they revert I will blank it for them and create even more editing, talk, consensus, etc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

POV means point of view, so I think you have one. A point is not something you have, it is something you make. And it doesn't matter if you have a stick or not, just drop the topic. The word "maybe" is the important part. You shouldn't care about if it happens or not. Just forget it. There is a reason for a wrong version to exist: life is not perfect. I think that you can spend your time much more productively elsewhere if you want to improve this encyclopedia. Arcandam (talk) 11:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

What you think is not important to what others think. I think anyone that doesn't have any faith in perfection should take a long look in a mirror before they even attempt to judge others that can actually make it happen.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually I do have faith in perfection. I got it by looking at a mirror, just like you suggested. Look, if you don't want to take my advice that's fine with me, but I honestly do think you can spend your time much more productively elsewhere. We currently have 6,903,518 articles. Arcandam (talk) 11:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

"Perfection" is subjective. This "there is no reason for a wrong version to exist" misses the point. Each person has an opinion about what is correct and incorrect on an article, and when these don't mesh is where content disputes come from. "Wrong version" is a way of saying "No matter what version of an article is protected in a dispute, someone will think it's not the right version". There's no way a wrong version can't exist in a content dispute. Looking at it from the "my version is perfect" perspective leaves little room for discussion and consensus building. Your version is not perfect. The person you disagree with? Their version is not perfect. It it was, everyone would agree on it. - SudoGhost 11:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Canoe, you're really not helping your own case with comments like this. Saying that if someone else reverts your stubbing an article you "will blank it for them and create even more editing, talk, consensus, etc" strikes me as very combative. As to your "mirror" comment, Wikipedia is built on criticism and debate. Judging edits (and sometimes editors) is inherent to Wikipedia. That's not going to change. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

That also falls under disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Canoe, I seriously suggest you reconsider that (at the very least) as pointy disruptiveness is the fast-track to blocking. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Part 2

I was hoping that the discussion died down and people would move on but unfortunately that wasn't the case. Canoe1967 decided to create Wikipedia:Gun debates in article space. This resulted in a MfD: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Gun debates in article space. Arcandam (talk) 04:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

That creation had nothing to do with the other article. I feel we have a need for policy/guidelines to follow every time discussions like this come up. I don't see how creating a proposal or 5 can have any effect on discussions elsewhere. I have stated many times now that I am neutral on gun debates. Where I do have a point with is why they are brought up every time a gun is mentioned in an article. I thought I would propose a policy that cites existing policies to make the consensus to include/exclude material and to what degree. I don't know why so many editors have issues about 'the gun thing'. They have opinions on both sides and any material included in articles with guns should be discussed as to whether to include it, how much, and make it neutral POV. People are still crying over poor Seamus and she died in 1993. They are trying to POV animal rights on a dog that has been dead for 20 years?--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Please don't pretend that that stuff is unrelated; I am weird, not stupid. If you want to make a policy or guideline you can do that in your own userspace. You can state you are neutral on gun debates, but that actually slightly decreases the chance people will believe it. If you were truly neutral you wouldn't have to state that many times, right? Again: I suggest you move on to something more important. Drop that stick. Arcandam (talk) 05:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I keep repeating that I am neutral because you keep repeating I have a POV. I have never owned a gun but fired many in the infantry over three years, as well as grenades mucho bigger guns, etc, etc. I probably never will own one unless I find a use for buying one. I have been shot at, sometimes hit, sometimes not. Sometimes I had a gun, sometimes I didn't. I have faith that the next time if it happens I will have my quick reflexes, my own gun, or the aim will be off on the one shooting at me. It is no different than someone trying to hurt you with a rock, stick, or knife except the latter three are usually more effective. To hurt someone with a gun: You need to have one, know how it use it, load the proper ammunition, aim well, trigger correctly, hope they don't run, hide, shoot back or kill you with a stick while you try to figure out that your gun didn't work because you left the safety on or forgot to cock it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point. Please read some of our policies and guidelines and helppages. Wikipedia:Glossary is a good start. You seem to misunderstand abbreviations like "POV" because Wikipedia has a weird jargon, it takes some getting used to. You have a POV. I have a POV. Almost everyone has a POV. The abbreviation POV means point of view. Wikipedia strives to use NPOV, a neutral point of view. Please read WP:NPOV, everything is explained in detail. Arcandam (talk) 06:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Semantics, when I use the term POV I am referring to the one that you think I have about the 'gun thing'. Are you saying that people who own nice dogs compared to those that have been bitten by un-nice dogs will have different opinions on dogs? A dog is a dog. If it bites you there is always a reason and many times it is not the dogs fault. Many people fear, hate, and try to hurt dogs anyway and that is their fault and POV.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It becomes harder and harder to understand you. Please stop writing all that offtopic stuff. Do you know what a point of view is? Arcandam (talk) 06:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC) p.s. I have the impression you do not follow the links and read the stuff you are asked to read. Is that true?

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

HiLo48 civility

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

---

We've had a bit of a flare-up over at WP:ITN/C that could use administrator attention. User:HiLo48 has been showing significant anger lately over postings of items, and it's leading to increasing name-calling. On 16 July, for example, he responds to the posts of other editors by calling them "arrogance": [182]. Two days ago he called User:BorgQueen's posting of an item "quite immoral" [183] and "stupidly rapid" [184]; he also calls another user's comment "stupid" in the latter and insults the manners of American editors as a whole. Several editors have directly requested that he be more civil [185], to which he responded "LOL".[186] After a dozen posts with this tone in that thread, he then proceeded to open continued discussion in a new forum, bludgeoning each oppose vote as invalid and misunderstanding him, posting about twenty times (see thread at Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#Should_we_have_a_rule_requiring_a_certain_period_of_time_for_discussion_before_posting.3F. This afternoon he responded to one post asking if the user was an idiot in an edit titled "Bullshit".[187] I asked him again to be civil [188] and he responded that he was not being uncivil, but I had simply misunderstood.[189]

I'd ask that HiLo receive some sort of block or warning for his behavior. I respect that we disagree, and I hope that he'll contribute constructively and respectfully again in the future. This repeated name-calling and hostility, though, is needlessly poisoning the atmosphere of the project. Khazar2 (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Related historical ANI and WT:ITN discussions on similar behaviour from HiLo48 can be found: here, here, here and here, amongst others. Once, we can AGF. Twice, you get weary. Three times, you wonder why nothing's been done. We're well past that now… and still nothing's been done. I appreciate Khazar's efforts in bringing this to a wider audience at ANI.—Strange Passerby (t × c) 19:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It's generally three strikes and you're out, right? And this editor has had, as per Strange Passerby, over three strikes before this last one? After at least four previous discussions on basically the same sort of matter, I rather doubt at this point a simple warning would do any good. But such comments as those above do nothing to contribute to the atmosphere or even the opinion of others regarding the person making the comments. I tend to agree that some sort of block or ban seems called for, but I'm not sure based on the above what kind of action or how long it would optimally be. John Carter (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, every time I've looked in at ITNC, he has displayed the exact same behaviour. Personally, I'd say a topic ban would be useful. Maybe in a couple months he can then return to the arena with a better attitude. Resolute 19:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure a topic ban is sufficient. His attitude is generally uncivil, confrontational, needlessly argumentative, and exceedingly pedantic. For example: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Young_Earth_creationism_and_Gnosticism, where he tells Dweller to 'run off to Conservapedia' after Dweller took issue with his tone; Talk:Mitt_Romney#Romney.27s_behavior_at_Cranbrook_school, where he deploys his usual high-handed tone to dismiss the valid concerns of others; Talk:2012_Summer_Olympics#Controversy:_Minute_of_Silence_for_murdered_Israeli_athletes, where he accuses others of Wikilawyering whilst engaging in exactly that behaviour himself; and right here, below this comment. He's very fond of saying provocative things, and then claiming not to have said them because he did not, in exactly as many words, say the precise thing he's accused of. Calling me an idiot talk ITN talk is a fine example - he provided a neat Morton's fork, whereby I was either a troll or an idiot, and then rejected the accusation of having called me an idiot. No doubt if he had been reprimanded for saying I was trying to provoke him, he would have said that he hadn't said that, either. It is the Magician's force technique, and we shouldn't fall for it. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

User: Khazar2 accuses me of name calling, then provides precisely zero examples of me doing so. I have certainly expressed dissatisfaction with the BEHAVIOUR of other editors. That is NOT name calling. I choose my words carefully. Others might do well to try to do the same thing themselves. I proposed a radical change. I have been involved in introducing change in many organisations over my life. I know that it's common for one of the first reactions to a new and radical idea is for those used to the old ways to feel threatened and to attack the person with the new idea. That certainly happened with my suggestion at [[Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#Should_we_have_a_rule_requiring_a_certain_period_of_time_for_discussion_before_posting.3F]. An independent observer looking here should definitely look at the reactions of several editors there. HiLo48 (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• I commented earlier this year on HiLo48's ongoing long-term incivility and disruption of the ITN feature [190] and am not surprised to find this matter at ANI. The solution is a topic ban of substantial duration. Jusdafax 21:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

That's quite some record - as Strange Passerby has also highlighted above. For what it's worth, I advocate a complete ban for at least a month; preferably longer. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I would make the point that I have gone out of my way to warn HiLo48 in that same thread [191]. Now that I understand that HiLo48 by no means restricts his abusive commentary to the ITN feature, I have started a subsection to block him as a preventative measure. Judging from his reply he is unrepentant. And having dealt with him for years, in my view he is a poor candidate for mentoring. Jusdafax 22:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that an ITN topic ban misses the broader point of this user's difficulties with comprehending how to interact with others on Wikipedia. See ([192]), which was NOT at ITN. Arguing in defence of ridiculing others' religions is a bad idea and not part of building an encylopedia. Making ill-informed guesses about the personal beliefs of other users is a bad idea and not part of building an encylopedia. Telling other users to leave Wikipedia is a bad idea and not part of building an encylopedia. I think this user needs to radically adjust their norms of interaction. Banning him from ITN won't address the issue, but will just push the bad behaviour elsewhere. --Dweller (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

So, what would you suggest? John Carter (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

From what HiLo48 says above, his intent is to comment on the behavior of other editors, and he doesn't see this as relating to Civility. Perhaps a better explanation is needed as to why this comes off as incivil to some editors and how Civility is bigger than just "No Personal Attacks"? It sounds like HiLo48 is perfectly willing to comply with Civility policy, but has not yet seen how this applies to his actions. -- Avanu (talk) 21:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• I've never had any contact with HiLo before, but I'm not impressed at what I've seen. The diffs provided by the editors above demonstrate a sustained problem of incivility towards other editors. What is even more worrying is that HiLo seems never to acknowledge that his manner is utterly inappropriate (indeed, his response to this report, claiming that there are no example of name calling illustrate this nicely). If it was just a case of incivility from an editor who knew he'd done wrong, I think we could be lenient. However, the long-term nature of the problem, and the inability to even understand that his tone is regularly inappropriate, suggests to me that a block of some length may be necessary. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Topic bans work where it's the nature of the topic that stimulates bad behaviour. I really don't think that's the case here. I'm also not sure a block is a great idea. HiLo is capable of being constructive and productive and much of their contribution history is positive. It's when dealing with other editors that the problems come in... the talk page history includes much that is really problematic. Blocking HiLo IMO does not generate a strong possibility of improved behaviour in the future because I think they genuinely don't understand what they're doing wrong. I'd ideally want HiLo to agree to being mentored and then we'll have the thorny problem of finding a suitable mentor who agrees to doing the job. If that fails, I'm concerned that a block will begin a sad route, via future blocks to an eventual ban and that would be a shame. --Dweller (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

As I have said above, anyone looking for incivility need only look at several of the responses to my sincere suggestion at Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#Should_we_have_a_rule_requiring_a_certain_period_of_time_for_discussion_before_posting.3F. HiLo48 (talk) 21:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Mentoring would be a good step forwards, if HiLo will agree to it and we can find a suitable mentor. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

HiLo is a good editor, but inclined to be intemperate and uncivil, which detracts from his contribution. His response to warnings and relevant wikiprocess is to become increasingly uncivil. A good example is his contributions during discussion on the Craig Thomson affair which made the news due to the level of poor behaviour. --Pete (talk) 23:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Actually, HiLo's tendency to directly attack an editor isn't limited to ITN. HiLo was involved in an article with another editor, who brought the issue to ANI. I'd done some poking about on the talk page and generally found that if things don't go HiLo's way, their outbursts are pretty explosive. These were some of the gems I found last time. Here, here and here. Back then, HiLo's behaviour was buried under the subsequent discussion in to the disruptive behaviour of the other editor. I guess it was only a matter of time before this came up again. Blackmane (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Please don't topic ban HiLo48. I hope this process has given the editor pause, and that they will take a self imposed break to realize that ultimately Wikipedia is not that important :) --76.110.201.132 (talk) 01:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

A couple of examples from a move discussion a month ago; WTF?, ...language usage in Minnesota is of even less relevance here, Why make such a dumb comment?, Some editors don't fucking read what others post!!!!!!!. At best, his posts are sarcastic. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed block or topic ban from ITN of HiLo48

The following discussion is closed. 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 block - On further contemplation of this issue, I'd agree that not just a topic ban but a block is called for regarding HiLo48's long-term and ongoing disruption, including the ITN feature as seen in discussions [193] and this one where consensus was reached that HiLo's actions were unacceptable [194]. This has gone on far too long, in my view, and it appears to me now that the problem extends further than I realized. Jusdafax 21:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Consensus? LOL HiLo48 (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, in line with Dweller's comment above. With no specific appraisal of HiLo48's comments with respect to civility, if there is indeed an issue here then mentoring is far more likely to produce a desirable result. This seems like a situation that requires a more nuanced approach to solve than simply wheeling out the brute force solution of the blockhammer. – NULL ‹talk›
  ‹edits› 22:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Topic ban I have to say, the civility issue is clear here, but I think a block is unnecessary. HiLo is a good editor. Perhaps a topic ban to let HiLo cool his heels a bit? Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 22:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - topic ban from ITN yes, block - no. Black Kite (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose block, pending mentorship proposal, see my comment above. If that fails to get off the ground or the mentor reports it fails to succeed, I'd reconsider. Definitely oppose topic ban, for reasons outlined above. Understandable motivation, but unlikely to succeed in this case. --Dweller (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose unless attempts at mentoring do not work, in which case I'd support a block. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 23:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Topic ban. The disruption has gone on far too long, and there's no reason to believe that it will cease as long as HiLo continues to post on ITN-related pages. His adversarial approach has a chilling effect on discussion, discouraging the participation of both editors disagreeing with him (who don't wish to be berated) and agreeing with him (who don't wish to align themselves with his vitriol).
  Honestly, I don't know why a topic ban wasn't enacted after consensus was clearly established here.
  As noted above, HiLo sees nothing wrong with his conduct, so a block is unlikely to inspire reform. If he's willing to accept a mentorship, this is worth trying as an alternative to a site-wide ban. —David Levy 23:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support Any level of action, at the very least a topic ban. It's nothing new, I've scarce seen an interaction in which HiLo took place without being insulting or condescending, not only on ITN but the front page talk as well, and there is a long history of AN/I. Frankly, it would seem that so long as nothing is done, he will continue to flaunt this; it is unfortunate because he is an active editor. If a block is deemed to severe I certainly support a topic ban, mentorship, or whatever else might be done to remedy this. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 23:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Reading through some of the threads presented, I do not find the same pattern. Also, some comments by other editors in these threads show a similar standard of civility. I would suggest that if editors are concerned about civility they should ask an administrator to monitor the talk pages. Below are a few of the examples I looked at.
  • Wikilawyering. An editor argues that, since WP:NOTABILITY only applies to creating articles, not to article content, "Once the article exists, any sourced material that is relevant to the topic, and that does not violate any additional Wikipedia policies, can be included; notability does not enter into that equation." Although HiLo48 had used the term "notable", WP:UNDUE would exclude non-notable content. It seems the accusation of Wikilawyering may be fair comment and yet AlexTiefling, who is calling for a block accuses HiLo48 in this discussion thread of Wikilawyering while providing no edit differences.
  • Are you trying to provoke me.... HiLo48 is replying to AlexTiefling's comment, "Let me play the world's smallest violin for you. You came here to forum-shop - to find a way of circumventing a clear consensus on ITN that you disagreed with, and continued to voice your disagreement with in tediously paranoid, nationally-biased terms. I oppose your proposal. I oppose it because it's a bad idea, but also because I can no longer Assume Good Faith in dealing with you...." Khazar2, who is the complainant in this case, then tells HiLo48, but not AlexTiefling, to be civil.

TFD (talk) 23:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, the distinction to me was that HiLo had engaged in a long pattern of this behavior; I also didn't engage with HiLo about civility when he first called other editors "arrogant", BorgQueen "quite immoral", or the comment of another editor "stupid". After he continued the behavior for 24 hours, though, the pattern became clear. I don't believe Alex has the same history, either in this particular thread or on ITN in general. Khazar2 (talk) 23:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It is difficult to show long term abuse here, especially when there are no blocks or sanctions recorded against this editor. May I suggest you go to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, whether or not your application here is successful. It is a much better forum when no single edit would warrant sanctions, but when they form part of a pattern. TFD (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, an RfC/U is probably more effort than I'm willing to sink into this drama, but if necessary, maybe someone else can take the baton from here. But are things like calling another user a "prick" over and over really not actionable without that step? [195] Our civility policies are a lot more toothless than I realized. Khazar2 (talk) 05:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I was uncivil to HiLo in that thread. I apologise for letting my feelings get the better of me. I came to that thread directly from the ITN discussion about Aurora, and I definitely should have gone and got a cup of tea first. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban (but oppose block). We have to take this first step. A topic ban from ITN will make it abundantly clear that we won't tolerate this kind of behaviour – and, if Dweller's fears that HiLo would simply bring this behaviour elsewhere come true, we can then escalate to blocks. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 00:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - At most, mentorship should be used in place of blocking. However, there is no reason why ITNC should have to put up with his attitude while a mentor tries to help mend his ways. We can lift a topic ban if and when said mentor determines that future disruption is unlikely. Resolute 00:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, and oppose block - the big guns can be called out later if needed, but right now a topic ban should solve the issue. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban. One has to start somewhere. It is true that HiLo48 is not the only one with a systematic pattern of disruptive behaviour at ITN. Somehow, ITN seems to attract users who'd be blocked/topic banned/whatever for POV pushing, political soapboxing and incivility at just about any other page, and yet their conduct is largely tolerated at ITN. However, that does not mean that nothing should be done, in fact quite the opposite. If the worst offenders start being held accountable, the others will take notice. In my observations, HiLo48 conduct at ITN has been consistently non-constructive, often provocative and incendiary. A topic ban from ITN would certainly be a reasonable first step, to see if HiLo48 can engage in more productive editing elsewhere on Wikipedia. Nsk92 (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose block, neutral on topic ban. HiLo's recent behaviour is obviously uncivil, but it ought to be easily remedied by HiLo recognising the problem and agreeing to correct it. A short topic ban probably wouldn't hurt, but may not be needed if there is a sincere undertaking to self-improve. Mentorship may also not hurt if someone is willing. But I'd be surprised if HiLo is not able to work out for himself what he needs to change. Formerip (talk) 02:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  Indeed, it ought to be easily remedied by HiLo recognizing the problem and agreeing to correct it. And that's been asked of him many, many times. But in HiLo's view, the blame belongs to everyone but him. This is nothing new. —David Levy 02:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  Fair comment, but it may be that HiLo reflects on the concerns raised it this thread and resolves to turn over a new leaf. If he does, then I'd say its reasonable to take him at his word. If he declines the opportunity, then, sure, a topic ban is appropriate. Formerip (talk) 03:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  If that were to occur, I'd be delighted to take HiLo at his word and give him another chance. But we've been here too many times for me to expect such a turn of events. And this is HiLo's current assessment of a previous determination by the community that his behavior was unacceptable. —David Levy 03:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose While I don't endorse rude comments, ITN has all sorts of very major problems (in short: it's American-biased and often links to low-quality articles) and the points HiLo was making actually look quite reasonable to me. This comment included in the orginal report was made in response to an extraordinarily rude comment from AlexTiefling (which includes "You came here to forum-shop - to find a way of circumventing a clear consensus on ITN that you disagreed with, and continued to voice your disagreement with in tediously paranoid, nationally-biased terms"). Nick-D (talk) 02:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  I think this misunderstands the issue slightly. Bias and premature postings are things that can be, should be and are discussed at ITNC while keeping a civil tongue. I don't endorse AlexTiefling's tone, but his assessment is basically correct. In this instance, HiLo was too strident and deaf to other editors. Formerip (talk) 02:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  That an actual systemic bias problem exists is all the more reason to put a stop to HiLo's disruption. His rants are so vitriolic that they accomplish nothing other than poisoning the well. When others attempted to express such concerns respectfully, their efforts were mistaken for HiLo-style trolling and unfairly dismissed. Regardless of where someone stands on these issues, his/her ability to engage in constructive discourse is compromised. —David Levy 02:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  As I said above, I don't agree with uncivil comments. However, ITN is, from my experiance and observations, a very frustrating area to edit in (reasonable criticisms posted politely are often met with strong, and often quite arrogant, counter-attacks), and HiLo was responding to fairly extreme abuse in that comment I linked to. As such, I don't see how sanctioning a single editor will resolve what's a much larger problem. Nick-D (talk) 03:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  And what about his comments at the Ref Desk? Hot Stop 04:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban of limited duration, oppose block. ITN may other problems with civility, but I'm not sure that excuses any of HiLo's behavior, especially since he's displayed identical behavior elsewhere (see, for example, BlackMane's diffs above where HiLo repeatedly calls another editor "a rude, impatient prick" or Dweller's where HiLo mocks a user's religion and tells them to leave Wikipedia). I hope we'll see HiLo contributing to ITN again some day, but until he cuts back on the vitriol, he's doing much more harm there than good. Mentoring sounds like a good step too if HiLo's prepared to accept it. Khazar2 (talk) 02:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, Neutral on block For a few months now, I've noticed that he has often been very uncivil when it comes to responding to nominations he feels are not worthy, and to comments made by other editors that he disagrees with. These comments usually lead to bickering between HiLo and the editor(s) that he rubbed the wrong way (one example). He is not always uncivil, but when he is, it always sparks some kind of argument that can be seen on the related ITN nomination. I would hope a topic ban from ITN for a while would be sufficient enough. He has shown this behavior enough in the past for several discussions to take place regarding his conduct throughout Wikipedia, so I would not oppose a block, but in terms of his behavior lately, I don't feel as though blocking him is really necessary unless he shows that he cannot be civil in future discussions. If the topic ban were to expire, and he goes back to being uncivil in the discussions, I feel he should be blocked. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 03:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support (wide) topic ban, oppose block (for now) HiLo should be topic banned not only from ITN and its subpages, but from the refdesk as well and perhaps any WP/WT page. I would, however, oppose a block since I've found his editing outside those areas to be positive. Hot Stop 04:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Per comments like these [196] [197] [198] its evident he's starting to take his rants to other areas of the website. Because of that, I think a block and topic ban is needed. Hot Stop 15:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per Nick-D. I deal with him on Australian topics all the time and while he is sometimes a little brittle to deal with (and possibly somewhat more in the topic area under consideration, from the diffs I've clicked on), he is a productive, cooperative and useful editor who works towards building consensus in discussions and is generally coming from the right place content wise. Dealing in difficult areas of the encyclopaedia where even editors who behave normally can be mistreated, it's not hard to lose perspective and get very hard-headed about things - I know that's happened to me before, although I've usually known when to walk away. Perhaps mentorship is the answer, I don't know. Orderinchaos 05:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I've had a lot of interaction with HiLo48. 3/4 of the time we are opponents/disagree. But I have the utmost respect for them. They clearly understand what what an encyclopedia should be and work towards that end and aren't afraid to take a little heat in that effort. I find that their blunt talk much less nasty than the more clever wiki-lawyer methods of warfare more commonly used. They are a strong proponent of avoiding US-centrism in Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban or at least some level of action. Countless diffs can be provided of HiLo48's bouts of incivility. I have no doubt that he is a productive editor, but all of his efforts on WP:ITN have consistently been counter-productive and deliberately antagonistic.--WaltCip (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, neutral on block. I'm not at all convinced that mentoring would work, and it remains to be seen whether a topic ban will either, but it's a start. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, user's disruption on ITN is a fairly big part of what makes that section of the main page not work. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. It might send a message. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The diffs don't seem demonstrate anything topic ban worthy. This [199] is a comment on the content, not on the editor. This appears to be from the same incident: [200], it contains some minor incivilities. The edit summary here is inappropriate [201] but the comment is fine (and he raises a good point in the context). Yes there are issues with civility but they seem solvable and some mentoring could help. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban because we just cannot allow this type of immature disruption around here anymore. Yaplunpe 07:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Topic ban for sure, or maybe even a block, this editor needs to learn to work collaboratively before returning here and wasting all of our precious time. HellRaiser1974 (talk) 09:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I move that this proposal has been open long enough (certainly by ANI standards), and that there may be consensus to topic ban. Can an admin please decide if it should be enacted? —Strange Passerby (t × c) 14:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I would agree completely. I'll start a new sub-heading at the bottom of this report. Jusdafax 02:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Propose mentorship (and fallback to topic ban from ITN of HiLo48, if mentor is rejected)

No support for this

It seems that a topic ban is supported by a consensus of people above, and mentorship was proposed right before the poll above started. I would suggest that a mentor of AN/I's choosing be given an opportunity to guide HiLo48 for 2 weeks, if this mentoring fails, in the opinion of the mentor alone, or a consensus of other editors, then a 3-month topic ban from ITN would *immediately* replace the mentorship. If after 2 weeks, HiLo48 has demonstrated improvements, then the mentorship could end, with a warning to avoid further conflict or a summary 3-month topic ban from ITN would be imposed, solely at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. -- Avanu (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC) I am on board with the idea but I personally think it would be more appropriate, given the rather lengthy period of these problems and HiLo's denial of any wrongdoing, to impose a (perhaps temporary) topic ban and mentorship concurrently. HiLo has said in his own words that he is interested in making this a better encyclopedia; to me, the best way to demonstrate this would be to work on other articles and take a break from ITN. If things look better the topic ban can always be lifted. I must admit I am also interested to see if ITN itself cleans up at all as a result of this, not just from HiLo taking a break but also perhaps the demonstration to others on the borderline that this is unacceptable. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 02:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Oppose If he wants to take on a mentor, that's fine. But I doubt someone who's been editing since 2008 will change now. And plus, as proposed it seems over bureaucratic. Hot Stop 04:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Oppose I above suggested to the editor that regardless of the outcome of this discussion thread, that they file an RFC/U. Their reply was, "an RfC/U is probably more effort than I'm willing to sink into this drama". If the complainant shows that lack of interest in their application, I do not think that it merits any more of our attention. TFD (talk) 06:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC) If it's a sine qua non for you, TFD, I'm willing to pledge to start the RfC/U--and if this was the wrong place to come for repeated personal attacks, I apologize. I'm comparatively new to AN/I, and was just surprised to hear that it didn't deal with those matters. FWIW, I'd also point out that I'm far from the only complainant on this page, as the many diffs above demonstrate. Khazar2 (talk) 06:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Eh, disregard what I wrote above. As much as I dislike HiLo's abuse of other editors, I'd rather focus on content than spend another day or two researching and setting up a second community referendum on this. Hopefully, though, the many diffs above will be enough to obviate the need for further escalation. Khazar2 (talk) 07:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

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

---

It's pretty obvious that there is divided opinion as to how to proceed. Rather than continue with the drama that will ensue if the discussion of a topic ban or mentorship continues. I propose that the discussion be stopped here with a very stern final warning that the next time that HiLo is brought here harsh sanctions will be applied. Blocking now will be punitive, a topic ban doesn't really fit the bill and mentorship of an editor who has been here for 4 years is demeaning. Blackmane (talk) 10:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support HiLo is too good an editor to block, to experienced to mentor successfully, and a topic ban won't fix the problem. The solution has got to come from within, and I wish that HiLo could just stop and count to ten or something. This sort of behaviour can't go on, because it is disruptive, and it is a distraction from good editing work. But it cannot be ignored. --Pete (talk) 10:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I believe there is currently consensus for a topic ban, and all this does is circumvent that consensus. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 11:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. As evidenced in the above mentioned "Previous DR Attempts", the point has not sunk in to HiLo that their comments are significantly below the minimum standard of civility for the page and at Wikipedia at large. Stern warnings have already been provided. This Alternative of an alternative of an alternative is an end run around the thin consensus for a topic ban from ITN. We're not supposed to give unlimited 2nd chances to unreformed disruptive entities. Hasteur (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. I agree that blocking now will be punitive, and a topic ban doesn't really fit the bill, but mentorship for an experienced editor isn't demeaning. It's a sign of respect and affection and It may work, and should be offered before more serious sanctions are imposed. But let's see if this discussion has an effect on HiLo's future interaction style first.

HiLo, I followed your pregnancy argument and in that you occasionally crossed the line in terms of civility, but not until you'd been called a pervert by a passing IP (and no one had criticised or removed the comment) and been patronised by Ludwigs2. I think you were told by someone that you are stupid, or it was implied. Someone criticised you for striding up and down the RfC comments, challenging any opposing view, but you weren't standing over or bullying people, you were arguing, which is what we try to do here. What really annoyed me was your propensity to insult the intelligence of your interlocutor. Literally. Tell them their ideas are ridiculous. That doesn't advance your argument; it isn't necessary, it polarises the debate, and it makes you look unpleasant to deal with. And, as in the case of Ludwigs2, it can get you blocked. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Comment Don't mistake that I'm aiming to circumvent a consensus, which I don't see yet, and coming down on either side of the fence. I don't approve of HiLo's behaviour either and in fact, brought up their behaviour in the previous ANI. Given that there are examples of their incivility elsewhere, I'm not sure what a topic ban would achieve. Blackmane (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Observation I don't know if this provides any path to consensus, but it appears that editors who know HiLo primarily from ITN are almost unanimous in supporting action (the sole exception being the IP who asks HiLo to voluntarily take time off), while those who know him from other areas are conflicted or opposed. As linked above, an August 2011 ITN discussion, involving a number of different editors from the current one, was also one !vote short of unanimous in supporting a topic ban for HiLo.[202] The sharp divide suggests to me that HiLo is a largely effective editor elsewhere and a largely disruptive one at ITN. Khazar2 (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• I think he's just as disruptive wherever he goes. It's the same editor with the same interaction style. But he spends a lot of time at ITN, so I can imagine they'd appreciate a break from him. But let's see if he engages here and agrees to stop insulting his interlocutors. If that doesn't happen, if there's no recognition of a problem, we might as well just ban him, or agree to put up with the present style, because change is unlikely if you haven't acknowledged something needs changing. It's very late where he is, so this thread should stay open to give him time to respond. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment HiLo is a fine, sound and decent editor. I refute most, if not all the claims here, and hope that editors can work together to help than gang up to hound out. HiLo has always been a good voice against many of the worst excesses of ITN/C, not least certain practices of rapid posting which I find questionable. He can be a bit 'robust', which is why I hope that co-operation can be chosen over banning. doktorb _words^deeds 15:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• I respect your changing your mind, but given that you voted to topic ban him last August, you at least understand where we're coming from, right? [203] I'm not sure this is any more "ganging up to hound" than that discussion was. Khazar2 (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

*Sorry, Dr. B. I was curious about your change of mind, but didn't mean to open the door for you to be bludgeoned. Feel free to ignore my above comment. Khazar2 (talk) 19:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• "Robust" is putting it kindly. HiLo's ITN behavior is a case of reasonable-sounding ideas with extremely poor execution; you have not addressed the many civility concerns that the above commenters have brought up, many of which have supporting diffs. How are they refutable?--WaltCip (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Just quietly, Doktor, but "refute" does not mean what you think it does. It goes well beyond the sense of "deny" or "reject". --Pete (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Argumentum ad lapidem might be worth reading.--WaltCip (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support - although I think it is not unreasonable to make it clear to HiLo that it is rather likely the next step, if there is one, might be to ArbCom. There does seem to be some basis for thinking that ITN and maybe a few other areas might benefit from some attention from ArbCom, although I doubt if it goes that far that HiLo personally will benefit from such attention. John Carter (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment It would seem to me there's fairly clear consensus to topic ban. You may be right - mentorship of a long-time editor may accomplish nothing, and it may be so that he will learn nothing regardless of what is done, but that would tend to suggest that he's beyond correction and a block is in order. If he hasn't gotten the message the last dozen times he's been warned, what makes you think this time will be any different? - OldManNeptune ⚓ 17:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Without weighing in on one side of the proposal or the other, I wish to note that competence is required not only in editing, but in working collegially in the community as well. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Nothing punitive about a block for long-term disruptive behavior. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment This is about 3 questions in one. Not sure which of them a "support" or "oppose" note would refer to. North8000 (talk) 10:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The proposal was to close the discussion with a final warning for HiLo that the next ANI on their behaviour would result in some sort of sanction. I kinda threw it out there since mentorship had no support, a topic ban had some support but not any sort of clear consensus. I'm not against any of those proposals, just merely going by the points of view from those that have commented in those proposals. Blackmane (talk) 11:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - but with a 2 week block The guy appears to be basically a good guy who is getting too wound up. Neither a topic ban nor a long term block are in Wikipedia's best interest. He needs a stiff warning, and the proposed warning will probably do it. Giving him a two week block at the same time would reinforce the idea that it was serious, and give him time to cool down. The guy does a good job - but over-does it some of the time.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Request administrator decision and closure (HiLo48)

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

---

Seeing as the comments have slowed down over the past day, this would seem to be a good time to request that an administrator decide if community consensus has been reached regarding HiLo48's editing at ITN and elsewhere, and to close the report. Thanks. Jusdafax 02:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Can we wait a bit please? HiLo hasn't made any significant edits for a while. He's a veteran editor who has contributed a lot to the project. Can we give him some time to reflect? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

A cynic would say he's simply waiting for this to go away before he starts up again. He's had ample time to comment here, but hasn't. Hot Stop 14:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I would also point out that it is almost unanimous among the people who commented here who are also active at ITN that HiLo should be topic banned, so I agree with Hot Stop's assessment of the situation. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 17:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

An admin would do well to consider not so much a straw poll of the !votes, but the totality of the circumstances; consensus shows that HiLo serves Wikipedia best continuing to edit articles, and is a detriment at WP:ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 18:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Which, conveniently enough, is what the consensus here suggests. Hot Stop 18:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Sad to say, he isn't taking the criticism on board, as his comments on his talk page demonstrate. --Pete (talk) 23:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I supported this anyway but in light of this I strongly support taking action. I frankly do not understand why this has been put off for so long, consensus has existed for several days now. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 00:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Several days is not a long time. We've been giving HiLo time to think and respond. He's chosen not to respond. Imposing an ITN topic ban would simply shift the behaviour to other areas of the project. If his interaction style is disruptive, which it is, and he doesn't acknowledge it, which he hasn't, an indefinite block seems appropriate. But as TFD points out, it would be improper to apply that sanction without presenting evidence of the long term problem, and no one can be arsed doing that. So I'll support the ITN topic ban for now as it might send a message. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

HiLo is also continuing to discuss this issue with editors at his talk page; as long as he's not disrupting ITN in the meantime, I agree that it's worth waiting to see if any progress can be made there. Khazar2 (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I must say I am on the verge of amused that no admin has yet been bold enough to make a call on this. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 20:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I alternate between amusement and puzzled depression. Will no one admin step up and finish this, please? Jusdafax 06:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Bueller? Hot Stop 12:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The editor continues to insist that labeling someone's comments "idiotic" is not the same thing as calling someone "an idiot". Given that, it's reasonable to assume he will continue using that kind of terminology and that argument. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Given that the editor has continued to answer comments on his talk page and edit elsewhere [204], it doesn't appear likely that they intend to return to this discussion, much less voluntarily accept mentoring. If the closure of this is being held to get further comment from HiLo, I'd suggest an admin at least post to their talk page requesting it. Khazar2 (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I would summarize the issue as follows: a) HiLo is a valuable contributor to the project despite any faults (which are minor compared to what he often deals with - plus incivility/bluntness is as far as it goes, it does not appear to be meant personally, etc), and b) since he is unlikely to change, any action or even warning is almost certain to lead to an eventual block, which is not justified by the consensus and is undesirable as per a). Arc de Ciel (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

So do nothing then? I missed that part of WP:CONSENSUS Hot Stop 18:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

So in other words, we can be as incivil as we want (as long as it's not personal) to any editor as long as we contribute to the project? That would be a most interesting precedence to set. Not that I personally would do that.--WaltCip (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Right, so because consensus to do X may lead to the user doing something that would lead to potential sanction Y (a sanction for which currently has no consensus) means the consensus to do X is invalid? I think, again, we need to have an admin decision here. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 19:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I didn't say any of that. I only suggested a possible reason why no action has yet been taken - I think that it is not, in fact, an easy decision to make. (But of course, you are free to disagree.) Arc de Ciel (talk) 21:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

gotcha. It would still be nice if an admin decided to grace us with their presence. But I guess that's too much to ask for Hot Stop 21:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that if this doesn't count as incivility, I don't know what does. Therequiembellishere (talk) 09:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48 (talk · contribs) has returned to normal editing, has not addressed the concerns of editors raised in this thread, and on his talk page has made it clear he believes there is no problem with his style of interaction. Would an admin please review the above discussion and HiLo's reflections on his talk page and decide whether any action is warranted? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Can I just say, we shouldn't tolerate an editor who habitually insults other editors. HiLo48 is arguing he is insulting their intelligence not them. I've seen him questioning people's motives a bit too. I grant that sometimes he may encounter stupid or ill-intentioned people. But announcing that his interlocutors are stupid or evil is a very disruptive thing to do. We all deal with fools here, and mean, nasty people. But this is an arena for argument, and ad hominem is a fallacy, and disruptive. We should be aspiring to the highest possible level of logical discourse. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I have disagreed strongly with HiLo48 on various topics, and he is not one to mince words. But I do not see him hounding editors or engaging in other sorts of disruptive behavior. Some editors seem to think that criticism itself is incivility, as if being called arrogant,for example, were a deadly insult. But what really strikes me in all this discussion is the complaint that HiLo48 isn't groveling properly, and that his defending his position is proof in itself of his guilt. Once we've gotten to the point where defending yourself is proof of guilt we have become a lynch mob, not a deliberative body. μηδείς (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, the "proof" is in actions like calling other comments "stupid", "dumb" and "bullshit", the actions of others arrogant and immoral, asking other users if they are idiots, calling them pricks, swearing at them, bludgeoning discussions, etc.-- behavior that's well-documented above. You may disagree as to whether or not this is productive behavior, but that hardly makes the majority of editors who would like to see some sort of action a "lynch mob"; we all want to see HiLo return to productive editing. HiLo's insistence that he intends to continue doing these things simply suggests that nothing will change without some sort of formal intervention. Khazar2 (talk) 17:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Khazar2. This is not about buzz-words like "groveling" or loaded terms like "lynch mob" but a simple request for accountability. HiLo has helped to create an unpleasant atmosphere at ITN, and I think that is shown to be beyond dispute in this report. His attacks on established and new editors quite arguably drive away contributors to the ITN feature, and elsewhere. His utter failure to acknowledge any fault or failings confirms what long-time ITN editors know: this is an intractable person who uses numerous insults (and rank sophistry when confronted) to bully and intimidate others, when Wikipedia is supposed to work as a collaborative process. Khazar2 rightly asks for a ruling not only on the narrow aspects of this case but the larger issue of what place we want Wikipedia-en to be... either welcoming and inclusive, or a sort-of Wild West where virtually anything goes. In my view, that not one admin will make a ruling one way or the other speaks volumes about the dilemma we face as a community... the "time-sink" factor, where difficult calls have to be justified repeatedly in various forums. I ask that HiLo be indef blocked until he is willing to honestly discuss his over-the-top hostility and intolerance for viewpoints not his own. Failing willingness to do so, a simple topic ban would at least serve to demonstrate that the community has had enough, and I believe consensus has been reached on that. I yet again ask that an administrator do the job the community entrusted them with, and make a decision on Khazar2's ANI report. Dragging this out further is an embarrassment to ITN and the entire Wikipedia project. One way or another, let's move on. Thanks to all concerned. Jusdafax 17:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that I agree with Jusdafax's call for an indef block, but I would second the call for a close on this (whatever it be). HiLo has made it clear he won't comment further here, and the remaining discussion seems to be generating more heat than light. Khazar2 (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

"Prick" is the first word I have seen attributed to him here that is necessarily aimed at a user and not a comment. Is there such a huge volume of these types of comments? That would merit something. But not his saying that arguments are stupid. When I see complaints of the latter type (and a demand that he be indef blocked until, yes, he comes grovelling back to accept our opinion of him, not our censure of specific name-calling) it makes me wonder how many serious incidents there are of the first type. μηδείς (talk) 18:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, the comment that originally caused me to post here was his asking another user "Are you an idiot?" I can't speak to the volume of these comments, but I believe at least two have been cited from this week in the diffs above. But again I'd argue that repeated use of phrases like "what a stupid comment" pointlessly coarsen the dialogue of Wikipedia. They're not persuasive, have nothing to do with refuting an argument, and escalate discussions to higher pitch of anger--especially when HiLo bludgeons a discussion with them. It's the reason that ITN editors voted nearly unanimously in 2011 to topic ban HiLo from the section, and have again voted nearly unanimously here that some action should be taken.

As far as "grovelling", you're the only one who keeps bringing that up; all I'm looking for is for him to refrain from calling people--and yes, their comments--hostile labels that don't further the discussion. No grovelling, or even apology, required. Khazar2 (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I do view the position of some editors that HiLo be indeffed until he makes some sort of act of submission to the will of the collective as a desire to see him grovel. I oppose it in the strongest terms. But more to the point, I think there's a much more clear cut case to be made that if there are actual personal insults like "prick" that cannot objectively be described as anything other than insults, those and those alone (not including "are you stupid" type ones for the moment) should be collected and listed. If there's a pattern, a very short suspension would be warranted (i'd say 24 hours) with the warning that repeated behavior will carry a much more serious response, and the warning that insults posed as questions will be treated as personal attacks going forward. That's an objective standard based on outright actions and not one based on feelings that he has insulted us and perhaps pretended promises of contrition on his part. The focus should be 100% on observable actions and not on presumed mental states. μηδείς (talk) 18:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Since only two users out of the 20+ or so commenting here have suggested an indef block, they seem unlikely to make consensus, much less form a sufficient "lynch mob"; I wouldn't let that sidetrack you overly much. As for the rest, we may just have to agree to disagree on whether "are you stupid" is civil and productive editing. Khazar2 (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

HiLo and I edit together sometimes, and while we often have differing views on things, I'm getting weary of incivility and personal attacks whenever he doesn't get his own way. Editing Wikipedia shouldn't be so unpleasant and time-consuming that we find other things to do instead of the joy of contributing to the project. I'm worried that after all this talk, all these diffs showing incivility, nothing is going to happen because no admin wants to publicly support one of Wikipedia's Five Pillars. --Pete (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

If the day has come when not one admin will stand up for one of the Five Pillars, this news is grim indeed. Jusdafax 00:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm bold enough to close this thread as a non-administrator since there would be no consensus for an administrative action (block, protect, etc.). The result would be for the topic ban discussion. — Moe ε 02:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Go for it. I'd close this myself but can't. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Speaking just for myself, I don't think this thread deserves a non-admin closure, no matter what the call is. This is a high-profile matter that has festered for years, as the above record shows. Jusdafax 05:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
• There seems to be consensus in favour of an ITN topic ban, and further action if HiLo48 continues to denigrate his interlocutors. Can whoever closes this discussion, and I'd prefer it to be an experienced admin, please make it clear to HiLo48 that, whether or not this discussion ends with a topic ban, if he doesn't change his style of address he will be excluded from this community? There just is no place for his behaviour in a civilised, productive debate. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
• I appreciate the bold attempt to wrap this up with non-admin closure but I also feel like due to circumstance this would be best dealt with by an authoritative admin to ensure that if a topic ban is enforced, it carries some official weight behind it. I just do not believe that if there is no real teeth behind this that it will do any long term good. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 08:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Well since most of you feel that non-admin closure isn't best, I'll give you what I gathered from this, which you can either take or leave. If I was to close this, there was no particular consensus for mentorship or for blocking of any length. The consensus is that HiLo48's conduct on ITN-related project pages has been disruptive to the point of compromising integrity. I would have closed with six months of topic ban from In the News and related sub-pages with the ability to appeal beyond that period, given that he can prove his overall conduct in the WP/WT namespace has improved so future interaction at ITN is possible. Regards, — Moe ε 09:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, this sounds quite reasonable to me, and an accurate summary of the consensus. Khazar2 (talk) 10:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

So be it. - My thanks to administrator RegentsPark for making the decision to topic ban HiLo48 from ITN for six months. It is my hope that HiLo will take heed of the community concerns and recognize consensus exits for these sanctions, and further that he not only edit with a more collaborative spirit from here on in but that when he resumes editing at ITN in 2013 that he bear no grudges but instead work with his fellow editors, many of whom have spoken up for his editing abilities. My best wishes to all who saw this through to a conclusion, and especially Khazar2 for bringing the matter to ANI. For the first time in a while I feel justice at Wikipedia is being served by the process at ANI, in spite of what I and some others here view as an excessive length of time. Jusdafax 23:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

With the topci ban enacted, I'm just going to NAC this last section Blackmane (talk) 07:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

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

The discussion above is closed. 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:Bluerim

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

---

I am having an issue with User:Bluerim. It has become a consistent issue as of late. It has been an issue off and on with this user over the past few months. I recall when first encountering this user, this was a constant issue I had with this user. I have repeatedly asked him recently to discuss changes on the talk page and he will not. One of his recent edit summaries stated "What's to discuss?" About two or three weeks ago, there was a GAN process going on for an article and I asked him to discuss changes, which he didn't until about the end of the GAN process, but he didn't really discuss. I brought this to an administrator who said they couldn't really do anything about it with it being a GAN process but they say they'd wish Bluerim would be more diplomatic on the talk pages (he hasn't yet). I won't lie, I'm probably guilty of the 3RR rule because of this, and this user is probably also. I'm not here to report a violation of 3RR, I'm here to report that this user has been asked repeatedly to discuss changes and he has not, and it's become an issue. Here's the most recent example that I'm referring here (times 6:32 July 29 back to 6:10 July 28). JDC808 (talk) 07:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

There's a difference between discussing and using the Edit Summaries. Many of these edits are minor and all the information required is in the ES. The above user needs to understand that not all his edits are valid and at times he displays ownership and blindly reverts. That said, I'll spell it all out - as tiresome as it might be on the minor issues - for his benefit on the Talk Page. Bluerim (talk) 09:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

You should revert back the the revision which you and him weren't edit warring. You should then discuss on the talk page of the article to achieve consensus for the better revision.--Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 09:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• I've reverted back to the last version before the edit war and full protected the page. It is not an endorsement of that or any version. Technically, I could have just issued a couple of blocks, but I would rather force you two to discuss this on the talk page. The protection will expire in 3 days. If after that time, you two go back to edit warring and reverting, block will likely be issued. I have no opinion on the content, but I do on edit warring, which isn't allowable. Work it out on the talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, thank you for not issuing blocks and enforcing the issue of discussion. And Bluerim, this isn't just for my benefit to discuss things on the Talk page, it's how it's done here. Even if the edits are minor, if asked to discuss, then that means there's an issue and it should be discussed. JDC808 (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Basalisk

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

---

Admins, I urgently need your intervention into User:Basalisk's actions. This user proposed deletion of a page I previously created, Scholarism, and the page was deleted today. I respect and obey the afd result. Later I redirected the page into the main article (Moral and national education) to which Scholarism is relevant. I believe this is allowed by WP:R, is not a recreation and CSD G4 does not apply. Now the user has again nominated Scholarism (now a redirect) for speedy deletion, and removed contents from Moral and national education without proper reasons. Diffs:[205] Please judge whether the user is correct or not. If admins judge that he is correct, I obey your decisions, otherwise please tell him to stop.--Jabo-er (talk) 14:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• The article in question was deleted to today per the outcome of this AfD discussion. The author then attempted to circumvent this by creating another article here which contained all the content from the original article in a section, and then re-created the original article as a redirect to that section. I've warned him about WP:TE and to drop the stick, but he's not really up for listening. I don't think I have any case to answer, but Jabo may well do. Take a look and decide for yourself. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
• This isn't an issue for ANI. He tagged it, a bit different but he explained it on the talk page. You can do the same on the talk page. The admin that reviews the CSD can make a determination. It does not appear there is any bad faith in his nomination, only a difference in opinion regarding CSD#G4, which can be handled there. No action taken, recommending closing this by another party. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Jabo-er, I've deleted both articles as clearly qualifying under CSD#G4. Attempting to bypass the consensus of a legitimate discussion at AFD [206] by renaming the same article is disruptive and can get you blocked, and will if you continue. If you want to recreate the article, you must go to WP:DRV and present your case and accept the consensus there as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Rangers F.C. Articles

Hiya,

I do nto want to be requesting ever page relating to this dispute for full protection or move protection. At the moment we are slowly workign towards aconsensus that will be that the articles should be one and that the club is contunion of the original club, but there is plenty of editors from both sides of the argument who will nto accept this and are doign disruptive behaviours, i coudl report the users but i be here for awhile i rather jsut get the page more actively protected which might need to be long term.

Any suggestion from admins how to try put things in place to protect it?

here are the articles, the main ones rangers fc and newco rangers are fully protect jsut now and the problems are spilling onto the other ones slowly but surely mostly because hte ones who cant edit the first two are turning to these ones

• Rangers F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Newco Rangers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• The Rangers Football Club Ltd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Sevco 5088 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Liquidation of Rangers F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• The Rangers F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Rangers F.C. Reserve and Youth squads (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Rangers F.C. (Superleague Formula team) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• History of Rangers F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Sectarianism in Glasgow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ibrox Stadium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Murray Park (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of Rangers F.C. players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of Rangers F.C. international footballers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of Rangers F.C. managers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of Rangers F.C. records and statistics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Rangers F.C. in Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Kirk Broadfoot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Lee McCulloch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Lee Wallace (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Alejandro Bedoya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Neil Alexander (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ross Perry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Kyle Hutton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Darren Cole (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Kane Hemmings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Dorin Goian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Carlos Bocanegra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ian Black (footballer born 1985) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Andrew Little (footballer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Andrew Mitchell (Northern Irish footballer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Kal Naismith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ally McCoist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Craig Whyte (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Charles Green (businessman) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2011–12 Rangers F.C. season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2012–13 Rangers F.C. season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Rangers L.F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Rangers F.C. Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Rangers F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Rangers F.C. seasons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Rangers F.C. squad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Rangers F.C. managers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Rangers F.C. matches (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewcrawford (talk • contribs)

ok i can not undo the lee mulloch one now, there is no consensus yet user are editing it to ther epovAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Such a large list of articles is unhelpful. Many of them have not been edited for weeks or even months, for example Rangers F.C. Hall of Fame was last edited in April. We do not protect articles pre-emptively on the off chance that disruption might spread to them. If there are articles requiring prompt administrator attention, then list those and only those. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

which i tihnk is quite daft, he dispute on the rangers fc and enwco rangers article will spread because all those articles andprobally many more will be dicticted by the decision on them articles, there is something in the real world call preemptive measures ot protect things it is slow spillign onto other articles and the fact remains the dispute is about the content on whether rangers should be listed as a new club or the ame until that dispute is settle none of those articles hsold be able to be edited it promoting edit warring--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Andrew, how do you know what the consensus will be? Surely the point of a RFC (which is clearly needed here) is to determine what consensus is. Rather than to support what you think is right. Adam4267 (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

adam there is a consensus now, that it is the same club and that it is a new club, which is impossible but tha tis how the reliable 3rd party sources refer to them it not my view--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

...do you realise you just said there is consensus for both positions? Can you say that again with a little better grammar so we can understand what you mean? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It's quite simple. Some sources refer to a 'new' club. Some sources refer to 'the same club'. Sensible sources don't attempt to apply epistemology or Boolean algebra to such questions. And for the umpteenth time Wikipedia doesn't determine 'the truth' by consensus. Whether it is 'really' new or not is a stupid question - and encyclopaedias aren't written to provide answers to stupid questions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

yes i do sources point to both we dnt decided we only publish what it says but the dispute resolve round should there be one or two articles and should what reliable sources say be said as both sides have editors who dnt want the facts known--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 09:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Klaudio hoxha K.A.H

The following discussion is closed. 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:Klaudio hoxha K.A.H is a relatively new user but his persistent rebranding of birthplace information has become troublesome. Essentially his edits constitute only a content dispute, however in light of the numerous attempts to communicate with the user (see these two sections), I contend that edits such as this can only be a case of WP:DE when considering the user has made no effort to communicate his ideas and has not touched the edit summary. The likelyhood is that if left alone to edit, he will go on and on ad infinitum - note also that Kosovo is a sensitive issue and where it is presented as a sovereign nation, twice as much. We have a template to deal with this matter but the universal practice on birth details is to observe historical accuracy and this is being replaced by a controversial modern-day part-recognised entity. I am the second editor to try to speak to this editor but as you see, the endeavour was blown back at me. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you could attempt to compromise? With people born in Ukraine, during Soviet times, they are sometimes described as being born in the Ukrainian SSR.

Let us look at the article you claim that Klaudio hoxha K.A.H has been disruptively editing - Granit Xhaka.

You (User:Evlekis) claim that Xhaka was born in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.[207] But the article on that state suggests that its de facto end was 27 April 1992. But Xhaka was born on 27 September 1992.

The Federal_Republic_of_Yugoslavia seems to have been born when the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia died. Kosovo was a somewhat-autonomous province, whose name was the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija.

So why can't you say that Xhaka was born Gnjilane, Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija, Federal_Republic_of_Yugoslavia? That would satisfy historical accuracy, and might be an acceptable compromise.

With all these ones for Kosovo, would it really hurt to mention the name of the autonomous province? Or is compromise only something that Klaudio hoxha K.A.H needs to do?--Toddy1 (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Concerning the last example, you have a good point. I have no objection to intermediate entities and Kosovo was indeed such. I think to be honest it is other editors that take exception as they feel that these clutter the section and so town and country should suffice. I was bringing the user to admin attention because the account continues to make edits such as those in his contribution list and does not respond to communication. I am otherwise only too happy to discuss. Concerning the Yugoslav entity, you are 101% spot on, and I should have known - I didn't check too closely. SFRY ceased to exist sometime between 25 June 1991 when Croatia and Slovenia declared independence - to 26 April 1992 when remaining members Serbia and Montenegro themselves declared the new country, FR Yugoslavia. I shall fix this per your suggestion, but if the user insists on removing the sovereign state, he really must learn to discuss his reasons and obtain consensus, and the latter is the hard part with the climate of practice. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 04:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. See Granit Xhaka article now. I don't normally get these things wrong and this was no exception when I originally inserted the country, see this edit from 2010[208]. The source of the SFR error actually occurred a few months ago, here[209]. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 04:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Can I suggest dropping the matter and letting the user off on this occasion. I doubt we will hear from him because all the indications are that this is a sleeper account evidently operated by someone else; the account will make the edits it intends and then flee the scene, there are others similar. I'll raise the issue should the user return with a similar contribution and I'll cite this section. Fair? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 04:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Good idea.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Personal attack

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

---

"Have you stopped beating your wife?" [210]

I may not be the best editor. I doubt if I'll ever make RFA. But I follow our policies as best I can. I try to make this a better resource for our readers. I didn't deserve that. I don't have to put up with this shit. No way. I'm not getting paid for this. – Lionel ^(talk) 07:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• You don't recognize the canonical example of someone accusing you of asking a loaded question when it is made? Read our loaded question article. Uncle G (talk) 08:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• Redacted, warned and notified of this discussion. The comment was certainly out of line, which you did not deserve, but there isn't much to do now. The editor has been warned now via his talk page of his conduct. — Moe ε 08:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack, see have you stopped beating your wife. Sædon^talk 08:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, this is not a personal attack at all. Moe, a little less literalism and a bit more reading comprehension is needed. Viriditas (talk) 08:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I was not aware of the article, never heard this "fallacy", nor did the editor link to it. They fully intended to insult and humiliate me. From Loaded question: "Such a question may be asked merely to harass or upset the respondent." Well, I feel harassed and I am upset. And thanks for the support, guys.– Lionel ^(talk) 08:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

And the above comment is exactly the reason I said what I did. — Moe ε 08:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You said "It's great that you went to DRN. However that is not a license to edit war." This is a loaded statement because it's based on the assumption that Still believes that going to DRN is license to edit war; clearly he doesn't agree with your assumption and so pointed out that your statement was loaded by using the classic example of a loaded question. I can't see how this is in any way intended to harass you - it's completely innocuous if you had heard of the fallacy before. You hadn't, so you misread it, but now that you have you shouldn't be taking it personally. Sædon^talk 08:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

For this particular instance, I think it would be a mistake to try to divine Still-24's intent vis-a-vis making a personal attack. It's ambiguous. What is unambiguous is his lack of civility at a time when he ought to have been contrite. Context is crucial. Just prior, he was edit-warring against the AN/EW report of his edit-warring elsewhere. I wish I knew a stronger word than chutzpah, but my vocabulary fails me for this instance. Belchfire-TALK 08:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not an attack, and why is this still going on. There's nothing to do here. The question isn't if you're offended, it's if the statement's offensive. There's a difference. Move on. Shadowjams (talk) 08:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Block evasion by User talk:216.81.94.68 using User talk:72.196.235.207

User talk:216.81.94.68 is currently blocked for sockpuppetry. They appear to now be editing as User talk:72.196.235.207 based on edit history, location in Virginia, and spelling of "referances". 72Dino (talk) 01:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you open up an SPI? Did you notify the ip user? That being said, it certainly looks like a WP:DUCK Fasttimes68 (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/216.81.94.68/Archive was just archived. And I notified the IP user. 72Dino (talk) 01:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You should reopen the case by using 216 as the sockmaster and the add 72 as a new sock. Fasttimes68 (talk) 02:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I find the SPI process to be confusing and burdensome. It may be easier to let a sock run rampant. It also took a week to be addressed, so lots of damage is done in that timeframe. 72Dino (talk) 02:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll do it tommorow. On an unrelated note, as a US taxpayer I'm not thrilled with the idea of government employees using taxpayer resources to edit Wikipedia. Fasttimes68 (talk) 02:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Strongly suggest CheckUser also screen that IP and the rest of its subnet range against user Ziggypowe. FYI, I have not templated that user. Belchfire-TALK 02:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Block him .פארוק (talk) 06:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Filing an SPI on IP's is a total waste of time, because checkusers won't do anything about it. Just block the sucker and, if necessary, semi-protect any pages he's attacking. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Wingtipvortex / MlM42 /Mir

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

---

Wingtipvortex (talk · contribs)

Mlm42 (talk · contribs)

Mir Almaat 1 S1 (talk · contribs)

Accounts(s) with one incredibly obscure editing fetish, not the ENG:VAR, but the status quo prior to the insertion of the ENG:VAR template, and it's preservation. Notified. Due to popular ongoing demand on the talkpage of WDGraham (talk · contribs) after a long discussion on my own talkpage, which followed a long discussion on wikiproject spaceflight and a SPI about the Mir account, here is what he wanted, a thread at ANI where hopefully, someone will pop up with a fast block for me, and wouldn't I love the peace and quiet to leave all of this bickering arguing crap behind and work on my other projects. Hoo yeah. Penyulap ☏ 21:24, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC)

• What editing fetish? A quick glance over Wingtipvortex's latest edits, for example, doesn't show me anything that stands out as "fetish"y, in either the literal or metaphorical sense. What do you feel is the problem there? And what does "not the ENG:VAR, but the status quo prior to the insertion of the ENG:VAR template" mean? Could you give us a little more clarification to work with here? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be a frivolous thread. See also the section below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

My apologies, the timestamp was updated after I notified on all three talkpages. Penyulap ☏ 21:28, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC)

The issue is three years old, which predates my own editing on wikipedia, it is also somewhat up to date, with two editors very upset on the ISS talkpage more recently, one describing two others as dumbassess over the issue, and another describing the mess caused three years ago as 'a monument to the failure of the wiki process' The issue is not the variant itself, but the state of the article prior to the insertion of an ENG:VAR template. A poll was conducted, resulting in no consensus, and the straw poll was tied up back to front as a straw man, in the favour of WDGraham who did it, and linked to 'straw man' inside the poll discussion, so he knew what he did. MlM42 along with WDGraham relentlessly defend British in the talkpage, and I too either would like British or to abstain. The other editors are upset because the poll was tied up back to front. A template on the page claims there is a consensus, and that the matter has been settled. Penyulap ☏ 21:35, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC)

MlM42, first used Mir as pure harassment, that is, as a fixation account. WP:HA describes a number of different ways that a user may be harassed, this is one of the more exotic ways in which the purpose of an account focuses on a single user. 1/5 of the accounts 1,000 edits were to my own userpage, the rest consisted of asking stupid questions at the teahouse until they suspected a sock and collapsed his inane questions, he reviewed an admin and later asked the admin if he thought I should be sanctioned. After making it somewhat clear to him the first time, he dumped the Mir account for practical purposes and switched to a higher quality sock account he originally intended to protect his privacy as well as use probably as a sock as well, basically two birds one stone. Both accounts are British Columbia, and Mir as I stated here at ANI 6 weeks ago, although he makes claims of belonging to a minority outside WP:BIAS, only ever exhibits British/American cultural traits and editing patterns, as well as language.

You shall find denials of socking on each talkpage, and the latest on my own talkpage, where he states that the wingtip account is his only account on wikipedia. Penyulap ☏ 21:42, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC)

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

Gross BLP violation by User:Bittergrey

The following discussion is closed. 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:Bittergrey is currently the subject of (this RfC/U). Although I have avoided, for years now, all contact with Bittergrey and the pages that he edits, I have entered my opinion and related endorsements at the RfC/U .

In writing his comments (to User:WLU), however, Bittergrey wrote:

"Given how heavily Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree (2008) is being promoted on Wikipedia by WLU, James Cantor should have admitted to a financial COI in supporting WLU, instead of claiming to be uninvolved." [211]

I am both a WP editor (User:James Cantor) and the subject of a BLP (James Cantor). To accuse me (very falsely) of having a financial interest in any of this, never mind in supporting WLU, is a gross violation of BLP policy. I have deleted the offending statement, indicating precisely the reason why.

However, given his tempestuous history (with me and many others), Bittergrey is unlikely to take any statement from me seriously. WP is ultimately responsible for the presence of such statements on its pages, and Bittergrey needs to be told exactly how serious such BLP violations are.
— James Cantor (talk) 01:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. This comment is totally uncalled for and is clearly a BLP violation. I don't think that it is enough for oversight, however. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 02:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

WLU has written James Cantor into articles five times, and cited him 38 times. In this regard, he is second only to James Cantor himself (with seven and 45). This publicity and visibility is good for James Cantor's standing as a professional. Clearly, he can profit from it. As a result, he has a financial interest in supporting WLU and weakening anyone who might be in conflict with him, such as me. This is particularly true if CAMH publications including his are frequent topics of debate, which they are in this case. He has a lot to gain (or keep) if the decision goes against me. Thus, he does have a financial interest, and should not have claimed to be uninvolved.

To qualify "Heavy", WLU cites the publication ten times in the infantilism article, even though it only mentions infantilism on one page. It is cited nearly twice for each time it uses the word 'infantilism.' In the whole of Wikipedia, the only active editors who cite it are WLU[212][213][214][215][216][217] and Cantor[218][219]. WLU also cites two publications of Cantor's coworkers at the infantilism article, even though they don't use the term "infantilism" at all. BitterGrey (talk) 02:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

By Bittergrey's logic (a self-declared paraphilic infantilist and an amateur activist for his own views of his practice) Bittergrey has the same "financial interest." In fact a greater one, since Grey does not have any credentials or academic post as alternatives to promote their own work and views. I leave it to Wikipedia to determine what sort of editor it wants to retain. For the record, I'd take Cantor the professional academic over Bittergrey. But your mileage may vary. It's a brave new world. The expert is dead! Long live the amateur activist!Bali ultimate (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Bali ultimate, I haven't made a dime off of my involvement in either infantilism or Wikipedia, and I don't ever expect to. That is what "amateur" means. I hold down an unrelated full-time job to pay the bills. No finances means no financial conflict of interest. If I did this professionally, like James Cantor, then yes, I would have a financial conflict of interest. BitterGrey (talk) 02:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're just a semi-anonymous crank who gets to defame professional academics for kicks on Wikipedia and get away with it because of the incompetent moderation here. Your own conflict of interest is your own desire to control articles about your interests. So it goes. So it goes. (For those interested, here is the website Bittergrey runs [220], which is promoted on their userpage.)Bali ultimate (talk) 03:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Even though I disagree with Bali's choice of words I have to agree that both users seem to have a COI. James has pledged to avoid editing certain articles because of this reason. It may be a good idea to make a similar arrangement with Bittergrey and/or topic ban Bittergrey from Cantor-related stuff. Arcandam (talk) 03:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC) p.s. At the moment I am too lazy to do a full background check like I normally would. p.p.s. Please see User_talk:James_Cantor#Hiya_James.21

While getting some quick background I looked at a user talk page and found User talk:Bittergrey#Behaviours... where BitterGrey has recently engaged in connecting-the-dots regarding editors who are in good standing with the community—it's not an egregious case, but it is not helpful. Can anyone explain whether BitterGrey's presence is required at paraphilic infantilism? If not, a break from that topic might be useful. Johnuniq (talk) 03:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I can assure you his presence is not required at paraphilic infantilism or any other article on Wikipedia. Arcandam (talk) 03:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Could I ask for some expansion on this comment? Doesn't AGF require accepting the possibility that anyone can become a contributing editor? Before FiachraByrne got involved in August 2011, most of the sources for the article were from me. BitterGrey (talk) 04:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course you can, I'll be glad to explain it a bit. It sounds a bit harsher than what it means. Please read WP:DIVA if you haven't already. No, I am not saying you are a diva. But what I am saying is that we, as an encyclopedia, do not depend on a single user with expertise to write an article about a specialist subject. Just for fun lets assume I am an expert on the effects of global warming (I am not an expert on anything, but whatever). If I get hit by a bus we don't have to delete the article on global warming. So basically no single person is required to be here in order for us to succeed as an encyclopedia, not even Jimbo. Arcandam (talk) 05:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC) p.s. Not a native speaker, please let me know if I am unclear and/or make mistakes.

Arcandam, your English is fine. Could I ask you to contrast the paraphilic_infantilism and diaper_fetishism articles? That is my effect. Before WLU and friends became involved, I contributed most of the text and sources to the infantilism article. Some of those were copied over to the diaper fetish article. When WLU became involved, I decided to let him control the diaper fetishism article. That article didn't improve. At infantilism, even though I could no longer effectively edit, I was able to hold WLU somewhat accountable. A third editor, FiachraByrne, contributed a large number of new sources - to the infantilism article. She generally took WLU's side, but she did delay two sections of politically correct text sources to politically incorrect sources. Had I not been there, that development wouldn't have happened. So, even though WLU has kept me from editing for a year, I can claim indirect credit. BitterGrey (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

How is this a BLP violation if this comment was made at his RFC/U? Was BH making comments about the user or the subject? Fasttimes68 (talk) 04:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean BG? That user is a subject of an article. And WP:BLP applies outside of articles. Arcandam (talk) 04:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict, replying to Johnuniq,etc.)

Effectively, I haven't been able to edit the paraphilic infantilism article for a year[221]. WLU has seen to that. Breaks/bans against me would be academic. Taking down the lingual comment was suggested at yesterday's ANI thread, but the RFC/U was opened before I was able to consider the advice. By the way, one of the edits that WLU wouldn't let me make was to change "behaviour" to "behavior." I'd be OK with changing the entire article over to the British spelling, but the spelling should be consistent.

I've been spending more time on wikibreak, and at different articles. However, WLU just follows me to them, spreading conflict. An example is Sexology, which escalated to ELN[222].

As for Bali ultimate's comment about the "incompetent moderation here," he might want to give some thought about why this BLP wasn't brought to BLPN.

Also, according to Google scholar, infantilism isn't Cantor-related[223]

However, given that James does have a conflict regarding the outcome of the RFC/U, should he be deleting content from the "responses" section of the RFC/U[224]? Since this round started with WLU deleting my comments[225], Cantor's censorship is strangely fitting. If I'm not going to be permitted to mount a defense, the entire process will be pointless. BitterGrey (talk) 04:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Reverted Cantor's refactor. And the next time you accuse him of having a conflict of interest in the RFC, you'll be blocked. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

BitterGrey has simplified the discussion by asserting "conflict" just above, with a wikilawyer's "should he be deleting content" assertion, and with a helpful RFC/U diff to highlight BitterGrey's egregious misuse of Wikipedia to assert a COI of a named real-life person paying a named editor—all with zero evidence (apart from a wall of diffs that are totally unrelated to the COI assertion). Conceivably the above comment suggesting this report should have been at WP:BLPN might have been in good faith, but reality favors the "raise any smokescreen to deflect the discussion" interpretation. In light of the information at the RFC/U, and given the failure to produce any evidence of a named real-life person paying a named editor, and given the above re-linking to that assertion on the report dedicated to the topic, it is clear that BitterGrey should be topic banned from all articles and discussions relating to sexuality. Johnuniq (talk) 05:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, James Cantor's action was a straight-up undo, it wasn't a refactoring. Bittergrey made the comments, James undid the whole edit, the net result was to revert back to this version. I'm agnostic on what should have been done, but at no time did James make Bittergrey say something Bittergrey didn't initially say. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see that now -- my apologies for misreading the history. Thanks to Bali for reverting it again. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

A solution?

Right now the text has again been reverted. Though I view the entire edit made by BG to be offensive, accusatory and wrong, it's still BG's view on the situation. The offending text in question appears to be solely what James Cantor quoted above:

“ Given how heavily Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree (2008) is being promoted on Wikipedia by WLU, James Cantor should have admitted to a financial COI in supporting WLU, instead of claiming to be uninvolved ”

Rather than undoing the whole set of edits (then redoing then undoing ad nauseum), would anyone have any objections to re-doing the edit but removing the quoted section? That seems to be the best way to address James Cantor's (valid IMO) issue with the edit while allowing Bittergrey to express his opinion during a RFC/U. Endorse? Hate? Ban me for suggesting it? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

If the comment was truly seen as a BLP violation, quoting it in additional locations (like here) would be a bad thing. BitterGrey (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The page currently does not feature the claim. If you either agree to either not replace your comment, or replace it without that block of text, you would resolve the issue, and it could then be removed here as well with the section hatted. Are you willing to post your comment without that particular section, or not replace your post at all, thus resolving the issue? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

A misunderstanding?

It seems that my comment has been misinterpreted as implying that money is being exchanged between Cantor and WLU. That was not my intent. James Cantor and his colleagues would be benefiting from the publicity that WLU is providing on Wikipedia. In addition to Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree; WLU has fought to cite two other publications from Cantor's colleagues. Freund & Blanchard (1993), which discusses masochists and pedophiles, never even using the term 'infantilism.' (Not using the term was the reason WLU gave for removing the DSM[226], even thought the DSM actually does use the term. WLU has removed other sources because they didn't mention the appropriate term[227].) F&B (1993) wasn't even cited by their colleague (figuratively just down the hall), R. Dickey. Dicky's letter to the editor, on "autopedophilia" was not peer reviewed and so is not a medRS. It also doesn't use the term 'infantilism' at all. Were it not for WLU's efforts, these two sources wouldn't be cited. Thus, James Cantor and colleagues Blanchard, Freund, & Dickey benefit from WLU's efforts.

I'd be willing to reword the comment to make it more clear, or to provide diffs to support the levels of promotion. However, it is difficult to maintain any faith in Wikipedia's processes with the rampant deletion of my input(this week:[228][229][230][231]). Now those reading discussions can't see the whole story, just the fragment that one side chose not to delete. BitterGrey (talk) 13:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Your comment has not been misinterpreted. You may have worded it differently than your intended meaning, but that's a different kettle of fish. As to your current assertion, by that logic, every time a Glock is mentioned in an article about a shooting we are providing publicity for Glock. Which is absurd. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly! It would be like you accusing me of promoting the Grand Canyon Railway by uploading this image. Or by promoting Wikipedia with this section. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 19:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Re HandThatFeeds: COI doesn't apply to the promotion, but the promoter. Were those mentions being added by a Glock employee, that employee would be editing under a financial COI. If they were being debated and a Glock employee argued in their favor, that employee would still have a COI. (He wouldn't be editing under a COI if he doesn't edit, however.) If the Glock employee argued for the banning of an amature editor who thought mentioning only Glocks was POV, then too the Glock employee would have a financial COI. Now can we change the metaphore - it is uncomfortable discussing firearms when the professional has already threatened off-wiki action[232] against the amature.

Re Robby The Penguin: Maybe if you were a Grand Canyon Railway employee, but I don't think one picture would cause much of a stir even if you were. Am I permitted to mention how many times James Cantor and WLU have written James Cantor into articles, or cited him? I have diffs. BitterGrey (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Your argument is invalid. Your "financial COI" argument is nonsense. Simply being employed by the subject does not mean the editor is getting any financial compensation via the edits. Employees are allowed to edit material relating to their employer, but need to take care not to stray into promotion. And I do not see that WLU has crossed that line. Further, you have provided no evidence WLU is employed by Cantor, or is recieving financial benefits from mentioning Cantor. It is irrelevant if a third party could benefit from edits or citations; if we were concerned about that, we would not be able to make any reference to any business. That is what people have been trying to explain to you, to no avail. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Could I ask for suggestions on how to preserve the point of the edit without the BLP dramatics, legal threats, etc? I'd be willing to reword it or substantiate it with diffs. I'm not willing to let my RFC/U response be censored by those I'm responding to. BitterGrey (talk) 21:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Replacing your edit without including the quoted section would do it methinks. I suggested it above, not sure why it's not acceptable. If you want your RFC/U to include an accusation of a conflict of interest, financial or otherwise, supported by nothing more than speculation, there may not be a way. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Not an option. How about "Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree (2008) are cited on Wikipedia due to the efforts of WLU (eg.[233][234][235][236][237][238]) and author James Cantor(eg.[239][240]). No other active editor has cited this source. Similarly, WLU has fought to cite other articles by James Cantor's coworkers(eg[241]...). The publicity that WLU provides through Wikipedia may help to advance James Cantor's visibility, potentially advancing his career. As a result, James Cantor has a financial interest in supporting WLU." I can also include the cites/mentions stats with or without diffs, but that would be about a hundred diffs. BitterGrey (talk) 00:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it won't do. You've just repeated your unfounded BLP-violating allegations in different words.

It seems that you don't understand, Bittergrey, the damage you do to your own cause. The RFC is about your ongoing failure to assume good faith of other editors, including the repeated, unsupported allegations that you have made about sockpuppetry and cabalism in those who disagree with you. Yet, here you are on ANI repeating other serious allegations, this time ascribing financial motives to an editor who edits under his real name and who has, above, denied them outright. Allegations that multiple editors have described as BLP violations. Why would you do this? This is an editor who, as longstanding medical editor User:WhatamIdoing noted, is a frequently cited mainstream scholar and whose papers it is therefore entirely appropriate to cite frequently on this topic, and who, based on my not-inconsiderable-knowledge of Canadian academic promotion, would gain precisely zero from being cited on WP. User:Colin here reminds you elsewhere that a RFC/U is the chance to show that your character and correct any misapprehensions that others have. As he puts it "It is your opportunity to demonstrate you are a reasonable person or an unreasonable person. Your choice." I urge you to step back, BitterGrey, and consider your approach --Slp1 (talk) 01:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Slp1, please be aware that the editor who first added the text Cantor objected to here is James Cantor[242] is WLU[243]. I understand that you have an off wiki-friendship, but if the text is offensive, it should be offensive no matter who added it. I regret that you seem to think it is OK for other editors to make comments about my sexuality, but not for me to comment on their edits(eg [244]). In the new version, all statements that wouldn't equally apply to any author are supported with diffs. Feel free to detail why publicity and citation, so critical to academic advancement in the US, isn't important in Canada.BitterGrey (talk) 01:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I have, in the past, already corrected your allegation that I have "an off-wiki friendship" with WLU.[245] I do not. I know his real name, where he lives and a few other personal details. That's it. Stop trying to poison the well.

I don't think it is okay for people to make comments about your sexuality. However, I haven't ever seen anybody doing so. What I see is people pointing to your userpage where you publicly disclose your website and thus your own interest (and COI) in this topic. Why do you keep repeating this same claim, over and over again?

The problem is that you aren't just commenting on edits, are you? You are ascribing (very damaging, financial) motives without any evidence, which is directly contrary to WP:AGF guidelines

Tenure track and promotion committees at universities in Canada, as in the US, wouldn't give a flying fig about citations on WP. They are interested the candidate's books (especially those published by academic and university presses), peer-reviewed publications in prestigious, high impact journals, and to a very much lesser extent conference presentations, as well as teaching and committee work evaluations of course. WP wouldn't get so much of a look-in.

That's it from me, BitterGrey. It really is in your hands. Slp1 (talk) 02:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

So it isn't different than the US. "Citing your latest paper in the hope that increased visibility will drive up your H-index" is explicitly listed among the examples at WP:MEDCOI. Edits towards that goal would be edits toward that goal, irrespective of whether they are direct insertion or driving off opponents for someone expected to do the insertion. The second example is "Attempting to diminish or disparage a competitor's views or publications." Since the DSM and Cantor have competing definitions of paraphilia, this one applies too[246]. Thus, the essay (which I didn't write) describes the motivation, the conflicted interest. Again, edits to enable removal are edits. His edits to support WLU, who is supporting him, can serve these motivations.

As for my sexuality, it was brought up here by Bali ultimate, as evidence of my _financial_ COI[247], at the previous ANI by Slp1[248], and at WQA[249], and at WikiProject Medicine[250]. And that is just this week. The slur was most clear at the project: "someone in Tylas' [or BitterGrey's] situation is likely to accidentally misread sources..."[251]. BitterGrey (talk) 04:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

My ears are burning. I was looking to see what WLU was up to (since he mentioned it) - and saw my name. I must comment about what BG posts here. I am an individual. I do not appreciate being profiled as part of a certain group. I have dissociative identity disorder. This does not mean that I respond in the same way as all those with DID, just the same as I do not respond the same way as all those who have a M.S., were Olympic level athletes, who have raised children, who are mothers, etc... Profiling is simply wrong and I do not appreciate being a victim of it and neither should BG. If you must accuse, please do so on our individual actions. Being honest should not give others the right to sit and judge.~ty (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I've just blocked Bittergrey for continuing BLP violations. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Continuous vandalism by IP address (109.60.7.172)

Note: Please see here for proof this wasn't me. Irānshahr (talk) 08:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedia

I am writing due to the continuous vandalism by the user Irānshahr in 3 threads regarding Iraq and Iran.

Greater Iran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Iran–Iraq relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Persian people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As clearly demonstrated by his edits in those 3 threads he promotes false claims that are all unsourced and not in accordance with the reality. When told so he ignores it just to restore it.

I suggest taking a closer look at his edits.

I do not only suspect, but I am pretty sure, that the user is an Iranian nationalist. Even his name points to such a connection. Moreover he clearly has an pan-Iranian agenda.

--83.95.250.247 (talk) 03:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to make it known for the administrator board that the user Iranshahr has now reappeared under a new alias - this time an IP (109.60.7.172) and continues to add false and unsourced material while he removes sourced material.

This unacceptable behaviour has extended to another thread - this time the Islam in Iraq thread. :Islam in Iraq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Moreover he makes grave personal insulsts, claim I live in Hjørring, Denmark (which is obviously not true) and threatens me with police because I rightly oppose his vandalism. Claims that I am an Arab and Salafi while I am neither.

I would appreciate if something was done to stop him because this cannot go on and I will not accept personal threats and forgery of history and removal of sources.--83.95.250.247 (talk) 01:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not Irānshahr, admins can check it. They can also check your false claims about residence because before just one week teachers from Læreruddannelse received Wahabi threats which are identical to your comments. Admins can also check that you proudly used nickname SalafistKSA with identhical contributions, and now you deny it. User:Ian.thomson has posted suspicion of sockpuppetry at your talk page, and you removed it twice calling us as "extremists" and "racists". Your edits are clearly politically motivated because you deny Greater Iran is Western concept of cultural region and you've made at least 20-30 reverts claiming it's related to "irredentism" [252]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.60.7.172 (talk) 01:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course you are, otherwise you would not commit the same vandalism in all the same threads as Iranshahr did. Strange coincidence ah?

You must be crazy. I don't live in Hjørring but Copenhagen. I am not an Arab or a Muslim even. That sockpuppetry investigation turned out to be false. You removed the notice of investigation about your edists from your edit page so I did the same since you had threatened me.

Iraqi Shi'ah Arabs are not Iranian. Nor in terms of langauge, culture or ancestry (genetics). All your edits have provided ZERO sources while you have deleted sourced material from my edits. You are basically guilty of vandalism and forgery of history like the Iranian nationalist you are.--83.95.250.247 (talk) 01:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Greater Iran

It appears two IPs are edit warring on the article Greater Iran. Don't know what the exact details are, but this needs the involvement of an Admin. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You've asked Ed about this. Give him some time to respond, he hasn't responded to me either, he may just be busy. His last edit from today was before your post I believe. Unless you want to remove it from Ed's page and leave it here. --Activism1234 01:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

OR if another admin sees it here before Ed, maybe they can just settle it and then you can remove it from Ed's page.

COMMENT - I'm not an admin, but it's clear both IP address are in an edit war and have violated 3RR and are just reverting each other. Both should be punished, in my opinion, and the page reverted to what it was before this edit war. Again, just my opinion. --Activism1234 01:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: It appears one of the editors has filed a complaint about it directly above. --Activism1234 01:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I suggest a long ban for the user Iranshahr and the IP address he is using now. He not only deletes sourced material but also adds false material that is COMPLETELY unsourced and that is not even in accordance with what other SOURCED Wikipedia articles on similar matters say. Not to mention the reality. Moreover he invents lies about my person, threatens me with the police (outrageous claim) and accuses me of living in a place where I do not live and never even been in my life (my IP address confirm this). He is clearly an Iranian nationalist (take a look at all his edits or even username - he deleted material/commited vandalism on several pages just at the span of 1.5 days, apart from those that I have engaged in with him as a counter to his vandalism. This is completely unacceptable.

All what I have said can be confirmed by taking a look at his edits, his removal of sources and the lack of ANY sources at all in the false information (written by Iranian nationalists) that he is desperate to keep on those pages I have highlighted. A information that conflicts with sourced Wikipedia articles on the same manner and reality. I am willing to prove (with sources) that his claims are false and unfounded. The fact that he provides no sources at all should tell everything. Other users are also complaining about him.--83.95.250.247 (talk) 01:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Alright. The both of you editing from IPs: knock it off. Your edit summaries are swarming with personal attacks. Consider this your one and only warning regarding violations of the no personal attacks policy. I have reverted Greater Iran and Iran–Iraq relations to the state they were in before the edit-warring started and semi-protected them both for a month. Persian people has also been reverted to a pre-edit-war state but has not been protected - yet - as it isn't as bad - yet. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• Also, both IP editors are way past WP:3RR, on two different articles to boot, but since the semiprotection has stopped them from editing the articles they were edit-warring on, I'm not sure a block would be preventitive. Any other admin may block for the 3RR violation though without any objection from me. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Iranshahr's vandalism

Dear Wikipedia. I am Mtheory1, and I have been making little edits to wikipedia time and again to fix this issue of the middle east. First off, to a lot of Iranians (I am one), this word is extremely eurocentric and rude, and Iranian culture is not the quintessential middle eastern culture. We are Asians. We have always been aligned with the cultures of the east and many scholarly reports online agree to where Iran lies geographically, politically, and socially: South Asia. The United Nations has written a "geoscheme" that is also conveniently located on Wikipedia titled United Nations geoscheme for Asia, where you will note Iran is under "South Asia" (google the geoscheme and you can verify). Two wikipedians, and only these two, continually accuse me of vandalism when I am simply trying to rid all articles associated with Iran on this website of middle east and give the truth to great people who use this useful website and hope for un-biased, truthful information. User Iranshahr (see her/his vandalism in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents) and user "ordibehesht" User talk:اردیبهشت have carried out a clear campaign to place Iran entirely in West Asia, when this, my friends, is only partly accurate. Iran is a great nation with ties all the way from the western borders of Turkey to China, and Iran is considered a tripoint of Asia culturally and genetically (with Iranian "peoples" stemming all the way from Iraq-West Asia, N India and Pakistan-S Asia, and Central Asia-all of the "stans.") I am a scholar in this field (Iranology), and I have been pushed by my Iranian community to put an end to this confusion. I may be new to Wikipedia, but not to the knowledge of my country. This website is merely a conduit of information. The people need to know that Iran is not middle eastern, but furthermore, is in three parts of Asia. In this regard, they know how large the culture of this country is. Iran transcends three (even all) parts of Asia in some way shape and form. WIkipedia's own Geoscheme verifies what I have been constantly saying, where Iran is (South Asia), and almost EVERY cultural, economic, political, historical, genetic article on WIkipedia verify Iran's close ties with the Eastern steppes of Asia, rather than the West. Iran is even in the process of gaining member status in the SAARC (South Asian Association For Regional Cooperation, where they are now an observer) The two aforementioned users are forcing Iran to be Arab or West Asian, when this is simply not entirely the case. Iran must be recognized ENTIRELY. Not given ONE label mis-appropriately applied label to all of its people for the world to see. I will try to (again) revise my work to the additions I have made (not vandalism), work that simply tells people of our culture, and brings light to where we are. Iranians are Asian, particularly South Asian. And proudly so. I hope the administrators can help me help Wikipedia understand our frustrations, and I hope edit wars don't sprout from this issue. Thank you for your time. You are all doing a wonderful service to the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtheory1 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

To the majority of the world, Iran is a middle eastern country, and the majority of sources (I believe) refer to it as such as well. It doesn't matter that it's, in your words, "eurocentric and rude"; Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia is not a venue for "the truth", nor is it a place to right great wrongs; Wikipedia must only include that with is verifiable, even if what is verifiable isn't what's "true". Also WP:BOOMERANG may be of interest. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it not verifiable that Iran is South Asian? All I am saying is that it should also be deemed S Asian. I don't care if someone calls it "middle eastern," but regardless of what I said (maybe I went too far), Iran is still in SOuth Asia. Look at WIkipedia's own articles!! You included a link pertaining to "verifiability," when in that article of WIkipedia it stated that articles of the website must be verified by multiple (or at least one) source. Is not Iran South (and Western and Central) Asian by MANY sources? Mtheory1 (talk) 02:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It is verifiable that whether to include Iran in South Asia is not agreed. For example, the World Bank does not include it. The United Nations geographical region classification does not include it. The Hirschmann-Herfindahl Index of United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific does not include it. The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation does not include it. But the United Nations Population Information Network does include it.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that so-called "European" culture was invented in Mesopotamia and Western Iran. This is particularly important with respect of religion. Religions originating in this culture tend to focus on the relationship between God and man - you will recognise this in Islam, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, and the early religions of the Middle East and Europe. Religions originating in India and China tend to focus on transcending thought, imaging, etc. They come from a quite different non-Mesopotamian-Iranian culture.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I am extremely confused. What is verifiability? How do we determine one source over the other? That is not what I am doing. I am not removing information from Iranian articles, I am simple supplanting them with facts that common (intelligent) people (must) know. I can't even believe I am arguing this; Iran is in SOuth Asia! Look at a map! This is not even an issue of verifiability. This is a huge misunderstanding. Iran is in multiple parts of Asia (as an Asian country) and some institutions include it in West, Central (the NE provinces) or South Asia depending on the scenario of the data collection. Is it wrong to say Iran is in one part of Asia AND another? No. Is it ridiculous to say Iran is only in ONE PART OF ASIA (JUST WEST)? Absolutely. Mtheory1 (talk) 05:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe ANI is not the right place to resolve this? It is a content dispute. There is no one right answer. The article talk page is a better place. Please try not to be dogmatic or nationalistic. Maybe if you read more widely you would see that there are other points of view, and that some of these have merit.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You know, you are right [User:Toddy1|Toddy1]] . I will. Thanks for telling me, I get a little worked up about this. Thanks for your input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtheory1 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Mtheory1

Block this user please. פארוק (talk) 06:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Please block this user. He/she has no mandate to remove Iran from the Middle East and place it in South Asia, which frankly, is just wrong. Iran is geographically a part of West Asia, and politically, a part of the Middle East. Culturally and historically, Iran's orientation has always been towards it West and to its North, never towards its east (South Asia / Indian subcontinent). اردیبهشت (talk) 13:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

(split off new subsection) "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGeography_of_Iran&diff=504977482&oldid=272321717 For goodness sakes. Stop this idiotic editing! Iran is located in NOT JUST SW ASIA, but ALSO South and Central Asia! Why do I have to keep proving this! Look at the UN Geoscheme and look at an article on Central Asia (both on WIkipedia); Iran is in these areas! STOP MAKING THESE CHANGES AND FORCING IRAN TO BE MIDDLE EASTERN! REGARDLESS OF CONSENSUS, IT IS NOT AND IRANIANS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN ASIAN! ENOUGH!" Perhaps Mtheory1 does need a break. CMD (talk) 19:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not doing anything wrong. I am only adding the informations that we have on Wikipedia. There are conflicts within the webpage. That's all I am doing, not tryng to fight anyone. Mtheory1 (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Suspected mass copyright violations by User:Pedrocampelo

The following discussion is closed. 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 June 4, I tagged Athletics at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metres for a suspected copyright violation[253], reported the issue[254], and notified User:Pedrocampelo, the editor responsible for the edit.[255] In my report, I explained that I needed clarification on whether or not this issue was, in fact, a copyright violation because I observed the same issue in at least 46 different Olympic articles. Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 June 4 was eventually closed without response from Pedrocampelo or the larger issue of suspected mass copyright violations being addressed.[256] Given that the affected articles are likely to start receiving heavy amounts of traffic during the ongoing Olympics, I am seeking help on what, if anything, should be done on my part or that of anyone else. Perhaps I am jumping the gun in that it appears as though administrator User:ErikHaugen recently notified Pedrocampelo of a possible issue, too, and has asked him to revisit the articles he has edited.[257] Thanks! Location (talk) 05:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe you may be looking for Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 13:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I would be OK with closing this report since the issue has now been listed at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations#Pedrocampelo. Thanks! Location (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Ram Kishore Shukla

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

---

I've held off reporting this for a long time, but this morning's events have finally convinced me that this needs looking at from an administrative capacity.

User:Ballisticizer, aka User:Alcides86, aka User:RKS4444 (admission of multiple accounts here) has been the main contributor to this article, and has demonstrated serious COMPETENCE and COI problems throughout its history. The text of the article has been substantially altered to remove a potential copyright violation (see discussion here, in which Ballisticizer claims to have faked the copied source (no evidence has been produced either way)); this morning I encountered the Alcides86 account readding some of the potentially non-free content, and after placing this warning, received this response. See also this discussion, which resulted in the removal of most of the article's images. It seems to me that this user is failing or refusing to get the point, and much as I hate to deeal with comparatively new users this way, I see a block under WP:COMPETENCE as the only productive way forwards. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

All notified Yunshui 雲‍水 10:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Respected administrators, i just want to say that i did all those mistakes in unawareness of Wikipedia guidelines, but when i learnt them it was late it seems, the article hosted at docstoc.com was uploaded by me only by copying Wikipedia text, it was released under [258] to use it as a source, but later when whole article got shortened, i removed the the document from docstoc.com, when Yunshui told me how to use books to cite sources, i did not find any problem to improve the article. This is india i live in if i was familiar to all these things, what would be the problem. Please understand, i never kept my foot apart from Ram Kishore Shukla (my maternal grand father). Thank you --Alcides86 (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

User has indicated here his intent to restrict himself to one account and abide by policy; I'm inclined to AGF and withdraw my block request, but would nevertheless appreciate some more input from other admins. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Without looking into the details, I would trust your handling as you are most familiar. Blocks are cheap and be handed out if needed at a later date. We are here to solve problems, after all, and looks like you already have. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

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

70.118.102.247

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

---

Can someone enforce WP:ARBMAC+WP:3RR at 70.118.102.247 (talk · contribs), please, for edit warring at Yugoslav Wars? I'm "involved" so I want to avoid any allegation of impropriety; I've already warned them, and then they reverted that. D'oh. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Y Done Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 13:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing

The following discussion is closed. 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 editor 173.174.159.84 seems intent of violating WP:MOSFLAG by continually adding flag icons into boxing article infoboxes. They have already had three warnings from me and Tigerboy1966 in regards to this issue. On the 25th July in the third warning i notified them that it was a last warning which they ignored several times on the 27th July: [259], [260], [261], [262].

Mabuska ^(talk) 13:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Y Done Blocked for a period of 48 hours. Hopefully that will get this editor's attention. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 13:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Penyulap

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

---

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

Penyulap has kept a streak of user attacks for a while. Today was my turn on his list apparently. He is way out of hand attacking editors, and I request an indef block on his account.

My discussion with him today can be found here. This came as a result of a comment he left in User:Craigboy's talk page here, where it appears he accused me of Sockpuppeting.

I had suspected something when he left this comment on my talk page.

Now a bit of history on Penyulap. He has been a significantly disruptive editor on Wikiproject spaceflight. A very lengthy discussion took place in the project's talk page regarding him. I was his greatest supporter and defender in that conversation. He now accuses me of being another editor playing Good Hand Bad Hand.

He has a history of intimidating users he disagrees with by threatening them with WP:SPI, such as with User:Mir Almaat 1 S1 here and with User:Mlm42 here (coincidentally, a similar comment to what he left on my talk page).

His RFA shows him to be a highly disruptive editor, even claiming he vandalizes with several undetectable sockpuppets himself. He is set on proving the SPI process is broken, see here.

I was going to let him go and walk away, until he claimed an admission of guilt from my part.

He has even started ANI against me, User:WDGraham and others while I type this up, after threatening us with ANI here. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 21:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Pelyulap's behavior in recent weeks has been significantly disruptive in a number of places. Could an uninvolved administrator with some extra time tonight please carefully evaluate what action, if any, needs to be taken. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, could you run check user on me and the three other editors he accuses me of being to dispel that idea? --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 21:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

There hasn't been nearly enough evidence presented here to warrant a checkuser, even at the request of one of the accused. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 23:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Largely echoing NYB's sentiment here. I've been keeping half an eye on the situation with Penyulap since his aborted RFA (linked above by Wingtipvortex), and while there's occasional article work, there a lot more snarling, biting others, and generally being extremely difficult to work with - and that's when he's not talking about his vandal socks or how he's here to prove some sort of point. I see very little that's constructive coming out of Penyulap these days, and am inclined to think that a block may be the only solution to the disruption at this point, especially since even users who have been working hard to help him fit in with our policies are now being rebuffed (section link, most relevant content is toward the bottom of the section). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Didn't seem logical to ask twice for the same CU. Penyulap ☏ 21:46, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC)

• I'm involved but I left a warning to Penyulap following what can be charitably described as tendentious editing on Beatles related articles. If the behavior doesn't abate or change I'd recommend a block. Protonk (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It was welcome advice. Penyulap ☏ 21:52, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC)

• I see some assumptions of bad faith and possibly baseless allegations in the example discussions linked in the original complaint (don't know all the background, nor do I care to), but nothing that requires a block yet, in my opinion. I think Penyulap should be warned to avoid accusing people of sockpuppetry and rather take things through the right channels at SPI. If the accusations continue, then a block would be warranted. I also think that Penyulap's belief that he has some kind of superhuman ability (if he was serious when he said that) that allows him to "see clearly not only the person behind the keyboard and what machine they use, how they edit, what their cultural background..., but it also allows me to assess with precision their intentions as well" is potentially dangerous and should probably not be validated or encouraged by anyone. -Scottywong| soliloquize _ 21:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Fairly stated, I'll take it to the right place. Penyulap ☏ 21:49, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict appears to have eaten this the first time) To address Scotty's feeling that this may not be a long-term thing, I present a linkdump of some of Penyulap's talk highlights for the past few days: people's comments about him are them making excuses Worm is incompetent, not interesting in improving himself it's everybody else's fault personal attacks more personal attacks using "unorthodox" methods to bring GabeMC in line "my calls are always good", "I haven't made any mild or serious misjudgements yet", "The secret to being an insufferable smart ass like me who is always right is to admit instantly, sincerely and comprehensively the moment you realise it. " previous block was for "nothing in particular" Pesky asks him to try to make himself more understandable, his answer is "no". People are taking process too seriously, he prefers the socks. Now, mind you, these are all things that were said within the last week, and they're far from everything problematic from those days. The diffs speak for themselves, my short summaries (except the quotes, which are direct) are just that, my interpretations of what was said, so please view the diffs for actual content. I didn't bother to go further back, but these are generally representative of how Penyulap interacts with other editors here. There's the sock accusations...and then there's everything else. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I would have to say that the diffs above demonstrate that this is more than just an isolated incident, and therefore a block might be warranted if there is consensus for it here. -Scottywong| speak _ 22:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Penyulap has been bothering and attacking me for over three weeks now almost non-stop. Some admin intervention is overdue, as this user appears to be having an emotional problem which they are taking out on other editors. FTR, I wholeheartedly support a block or a ban of somekind. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm extremely allergic to drama, but I guess I should comment. I have to say that I've also noticed disruptive behavior on Penyulap's part in recent weeks. He took an interest in the Beatles capitalisation issue earlier this month, and that seems to have inspired highly irrational behavior on his part in related areas (this, as one example). I'm not definitively in favor of a block or anything at this point, as he has been a valuable contributor in multiple areas, but (just an observation) it looks like things involving him have gotten out of hand more than just once. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• I came very close to starting an ANI on penyulap regarding harssment concerns, brought to me by another editor who Penyulap had decided to "correct" by effectively following him around. I have warned him three times in the past fortnight regardimg harssment and how accusations of harssment without evidence is a personal attack. However, I would consider myself involved though as some of his comments towards me on his talk page have been beyond the pale. I'll provide some diffs tomorrow, am on my phone at the moment. Worm^TT(talk) 21:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

He would refer to a section here and he later agreed to give me some space Penyulap ☏ 22:03, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? He didn't agree to give you some space. He stated that he would no longer be interacting with you because your behavior and the things you said about him were appalling. Your behavior has been completely unacceptable and I am certain you would have never said those things except behind a wall of anonymity. Be certain that you do not deserve the kind manner in which people have treated you here and if you think otherwise you are sadly mistaken. You are lucky that you are not treated the way you treat others. Ryan Vesey 22:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm involved here, but if you look at the discussion at WikiProject Spaceflight, it seems to me that there are very few active editors left in the WikiProject who aren't in some kind of dispute with him. I haven't looked at every one of them - I'll post something about the dispute I am involved in with him shortly as I need some time to compile some links, but just from that discussion and his talk page, I think it is clear that he gets into more disputes than could be expected of the average editor. He doesn't listen to other people, and if just dismisses their concerns as he feels that they are the ones who have problems - in his RfA he dismissed people raising concerns about his conduct as being "bully tactics", and I'm fairly sure that his accusations against Mlm, and the earlier one against Mir, are just intended to intimidate them as they have spoken out against him. This has been going on for a long time now, and I think he has become too disruptive to ignore. --W. D. Graham 21:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Just to give a bit of background on one issue, I am involved, along with a number of other editors (primarily SalopianJames (talk · contribs), Navy blue84 (talk · contribs), Ckatz (talk · contribs) and Mlm42), in a long-running dispute around the dialect the article International Space Station should be written in. The first dialect used was British English, however American English was later introduced, with both dialects remaining in use until James standardised it during one of several FACs around three or four years ago. I can't remember if there was a discussion or if James was just being bold (I seem to recall a discussion, but it was so long ago I can't find it, so I'd be prepared to accept that my memory may not be flawless), however in either case the change stuck for a few months, until an RfC was held on whether the article should be changed to American English. This found no consensus, and while with hindsight I should not have closed it as an involved editor, I cannot see any way that it would have found consensus to change the article. During the next couple of years there were one or two further discussions started by various editors, but no consensus was found. Last June, Penyulap tried to start a simple majority poll on the issue, and while a few objections were raised to discussing this for the third or fourth time in two years, the discussion was allowed to run its course and again found no consensus. Penyulap was subsequently topic banned for another dispute, but when that ban expired, he started the discussion again, and again it found no consensus, although he kept it alive for five months by just refusing to drop it. Two days after that thread was archived, he started the discussion again. He's also tried to raise it on my talk page, repeatedly on his own talk page often trying to bring it up in irrelevant discussions; he hijacked the discussion of his conduct at WT:SPACEFLIGHT to try and air it again. In the recent discussions, he's mostly been arguing from a starting point that because the RfC found no consensus the article should be changed "back" into American English (he ignores the fact that it was never in American English, either changing the subject or responding with an ad homeniem argument whenever this is pointed out). He claims that he doesn't actually care about the end result - from the discussion at WT:SPACEFLIGHT "that's not it at all. I don't care for the variant. I care for the solution to the monument and the jackass emotions...It's how you reach the decision that matters, not what the decision is." Aside from the forum/admin shopping, refusal to drop a matter that has been discussed to death, liberal use of ad homeniem arguments and borderline wikilawyering, he doesn't seem to understand that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and has tied the project up for the last year discussing something that is essentially a matter of process, and the letter of the law against the spirit of the law. --W. D. Graham 22:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Honestly, I think an indefinite block if not a complete ban of Penyulap is necessary. I formed my opinion that a block of some sort might be needed (I have been concerned by Penyulap's disruption in the past month). Then I saw this comment

  How about this, Pesky you're not feeling well, considering the situation of your household, I'm not well considering I couldn't manage to stay awake today long enough to try for the second time to get to the doctor, because something about my thyroid? is not working. So how about worm packs up all this WP:ICANTHEARYOU when you say DESPISE. Stop his deliberately obtuse and stupid antics to provoke me, (actually is it deliberate or are you actually this dense? I DON'T CARE because you are not here to ask for help) asking 'I'm so stupid please explain how I got to be an admin and can lecture Mir on unwanted attention but I just can't help myself, I'm drawn back to everything Penyulap is doing because I am aware he DESPISES me and I just want to antagonise the situation because hey, he needs it, and I'll take advantage of Auntie Pesky as well while I'm at it, because with her son is in a life threatening situation, so she has nothing better to do than deal with Worms ICANTHEARYOU social problems.' Either send me your PAYPAL address and I'll send you some money for a therapist worm or take the hint and come back when Auntie Pesky says she is well enough to help you with your problems, keep at it, and I'll be asking for an interaction ban, on the grounds that YOU CANT HEAR ME and there is no hope for you ever growing out of this awkward stage your going through without community intervention. Ok pumpkin ? Penyulap ☏ 11:44, 27 Jul 2012 (UTC)

  That comment is beyond anything one could accept from an editor and it certainly isn't uncommon for Penyulap to behave in a similar manner as seen here. I can dig through more diffs of disruption if people wish, but as far as I'm concerned the comment to Worm and Pesky was beyond what is necessary to block him. Ryan Vesey 22:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that after talking to Auntie Pesky in a manner she disagrees with, and considering the stress in RL and on wikipedia, that I shall focus on priority of health and take a break from wiki. (addressing this and the comment below) Penyulap ☏ 22:13, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC)

This current spat doesn't really matter, as an indef is overdue for past issues, such as the ISS discussion linked from a thread about a week ago. This is a disruptive, trolling participant with competency issues. BYE ~! Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• • I have to agree - Pen has, alas, long since worn out his welcome with long-term disruptive behavior and not listening. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

ANI isn't well suited to discussion of long term behavior of an editor. WP:RFC/U should be the next step. Nobody Ent 22:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

This would be true in many other circumstances, but in this instance, the issues raised are so numerous and serious that we probably need a concrete action coming out of this thread. (Plus, given Penyulap's comment just above that he needs to take some time away because of health and stress considerations, and assuming good faith with regard to it, I don't think that creating an RFC/U that would focus on criticizing Penyulap would be appropriate at this time.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

As Tom Morris said in Penyulap's RFA: when an admin or wannabe admin sees an editor being grossly incivil (even if they feel it justified in the circumstances), offering spelling and grammar advice as Penyulap did here cannot be considered anything other than trolling. In addition, it became apparent in this SPI case that here, Penyulap stated he had socks, undetectable by CU, which he used to vandalise Wikipedia, making an offer to reveal them. Here, I thought I had misread his comments, thinking they were meant sarcastically, but here he clarified that he wasn't being sarcastic. In other words, a blatant troll who admits vandalising with sockpuppets — if I wasn't a participant in that conversation, I would have indeffed him myself. WilliamH (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Newyorkbrad. If Penyulap is having personal difficulties then an extended RFC/U would be gratuitous and cruel, as several editors have expressed here that an indef block of this account is in order, and long overdue, why not serve both the community and Penyulap by making that break mandatory? Don't pass the buck, lets deal with this right here right now. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Block proposal

There seems to be general agreement above that this much more than an isolated incident and that a block may be warranted, so let's make it official. This proposal is to block Penyulap for 1 week for disruptive behavior. If the harassment, baseless accusations of sockpuppetry, or general incivility/disruption continue after the block, then any uninvolved admin can and should re-block for a longer period of time, including indef if deemed necessary. -Scottywong| converse _ 23:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. -Scottywong| converse _ 23:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support, as indef immediately instead of passing the buck for a week, per WilliamH's comments - an immediate indef is absolutely necessary. (And I'd do it myself except I, too, could be considered "involved" with regards to Pen) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support block of at least 1 week. If and when Penyulap returns to editing, he needs to recognize that we are here to build an encyclopedia. The vast majority of his contributions of late seem to do nothing of the sort. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support block, oppose 1-week length. A block is certainly called for here, but a week is so short as to be almost certainly useless. I would be much more inclined to support an indef block (under the classic definition - indefinite, not infinite. When Pen is back up to snuff and can engage with the community properly and without attacking others, an unblock can be discussed). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict x3) I'm thinking that indefinite is the correct block length here. Note: Not "indefinite" as in "forever," but "indefinite" as in "until Penyulap is able to provide evidence that he is ready to edit properly and stop the various types of disruptive behavior he's been engaging in." It's obvious that he needs time away from Wikipedia, perhaps as much for his own sake as for everyone else's, and it's not clear we can know at this point whether and when he'll be able to participate productively again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support indef block as the originator of this complaint and per The Bushranger, Fluffernutter and Newyorkbrad. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 23:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support as an indefinite block. Unless can be convinced otherwise, no incentive to let this individual edit Wikipedia. (Edit conflict: per NYB, basically.) WilliamH (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support an indefinite block for Penyulap per Bushranger, Newyorkbrad, Wingtipvortex and WilliamH. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• indef, already said so above. why go through all this !voting? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support. As per WP:NOTTHERAPY. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• Coren just beat me to the indef block. I thought I'd do it since I like Penyulap and wish to protect them against further piling on here. Take it easy Penyulp; you know about OFFER and all that. Drmies (talk) 23:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

More decisive

It seems clear that there is agreement that decisive action must be taken, and that Penyulap has been an extraordinarily disruptive element in very many venues for a long time. There are at least three entirely unrelated areas where I have seen him aggressively disrupt ongoing discussion and processes in the past week alone; he has been vicious towards an editor I have attempted to steer away from unrelated trouble, and he has involved himself in just about every process or project area of note in the past couple of weeks – unfailingly bringing all heat and no light.

I have not intervened in his misbehaviour before this point, so I cannot possibly be considered involved; except that he has unsuccessfully attempted to bait me into an overreaction during my handling of yet another incident unrelated to him where he simply butted in to – pardon my french – stir shit up.

The fact of the matter is, he is currently doing nothing but trolling and wilfully wasting the community's time. This discussion is understandable, but simply is yet another instance of his skill at causing strife. I'm going to be bold and simply save everyone the trouble of a long discussion and deny Penyulap yet another forum for his lulz.

I am blocking him indefinitely; he is clearly not here to work on an encyclopedia. Or if he is, he is incapable of understanding how to help rather than hinder. Either way, his participation is not useful, and no longer welcome. Any administrator may revert this block if they think it is out of line, or if they manage to negotiate some sort of behavioural compromise from him. Somehow, I doubt the former is plausible, and that the latter is productive. — Coren ^(talk) 23:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Good, ya got this one right. Now go propose vacating the silly restriction on me per Brad's comment on my talk. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

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

اردیبهشت

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

---

اردیبهشت (talk · contribs) is annoyingly trying to force racist concepts to a purely linguistic classification system (i. e. that people with Mongolid physical features cannot be an Iranian people even if their first language has been Iranian for decades and centuries). Hence also his edit in Hazara people where he has violated WP:3RR. He continues this unencyclopedic and un-scholarly behavior also in Iranian peoples and elsewhere. To keep it short: what he says is like claiming that the Turkish people are not a Turkic people, because they do not have Mongolid physical features like the ancient Turks, despite speaking a Turkic language for at lest 400 years. --Lysozym (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

PS: he has violated 3RR in Iranian cuisine as well. --Lysozym (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours. Also, please note that you are required to notify anyone that you are reporting at ANI. -Scottywong| communicate _ 22:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry and thank you. --Lysozym (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Discussions to be closed

For the attention of any administrator: there are three pending requests for closure of a content discussion. AGK [•] 00:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit-Warring by User:DreamMcQueen after a 96 Hour Block

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

---

• DreamMcQueen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Related ANI Thread #1
• Related ANI Thread #2

After coming off a 96 hour block (by User:Toddst1), User:DreamMcQueen has gone back to the same behavior that has gotten him blocked the past two times, "Disruptive editing: specifically edit warring, WP:OWN issues and WP:BATTLE". As evidenced by the user's edits on July 30, edit wars on multiple pages continue after the most recent block. I have notified the blocking editor of this, but he seems to be offline for the evening. The unblock request of the previous block shows the user just doesn't "get it" and this talk page post seems to indicate he is here to force some kind of change (regardless of consensus or whatever).

The behavior of DreamMcQueen is ongoing and shows no sign of stopping after two blocks, now three ANI threads, numerous warnings and several admins saying to stop. As such, I am requesting admin assistance in this matter. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• The user has been notified of this thread, as has the blocking admin. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

In my defense: I am not vandalizing, I am not practicing incivility, I do not wish to edit-war, I am not seeking to battle anyone, and I am not exercising ownership over any articles. I approached the community of users who edit TV-related articles about making changes in an effort to improve the articles, primarily concerning style and formatting. My wish is to see the articles written in a way that can easily be digested by everyone. ([263] my thread on WT:TVS) Neutralhomer, acting as if he is the keeper of all TV station articles, rejected my proposals without considering them and has chosen to hide behind "consensus." What consensus? All I have found is a small group of stubborn editors who are afraid of change without considering the benefits of it. They write and chose to endorse writing which satisfies only hard-core enthusiasts and not a broader audience. My conflicts with two other editors, Fairlyoddparents1234 and TVtonightokc, have been based around content and I have told them as much.

Please note that two of these editors who have been uncivil towards me (Neutralhomer and Fairlyoddparents1234) are afflicted with Asperger's Syndrome. That should be taken into serious consideration when reviewing this case, which is something the blocking administrator either was not aware of or chose not to do. DreamMcQueen (talk) 01:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This, folks, is exactly what I am talking about. "It is everyone else fault and I have done nothing wrong" is the same thing he has said numerous times, but everyone else hasn't been blocked for OWN, Edit-warring and other problems, DreamMcQueen has.

Also, whether or not Fairlyoddparents1234 or I have Aspergers has nothing to do with DreamMcQueen's behavior in the slightest and bringing it up shows their real intent here and it ain't a good one. The psychological dianogsis of an editor has nothing to do with the blocking abilities of an admin either. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)I would point out that using "they have Aspergers" as an argument is an ad hominem attack. I would also point out that both Neutralhomer and Fairlyoddparents1234 have better histories of working with/accepting community consensus than Dream does. And, well, when one person says you're edit-warring, you might be able to brush it off. When two people do, you should start wondering. When ten people do, you should probably accept that they're right and you're wrong. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 01:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

As a non-involved editor with Asperger Syndrome, the suggestion that AS somehow impairs editing is absurd - by my own experience, the internet is a much easier place to communicate and work in. That type of sentiment is uncalled for and should be struck out, hopefully by the editor that made the comment. Toa Nidhiki05 01:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

For starters, the fact that DreamMcQueen pointed out that another user has Asbergers demonstrates DreamMcQueen's lack of understanding of what being civil means, and also demonstrates that DreamMcQueen knows nothing about asbergers. I completely agree with NeutralHomer, and I am an outsider who doesn't edit in the same areas as DreamMcQueen (I think I first became part of this discussion when I stumbled into one of DreamMcQueen and FairlyOddParents1234's first edit wars). Immediately after the most recent block was lifted, DreamMcQueen went back to the same articles he was edit-warring on before and made the same edits he was making before. Because of this, I support an indefinite block ASAP. Gold Standard 01:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I support a indef block of DreamMcQueen. His last post to this thread shows he is intent on continue to edit the way he has and his attacks my Aspergers are something he is defending. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• I wasn't going to comment until your Asperger's Syndrome comment. Let me be blunt: you are gravely mistaken here and making a personal attack here. First, even if they are, that is irrelevant as we don't discriminate and judge others only by their actions, not a disability. Second, that isn't something you say without providing a diff where they have admitted as such, not that it actually matters, however. Third, your attitude here is less than reassuring, to say the least. I don't think you will fare well this go around. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Response to Dennis: I actually do have Aspergers, this isn't a secret, it is on my user page. Whether User:Fairlyoddparents1234 does or not, I will not speculate. But as it has been pointed out, it doesn't impair editing or understanding any the slightest and as Toa pointed out, the internet makes communicating alot easier for those with Aspergers. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, please do not twist my words around. You cannot say that I didn't laid out my "real intent" to you before this whole ridiculous spat got out of hand. And, as I noted to you in the very recent past, your record is not exactly clean either. You have no right to act as though you are the high-and-mighty. Unless you are without sin, you are in no place to throw stones at me. As for the other issue, well, it has EVERYTHING to do with YOUR emotions and behavior, which you obviously cannot control. You have proved it to me time and again with your angry and aggressive comments -- such as the one above. Do yourself a favor and calm down. DreamMcQueen (talk) 02:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow, where should I start on this one? You obviously haven't the slightest clue about Aspergers, Autism or the Autistic Spectrum or you would quickly realize you are so wrong in your statement it is actually laughable. Your intent here, as you have pointed out, is to force change regardless of consensus or established policy. That goes against the rules or Wikipedia. I suggest you do yourself a favor and stop digging, the hole you are in is getting quite deep. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Considering how offensive your comments were, I was impressed by the amount of restraint he was showing. You are in essence asking me to discriminate against someone that has Aspergers, and using it as a means to discredit those who have raised an issue. This is so against our policies, and so against any sense of community decency, yet you make these comments with remarkable ease, which makes me question if you are not capable of working in a corroborative environment. And you haven't stuck your personal attacks, which is reason enough for me to block you right now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've never been involved with DreamMcQueen, and I'm tempted to propose a community ban. I'm just this side of not doing so, but I'd endorse an indef block in a heartbeat. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 02:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I support an indefinite block as the user has not struck out the comment and is defending it. Toa Nidhiki05 02:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I did not intend to offend any other editors with my previous comment. The point I tried to make is that not everyone has their emotions in check all of the time. And, from what I learned, those who suffer from Asperger's have hobbies that they are deeply interested in. If someone messes with that, it can set them off into a deep mood swing. Perhaps reacting as forceful as Neutralhomer and Fairlyoddparents have towards me is normal for them. But that doesn't mean I sit here and take it. Those two individuals should be in better control of their emotions. DreamMcQueen (talk) 02:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You need to go learn some more. People with Aspergers (only one of whom you can confirm has it) have more of a control of their emotions than you would think. Remember, Aspergers is a "high-functioning form of Autism". Most people consider to people with Aspergers to be "normal" in real life. Unless I tell someone, they can't tell I have Aspergers. So, go read a book, take a NAMI class or just talk to someone with Aspergers before claiming you have learned anything about the syndrome, because what you have said is nowhere near the truth and is still insulting and considered a personal attack according to Wikipedia rules. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked 1 week for personal attacks and returning to contentious editing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Indef-Block for DreamMcQueen

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

---

As we have two different places in the above main thread for this, I will start a formal one here. This is a request, after all the evidence and above posts show, that the behavior of DreamMcQueen is not going to stop and the user has shown they don't "get it", for DreamMcQueen to be indef-blocked.

• Support: As nom. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment As the blocking admin, I can't vote here, but I've already said on his talk page that I have no problem with any admin modifying the block if they feel I've been too generous. Just ping me afterwards. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Support: User just doesn't get it, has shown no signs of correcting behavior. Note that I am supporting an indefinite block, not an infinite block; if DreamMcQueen starts acknowledging that what they've done is wrong, I'd support unblocking them. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 02:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support User made offensive, incorrect remarks regarding two editors that would be considered personal attacks. Rather than striking out the comment, he has instead defended it and refused to apologize for it. Add that to the edit war history and this is an action that should be taken. Toa Nidhiki05 02:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support as first person to suggest indef block: "Immediately after the most recent block was lifted, DreamMcQueen went back to the same articles he was edit-warring on before and made the same edits he was making before." Gold Standard 02:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: This [264] may make all of this moot, although it wouldn't be the first time I've seen someone quit Wikipedia forever, and it doesn't often last. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 02:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Following that last comment of his, and the clear mood of the community here, I've imposed the indef block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Might Not Be Over

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

---

DreamMcQueen's last edit has a claim that he is indef-blocked sockpuppeteer User:Rollosmokes. I have created an sockpuppet investigation for this, as this claim needs to be looked into immediately. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Good idea, I was just about to do this. We need to make sure he isn't attempting to fool us by stating that he is leaving Wikipedia. Gold Standard 06:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Rollo has done this before. Created a sockpuppet account and then went on a edit-warring spree and then got blocked. Might need to get some rangeblocks on that guy. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

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

76.173.29.20

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

---

Has been vandalizing the Chick-fil-A page today [265] [266], but the main reason for this request were the personal attacks he levied at User:ViriiK both on ViriiK's user page and his own talk page. I realize that it has only happened twice, but the language as well as the racial component of the attacks warrant action, IMO. MsFionnuala (talk) 02:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

As do the religious components of the attacks. Recommend block of IP for a week, or as long as is possible without it going stale, whichever is longer. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 02:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Jclemens 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.

---

Jclemens (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly making personal attacks in the form of sockpuppet accusations and claiming that editors that disagree with him have an WP:IDHT issue (even though multiple consensus disagrees with him, and he's yet to point out any consensus that warrants accusing someone of WP:IDHT). At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons he began accusing me of IDHT and of being a sockpuppet, and that I ...assert that consensus is on (my) side, and (he) would like to be able to agree to that, but there's too much similarity with previous sock attacks on fictional topics to let the apparent WP:LOCALCONSENSUS stand unchallenged.

Bascially, he's using baseless sockpuppet accusations as cause to ignore consensus, while simultaneously accusing me of somehow ignoring consensus. I asked him to stop, and the resulting conversation basically resulted in him continuing this IDHT accusation and stating that these accusations weren't personal attacks. WP:NPA#WHATIS specifically says that "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" is a personal attack. Accusing someone of sockpuppetry falls under this, but apparently Jclemens doesn't see baseless accusations of sockpuppetry or WP:IDHT as personal attacks. I've tried resolving this with the editor on his talk page, but as they have "simply nothing further to say on the topic" I'm bringing it to ANI so that this can be resolved. Jclemens has been notified. - SudoGhost 04:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing in WP:WIAPA that describes accusations of sock puppetry as a personal attack. Jus' sayin'... Doc talk

Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. - SudoGhost 04:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Since when when were unsupported allegations of dishonest behaviour not personal attacks? When they come from ArbCom members? Malleus Fatuorum 04:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Unless I missed something, he never directly accused anyone of being a sock. He only said previous puppeteers targeted these types of articles. Hot Stop 04:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Jclemens said so in a way that implied that SudoGhost was a sock, in my opinion. It wouldn't surprise me if there's a sockpuppet somewhere in that whole mess, because Jclemens is an experienced sock-blocker. But they need to be more careful in how they phrase it unless they file the SPI. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 04:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 4) Actually, there is, you just have to put a few pieces together. As SudoGhost put it, an accusation of sockpuppetry is an accusation about personal behavior. An accusation about personal behavior that lacks evidence is a personal attack. Ergo, an accusation of sockpuppetry, if it lacks evidence, is a personal attack. I'm not saying Jclemens is wrong, but to be blunt, they need to either put up or shut up on this one: either file the SPI, or retract the allegation. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 04:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

In the original comment linked "The level of WP:IDHT involved in the arguments for redirection is... peculiarly high, and reminds me of some banned sockpuppetteers, actually" Jclemens doesn't specify the sockpuppet. If SudoGhost hadn't gone overboard with his warning afterwards, nothing else would've happened. Hot Stop 04:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Per my above, Jclemens seems to me to imply that SudoGhost is the sock they're talking about. They backtrack on that, but they don't retract it. If it was misconstrued, a retraction may still be in order. Apologizing for saying something that was misconstrued is just as important to maintaining a civil, collegial atmosphere as refraining from intentional attacks. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 04:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• It looks to me like you're having trouble hearing Jclemens's explanation. this thread seems like a good enough example. It's not a personal attack to say that you appear to be deliberately missing the point. It's certainly not a good habit to make wanton accusations of sockpuppetry but that's not a personal attack either. If I say "Jclemens is an idiot," that's a personal attack. I've cast an aspersion against an individual directly. If I say instead "Jclemens is ignoring consensus" (or some variation), that's not even remotely a personal attack. That this discussion went round and round on the same exact topic 5-6 times before Jclemens asked you to leave is a sign that IDHT wasn't a baseless accusation, IMO. Protonk (talk) 04:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

See WP:NPA#WHATIS. Accusations such as this are personal attacks. What part of WP:IDHT am I doing? - SudoGhost 04:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

My bad. What specifically are you requesting as a result of this thread? A block for NPA? Doc talk 04:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not after a block, I don't think that's ever constructive if it can be helped, but what I see is a problem with someone making personal attacks when they don't see that as a problem, because that just suggests that this behavior will continue if he doesn't see it as an issue. I'd like some kind of acknowledgement that this was a personal attack and that it be retracted (and/or an SPI filed if they feel that's necessary). - SudoGhost 04:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a reasonable request. Doc talk 04:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Put up or take it back, essentially. I like it. Quite reasonable. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 04:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see an accusation there at all. Jclemens is saying that the arguments/consensus heralded by SudoGhost reminds them of those by socks who have been active in those articles. One can easily call that a hollow argument (just cause a sock said it doesn't mean it's baseless), and I hope that Jclemens would have better ammo, but it is not a personal accusation, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 05:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Throwing "reminds" into a sentence is like saying "with all due respect", it doesn't mean you can say whatever you want and it isn't an attack on another editor. Why would "when I see your comments, I'm reminded of a dishonest editor" not be a personal attack? That's also ignoring the fact that accusations of WP:IDHT (i.e. sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it) without evidence is also a personal attack. - SudoGhost 05:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Pointing out IDHT is not a "personal attack". People have to communicate around here, often in a less than utopian manner. Personal attacks can always be extrapolated from even borderline remarks concerning another editor's behavior, but it's not always a big deal. Doc talk 05:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• WP:IDHT is ignoring consensus and still commenting as if there is no consensus against the comments. Accusing me (repeatedly) of WP:IDHT is telling me that I am ignoring consensus with my comments. This is an accusation about personal behavior. I've asked for evidence multiple times; none has been provided. This is an accusation about personal behavior that lacks evidence. While the definition of what a personal attack is can be debatable, this in particular is not, it is never acceptable. This is per WP:NPA#WHATIS, this isn't something I came up with on my own. If that isn't a personal attack, then this Wikipedia policy needs to be corrected, because that's what it says. Citing WP:IDHT is one thing, but accusing someone of WP:IDHT and therefore accusing them of being disruptive (and therefore open to blocks or bans) because of their comments is a personal attack if they don't provide evidence of such. - SudoGhost 05:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• You came here 20 minutes after your "final warning" to Jclemens, a respected administrator. Do you feel that this was the best step in resolving your issue with that editor? Doc talk 05:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know where you're getting "20 minutes" and "final warning" from (I never said anything close to that). I came here after he declared that "As far as I'm concerned, there's simply nothing further to say on the topic" and "To be perfectly clear: I decline to apologize for my statement as a personal attack... because it wasn't." The top of this page says "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." I have done so, and the issue was not resolved. I don't see what the timeliness of the report has to do with it. The fact that he is "a respected administrator" has no bearing on his need to adhere to Wikipedia policy, if anything it means he is more compelled to do so. - SudoGhost 06:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• July 31, 2012 "I'll ask again so that I can say I tried." - Edit summary looks like a "last chance" for comment. I said "final warning", but it was a euphemism.
• July 31, 2012 . Thread started. That looks like 20 minutes to me, but I could be off. Doc talk 06:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not following your connection here, and that also wasn't any sort of "final warning"; he had already said he was done with the conversation. I'm sorry, but what does this have to do with anything? There was no "final warning", and these are personal attacks, I discussed them with the editor and attempted to resolve it. He ended the discussion. I followed the instructions at the top of this page. Are you suggesting that what I've said has no merit based on some perceived procedural error? What are you trying to get at here? - SudoGhost 06:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thread's going nowhere, at least not where you want it to. Call it... clue. Doc talk 06:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• I have no idea what you just tried to say or what "call it... clue" means, but changing to subject to whatever it is you were trying to say about procedural quibbles doesn't mean it's "going nowhere". - SudoGhost 06:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• See what Reyk said below. FYI: "Clue" is sort of like a general sense of how things will probably work out. Call it an educated "hunch". Doc talk 06:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh FFS. What a stupid thread. SudoGhost, you're getting overly worked up over a little thing, just let it go. Jclemens, WP:DISAGREESWITHJCLEMENS is not the same thing as WP:IDHT. Reyk _YO! 06:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Sudo: well????? This thread is dead. Can I close now? I need to rack up some admin work for my RFA. – Lionel ^(talk) 10:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you serious? Because comments like that are exactly what people will point to at an RFA to oppose. If you're not serious, what's the WP:POINT? What am I missing? Sædon^talk 10:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

One thing is sure, Jclemens seems to have resorted several times to careless accusations of sockpuppetry (users involved have never been found as sockpuppets) whenever he finds someone who disagrees with him (at AfD or anywhere else): [267], [268] and [269] (this last one was even more direct than what he said to SudoGhost: "You behave and argue very much like a couple of banned sockmasters, each of whose newest incarnation also strenuously denies being a sockpuppet". Some of you might argue that what Jclemens said to SudoGhost "is not a big thing", still, that's the 4th time (at least from what I've seen) he does that with 4 different users, and I'm afraid this might become a recurring argument of his if nothing is done, which could dramatically deteriorate the atmosphere of future editorial debates in which he takes part. I certainly don't see how Jclemens could be assuming good faith if, according to him, there is a sockpuppet behind every argument that doesn't fit his views (or indeed if WP:DISAGREESWITHJCLEMENS magically becomes WP:IDHT). If he really suspects sockpuppetry to be at work and if he has serious arguments to request checkusers, then he should do it, but this constant use of sockpuppetry suspicion whenever someone dares to disagree with him in a debate, never followed by checkusers, at least shows assumed bad faith, and at worse could be taken as intimidation attempts by new users. Whichever it is, it seems quite clear Jclemens has forgotten to remain civil, this is not an isolated incident and Jclemens had no reason to suspect SudoGhost, Snow, Avanu or me (and if WP:DISAGREESWITHJCLEMENS becomes ground for suspicion, there's potential for a lot of abuses). AN/I needs to adress that.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm more concerned about the whiplash. It seems WP:BOOMERANG is becoming the norm around here whether it is deserved or not. It's like the first editor who contradicts the OP gets a prize.--v/r - TP 12:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Considering one of the editors (Avunu) Jclemens accused of being a sock came back from a five year hiatus, I think that one's reasonable. And both Avunu and FdF have lengthy block logs. Hot Stop 13:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

There are three questions I pose: 1) Is SudoGhost's complaint completely 100% without merit, and 2) If it is without merit, has the response here been appropriate to diffusing the situation and solving the problem amicably? 3) In a way that doesn't leave SudoGhost feeling unsupported, alone, and frustrated?--v/r - TP 13:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

One problem with wikipedia is that well-established persons are immune to guidance until it progresses to where they jump the tracks badly. This looks like the borderline nasty behavior that is pervasive in Wikipedia. Tell JClemens that and that they should be setting a better example. And leave it at that. North8000 (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• The larger problem here is that Jclemens, while a decent Arbcom member, gets to be rather insufferable when he dons his WP:ARS Cap. The argument that "30+ years of sourcing in the industry" excuses a need to satisfy WP:N is really what is in "I didn't hear that" territory, as several others point out the notability guides. Tarc (talk) 13:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• I tend to agree with North8000 here. An editor shouldn't use the "sock" word unless they are ready and willing to back it up with an WP:SPI or similar action. While it might not always be a personal attack, it is always incivil when done flippantly. No editor should call another a sock without evidence or action, since "socking" itself is a blockable offense, and it is an aggressive tag to throw at someone. I don't see a need for any action or boomerang, personally, but all editors should refrain from using the term "sock" so casually, including Jclemens. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Societatea.academica.ro (collective account)

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

---

User:Societatea.academica.ro has the name of a society and/or website. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:UAA. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

That's correct. No Wikipedia usernames should be or intended to be in reference to a society/website. --Jayemd (talk) 12:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Diefromevileye

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

---

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

This guy left me a very creative talkpage message after I made a simple revert of a relatively minor edit of his at Holodomor. I'm more amused than anything else, but it's clear that he needs to cool down. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• It beggars belief that a good faith editor would make a comment like that. In light of the other editing history and talk page messages, I think a block on Diefromevileye (talk · contribs) is in order as a troll account. Monty₈₄₅ 04:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• I propose that Diefromevileye should be blocked (admin's discretion), and also awarded 8/10 in the Creativity in Insult category. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 05:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Well, it wasn't that creative. Bushranger issued an only warning for it, so let's wait for the next one. I am not yet willing to block indefinitely, and we don't do cool-down blocks, but YMMV. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oh, he's here to "build an encyclopedia" alright. Give 'em some more warnings, despite the edit history. I can't wait to see their next improvement here. Doc talk 05:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support block. Note that this editor was blocked for 3 days on 21 June for disruptive editing, edit-warring and personal attacks[270] and I just warned him for edit-warring at Holodomor.[271] TFD (talk) 06:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Block - Seems like a charming fellow... too bad we have to block them for a while. Shadowjams (talk) 10:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support block. How much longer is this going to continue? Viriditas (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Portal:Current events appears to have been vandalized

I went to Portal:Current events and it didn't display a regular MediaWiki page. Instead, I got an HTML page with a gray background and the following at the top of the page:

Earth Exploding Live sends friendly greetings to readers of the current events page. This message will be taken down within 24 hours if the link specified gets at least 2000 hits. Thank you.

What's going on? PhageRules1 (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I should note that the page source does not appear to have been changed. PhageRules1 (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Presumably a change to something transcluded there; a variation on template vandalism. bobrayner (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I just got a very similar message when trying to preview edit a page. Its related to this however Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Earth Exploding Live.Blethering Scot 16:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

See the Ham Cork Fest section below. bobrayner (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Ham Cork Fest

Resolved

 – blocked by Redrose64 for 24 hours and reblocked indefinitely by Fluffernutter

someone please block User:Ham Cork Fest immediately for spamming/breaking a series of some of the most transcluded templates. Frietjes (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

blocked for 24 hours, but (in my opinion) should be increased to indef. Frietjes (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure, if others agree: my immediate motivation was to stop him. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• It's blatant vandalism which breaks a large number of pages. I would recommend fully-protecting templates which are so widely transcluded, because creating a new account to circumvent a block is easy. The change to {{Infobox settlement/metric}} broke about 77000 articles, and the other templates have 40k or 50k transclusions; it looks like they worked their way through a list of most-transcluded templates looking for ones which weren't fully protected. bobrayner (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Same editor has operated as 108.25.128.105 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I'm not sure what to do here - block the IP, or what? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it definitely the same person? (I don't see the connection at first glance; no doubt you have a good reason to suspect it). An IP could probably do less harm, since highly-transcluded templates which aren't fully protected tend to be at least semiprotected. Nonetheless, if there's a good reason to believe that an IP could play similar tricks then a block would prevent damage. bobrayner (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, crap. You're right - the page was one which transcluded one of the templates vandalised by Ham Cork Fest, so when it popped up on my watchlist and I viewed the diff, all that I saw was the message from the template. Thus, the IP is the innocent party here. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not going to post a copy of any of the edits here (beans), but it looks like they were structured to bypass a control which is looking for injection of unwanted HTML, using a fairly obvious kind of obfuscation. Would it be possible to improve our editfilters so they can see through this kind of obfuscation? Presumably it would apply to edits in template-space. (I'm no editfilter guru but I assume such a filter would be computationally expensive, so it would have a poor cost:benefit ratio in article-space where edit rates are much higher and impact of any single HTML injection is much lower). bobrayner (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Curiouser and curiouser

Something interesting, that I've never seen before, has cropped up on my radar. When typing in Prior Park to the search box and following the link, I get a nearly blank screen with pretty small writing at the top, saying "Earth Exploding Live sends friendly greetings to readers of this article. This message will be taken down within 24 hours if the link specified gets at least 2000 hits. Thank you." The link on Earth Exploding Live is to User:Earth Exploding Live, an account that only made one edit, in May 2012, and raised concerns that it was a sockpuppet, and was immediately blocked as such. Looking at 'what links here' to that account name ([272]) pulls up a long list of articles, mostly of places and locations, which do not immediately appear to contain a link to that user page. Anyone have any idea what's going on? Benea (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Template vandalism; see the section above. In the case of Prior Park, it transcluded {{Designation/colour}}. bobrayner (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't figure out which template is broken, but the Knights of Columbus page is still showing this issue.Marauder40 (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

That one transcluded {{url}} which has now been fixed by Frietjes/Fluffernutter. bobrayner (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I guessed template vandalism somewhere, but it's not to do with {{Designation/colour}} or others edited by the user mentioned above. This is another issue. Benea (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that one got it. Benea (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Somebody is using different accounts to vandalize many templates with this. I fixed Prior Park and Knights of Columbus by purging so the affected template must have been fixed. Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Earth Exploding Live restricted to template space may be useful to track down unfixed templates. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

That fixed it, thanks. Never knew about the Purge feature before.Marauder40 (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This is also being discussed on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Sophisticated_template_vandalism.3B_need_admin_help Secretlondon (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

IP socking

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

---

• Justicejayant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Clarificationgiven (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.169.17.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A122.169.12.62 Sopher99 (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I had hoped this could be dealt with elsewhere quietly, but it seems that clue is a scarce resource around here these days, so AN/I it must be. Justicejayant was caught using IPs to edit-war back in early June, the culmination of a pattern of disruption leading to his indef-block by User:Bwilkins. The IPs are dynamic, on the 122... range, and traceable to the same region in India. This diff, presented at that 3RR report, firmly establishes a connection between the account and the IP range. Following the indef-block, JJ tried to slip in under the radar with a new account, Clarificationgiven. After continuing in much the same disruptive manner, an SPI was opened. The JJ and CG accounts were near-definitively linked, and the latter was summarily indef-blocked as a sock on 29 July by User:Keilana. In the spirit of WP:DENY, User:Sopher99 removed a number of comments to Talk:Libyan civil war made by CG. Lo and behold, 122... IPs swoop in to revert the removals 1 and begin editing the article itself 1. I revert on both fronts, and soon find myself gradually sucked into revert-warring with JJ's IPs: 1 2, etc. In an effort to head off the problem and finally get some sleep, I lodge a request at WP:RPP for at least the article to be semi-protected. JJ's IP (surprise, surprise) follows me there 1. At this point, I'm getting pretty cheesed off at this guy; in my irritable insomniac state, I revert the IP here as well 1, with predictable results 1. This continues as before. User:Armbrust takes note of the reverts, but apparently doesn't bother to look into them much, slapping myself 1 and the IP 1 with templated edit-warring notices. User:Callanecc restores the IP's comments at RPP that I had removed 1 2. The IP, playing innocent just like JJ, goes off to WP:DRN to file some bogus thread 1; seeing this, User:Deryck Chan declines the protection request 1.

Now, I am very much aware that in my attempt to WP:DENY recognition, I created a gargantuan conflagration. I still stand by WP:3RRNO #3 as my justification for edit-warring; should others deem that insufficient, I will accept the consequences (such is the price for nightowl editing). However, I'm not happy at all that this had to get to this point and have serious reservations about the clue level displayed at WP:RPP. Resolution would be desirable. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Just want to point out that another IP posted as ClarificationGiven on my talk page. I don't have time to deal with it right now, but if it's not resolved by the time I get home from work, I'll take a closer look. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 15:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I think this user is just over pressured and loosing the temper, as it can be seen in his recent edit history too, this user seems to be concentrating on populating false information and vandalism than contribution, and trying to dictate everyone over here, which is against the rules, i don't think any kind of socking is done by me here. 122.169.0.48 (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This 122. Ip keeps harassing these pages. Justicejayant was found to be these 122. Ips, and Clarificationgiven was found to be User:justicejayant. Sopher99 (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is the post Keilana is referring to and yes, this is him. The archived case may be read here. It is also block evasion as Clarificationgiven has not posted an unblock request but has just simply moved around it to cause disruption. Until he deals with his unblock request, we shouldn't deal with his IP postings. Recommend page protections and blocks for any IP that he is using.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Future Perfect at Sunrise

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

---

Further information: [[:../#Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan|../ § Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan]], and Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan

Is stalking my edits and has refused to stop.[273] He has now taken to removing a perfectly reasonable POV tag[274] which I has just added to the article for no reason other than to piss me off. He has never edited this article, nor discussed on the talk page were there is a discussion over the articles neutrality[275] I want an interaction ban with this guy, I have no need of another stalker. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• DS, the discussion should continue on the article talk page, not here. The tag should be placed to start discussion, but adding it during a discussion is pointy at the very least as is no more than rebelling about the current discussion. It is an act of defiance, that others do not agree with your perspective. As for stalking, if an editor is known to have problems in their edits or behavior, it is entirely acceptable for an administrator to monitor their edits for problems, with the goal being to head off problems before they become too large and to provide guidance. I suggest you drop the stick and keep working on the article talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• Given that discretionary sanctions have been applied by ArbCom via this motion, you will find that the editing of all seven named parties will be subject to scrutiny by admins and other editors at all times, given the history involved. Of course, if the previous issues continue to recur, this will mean that topic bans and/or blocks can be applied at any time to prevent disruption. Black Kite (talk) 12:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec)No, the reason he is stalking me is because we had a disagreement on the Massoud article, you know the one were he caused so much trouble over an image[276][277]. Then after that he began to stalk me. He has called for me to be banned form editing and is hardly a neutral party. I added the tag after the content which I had added after the RFC concluded was removed twice. I will not have this guy stalk me leaving snarky comments all the time. I want it stopped. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The user who filed this report is blanking my additions to Rape in India and edit warring while accusing me of sockery please advice me on what to do and can someone put his paranoia to rest 86.128.51.192 (talk) 13:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• DS, quit reverting here, it is bordering on edit warring. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• This IP is Nangparbat. I am fed up of having to revert him. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

He is convinced that I am sort of a bloody sock please do something! 86.128.51.192 (talk) 13:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I endorse your sock block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked both Darkness Shines and the IP for a good couple of days because of the edit warring on Rape in India. Feel free to either unblock, or make the blocks longer if one feels that is needed. Edit warring is certainly not going to solve the problem. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The above IP is Quacking with a megaphone that he is the banned User:Nangparbat who has been highy disruptive and has been using multiple IPs and accounts to harass and indulge in Disruptive editing. Admins Elockid and Elen of the roads had been playing whack a mole with his socks since long. Due to the above block on Darkness Shines, it seems that after numerous efforts finally this time Nangparbat has succeeded in getting DS blocked. This is clearly an inappropriate blocks as reverting socks is exempted from WP:3RR . . --DBigXray 13:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

<comment removed>That IP is clearly Nangparbat; DS should be unblocked. (part of my comment removed, as it might ironically be considered a form of stalking Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 13:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)) Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 13:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I will have to admit that DS does know that sock well. Reverting an unproven sock is always with risk, and the blocking admin might take a look at that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Beestra is ok with an unblock, so I have done so. Reverting not just a sock, but the sock of a banned editor, should not be liable to any sanctions. Black Kite (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)On a side note, DS self imposed a 1RR for a month at this discussion to avoid a block which he violated here: [278] (new) [279] (1st rv) [280] (tag) [281] (2nd rv; slightly different tag to game 1RR). His edits were reverted by FP so I don't have much problem, but bringing the EW into notice since I am active on the article. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

...active on the article and also active in aggressive Block shopping against users whom you share content dispute with. adding the last part for clarity--DBigXray 14:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

TG I have not broken 1RR at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• I have asked Regents Park who is an entirely neutral admin to monitor my edits, as such FPaS will not longer need to stalk me. Please let him know it is not on. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• The diffs above clearly shows Admin Future Perfect at Sunrise having disputes with Darkness Shines. Through his comments at Arbcom notice and other places Fut perf has displayed having strong feelings against DS. As such he is clearly WP:INVOLVED and should refrain form take any action in this area from his admin capacity so as not to appear biased. From Futperf's talk page we know that there will not be any good faith assumption towards DS. So any furthur hounding by an admin having bad faith will only lead to more WP:DRAMA and reports with cherry picked diffs. Regentspark has already accepted that he will be looking into his edits and he is a neutral admin in this as far as I have seen. --DBigXray 09:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't take kindly to false allegations of admin misconduct. If you want to imply I'm misusing my admin status: put up or shut up. Cite diffs or retract. I have in fact never taken any administrative action against DS and don't plan to do so. (I have, on the other hand, taken administrative actions in his favour, several times.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Just let it go. Nobody Ent 00:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

There's been no credible evidence of any misconduct on FPAS's part. Recommend closing this thread. Nobody Ent 00:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Djsasso

The following discussion is closed. 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 at my wits end, with this harrassing editor, whom I had disagreements with in the past. PLEASE, is there any administrator or arbitrator, who'll ask Djsasso to LEAVE ME ALONE? GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• You will need to explain the situation, notify him, and provide diffs here. We can't read your mind. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's Djsasso's admittance of his retaliatory motive here. Indeed, he's was a knee-jerk reaction 'report'. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Nowhere in that link do I say anything of the sort. -DJSasso (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a problem in that diff either. Perhaps it needs more context or is just being read wrong? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

All I'm asking is for Djsasso to LEAVE ME ALONE. Many might accuse me of being a 'sore loser', but right now he's coming across to me, as a 'sore winner'. Please, would someone simply ask him to leave me alone, take me off his watchlist etc? It must be apparent to others, he's causing me Wiki-stress. GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• This is a retaliation because I posted an Arb Enforcement request against him. -DJSasso (talk)

Is this connected to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#GoodDay? bobrayner (talk) 19:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't really see much wrong with Djsasso's postings on GoodDay's page. What I do find objectionable though is the preceding sequence of taunting posts by another editor, HandsomeFella: [282], [283], [284]. Those really were decidedly unhelpful, and I'd fully understand if GoodDay had complained about them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm barred from making certain edits on Wikipedia, edits that were opposed by Djsasso & others. Yet that doesn't seem to be enough for Djsasso. How many more times is he going to twist the knife in me? I suppose he'll continue to torment me, until I'm indef-banned. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand, and we are all trying to understand the problem, that is all. As to the AE, that is outside anything we can do here, that needs to be addressed there. I don't see anything between you two that needs to be addressed here, however. As for Fut. Perf.'s observations, I would leave that in his capable hands. As for AE, John Carter is there, and from experience, I can say you can trust him to be a very reasonable person. Just work with him. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there a place, where I can make an interaction ban request? GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, here, but it can't be considered while the AE is ongoing. Even with a ban, AE would likely be exempt, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Djsasso's will likely succeed in his vendetta to get me blocked. When the block expires or is overturned (if it's handed down at all), I'll make my request. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I can't make all the problems go away, but again, if I were at AE, it would be harder to find someone I trust more to be fair and reasonable than John Carter. I suggest having a cup of tea, let the frustration simmer down a bit, and just discuss the situation over there in a calm fashion. Trying to respond when you are upset will not be doing yourself any favors. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

That's true. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

GoodDay, if you want to be left alone, why don't you just leave the topic alone? The Arbcom asked you to disengage from the whole diacritics mess. Why then did you think it was a good idea to use your user space as a place of running commentary on ongoing diacritics debates? That's really beyond me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I haven't commented on diacritics at my userspace. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure the detail will get hashed out at AE, and they are beyond the scope of this discussion, but I think Fut.Perf. is saying that it might benefit you to go the extra mile to not only stay away from the topic, but to avoid commentary, endorsement or linking to anything that might be construed as relating to the topic ban for you. I know it is hard, and I don't know enough to have an opinion on the process of you getting the topic ban, but it does exist and we have to accept that. The community spoke, we have to respect that. Accordingly, your best option is to actively avoid it, and find new interests, and some other area of Wikipedia that can benefit from your efforts. There is an old expression that I remind myself of quite often: I would rather be happy than be right, and if a little extra effort on your part might remove all the hassles from others, common sense says you have to at least consider it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Chembox edits by Plasmic Physics - next chapter

We've been here just before about chembox-edits by Plasmic Physics (talk · contribs) - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive761#Chembox_edits_by_User:Plasmic_Physics. It is why I am jumping the gun and not discussing with the editor first, moreover, there are other discussions with this editor going on on WT:CHEM regarding the previous AN/I discussion and other ChemBox issues.

Today, I noticed this revert by Plasmic Physics. In a way, pretty lame edit both ways, it does not change the value, just changing both the number and the unit by a factor of 1000. Now, to my recollection, most places on the internet and in chemical literature record densities in g/mL or kg/L, which gives generally for liquids and solids a number generally between roughly 0.5 and 4 (with some exceptions). Reporting it in mg/mL or g/kg would result in numbers between 500 and 4000 (with exceptions). Anyways, that is not a big deal what the unit exactly is. It should be noted, that all units here are SI, it is a matter of calling it kilo-, milli- or whatever. But:

• as far as I can see, the density was originally in g/mL, and changed, by Plasmic Physics, to mg/mL here
• someone is changing it back to the (IMHO more common) g/mL here. The editor is accidentally adding a sig, which is removed by another editor)
• Plasmic Physics changes it back here
• Someone changes it again here
• Which gets reverted here
• Today, it is again changed back to g/mL here
• which results in the revert mentioned above (this).

Now, reverting this suggests that this is deemed 'vandalism', which is a stretch ..

This does not go alone ..

• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff

The other side involves all IP or 'new' users. I must say that I could consider also their changes futile, and this may involve one physical editor, but I do not see any attempt from Plasmic Physics to communicate with this user, or any explanation whether the changes are wanted. Admins at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry (including me) are probably all involved (see older WikiProject Chemicals discussions linked from the previous AN/I discussion), but I think that it is time that uninvolved admins take a look at this. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Another example of revert warring, hmm? I'll see what I can do. --Jayemd (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I this particular concern not a bit petty? I was told by the WT:CHEM project to use prefixes appropriate for the individual entry, that I should not seek to standardise the SI prefixes in chemboxes. So I chose an appropriate prefix according to the recomendation. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not revert because I believe it to be vandalism, but because it is a pointless edit and opposes the Projects view, if the intension is to standardise. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Could an admin just please impose the topic ban that was agreed upon before, but not actually imposed? Chris (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Per a request, I have alerted DGG about this discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Petty to be sure, but no reason to make these edits. This has gone on long enough. As I suggested previously, and as my suggestion was modified by Johnuniq and others, PlasmaPhysic is indefinitely banned from editing chemboxes and drugboxes. I encourage the editor to do work in the field that is more constructive and actually adds information. DGG ( talk ) 22:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

  It might be desirable to notify the user at their talk. Also, there should be consideration of whether it would be useful for the user to participate in related discussions, for example in the ongoing matters at WT:WikiProject Chemicals. Johnuniq (talk) 02:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

What a bore, now I have to go through the whole bureaucratic repeal process. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

In case you ask, yes, it will be worth while. There are grounds for repeal. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi everyone. As a practicing organic chemist, I sometimes use Wikipedia to quickly look up densities for compounds. We report densities for all compounds using g/mL or g/cm3 (check any of the listings at Sigma-Aldrich), so I found it very odd that densities were being reported in the non-standard (although technically correct) mg/mL. This may be a minor issue, but I do believe that having densities reported the way the chemistry community does it adds a lot of value to the Wikipedia page. Given the number of edits by 'new'/IP users, I don't think I'm alone in feeling this way. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.152.3.64 (talk) 03:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems that most Project members do not agree with you. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

User:AJGUY00

The above named user has been posting links to his YouTube page on both his userpage and user talk page, clearly a violation of WP:MYSPACE. After several reverts by myself and by User:Drmies (AJGUY00 later vandalized Drmies's user page), I bring this to your attention. This user is obviously only here to advertise and not edit. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

User has been notified. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Posting links to one's YouTube or other offsite page per se is not a WP:MYSPACE violation; however, in this specific case, he's posting a long list / table of individual videos' links, along with descriptions, and I believe it meets the excessive self-promotion threshold. He also removed the whole contents of Drmies' user page, not just a little vandalism. On first impression not here to contribute to the encyclopedia, and being moderately disruptive too. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I just followed what Drmies said it was in an edit summary, so if the WP:MYSPACE violation was incorrect, that is my goof for not checking on it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I should have been more clear, I think he's violating WP:MYSPACE, but not just by having "links to youtube"; plain links in an otherwise ok userpage would be OK (I see no specific offsite links restrictions that would ban it, if they're not overly social / promotional / etc). The violation appears to be that he's self promoting by building an article (without evident notability) in his userpage, which is another WP:MYSPACE violation. The self promotion is the problem, not the bare presence of links. I agree there's an actionable problem, I just want it clear as to what I see it being. You're fine. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I gotcha now. :) I would like to note that the user, without comment, has blanked my notification to this ANI thread. While he is, of course, allowed, he has done this with previous warnings as well. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Per this, we may be dealing with a minor, we may need to wear kid gloves (pardon the pun) on this one. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Return of HanzoHattori

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

---

Despite a recent unblock and an unresolved discussion about his unbanning at the administrators noticeboard, the banned user HanzoHattori (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), now editing under the sockpuppet Niemti (talk · contribs) has continued his disruptive activity by engaging in disruptive activity to prove a point at the WikiProject Square Enix talk page and has repeatedly engaged in tendentious editing by redirecting an article while discussion is taking place. Can someone please resolve this situation? Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's any sort of disruptive activity. But I think Sjones23 is clearly biased against me.

SPECIAL was nominated for deletion, two other users (besides the nominator and me) already agreed to redirect it, I just simply did it already. And the article had no references (for years), so anyone could do it any time. (And even Sjones23 himself agreed to redirect.[285]) How was this "disruptive", I don't know. I came upon the article while cleaning up the various Fallout series articles (cleaned up in the same batch: Fallout: Nuka Break and The Vault (wiki), and Exodus (role-playing game) simply tagged for a rewrite). --Niemti (talk) 02:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The following appear to be combative or disruptive or abusive behavior: [286] [287] [288] [289] in the Project Square Enix talk page discussion.

On first impression, you're back a day off a two-year block/ban, and at it immediately again? People are saying your other prior edits (before the socking was noticed) were constructive, but this is exactly how to get an uninvolved admin to indef you again immediately.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Niemti was blocked after a sockpuppet investigation, but resumed the same behavior after he was unblocked two days later at AN. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe that other users' input on the situation would be more useful now; you described the situation adequately already. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that was actually "combative or disruptive or abusive". I invite you to read the entire thread and see how strange it became (the other user seems to have some comprehension problems, and I myself can't really understand her too, but maybe you could) and why I invited everyone to close it already, especially since there were not really arguemnts against the colon anymore. I wish everyone was as little "combative or disruptive or abusive" when they're so repeatedly misunderstood/ignored like that, and even groundlessly accused of "shouting" (I wasn't no shouting) and "lying" (there were no lies from me whatsoever). That's just some serious double standards at work now.

For some reason, Sjones23 is clearly biased against me, and run here with the first ocasion he had (even reporting as "disruptive" the redirect that he himself agreed with, for having no better evidence of alleged "disruptive activity" despite having about 400 other recent edits to choose from).

Also it was actually (over) four years. Not two. Good night. --Niemti (talk) 03:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your defensive comments have already exhausted my patience. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Guess what, your offensive comments are exhuasting mine. You're very, very clearly biased against me. That's "funny", because I don't even remeber what could I have done to deserve such a treatment from you. --Niemti (talk) 03:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Please don't make any assumptions or insult me, as I have lost all patience. I never intend to hurt anyone. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Sjones, please don't escalate it here.

Niemti - The problem is not that there was a communications gap - you and the others there spent a little time talking past each other. That happens. The problem is that you did get combative, disruptive, abusive with the way you responded to them. You were banned several years ago because the community felt that you did not understand its standards for rudeness and abusiveness. You're back (have been for some time, but now acknowledged as such) and immediately get into an argument were you get rude and combative with several other users.

The disagreement on content and style was no big deal. One side was confused and disagreed with you. Your response seems, largely one-sidedly, to have become abusive very quickly.

You being unblocked does not mean that the prior indefinite block and ban for problems with abusing other users were not valid. Restarting that behavior will result in a new block. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert, if I ever did anything wrong, then I am very sorry. Now I am 100% disenganging with Niemti, as I don't want to escalate the situation any further. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it was abusive. I didn't make fun of her bad English or anything, I actually said to end it (the disussion), because I was just repeating the same argument - the argument that she even actually agrees with (it's complicated, but as I said, this discussion became just strange). And that's while her telling me to "stop lying" resulted in no reaction from Sjones23 whatsoever. Somehow, it did nothing with his "patience", how curious.

Sjones23 also accused me here of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing ("editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole") for this redirect that he then fully agreed with himself (and that everyone else there also agreed with). And that's just ridicalous. So I think he's harassing me. No, really, he does. --Niemti (talk) 03:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is WAYYYY more here than light. A telling sign is that Sjones23's initial report involves "links to WP policy and accusations" (which make it look like something bad is going on, rather than showing that something bad actually happened). I can play that game too - here's a typical hypothetical example: "Sjones23 has engaged in ongoing harassment. See here". There's no diffs there showing anything in support of those accusations.

In fact, looking at the talk page, this is the standard, well worn, much abused, often unfortunetly condoned, tactic of "act passive aggressive, try to bait the other person into getting frustrated and loosing their cool, then report them for petty ass weak shit, while playing up their irrelevant past transgressions". It's WP:GAME plain, simple and obnoxious.

Georgewilliamherbert does list some diffs which are supposed to be "disruptive or abusive". But I don't see it either. I guess the "disruptive or abusive" behavior in the first diff is supposed to be the usage of the insanely abusive expression... "Oh-my-god". Hmmm. Really? The second diff says, quote: I'm not shouting. I'm repeating myself, for at least fourth time already. Spoiler: written shouting involves exclamation marks, or at the very least bold text.. How is that "disruptive or abusive"? At this point it starts looking pretty clearly that Niemti is trying to engage a user who is playing at WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and, additionally, is trying to provoke him with passive aggressive nonsense. In the third diff, there is, once again, nothing "disruptive or abusive" - in fact Niemti is agreeing with the previous person, who's having trouble understanding that they're agreeing with Niemti. I'd be frustrated too. Honestly, it looks like folks are getting confused here over the use of double negatives. And the "disruptive and abusive" behavior in the fourth diff? Niemti saying, quote, Let's close this discussion. It's getting really silly.. Sorry, at this point I got to say something disruptive and abusive myself: are you fucking serious? Let's DO close this discussion as it's getting rather silly.

Nothing here, go home people, find something better to do.VolunteerMarek 03:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

On what basis to you see Lucia Black baiting or IDIDNTHEARTHAT ? You seem to be assuming bad faith on their part and not just poor communications. Their other contributions in thread seemed (to me) to be attempting to be constructive.

The full first diff, quoting:

Oh-my-god. It's like you never understand what I'm saying, all the time. So, which reliable source does NOT use a colon, huh? That is except of RT (who use a dash). Spoiler: NOBODY, ONLY WIKIPEDIA. --Niemti (talk) 01:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The totality is far worse than the "Oh-my-god". It's not "You're an idiot", but it's rude, and even uses the same ALLCAPS exclamations that in his next diff he admits would be shouting (but denies having done... and then does again in diffs 3 and 4).

This is not immediately actionable / blockable. But there's something wrong here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I didn't mean that Lucia Blackwas baiting or IDIDNTHEARTHAT, but that Sjones23 was, and Lucia Black just sort of got mixed up inside a confusing conversation. As to the rest, it's not rude, it's curt (and done out of frustration). There's a difference. Particularly in situations such as this.VolunteerMarek 03:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Marek, I was not intending to be disruptive in anyway, but if I was disruptive or incivil in anyway, then I apologize for what I did. I did not intend to break Wikipedia protocol in doing so. I was only trying to help reach a consensus on the issue presented at the talk page and I only got involved. I was seriously concerned about Niemti being HanzoHattori, particularly in his behavior as well. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I don't know that Sjones23 was baiting or IDIDNTHEARTHAT either, but clearly was more involvedly (and experiencedly) mutually combative in a manner that I'd rather leave alone for now. They've both gotten frustrated and angry with each other and I don't think it's useful to do more than ask them to separate for a while...

Re Niemti/Lucia Black comments, two things. One, my read of the sequence is beyond "curt" into "abusive". Any one post maybe, but the sequence was not good. And two, as far as I can tell, Lucia didn't provoke or engage to draw fire onto herself. She appeared to be asking legit questions. Even if A and B are getting in a mutually combative argument, if a bystander C is there and starts getting yelled at for no good reason, that's not OK. Our tolerance zone for abusive behavior when people go at each other ends at uninvolved parties in the mutual abuse; expanding it out to anyone else around isn't ok.

Again, not immediately actionable or blockable. But there's something wrong here. It's not OK for Niemti (or anyone else) to get into fights that then lead to taking shots at bystanders. Given what got him in trouble in 2008 this is not a good sign. If we wave our "nothing to see here" flag it's not defusing the situation in a manner likely to avoid future conflict, abuse, and admin interventions. I would rather that we send a clear message that this isn't OK - without blockenating him immediately just for this - so that we don't have to act more strongly later. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I also support the use of sending Niemti a stern warning about civility and no personal attacks, as being incivil and attacking someone can lead to accounts being block. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

That's some really good "100% disenganging" from you. --Niemti (talk) 04:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to explain it: LB wasn't quite a bystander or a new arrival to the thread (which started on a private talk page, and I'm repeating the same set of arguments, that I think are definitive, even since before it was carried over to a public forum by my original debater). She was just being like clueless and strange all the time: debating me, but agreeing me, but not really, then I suddenly "use original research", then I should "stop lying", all in increasingly incomprehensible English. Just read the thread, draw your own conclusions, because I don't know. As I also said there, I didn't even know what was going on anymore and why was it still going on at all, that's why I proposed to end it now. Also I hope this discussion here would also end already, because it has now spilled here (it started on an user talk page, then got moved to a WikiProject, now it's still being discussed here - I don't know where it might end next but I hope it won't cause WWIII). --Niemti (talk) 04:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit: But, if he's really disenganging with me now, than alright. --Niemti (talk) 03:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• There is really nothing actionable here at all. A discussion got a little bit terse. Is that all? I'm not seeing any personal attacks or anything like that, so there's really no point to this discussion. Go through the proper lower level dispute resolution choices before coming here, if you have to. But, right now, this section isn't doing anything. Can some admin please close this? Silverseren^C 04:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Heads up

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

---

In just over 10 minutes, in the last half hour, at least 25 new accounts were created. Looks like trouble brewing there, and already one has been blocked. I would keep my eye on them but have to dash out. Here's a rundown, but I probably didn't get them all. Moriori (talk) 06:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• (diff | hist) . . N User talk:Online-education‎; 19:06 . . (+1,159)‎ . . ‎Gogo Dodo (talk | contribs | block)‎ (Blocked)
• (Block log); 19:06 . . Gogo Dodo (talk | contribs | block) blocked Online-education (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎(Spam / advertising-only account)
• (Deletion log); 19:06 . . Gogo Dodo (talk | contribs | block) deleted page User:Online-education ‎(G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
• (User creation log); 18:56 . . Adogan1976 (talk · contribs) (talk | contribs | block) created a user account ‎
• (User creation log); 18:56 . . JBMMA (talk · contribs) (talk | contribs | block) created a user account ‎
• (User creation log); 18:55 . . Biswadeep Kundu (talk · contribs) (talk | contribs | block) created a user account ‎
• (User creation log); 18:55 . . Dakidsavior (talk · contribs) (talk | contribs | block) created a user account ‎
• (User creation log); 18:55 . . Tarek T. (talk · contribs) (talk | contribs | block) created a user account ‎
• (User creation log); 18:55 . . Online-education (talk · contribs) (talk | contribs | block) created a user account ‎
• (User creation log); 18:54 . . Zahniyah Latimore (talk · contribs) (talk | contribs | block) created a user account ‎
• (diff | hist) . . N! User talk:Jochair‎; 18:54 . . (+122)‎ . . ‎Jochair (talk | contribs | block)‎ (←Created page with 'Scientific American August 2012 says the black hole at the center of the Milky way is modestly large and not supermassive.')
• (User creation log); 18:54 . . Strider gato (talk · contribs) (talk | contribs | block) created a user account ‎
• (User creation log); 18:53 . . Thespymachine (talk · contribs) (talk | contribs | block) created a user account ‎
• (User creation log); 18:53 . . Joshua.aaron.goh (talk · contribs) (talk | contribs | block) created a user account ‎
• (User creation log); 18:53 . . Proctorma (talk · contribs) (talk | contribs | block) created a user account ‎
• (User creation log); 18:52 . . Zackjords (talk · contribs) (talk | contribs | block) created a user account ‎
• (User creation log); 18:52 . . Deepan91 (talk · contribs) (talk | contribs | block) created a user account ‎
• (User creation log); 18:52 . . Rajeshecegce (talk · contribs) (talk | contribs | block) created a user account ‎
• (User creation log); 18:50 . . Punboyy (talk · contribs) (talk | contribs | block) created a user account ‎
• (User creation log); 18:50 . . VirgilAnt (talk · contribs) (talk | contribs | block) created a user account ‎
• (User creation log); 18:48 . . Pradipjpatle (talk · contribs) (talk | contribs | block) created a user account ‎
• (User creation log); 18:47 . . Shivamshaiv (talk · contribs) (talk | contribs | block) created a user account ‎
• (User creation log); 18:47 . . Jochair (talk · contribs) (talk | contribs | block) created a user account ‎
• (User creation log); 18:47 . . Mazlina82 (talk · contribs) (talk | contribs | block) created a user account ‎
• (User creation log); 18:46 . . Staciechaiken (talk · contribs) (talk | contribs | block) created a user account ‎
• (User creation log); 18:46 . . Challengervikram88 (talk · contribs) (talk | contribs | block) created a user account ‎

• Not sure what the pressing issue is unless the account are actually doing something. Regards, — Moe ε 06:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that a rather unremarkable creation rate? Wikipedia is about 6 million minutes old, and it has close to 20 million registered accounts. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I concur. The rate looks normal to me and the accounts fit no particular pattern. You should not read my block of Online-education (talk · contribs) being an indicator of trouble brewing. The account was blocked because they were spamming on their deleted user page. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

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

long term pattern of obstructions by In ictu oculi

The following discussion is closed. 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 ictu oculi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

An earlier ANI notice about this editor's behavior in May (see: [290]), went without any comment from an admin, and disappeared in the archives after @IIO laid low for a few days.

That was surprising, since several editors confirmed the problems, supported with multiple diffs, including:

• repeated personal comments and accusations of other editors, and typecasting them as "tennis-editors"
• repeated failure to AGF, and warned twice for it on his Talk page
• failure to engage in discussion and a general pattern of stonewalling in discussions related to diacritics, warned for stonewalling
• endless rehashing of the same arguments and questions, even after they have been addressed, thus filling up RfC or RM discussion, making them an endless read for the closing admins
• misrepresenting other editor's words, and repeatedly warned for it
• starting new sections in what is an ongoing discussion, and repeatedly warned for it
• moving warning templates given on his UserTalk into the discussion Talk of wp guidelines, thus obstructing the normal flow once again
• ...

Coming back from a wikibreak I can only notice that @IIO's "style" of participation is continuing in the same vein.

• After answering his questions, like I do here [291], he continues to rehash the same question over and over in his subsequent comments: [292] and [293] and again [294] and again [295] and again [296] and again [297]
• Meanwhile he has also taken the liberty to change one of my comments, in a way that misrepresents my words: [298]
• He repeatedly negates policy based questions asked to him, and if he does address them his comments are usually missing the point, here is and example: [299]
• He often tries to digress away from the questions on the table, usually by starting to talk about WP:TENNISNAMES, an essay he seems to have become obsessed with. E.g. [300]

I don't think this "style" of editing can be seen as congruent with engaging in concensus building. Rather his edits seem to be geared towards wearing down other editors by refusal to get the point, mixed with all kind of other obstructions and distractions. This cannot be accidental mistakes if they continue over such a long time, and always seem to be directed at a "chosen few" of editors. I hope some uninvolved admin can take a better look at this. If this is the wrong forum for this type of complaint, then let me know. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello all.

This relates to English-names-for-foreigners again, specifically WP:TENNISNAMES RfC Consensus is that the answer to the question posed in the title of this RfC is "no". Additionally, a great majority of participants express a preference for retaining diacritics in the title of articles, either generally or as applied to tennis players in particular. Sandstein 18:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Rather than an uninvolved admin, why not refer the matter to admin Sandstein who closed WP:TENNISNAMES and/or admin Joe Decker who has set up Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies - the new RfC that MakeSense64 is complaining about and knows the context? The new RfC was a response to a particular type of lede edit out of line with en.wp norms for bios on the François Mitterand (English Francois Mitterand) was the 21st President of the French Republic.." model - counter to the François Mitterand lede example in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies. I'm sure Joe would be a more neutral commentator than myself.

Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• It's unfortunate that MakeSense64 accuses somebody else of being hung up on User:MakeSense64/Tennis names. Have a look at the page history. bobrayner (talk) 12:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • We are not here to discuss content, but IIO's editing behavior. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Editors should come here with clean hands. AN/I threads naturally explore closely related areas; I've seen a few editors say something like "I started the thread about OtherEditor, so we must discuss OtherEditor, not me" but they still get hit by a boomerang. bobrayner (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
      • What do you mean? Is it now a crime on wp to write essays? Or is it not allowed to restore the contents of it after an editor named Bobrayner has removed most of them while I was on a wikibreak? Admins are more than welcome to look into my editing. MakeSense64 (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I have reopened this after some non-admin tried to close this. Why call it administrator's noticeboard and then let anybody close complaints? I have not seen anything addressed here. MakeSense64 (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Bad idea. Besides the fact that you're in WP:RFC/U territory, not ANI - and the fact that you've done exactly the same thing as you're accusing the other of doing (which often leads to issues for you instead), you're better to allow this to close before such negatives occur. Non-admins may close these if indeed no action will obviously come from them dangerouspanda 17:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that changing another editor's words qualifies as an "incident". And WP:DE, which describes IIO's editing style quite well, advises to go to ANI, when other ways have failed. Well, here I am. You talk about "the fact that you've done exactly the same thing as you're accusing the other of doing".. On what is that contention based, since no diffs have been given for any example, just insinuations by Bobrayner..

If IIO's editing is deemed OK, then can I also get a license to change other people's comments, repeat questions ad nauseam after they have been addressed, and so on?? That would be interesting to know.

Anyway, to see a well documented complaint being brushed under the carpet so easily for the second time, can only lead editors to the conclusion that wp has become an old boys club. This complaint has only been open for half a day, and already a non-admin is on the ball to close it without any explanation. That looks strange to put it mildly. To ask for admin closure on the admin's noticeboard is only reasonable. MakeSense64 (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that closure is premature; although you may wish it otherwise as people dig into this and see you're making a fuss over a content dispute. NACs, here and other places, need to be uncontroversial or otherwise reflect some obvious consensus, or be ministerial in nature. That said, I took a look at some of your specific complaints.

1) Changing someone else's talk page comments, even to correct spelling, is almost never acceptable (the only exception may be bad formatting that messes up the page or makes things difficult to read). So adding words to your comment is unacceptable. However nobody's getting blocked for a one-off example of that. And it's not as though he was actively trying to misrepresent your point with that edit either.

2) You're complaining about his style in answering questions... why do you think this is an ANI issue? I didn't dig very deep into your underlying debate, but these responses seem to respond to the conversation, and are aren't offensive in tone.

I have to agree with EatsShootsandLeaves. There's 0 here for ANI to do. Just because you're deadlocked on some content or policy debate is not license to run to ANI to have somebody else win an argument for you. This is the consensus process and it's not always smooth. That's part of how it goes. Shadowjams (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Move to close. In my opinion, this has become an obsessive vendetta by MakeSense64, and according to his talk page, it has been going on for over two months. I believe that the two editors should stay away from each other and refrain from commenting about each other or interacting together. MakeSense64 is pissed off, and his anger is clouding his judgment. Viriditas (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, well at least Shadowjams aknowledges it was premature to close this, so let me clarify a few things.

1)IIO adding words to my comments was not merely adding words, he was adding a vote (in bold) in front of my comment. I would think that posting a vote for somebody else is worse than just changing a few words in his comment. Secondly, he was definitely misrepresenting my point with the vote he added, because I didn't oppose adding examples. If you read the section in question, which is rather short Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Specific_proposal_1.1_1.2_1.3, then you can see that I was not against adding examples, I simply pointed out that adding examples would be premature and would logically depend on the outcome of the RfC. If that's not obvious then what is?

2)This is not a one-off example, and that's why I pointed to the broader context and to an earlier ANI in which we see an ongoing chain of "irregularities", for which IIO seems to take no responsibility. The earlier case was not filed by me, but by an admin and another admin came in to confirm that the case should be looked into. But that didn't happen. If the uninvolved admins at ANI are only able to look into clear-cut cases about a single incident, and not into more complex ones with incidents spread out over a longer period of time, then who is able to look into them and where?

WP:DE describes the problem of ongoing obstructions over a long period of time, but says very little about where to go with such cases. How many diffs of different "irregularities" does it take before admins can see a pattern of obstructions that have nothing to do with content?

When I report a long list of edits (with diffs) that are not about content, a list of irregularities/mistakes that mysteriously always seem to befall sections that I have started or comments that I have given, then it is put away as "part of how it goes". That's convenient. My merely reporting them here is seen as an obsessive vendetta, without any evidence. Has IIO produced even a single diff where I am changing his words, accusing him of edit-warring, cutting up his comments, misrepresenting his words, repeating questions after they have been addressed, and so on...? Before I am accused of doing just the same I would expect to see diffs.

I am not angry or clouded, I have long learned to expect no better on WP. If anything is galling then it is admin's apparent inability or unwillingness to look into this kind of cases, rather than IIO's "annoyances" themselves. It may be more simple to handle clear-cut 3RR cases and so. But it is the longer term and thus more difficult to detect "mild abuses" by "experienced" editors that are more damaging to wp, because that drives good faith editors away.

If IIO's series of edits is deemed OK, then it sends a clear signal to me and other editors that this type of editing is normal "part of how it goes" when you have a content or policy dispute. That will be good to know. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting the distinct impression that this dispute is a huge misunderstanding between the two of you. Is it too much to ask you to take a break from dispute mode and let things cool off for a bit? Maybe when you're calm, you can approach In ictu oculi and try to smooth things out. Viriditas (talk) 10:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

What is there to "misunderstand" about somebody worming a vote into my comment? What is there to misunderstand about an editor accusing me of edit-warring without bringing any evidence or diff for it? What is there to misunderstand about an editor who frequently resorts to making personal comments on Talk pages? What is there to misunderstand about an editor who continues to rehash questions that have been addressed?... do I need to continue?

Why do you try to brush this under the carpet as a "misunderstanding"? I have been avoiding him for months. I could have gone to vote or comment in all the RM he has started, but I have not bothered to do so. But whenever I made a comment somewhere, he is always right there to bury it under a truckload of (mostly irrelevant or just plain repetitive) text. Can't you see the difference? MakeSense64 (talk) 11:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, give us a diff to the most recent thing that happened. One thing only. Viriditas (talk) 11:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

If you ask for the most recent thing, then it is probably this one: [301] MakeSense64 (talk) 12:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

While he probably shouldn't have done that. If you are considering that something complain worthy then I really think you need to step back away from the issue. That is hardly something to go running to ANI for. If his helpful addition changed the meaning of what you were trying to get across, just revert him and move on. This kind of obsession and battleground has gotten a number of people in trouble in the past. Don't make the boomerang turn around and hit you as well because based on comments I have seen from you in the past, you certainly aren't innocent in this situation. -DJSasso (talk) 23:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

If you can bring no diffs, then there is nothing to answer to for me. As for his edit you don't consider complain worthy, you may have a 2nd look:

1) IIO is an editor with enough experience in RM and RfC, so he knows very well that it is common for people to give comments without adding a formal vote, and he also knows it is not normal to add votes into other editor's comments. This is not a case of a new editor making a mistake.

2) He didn't leave any hint in the edit summary of what he had done, and the edit was done well up on the page with already a lot of ongoing discussion below it, as you can see. That makes it quite a bit more tricky and difficult to detect.

3) He added a vote in my comment, but not in the comments of other editors who had responded to his proposal. Nobody else has voted on the proposal so far.

4) Given his earlier history of making "weird" edits, which always seem to befall my comments or sections I have started, it is hard to make the case that this was accidental again. It can only be deliberate.

I see other cases on this ANI, which involve a single incident and I see them being looked into. Here there is 10x more to look into, and a few people are doing all kind of mental gymnastics to put it away as not complaint worthy. And these just happen to be the same editors who have been fighting tooth and nail against an essay I wrote, Bobrayner and DJsasso. Not what I would call uninvolved voices. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm uninvolved, I've never interacted with you before this thread, and since there is consensus that nothing is actionable, I recommend closing this thread. I asked you on your talk page what kind of outcome you were looking for, but you refused to answer. Viriditas (talk) 06:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not saying that you were involved, but I sure would hope your idea of "concensus" is not based on the opinion of two involved voices, but on our written policies. That you have been eager to close this was clear from the very beginning. You asked me to give the most recent diff, and I did so. No comments again? Is it not your job to determine whether it infringes our behavioral policies or not, and if it does then look into the question whether it was an accident or a deliberate act (based on circumstantial evidence). Nothing suggests to me that you are actually doing so. Then what are we here for? Based on what you posted on my User Talk, it looks like you spent more time reading my User page, than you have spent on reading the diffs brought in this complaint. You asked me whether the community should do a better job of educating editors, but you do not seem to be communicating here. I never got an answer to the question why a non-admin is doing closures on the admin's noticeboard, and now it looks like you want to do the closing again (as if you are the only person around). Since at least one other editor agreed that your closure was premature, and since you seem to have been rather biased from the very beginning, don't you think it would be a better idea to step aside and let somebody else close this? Otherwise it starts looking as if WP is a place guided by favoritism rather than clear policies. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Those are very good points. I would agree with most of what MakeSense64 is saying here and thought of bringing an ani against In ictu oculi in the past for the same things... I simply felt (and still feel) it wouldn't be worth the time and effort on my part. I also assume that what I say here would be trivial since I usually agree and backed MakeSens64's edits in the recent past and it would appear as biased. Just as Bobrayner and DJsasso posts here would/should appear just as biased in the other direction. Certainly MakeSence64 and In ictu oculi should be posting here and giving their points, and "uninvolved" third parties should investigate and give views and advise. But Bobrayner and DJsasso's views (and myself) would appear too skewed to be helpful. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful. Then file an WP:RFC/U as others have recommended. Since there's nothing for any admin to do here, I recommend closure. Viriditas (talk) 08:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

But why is a non-admin deciding that there is nothing to do for an admin here? Why do you go on avoiding that fair question? If you didn't have a different username, I would think you are IIO trying to stonewall by not addressing questions. You have not even aknowledged the diff I repeated on your request. Has this now become the normal modus operandi on WP? If so then we have plenty of guideline pages to rewrite.

How is this something for WP:RFC/U, which is described as an "early" step? Fyunck is completely right that this will mainly bring in "supporters" on both sides of the diacritics debate, so it would be questionable anyway. IIO's editing behavior has been brought to ANI before, so RFC/U would be like going back to square one. I simply go on wondering why you think that admins should not look into a series of incidents, with as its last case a clearly disruptive edit, probably deliberate. And you seem to have no comments or answers whatsoever, just want to close this. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Two admins and two editors have looked at your report and have found nothing actionable or requiring admin attention. You've been pointed to RFC/U. Is there anything else you need help with? Viriditas (talk) 10:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Who are the two uninvolved admins who have looked into it? Other than that a few answers to simple questions would have been welcome. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't you think maybe the fact that no admins have chosen to step in and do something in the 48+ hours its been on here is maybe a bit of a sign that the admins don't think there is anything worth actioning here at ANI? The solution is really for you both to just drop the stick and walk away from each other. If am I biased because I think you both are making too big a deal of this then so be it. But I really do think that is the best action here. -DJSasso (talk) 12:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Independent review required potential suspicious editing

Can an administrator who is uninvolved please review the following article and report if they think there is anything suspicious.

• Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance#Cla68 (talk) Ownership and unfounded clims
• Talk:Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics#Revert warring
• Talk:Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics#Revert-warring note

I am very suspicious that User:Cla68 has been so sweepingly defended by User:Dreadstar. The implication of the interpretation of the defending of Cla68 by Dreadstar is that if one user adds information which is not deemed warranted on multiple occasions in a short period and then takes issue with that information being removed they are justified in reporting this a revert warring even if the information is simply being removed as part of the usual WP:CYCLE. Sport and politics (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• As best I can tell, all that happened here is that Dreadstar reviewed an open thread on the WQA board concerning Cla68's editing, disagreed with the complaint, and explained why. Unless I am missing something, I don't see what exactly is "suspicious" about this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The nature of the reasoning given is such that it basically says everything Cla68 would want and the language used is similar to Cla68s and the interpretation of what revet warring is, is identical to that of Cla68. There has also been no reasoning given that Cla68 has complained only over their edits being modified or removed which shows that the Ownership being exhibited by Cla68 has been ignored which is again suspicious as a thorough and well thought through reading of the whole complaint would have addressed those concerns as well.Sport and politics (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
    • The solution to this is that the WQA thread is still open, and other editors can chime in if they agree or disagree with Dreadstar's comments or yours. But your comments above carried the insinuation that there is some sort of sockpuppetry or improper off-wiki coordination or game-playing going on, and I see no evidence for that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Well could a few users please review the open thread and make a comment and can a user review if the close of the Third linked discussion was proper by Dreadstar. Sport and politics (talk) 22:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• Sport and politics continues to remove well-sourced material from Olympics-related articles [302] since the Wikiquette discussion began. Could an admin please intervene? It's not just my attempts to build the article that are being affected. A number of editors are having their contributions deleted by this editor. Cla68 (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The serious point which is being missed here and what is being insinuated is that it is not right to edit a page over a short period of time to maintain the quality of the page. What is the point of having a page on a watch-list if only one or two edits to a page can be made in 24 hours. This is getting ridiculous if this is what is actually being pushed here. Modifying and removing content which is poorly written, not relevant and without noteworthiness cannot be considered revert warring or the whole foundation of editing Wikipeida to improve the quality of Wikipedia goes out the window. Simply modifying and editing content of wkipedia over a short period of time cannot be considered revert warring if the content being removed is being thoroughly discussed as is being done on this topic and the content being removed and modified is done so to maintain the quality of the article.Sport and politics (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• "Modifying and removing content which is poorly written, not relevant and without noteworthiness cannot be considered revert warring" - Is the content being removed vandalism or a BLP violation? If no, then if you remove something, it's restored, and then you remove it again, yes, you are indeed edit warring. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Is there a case of Sport and politics removing the same material twice? I have not found it. - Fartherred (talk) 02:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You are missing the founding principle of Wikipeidia is to be a well written encyclopaedia. The content is put up it is removed if it s not noteworthy, relevant or poorly written or pushes one POV to an undue extent. It is not all edits this happens to. It only happens to the edits which are either poorly written, give undue weight to a single POV, irrelevant or not noteworthy. The content is then discussed. It is not removed put back removed put back etc. as youseem to be making out. The insinuation that it is wrong to edit a page over a short period of time to maintain the quality of the article seems very very strange. Sport and politics (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I have a feeling a serious look at what Wikipedia is not is needed as this is getting wholly ignored and is fundamental to what makes Wikipedia Wikiepdia. Sport and politics (talk) 23:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

For Cla68 to make the original claims of revert warring they have wholly missed that all editors and editing should be regarded with good faith. Sport and politics (talk) 23:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• We don't give deference to the editor who quotes the most policies or insists with the greatest volume that they are correct. Edit warring is edit warring is edit warring. The extremely narrow range of exceptions to the edit warring policy exists to prevent editors from simply screaming and reverting past one another, and encourage them to actually talk about the issues. Behavioral issues aside, you are not going to find a free pass here to keep reverting. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I am absolutely flabbergasted by that. The implications of that means that Wikipedia articles cannot be edited by the same editor more than three times in 24 hours if that editor is removing content which is irrelevant, POV pushing, lacking in noteworthiness, written incomprehensibly or is even if the removal/modification is done so to maintain the quality of the article. There has to be some level of Common Sense employed here or genuine good faith editing to improve the quality of Wikipedia will be stifled as is being clearly demonstrated here. Sport and politics (talk) 23:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I think this very simple one line policy comes in here as this interpretation of the revert rule is damaging to Wikipedia for the above mentioned reasons. Sport and politics (talk) 23:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
    • You've been here for like 3 weeks and you declare yourself some kind of expert on all things wikipedia... and you're calling someone else suspicious? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Yup. This is ridiculous. Citing WP:IAR to justify edit warring if the person involved claims to be doing so "to maintain the quality of the article"? On that basis, we might as well scrap the rules against edit warring entirely. 'Common sense' says we don't suddenly ditch long-standing policy on the basis of what one new contributor says... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
      • All I have done is read up on what Wikipedia policies are and when something looked suspicious to me I simply said so. I guess I have learnt the the editing of Wikipedia is very very unusual. Sport and politics (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• When someone adds cited information to the Olympics controversy article that isn't obvious vandalism or a violation of the BLP policy and you disagree with it, instead of reverting it, start a discussion on the talk page and give the reasons why you don't think it belongs in the article, then allow some time for other editors to respond. If you will do this, then things should work a lot better with building that article. Cla68 (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to make it clear that all of the edits I have made have been done in good faith to maintain the quality of the article in question. What is being missed is the fact that I have edited in good faith and another user has claimed bad faith. The editing I have made has been accompanied by long and plentiful discussions on the topic. It is amazing to me that such a policy can exist which takes good faith edits and labels them as out of order, when all that is trying to be done is to maintain the quality of the article in question. You are going about Bold Revert Discuss as Bold Discuss Revert which is just silly. Sport and politics (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• "[T]he editing of Wikipedia is very very unusual" - quite possibly so - but the policies and guidelines we have are part of the reason Wikipedia works. It may not seem logical, or even rational sometimes, but we've succeeded in getting this far by discussing policy, trying it out, and amending it as necessary (by consensus) if there are problems, one of the guidelines is WP:AGF - and perhaps you should take from that the idea that having 'suspicions' about editors isn't necessarily helpful - or at least, telling people you do without a darned good reason, isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Written Wikipedia policies are incoherent, incomplete, and inconsistently enforced; so yes, you're absolutely correct Wikipedia editing is unusual (insane). You're much better off not worrying about all the WP:this and WP:that stuff and learning the pillars really well. Go slow, be nice and use article talk pages to build consensus rather than relying on what the policies say. Nobody Ent 00:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm trying to recall which indef'd user it was that refused to indent properly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't remember the name either, but there was at least one AN/I thread, so you could always search the archives for "indent." - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 01:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately, it seems to be picking up that "indent" template, so it would be a needle in a haystack. But if he's not on the up-and-up, we'll find out soon enough. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Perhaps it was one of these with that MO:
          • Anglo Pyramidologist
          • Danceking5
             — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
          • I don't think it was either of those that I was thinking of. Happened in the last 3 months, which excludes Pyramidologist, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't Danceking either. The one I'm thinking of was blocked for refusing to sign and doing that, IIRC. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 05:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    • You're probably remembering Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive754#Refusal to indent as intentional disruption. And look! We have asterisk keys on our keyboards. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 08:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
      • That's the one I was remembering, at least. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 11:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Two things... I've had extensive prior interactions with Anglo Pyramidologist (and his real-life brother) and AP has a pretty narrow field of interest, this doesn't seem like him. Secondly, a failure to indent properly is not at all unusual behavior, see WP:TE for example where it is listed as a common sign of a problematic editor. (Though I've also seen it to be a sign of an inexperienced editor too, I didn't indent well when I first contributed here.) -- Atama頭 23:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
          • Heh, yeah. My reaction was more or less "another one who messes up indenting? *sigh*" And I remember some adventures with indents of my own, although IIRC my main problem was figuring out the difference between *** and *::. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 00:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion to avoid violating the 3 revert limit rule is to save up all those bad edits that need to be removed and reverting them all in one edit 9 hours after your last edit. Who has the right idea about what an article should be and what constitutes a good edit? Discuss it, respectfully. Sometimes one does not get one's own way with an article, but it is best not to take article content disputes to ANI. - Fartherred (talk) 03:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

S&P, regardless of the fact you find WP:BRD "silly," it is how we try to do things around here. It doesn't matter how certain you are that the edits are bad and need removed; you need to discuss why you feel it is bad and see if others agree. If they do not, you may have to re-examine why you think the edit is bad. You may simply be wrong. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

James H. Fetzer, passive legal threat

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

---

The James H. Fetzer article has been at a slow simmer for quite some time, with the subject of the article editing under numerous IPs and participating on the talk page and various user talk pages from time to time. This diff does not appear to be the subject of the BLP, but does appear to be closely associated with the subject based on the signature used in some of their edits. That diff includes a somewhat passive legal threat, which combined with the editor's other edits should warrant a block from editing.

The larger issue of the slow simmer on the page could use a few additional eyes, and I am requesting that others take a look at the article in question - specifically the behaviour of the involved editors and anons. My edits to the article, article talk, and some associated editors talk pages are (of course) open to discussion. While it is my belief that I have edited only with an intent to move the project forward, I am open and interested in any guidance anyone has to offer.

Thank you for taking a look. --Tgeairn (talk) 06:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

While that's obviously a legal threat, are there grounds for WP:DOLT here? What prompted this user to make a threat? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 07:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, he's sorta wrong, in that most libel causes have the shortest of statute of limitations... for good reason, threats that really matter should be followed up on quickly, and should not hang like a sword above the head of the defendant. Anyway, it's kinda a legal threat but also not so much. I'd personally let it go unless they keep up with it. Is there something of actual substance behind this? If so let's find out, and address it. If not, then let's move on, unless the editor continues to be disruptive. Shadowjams (talk) 07:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I haven't figured that out yet... There appears to be a connection with the subject, who has at times been dissatisfied with the article, but I haven't seen the personal attacks from the subject in his various IP edits. --Tgeairn (talk) 07:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter whether he's legally right or wrong. Legal threats are not compatible with editing Wikipedia, end of story. Blocking won't help much given the IPs, but I'll warn the editor anyway. (IP has been blocked). ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Is there really any need for all those name and shame templates on the talkpage - Talk:James_H._Fetzer including one that looks like it might be the subjects email address? - Clearly the guy is upset - he is getting the wikipedia labeling treatment when he is so much more than a conspiracy theorist. - Youreallycan 15:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Getting a bit off the subject for this noticeboard (compared to the talk page itself) but you've got a good point. They are helpful in pointing out when the subject of an article is editing, but on a 24 inch monitor they take up half the vertical space on the talk page at 1920x1200. That's a bit excessive I think. I'll look into a collapsable way of showing them akin to what's on WP:RFPP. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Someone should try to archive all of the long historic discussion from the talkpage as well - and then you might as well do the guy a favor and block any account claiming to be him and remove what they post to the talkpage as he is never going to get satisfaction there. Youreallycan 15:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I put a collapsable template in there that starts auto-hidden. If you don't mind, please take a look to make sure nothings broken? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks much better - thanks SWAT - Youreallycan 15:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the email address username (which had no edits, even deleted, and thus is in no way a "contributor") as well as all the IP's, which just seemed excessive to me. LadyofShalott 15:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

IP has rescinded the threat and is now unblocked. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 16:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I am said user with the alleged "legal threat". Kindly consult any lawyer about the difference between a cease and desist notice, which typically implies future litigation, and an actual subpoena via complaint. An imminent threat of litigation can only result on the basis that there is a cause of action. Otherwise, it would be deemed frivolous. One can understand the policy here, but a cease and desist notice isn't threatening and, actually, the notice was that Wikipedia consult their attorneys regarding the issue to examine if they would like to step in and remedy the situation. Of course - a friendly tip - if you do receive a cease and desist notice in the mail, it generally is a step the adversary would take to AVOID court. You then have the option to remedy the situation. As stated, please consult any licensed attorney to confirm my input here. On the other hand, it should be noted that this person's page is now reflecting subtle, but damaging, inaccuracies that are not, in fact, true. The communication between the editors who inserted these misleading statements makes clear, to any reasonable prudent person, that the portrayal has been manipulated - by convenience of Wikipedia policy - to create a false image of James H. Fetzer. Again, this is not a "legal threat". As you do deal with actual legal threats, I just thought I'd offer a friendly briefing. Thank you for choosing to cooperate in order to increase the accuracy of this article. It is noted and recorded. Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 108.35.40.94 (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Your clarification is appreciated, however please keep in mind that we disallow not only legal threats, but perceived legal threats. As our policy states, "It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion." Often just bringing up the possibility of a lawsuit is enough to spook an editor and the whole point of our policy is to prevent people from intimidating each other with legal talk (whether intentionally or unintentionally). -- Atama頭 23:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Right. Swatjester, who blocked you (you=IP editor, not Atama) and is talking above, is an attorney. The legal specifics are not the issue - the issue is that the Wikipedia community has developed the rules, and one of the rules is that solving content disputes by using legal tactics - including threats of legal tactics (actual lawyer involved, formal letter, or even an oblique threat as this one was) - are not OK ways of dealing with the community and article content. It's considered abusive towards the community and the encyclopedia.

If you want to edit and fix the article yourself, or work with others to fix it, please do so. That must not involve threats (oblique or more direct) of legal action.

If legal action is required - actual libel or slander, and you can't get people to fix it including noticeboards, asking uninvolved editors, reporting it to the Wikimedia Foundation etc - then you or others obviously have the right to file legal action. But to protect the community your ability to edit during the legal action will be suspended (you will be blocked).

If you are throwing oblique legal threats around to try and encourage or coherce change - don't do that, because we treat it the same way.

This is not a judgement that there aren't any issues with the article. It's purely a response to the legal threat.

The BBC did in fact describe Fetzer as "one of the leading 9/11 conspiracy theorists" [303], so the specific description has a reliable source by our standards, but that does not mean that it necessarily is appropriate in the lede as it is now. That is an a normal BLP article content review question.

It sounds like discussion on the BLP Noticeboard WP:BLPN may be helpful here. I urge you (IP editor) to do that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Can I just say that you just gave the best clear, concise explanation of why NLT works the way it does that I've ever seen? I mean, I knew all of this, but you did very well there. Cookies coming your way. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Bluerim, again

Having the same issue with User:Bluerim as I previously had as archived here. This time it is at the God of War: Betrayal page. User:Altava left a C-Class assessment post on the articles talk page as seen here. I made edits to the page to try and accommodate the issues that Altava brought up for the Plot section and I stated it in my Edit Summary at 03:53, 1 August 2012. Bluerim edited the page at 04:57, 1 August 2012 stating "That's the format across all GOW articles." I then reverted this edit and told him to look at the Talk page for why I made the changes. Instead of discussing on the Talk page, Bluerim reverted my edit again stating "Then the logical thing to do is FIND more info and pad out the relevant sections." I did not revert this edit because I did not want to engage in another edit war with this user, so I have brought this issue to be addressed here. Here is the articles history. JDC808 (talk) 06:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Having worked with JDC808 to radically improve the related article Kratos (God of War) (JDC808 wants it to become FA), I can confirm Bluerim can be disruptive, and in my case it was his repeated reverts of my attempts to add relevant categories for some rather weird reasons (and no, there's no really category "bearded men", of course). It was really strange and I've never seen anyone doing it (removing legit categories that do apply) anywhere else. Now, in the same article, he's been doing some highly controversial (not even gramatically correct) edits while saying things like "What's to discuss?". I could agreed with him on at least one point, though (and actually did, at Talk:Kratos (God of War)#Comments where the things are being discussed now), but that's not an excuse to what he apparently does there and in other related articles continously, that is evidently resisting changes through assumed ownership, sometimes in a very illogical way (like with this categories thing). --Niemti (talk) 07:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, note everything that User:Altava said. There is scope for more material, which can be found and added. We had actually just agreed on a standard format and JDC808 takes the unilateral action of reverting. How about asking rather than just doing? If he can't find acceptable material within a week, then that article (being the mobile phone game), can have a reduced Plot section. As to this user in general, he is in fact the one who has displayed the real ownership, with constant reverts and ES responses such as "No, it's fine" or "No, it isn't". I've incorporated many of his suggestions, although he's got to get his head around the fact that rewording is usually necessary. I see running here and complaining again, however, to be counter-productive. I'll work being more civil but he needs to acknowledge these articles must be formal than fannish. So, I'll leave off Betrayal for a week and see what happens. Bluerim (talk) 12:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If you would have taken note of Altava's post, you would have saw why I merged the sections (the info was still there just merged into one section). Instead of telling me to "FIND more info", you should have discussed the points addressed by Altava. By the way, I tried and there is not more info beyond maybe one sentence. I'm not "running and complaining", this has been a constant issue with you. JDC808 (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

About Niemti

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive238#User:HanzoHattori, now editing as Niemti: discussion regarding un-banning

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Diannaa (talk • contribs) 14:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Jayemd

The following discussion is closed. 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 wondering if someone else can convince User:Jayemd that Wikipedia isn't a game. It started when Jayemd began to award himself barnstars (example diffs: 1234567) followed by inappropriately refactoring a warning into a congratulatory message. He was subsequently warned about self-awarding barnstars and also directed towards WP:NOTFORUM for more information about the project. Jayemd then refactored the signatures on his barnstars (1234) to appear as if they were left by other users—all retired users, it appears—and refactoring the warning about self-awarding barnstars into another congratulatory message. Afterwards, he refactored more warnings (12) and awarded more fake barnstars (123). He was warned about refactoring, again about self-awarded barnstars, and about treating the project like a game, after which Jayemd acknowledged the warnings. Other non-encyclopedia activities including putting a description of a wrestling points system on Talk:Main Page and User talk:Jimbo Wales and a "WikiFame" system again on Jimbo's user talk page. During this time, he began removing appropriate redlinks from numerous articles (1234567 are just a few examples, his list of contributions is filled with removals of redlinks), even though he was told repeatedly to stop (123). The last message was by myself, after which Jayemd just admitted on my talk page that he did it "just to reach 1,000 edits", which says to me that he's still treating Wikipedia like a game. Many of his contributions are positive, don't get me wrong, but I still feel that he has a lot to learn. Seeing numerous edits without references (123) led me to link to WP:V and WP:REF when I left him a message earlier, but I see that since then he's created a couple of new articles (Danny Miller (wrestler) and John Riker) without references of any kind. At this point, I feel a temporary block is justified, at least until he gets a handle on our guidelines and a better understanding of our fundamental goal (writing an encyclopedia). I'm assuming that he means well, but as it stands he's just making a lot of work for other editors without much much to show in terms of actually encyclopedic content. Wyatt Riot (talk) 05:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to remind Jayemd that competence is required. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 05:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

In that case, Jorgath, you should read the essay competence is required, which suggests that you should not do so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

According to Jayemd's userboxes, he's only 14. I was wondering whether, in the light of various issues, we could maybe point him in the direction of helping out with working on The Wikipedia Adventure. Strikes me that he could possibly both be helpful to that project, and benefit from the insights he might get from doing so. I'll ping Dcoetzee to look at this idea. Pesky (talk) 08:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Adding: I've dropped a link on Jayemd's talk page to the work-in-progress Newcomer's manual, on the off chanced that it might help him get a better handle on things here. Pesky (talk) 09:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I made an exception in this case because I felt that Jayemd displayed competence, just not consistently, and I believed that reminding them of the competence requirement might encourage them to edit from their competent style more often. I apologize if I offended them, or anyone, by doing so. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 11:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note re The Wikipedia Adventure, but I don't think it's quite ready to help out a newbie like this one right now - it needs more lessons on important basics. Dcoetzee 22:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I think he now "gets" the redlink policy. You shouldn't have been branding him a vandal - it is not helpful. Youngsters do tend to pratt about with barnstars and so on - it's not harmful, and he will grow out of it. On the other hand this recent string of edits seems excellent (a lot of wrestling articles are in a dire state, so that's good to see). I think he needs a good, friendly mentor more than a block. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I would offer, but Real Life issues are taking priority and I couldn't give him the time he needs / deserves. I have to say that in some respects I can understand the redlink thing – they drive me absolutely nuts! (OCD thing ... worse than crumbs in the bed. Actually, it's more like eating half a salad while watching a film, then turning over a lettuce leaf and finding half a dozen slugs. And then wondering ...). But maybe if the first thing he did was to hide any templates where they're showing, before he even looks at the rest of the page, then he'll have "Made them go away" for himself, without affecting anyone else. If I see a page with a stack of redlinks I tend to close it, pronto, and go away and find something to obsessive-compulsively blitz-clean. My hands, sometimes, lol! On the subject of mentoring, Worm might be up for it, perhaps? Pesky (talk) 10:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I think mentoring could be a net positive here, and I'd be happy to be the mentor, if:

• The community's expectations are made clear. "No more fake barnstars or editcountitis; just concentrate on improving content", for instance.
• The community sets a future date where Jayemd and I come back to AN/I, or to some other forum, and we can discuss whether or not mentoring has worked and whether any next steps are needed. 3 months?
• Jayemd agrees with the mentoring, and is happy to focus their editing on other areas, with some discussion with a grumpy old curmudgeon like me. Results haven't been great so far, but I think that with a little help they have a good chance of becoming a really productive editor and making some really positive changes.

Sound reasonable? bobrayner (talk) 11:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Do we need all that? Point 1 covers everything except the talk page inappropriateness: add that and call it a mentorship package (I assume that's this week's euphemism for an editing restriction) and everything should be hunky-dory. With any luck the user will simply grow out of it, though I note that it's certainly not bored teens who are the worst offenders when it comes to barnstaritis. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd certainly prefer it to be consensual; some editors might feel that mentoring is patronising, and in that case it's likely to be a waste of time. There's a good reason for a time limit too. Have no interest in gratuitous bureaucracy, though... happy to get on with mentorship if the esteemed ErrantX & Pesky think it's the best tool in the toolbox. If you just want to ban somebody from doing X, Y, and Z, that's not mentoring. bobrayner (talk) 13:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Today's edits have not been encouraging. Unreferenced BLPs, replies on long-archived talk pages, whatever this is, worrisome ANI responses. That's all from after this thread was started. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Is awarding oneself barnstars a transgression now? As long as the barnstars aren't worded in a way to deceive, e.g. claiming to be Jimbo, a bureaucrat, etc... then that part shouldn't be an issue here. Tarc (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • It's not a hanging offence; but combined with the other editing concerns, I think that Jayemd would benefit from some pointers at least. (There's room for disagreement about whether the suggestions should be delivered by polite discussion or by a 2x4). This is supposed to be a project to build an encyclopædia; all of us get distracted occasionally but we have to get back on track... bobrayner (talk) 14:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I've "fixed" three BLP-prods which appeared on his talk, and showed him (on his talk) how. I;ve also dropped some various hints and tips over there. I suspect he may learn quickly, once he gets going. He may not have caught up with his talk page since I edited it. Pesky (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Thank you all for everything done so far. This looks like a good start, so I'm content to step back and hope that mentoring works out. Wyatt Riot (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Oooh, can someone better than me step in? He's having new stubs deleted as A7's, but it's possible that these are being created as he's just been bitten for unwikilinking redlinks ... it would be a real bummer for him to be doubly-zapped, once for removing redlinks, and the next time for trying to turn them into bluelinks ... I don't know (or care, lol!) the first thing about footie, but someone must be able to do something with this? This kid's going to be in tears otherwise – he's in a no-win situation. Pesky (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd mostly agree with that. Some of the earlier editing was problematic but if somebody gets criticised for removing "appropriate redlinks" it's not entirely surprising that they then try turning redlinks into bluelinks. Now, I'm not about to say "Don't delete bad content just because an editor is inexperienced" but some of these articles do have genuine potential (I just added a source to Corte McGuffey, and took off the CSD tag; there's a few other sources out there) so let's not shout too loudly at Jayemd... bobrayner (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiFame

I could not figure out the purpose of this page: Wikipedia:WikiFame. Looks like an attack page. --15:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not. It's a new...enthusiastic...editor.--v/r - TP 15:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

See the section above.--v/r - TP 15:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Mentoring

Jayemd seems happy with the mentoring option. I'm sure Pesky will be around, too. Any other comments/complaints/concerns, or can we close this thread? bobrayner (talk) 09:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Explain this? Franamax (talk) 11:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Cluebat required Blackmane (talk) 12:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
• My only concern right now is that, even after repeated lessons on citing sources, all content currently being added is still entirely unreferenced. I know that this is what mentoring is meant to fix, I'm just worried that the warnings and friendly notes haven't gotten through. I hope that mentoring works out, though, and I think that closing this thread is probably the best step at this point. Any mentors or concerned editors can start a new thread if necessary. Wyatt Riot (talk) 15:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

  This is a common misperception. Including citations is not required for all content, only for content that is likely to be challenged. Sure more citations are generally better, within reason, but Wikipedia is not a learned paper, though some like to believe it is, nor is Wikipedia designed (at least it shouldn't be) to impress academia. The purpose being to collectively provide knowledge, it is quite OK for one person to add the knowledge and another, later, to provide citations. Rich Farmbrough, 00:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC).
  

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

Comments by a sock

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

---

Is it indeed normal to hide or strike through any comment (no matter how intelligent, constructive, perceptive, witty or otherwise welcome) made by a block-evading puppet (as claimed by one notorious troublemaker in this MfD), and/or does this constitute censorship, the principled opposition to which justifies more than three reversions? -- Hoary (talk) 03:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Please re-dact "notorious troublemaker". Why did you ask here after you have already stated that it is "normal"? What you should be asking whether or not the input should be censored if it is valid, has a point, and is constructive.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying he is not allowed to call himself a notorious troublemaker??? Arcandam (talk) 04:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I see a new wall of fame entry being added. Fasttimes68 (talk) 04:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty common to do so, but not necessary. If someone else undoes it, then there's really no point in starting an edit war over it. Instead, just add a note in small text underneath that the user above is a banned sockpuppet. Easy as that. Don't start conflict for conflict's sake. Silverseren^C 04:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

 Comment:. I am not going to spend time reading through the policies on it. Let me know when consensus is reached. I the meantime I will not participate in the delete debate if it is reverted again.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It shouldn't be. If it's a contribution by a banned editor, or a documented sock (e.g. SPI determined), it should be removed, not struck through or hatted/collapsed. Strike throughs are reversions by the posting editor, and those hats / collapses just draw attention to a section of a page. Nobody Ent 09:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

That is an interesting point. My experience at RfA and AFD is that blocked socks are often just struck and indented, and I have often done the same. Of course, if they are particularly disruptive, then I would remove and possibly redact as a last resort. Banned users (or arguably, de facto banned users) are generally wiped clean via the ideas in WP:DENY. Perhaps there might be questions of an admin removing "dissenting opinions", so it is kept in plain site, usually with something along the lines of "Blocked sock. ~~~~" as a rationale, again, to keep it open and remove any conspiracy theories. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The IP isn't blocked and its talk page has no history. How do we know it is a sock?--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

One of the IP's is blocked actually. To determine if its a sock we do the WP:DUCK test. If the ducktest doesn't work we have to ask a CheckUser to take a look. Arcandam (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If the so-called duck test results in a false positive we could lose a potential editor. Given the shortage of editors and the number of articles with ugly tags atop them, that's not a good thing. A single editor being judge jury and reverter eliminates the normal checks and balances / consensus model of Wikipedia; a fledgeling editor is unlikely to put up much of a fuss and simply decide that Wikipedia is run by a bunch of assholes. Nobody Ent 18:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If we lose this "potential editor" that would be great! Look, we are trying to build an encyclopedia here. That person is WP:NOTHERE to help us achieve our goal. That person tried to violate WP:ILLEGIT (or WP:CLEANSTART, if we believe him) and that is simply not allowed. I didn't write these policies. And I am not the judge, jury and reverter, I am not an admin. An admin blocked that IP sock, I did not. An admin blocked that user, I did not. At least four admins have taken a look at that person contribs. Arcandam (talk) 18:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I wish User talk:Arcandam would just come out and say what his problem is with me. I feel I am being hounded everywhere I make an edit or try to contribute to the project. He keeps putting any discussion onto me, me, me. I have had a few issues where I felt I was right and others didn't. I was only blocked once because of a bad BLP image that the BLP was trying to replace with OTRS. I have been asked by admin to correct my actions a couple of more times and I have. This is yet another thread of many where User talk:Arcandam has done the same. Focused on me as an editor and not the thread itself. I am leaving town for a few days so I won't be near a computer that I know of. If I do go near one I doubt I will bother logging in to this bullshit while I am on vacatiion. --Canoe1967 (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you remember when we first met? I do! You asked for help on the helpdesk. I helped you. But then you started making WP:POINT edits and editwarring and povpushing and you refused to drop your stick... Now I don't feel like helping you anymore. Arcandam (talk) 20:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You only helped me the once and I feel you have been hindering me ever since. This has nothing to do with this thread as well as all the other ones you use to focus on me instead of telling me wtf your problem is. I doubt you ever will so I may ask for an interaction block when I get back. I wish you would stop playing games and just tell me what your problem is with me? You showed up at that dead dog article, reverted my edit, edit warred over with others, focused on me again, I left, you continued to edit war until now you have full protection on it. How does this help the project?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I explained you before that lying isn't helpful because we have a log of almost every single edit that was ever made. At one point you sort-of hinted you would move on and focus your attention elsewhere, so I ignored you for a while. Unfortunately you didn't drop your stick. The problem is that you were intentionally annoying (e.g. editing my comments after I told you not to) and you tried to defend a socking troll that has been indeffed and you made WP:POINT edits and you editwarred and you pushed a pov. Stop doing that. It is probably a good idea to drop your stick and avoid me when you get back from your holiday. Arcandam (talk) 20:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That there stick has two ends, and it's really hard for an editor to hold it up by themselves if the other guy drops his end. And you should rarely say lie about another editor, cause lie means a falsehood with intent to deceive, and we only know what an editor contributes, not there state of mind when they made the contribution. Nobody Ent 20:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The community was on the short end of the stick and he refused to drop it. He should be thanking me and Viriditas, we both saved him from being blocked. Arcandam (talk) 21:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Your interests would be best served if you dropped the stick yourself. Your comments are incivil, at a minimum. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I cannot drop something I don't have. Difflinks pls? Arcandam (talk) 21:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

[304] Nobody Ent 21:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is a difflink, but what I meant to say is: please post some difflinks that actually support that claim made by Dennis (the second sentence of his comment dated 21:17, 1 August 2012). I think its rather incivil to make such a claim without difflinks. Arcandam (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You only have to look up, near the word "lying". Your overall battle oriented tone here and at MfD, and the fact that you have already have acquired a block for warring, even though you've only been here a few months, isn't making me hopeful that you actually get it, so I doubt explaining it further will be fruitful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean the sentence: "I explained you before that lying isn't helpful because we have a log of almost every single edit that was ever made"? I did not claim he was lying, I just reminded him of the fact I explained him before that lying doesn't really work well here because we have a log of almost every single edit that was ever made. I think that claiming that my comments (plural) are incivil without any evidence whatsoever and not giving difflinks when asked for difflinks is much much more incivil than that sentence. I've been here for much much longer than a few months. That block was a mistake by that admin, check the history if you don't believe me. Arcandam (talk) 22:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC) p.s. Read this blocklog.

Arcandam, it's probably best to drop this and let things work themselves out. There's already other eyes on the problem, and that's the best thing you could hope for. Viriditas (talk) 01:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing I can drop. Look at my contribs. I am currently trying to figure out wtf happened to Timeline of Spanish history. I think the person who made this edit forgot the letters Chr. And for some reason the sentence: "{{Visigothic Kingdom persecuted jews" is included in the article. Canoe1967 continued debating here, and Dennis' and Nobody Ent's comments were rather contraproductive, even though that wasn't their intention. Arcandam (talk) 01:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Dropping stuff? 1 & 2 & 3. Arcandam (talk) 01:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The purpose an archivetop tag is not to ensure you get the Lastword^TM in. And please don't comment on my (or any other editor's) intentions. Nobody Ent 01:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

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