Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive744

User causing me stress

I need some administrative help. This user Strange Passerby (talk · contribs) is persistently following me around. It looks like he's harassing me and it's certainly causing me stress. Like most editors, I do make mistakes and I'm not a robot, but I'm human. Regardless of any minor mistake i've made, he's rubbing it in every chance to bother me around such as [1], where he is challenging my competency to edit Wikipedia and [2], where he/she challenged my nominations and enthusiasm at WP:ITN. Because of this, I did do the mistake of replying with uncivil comments such as [3], and [4], because I felt that he's simply pestering me and trying to challenge whatever I've done. I appreciate that he is a valuable contributor, but he's been leaving messages on other people's walls about my competency to edit. I've asked him to leave me alone, yet he's choosing not to listen. Can someone please warn him/her to stop stalking my contributions and leave me alone? Thanks, Ab hijay  ☎ 01:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Bit pointy from Abhijay if you ask me, considering he's under an interaction ban with one other editor. I have no further remarks to make, for I don't believe I've done anything wrong. I'd invite Floquenbeam (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) to mediate if necessary, as he's dealt with Abhijay before, but I see this as mere point-scoring by Abhijay and an attempt to evade scrutiny from others. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't assume things the way you think them to be Strange passerby. Similarly, there's no 'scrutiny' involved - All I ask is that you just leave me alone, and let me carry on with my own business on Wikipedia. I have got to wonder why someone such as yourself is so behind my back. It's stressing me out right now. As much as I appreciate your constructive help, Challenging the competency of others isn't such a great idea. I may have not edited wikipedia for some time after Creating my account in 2007, but as I would like to point out, one of the things we get trouble with is that there are too many policies on Wikipedia and some editors just get too overwhelmed upon knowing that there is a whole big tank of policies that the project operates under. In this case, it was right of you to note my initial follies on WP:ITN/C, but I feel it is wrong into starting a thread on the talk page of WP:ITN/C as talking about someone who makes minor errors (such as nominating things for WP:ITN/C which doesn't follow the guidelines) tends to stress out an editor and he/she may be obliged to drive away. I don't mean to start of again, but please mind your own business. I had the same sticking-your-nose-into-other-people's-business attitude once, but I realize that attitude is just wrong. I would like to start off working with you on WP:ITN/C candidates, but I feel that it is just plain wrong for another editor to find about the follies of another person, and use it against me without me even noticing. The End. Ab hijay  ☎ 11:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've had previous interaction with Abhijay, including blocking him (and his nemesis) in the past, and SP asked me to comment, for what that's worth.

  The boundary between harrassing a user and checking an editor's edits if they have been previously problematic can be a grey one, but I don't see it as out of line here. I've had to revert some of Abhijay's edits myself in the past, and when I have a few free minutes, I do ocasionally check his contributions to make sure nothing needs fixing (for example, placing indef-blocked notices on talk pages of users who aren't, in fact, indef blocked). I would certainly disagree I'm stalking or pestering or harrassing. There's a guideline or essay or something somewhere about this; it's not harrassment to watch the edits of an editor who has had problems in the past to make sure they don't recur.

  While I haven't checked all the interactions between SP and Abhijay, I don't see any diffs presented above of SP doing anything that could be called harrassment. If there's more to it than this, the diffs should be presented. For example, I'm a little puzzled about Abhijay's autoconfirmed status myself. I don't know anything about the ITN discussion, but editors are not immune from people asking if they're causing problems.

  You can't keep finding new people who have to leave you alone. I think if an editor has a relatively large number of problems, they cannot expect their contributions not to be checked. I'd ask Abhijay to consider his own conflict-to-productivity ratio, and consider that the problem is not that other people are keeping an eye on him. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, I guess I just blew my head off with this. I guess I misunderstood the situation. It turns out that SP was actually helping me do the right thing, not go against you. But still, I would like him to stop accusing me of being too incompetent to edit Wikipedia. Ab hijay  ☎ 13:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Clarifying Floquenbeam's question regarding autoconfirmed as I added the privilege. Have had no interaction with User:Abhijay in the past. Added the right when reviewing WP:PERM after seeing he had it before. Another user reviewed in the interim that it took me to do that (took me several hours as I was editing at work. I am a gastroenterologist and was editing between emergency procedures at the hospital) and did not approve. I didn't see that until after, added the right in the meantime. SP and Kingpin13 came to clarify, both rightfully so in my opinion given the above. I would not view this event as wikistalking. If a discussion is to be held regarding whether Abhijay should have this right, please feel free to do so. If another admin thinks otherwise, I am happy to have this decision reverted. -- Samir 17:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Backlog at AIV

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

---

Mrlittleirish 16:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, but 2 IPs and 3 users, that's not much of a backlog. Anyway, Daniel Case took care of most of it already. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 28 March 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.

Bruno Bouchet

Hi, it appears that Bruno Bouchet has been editing his own article. User:Brewhahaha uploaded a photo of himself at File:BrunoBouchet.JPG, also appears to be shamelessly self-promoting himself and 2DayFM's Kyle and Jackie O Show. Thoughts on the issue? - 114.76.227.0 (talk) 05:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

How can he have taken the photo himself and thus own the copyright? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

If he paid someone to take promotional shots of himself, they are his to do with as he likes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.143.205.198 (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I suppose he could have used a timer lol! More likely, its the common mistake that people think that snaps taken of them belong to them. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep, it seems unlikely he'd be attending an awards event with a tripod and using a timer, so I've PUFed it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The photographer may have assigned the rights to him. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

That wouldn't fit with "I Bruno Bouchet created this work entirely by myself", which is what it says. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Doh! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I have a photo of myself, taken by myself, in one of those photo-booth machines. Y'know, the ones where you can get driving licence and passport photos? Pesky (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It would have to have been a bloody big machine in this case :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Hehe! The mind boggles ... having said that, I could also quite easily Photoshop my pic to have a background of almost anywhere that I can snaffle a pic of ... ;P Pesky (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Now there's a thought. Maybe in the original he was standing outside the toilet holding a plunger.....Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• At the risk of igniting a wholly different debate... this wort of lawyering over images is really aggravating to me. I mean, you're assuming that someone else took the picture and didn't give him the right to reuse it (if he has a digital copy, I feel fairly confident that the "original" was given to him). Of course, that's open to challenge (and that's partially what OTRS is for), but this sort of... assumption of bad faith (to use Wikipedia parlance) bothers me. That and the hoops that everyone has to jump though to post any images on Wikipedia any longer.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

  No, it's clearly labeled "I Bruno Bouchet created this work entirely by myself", which is quite plainly incompatible with someone else having taken it and having given him the rights to it. And I'm simply saying that the copyright information is inadequate, which may well be an entirely innocent mistake through not understanding copyright - nowhere have I suggested anyone is deliberately doing anything wrong. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

  This is obviously not the best venue for an in depth discussion about this, but... my point is basically that we're guided (especially by that convoluted "wizard") to use the template that says "I <whoever> created this work entirely by myself", so to then accuse people of being deceitful after they do use it isn't very cool. Not that you're screaming at him that he's a liar or anything, but consider the situation from his perspective is my only point.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Did anyone say he was being deceitful? He could have made a mistake with the template quite easily. But it's pretty certain it's wrong, and only he knows what the answer is. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

User:WOLfan112

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

---

WOLfan112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I came across this user after noticing a valid article nominated for deletion, and found many more like it, including this, this, this, and this. He also incorrectly added CSD tags to articles such as here. I warned the user about these AfDs/taggings here, and he subsequently reported a good-faith contributor at AIV here. Fine, everyone's new at some point.

However, WOLfan112 then proceeded to misuse Twinkle for dozens of rollback edits, and requested the rollback right nine times (by his count) in a span of two weeks: March 13, March 20, March 21, March 25. Today, I received this warning to assume good faith regarding my initial warning from two weeks ago. His talk page is littered with warnings, and his unintelligible replies are evident throughout, including #Here tell me exactly what I need to do to get rollback and #Years of experience. I am requesting an indefinite block on this user who apparently cannot understand what several users are telling him. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

please....don't! I am very sorry and will stop now. 1 more Chance, please. 1 more chance. I want a last chance and a fresh start. --UserWOLfan112 Talk 22:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Last chance saloon - here are the rules

• You don't use Twinkle
• You don't ask for rollback
• You don't nominate articles for deletion
• You find yourself a WP:MENTOR
• You do something useful on the project
• You don't argue with anyone enforcing these rules

Keep that up for three months and you can leave the saloon as a normal editor. What do you say? Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment The above is entirely reasonable, but I would not be optimistic. Clearly the user needs mentoring, and has added the mentor wanted userbox to their userpage, but I doubt that the user is capable of accepting it. I left a couple of comments on his talkpage, and although one did get a reply it was not what I could call an engagement in dialogue. Generally their behaviour is disturbing and peculiar.TheLongTone (talk) 07:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah well, it's probably not a good sign that they have not responded here. Unfortunately, ignoring it will mostly get them blocked. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The user seems to know a lot more about how this place works than he initially lets on, so I suspect sock puppetry of some sort. WP:IDHT behaviour indicates griefing intentions rather than naivity, the intention being to mock the supposedly weak response to antagonistic editing / sock puppetry, this is especially apparent if you read the user's comments at village pump. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 13:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment Has it crossed your mind he genuinely isn't aware he's doing it wrong? I rarely edit (just typos from IP, normally), but I do read these pages when bored at work, and I've seen others do worse, openly admitted they were antagonising, and got away with it. But they had admin mates. The tone of WOL's critics comes across a bit bullying, IMHO. 62.255.248.225 (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

He's been warned he's doing it wrong for weeks. Weeks. And yet, Elen of the Roads proposed a modest set of restrictions that sound reasonable. If this is bullying, I'd hate to see what you think actual abusive behavior looks like. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I suggest this editor to look at WP:TPNO for guidelines on how to collaborate with other editors. For example, don't use exclamation points or other excessive emphasis, because it implies you're shouting or don't make legal threats (even using words like 'defamation' or 'libel') makes it seem like you're going to sue someone. From this editor's talk page, they want to be an administrator, if that's their eventual goal, they should read the advice for RfA candidates and learn from that. For example, "Maturity: There are no age restrictions for being an admin. The criteria are based on the users' common sense, good judgment, and good prose. 'Cool-talk' and 'teen-talk' may win fan club !votes, but may not go down so well with older editors.[4] Wikipedia has several very young successful admins; it also has a lot of older people who behave like children." I suggest this user keep that in mind when posting like "R" and "U" and "1". In addition, this user has requested the desire to have a fresh start, I don't think that will do any good for the community if this user's attitude stays the same. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 23:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia as of NOW!!!.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by WOLfan112 (talk • contribs) 05:52, March 28, 2012‎

Well, that was melodramatic. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - This is the cat that nominated Polyester for deletion. See ya!!! Carrite (talk) 17:39, 28 March 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 abuse right to rollback

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

---

[5] This person removed my edit without explanation and no good reason. My edit was perfectly legitimate, because Burger King Whoppers redirects not to the burger which is widely known under the name whopper, but to a foreign basketball team. I asked him politely to explain his reversal (less than one minute after his removal!), but instead he rudely ignored me for more than 15 minutes. I checked his edits, and I see several times his use of the fast undo rollback tool is not in line with the policy of rollback at Wikipedia:Rollback feature. I ask that his access to the function be removed because of abuse, incompetence, and rudeness not to answer the legitimate questions. 70.53.152.51 (talk) 12:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Certainly not vandalism, which is what the tool is meant for. Having had a look at the contributions I agree that the user needs to be (at the very least) strongly reminded not to misuse rollback. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I admit that the edit is legit and I mistakenly used the rollback tool on this case due to the high volume of vandalism on PBA-related articles. As you can see on my edit history, an anon vandal edited the Philippine Basketball Association article and added hoax teams on them (1), at the same time that the edit on the Barako Bull Energy article was made (2). In this case, I admit my mistake here but the anon IP that reported this case here should look on ALL of my edits and rollbacks first before being escalated here. And for the claim that I "rudely" didn't reply to his question is out of order. I cannot be online in Wikipedia for all of the time. -WayKurat (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The anon has made a mountain out of a mole hill here. Mistakes when using rollback happen all the time. The first thing to have done is to go to the rollbacker's talk page and discuss the rollback, which I acknowledge they did do. The next thing to do is to be patient in awaiting a reply. Running to ANI after 15min is patently ridiculous. WayKurat has admitted their mistake and should keep in mind to be careful of their use of rollback in future and this report closed. Blackmane (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Amen, with a trout slap going to the reporting anon IP, who plainly needs to be told that Wikipedia is not like texting your friends, and that it's quite common for editors not to hang around their keyboards 24-7, poised to respond to you the moment you want them to do so. Ravenswing 15:34, 28 March 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 to Block 8.225.198.150

The following discussion is closed. 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 never done a block request before, so I apologize if I'm using the wrong format or forum. In any case, I just rolled back User:8.225.198.150 vandalism edits on the Muammar Gaddafi page, and I noticed this IP address (which is from a school) has a laundry list of notices for vandalism dating back to November 2010. The address was temporarily blocked twice in 2011. Can we permanently block it? Probably just kids screwing around (get off my lawn!), but if they legitimately want to edit, force them to log in. Thoughts?JoelWhy (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

 Already done According to me IP is already blocked by User:Zzuuzz uptil a period of August 2012. Dipankan says.. ^{("Be bold and edit!")} 16:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Really? How can you tell? I see it says that the IP address has been repeatedly blocked, and that anonymous editing may be blocked. But, I don't see where it says it's blocked until August.JoelWhy (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/8.225.198.150 (the "User Contributions" link from the user talk page) tells you, and has a link to the block log. But to answer your original question, IP addresses don't get permanent blocks. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Ahhh, thanks!JoelWhy (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Joel, look here; you'll see the blocks increase in length. Zzuuzz blocked until August; that's pretty long. A next block might be a year, but you'll rarely see IPs blocked for longer than that, and you'll usually only see such lengths if the IPs are static and if they belong to schools. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Next time, also report vandalism here: WP:AIV. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 19:35, 28 March 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.

Pink slime

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

---

We've got a blatantly POV title for this article and a bunch of self-appointed activists blocking all attempts at compromising on a neutral name. Most of them cite WP:COMMONNAME though common name specifically prohibits POV names even if they are common names. Discussion fails because they've got a POV to push and they're having none of it. I'd be happy to take unilateral action on the basis that the title is a high-profile article (this subject is currently in the news) with a blatant POV violation, but since there's a whole group disrupting the process, it's going to end up here anyway. My recommendation would be to redirect this article to the relevant manufacturing process - which has been on Wikipedia a lot longer than this article - and make a note of the controversy invented by ABC News. Rklawton (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I see that this was brought here after a discussion has been going for 5 hours on AN/I and on the article talk page also. I ask that this be closed for being an obvious case of using multiple venues. I'm really surprised an excellent admin. like Rklawton would be doing this, no matter how outraged he is at the title. Myself, I'm troubled, though not quite as outraged, but the place where I thought best to join the discussion is the article talk p. DGG ( talk ) 23:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Definitely canvassing. SÆdon^talk 23:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I've explained here why the talk page isn't working - this requires admin attention - so I've posted here and WP:AN. This does not meet the definition of WP:CANVASSING. Closing this thread, however, was premature and highly inappropriate. Rklawton (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. See WP:FORUMSHOP. Let's leave this be now. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 23:45, 28 March 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.

Websense / Content-control software

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

---

Could an uninvolved administrator please take a look at this article? It's become a battleground for internet censorship activism, and any attempt to improve the article is being met with cries of foul play & reversion of other people's edits to a highly politicised POV. Contrary to the talk page, I'm not seeing any evidence of a greater COI conspiracy by Websense employees in the edit history.

I have been accused of hounding for suggesting improvements on the talk page, and of being a vandal (a first for me at WP) for trying to make pragmatic and neutral improvements the article itself. I have recently tried unsucessfully to engage with the person who is "protecting" the Websense article, but unfortunately do not see any positive outcome occuring without admin intervention, given her disruptive patterns of interaction and behaviour towards other editors. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Socrates2008 is WP:WIKIHOUNDING me, there was a previous discussion where he was also threatening me with "reporting to admin"[6](2012-03-24, 10:44) on Talk:Browser security and then when I avoided the arguing and gave up on trying to edit that article due to his combative nature apparently trying to WP:OWN articles, a couple of days later he suddenly arrives on Websense [7](2012-03-27, 11:18)[8][9][10] apparently trying to start a new argument with me on there instead...

Again, I don't want to get involved in an argument and was avoiding him, but he is following me onto other articles after the browser security discussion... I am not going to reply here any further due to the problems with drama but I thought I should at least report what actually happened

(Also I reported on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Websense, Inc. before that Websense has been subject to a sustained propaganda campaign by the company spanning years, I provided lots of evidence there even though some of it is too stale for checkuser to be any use, looking at the contributions of the ones in that list there makes it very, very, obvious, with the marketing manager openly coming out of the woodwork at one point...) --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 21:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

My interest at WP is in improving articles, not in following arbitrary people around, as my edit history clearly shows. The Websense article would be looking a whole lot better today (and be less politicised) if every editor trying to improve it was not labelled a vandal or meatpuppet, and their improvements constantly reverted. I'm going to decline to comment further and let the edits (and more importantly, the reversions) speak for themselves. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is a reversion on another article that may be of interest. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Just in relation to one of the points raised above, contrary to Mistress Selina Kyle's claims, no evidence has been presented to show any sort of concerted campaign by Websense in regard to that article. The SPI to which she consistently refers was a fishing expedition - the bulk of the IPs and user accounts haven't made any edits that would lead anyone to suspect improper editing or sockpuppetry, and the checkuser on the non-stale accounts came back as unlikely to be related. There are a very small number of exceptions, but nothing to suggest anything resembling a sustained propaganda campaign over many years. It's time to drop the stick. - Bilby (talk) 09:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I've given up trying to improve that article. It didn't stop MSK's venomous accusations of bad faith, being a shill, &c; but maybe that problem will go away if the community keeps on tolerating MSK and and keeps on taking their comments at face value, yes? bobrayner (talk) 14:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

This discussion can be closed now, as MSK has been blocked for 6 months for violating conditions of a previous unblock. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:28, 29 March 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

Could an administrator please review this edit, and this response, and advise as to what can be done here? It started as a personal attack and trolling, which I removed as inappropriate for an article talk page (or anywhere on Wikipedia, for that matter), but now the editor is tendentiously warring to keep his attacks on the article talk page as well. Help would be appreciated. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not harassing you. I do not know you. A user, User:The_Gnome suggested [11] you were doing article ownership and I responded that I agreed, which I do, and have since requested a discussion of the matter on the article's talk page as is appropriate per Wikipedia:OWN#Single-editor_ownership. That is not harassment by any stretch. Warmtoast (talk) 11:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Per the Wikipedia policy cited by you, "Always avoid accusations, attacks, and speculations concerning the motivation of any editor" -- you did just the opposite. Also per the policy cited by you, "it is important to make a good attempt to communicate with the editor" -- you have not done this, and have instead said, "So rather than discuss it I await mediation." Mediation doesn't come looking for you, Warmtoast, you must request it. I am removing your highly inappropriate post from the article talk page.

(Administrators can consider this matter closed, unless Warmtoast resumes his repeated posting of harassment on article talk pages.) Xenophrenic (talk) 06:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Update: He's still edit warring to keep his uncivil comments about editors on an article Talk page. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Wiki user:Fasttimes68 is vandalizing pages referencing celebrity model Stephanie Adams

This has been an ongoing issue with this user since 2006 and apparently Wikipedia removed her page per her representative's request and redirected it to the Playboy Centerfold list with her bio. Now this user has recently started trying to remove any information about her (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fasttimes68) and seems to be overly obsessed with her. Regardless, the vandalism, obstruction of information and pure silliness should stop here. MikeHasIssues (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Just looked at old notes from past edits he made and saw that he was told by Wikipedia editors to STOP making edits about her, due to his personal conflict of interest, even though he doesn't know her. MikeHasIssues (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you closely related to the subject in question? It appears that Fasttimes68 has made many edits on similar topics to this particular bio, indicating more an interest in that particular field rather than vandalism/obsession. I'm not sure though, but since your account has been registered today and you already know your way around here, I think perhaps you know more than you purport to know. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Since you've been here since 20 minutes ago, and not 2006, could you perhaps link this account to your prior accounts so that we can know what your history is in this matter? This doesn't make Fasttimes68 right or wrong, but when you display precocious knowledge of Wikipedia with a brand-spanking new account, it raises eyebrows. Wikipedia allows multiple accounts, but it doesn't generally allow one to mask one's identity in doing so.--Jayron32 17:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I've watched this one user as a non-user for 6 years and am not linked to any other name on here. Rambling Man also sounds familiar and there seems to be some sort of animosity towards this one particular Playboy model. MikeHasIssues (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I "sound familiar"? Perhaps. I've been here with a single account (apart from my travel account) since May 2005. How about you? You waited 6 years to make this complaint? Really? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You've been on here since May 2005, but seem to edit on here often. You probably see clearly that this matter is an ongoing issue with user Fasttimes68 religiously editing this subject with ill intent. The subject of the article has a web site listed here and her web site has a (somewhat hidden) contact page. I wonder if she looks at Wikipedia. By the way, I noticed he once had a blog that was blanked on a page that called this subject a "c`^t". Just look up the pages where he was editing/arguing with other Wikipedia editors. Definitely conflict of interest here. MikeHasIssues (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I edit often, mea culpa. So, are you prepared to admit that you are editing under a number of different accounts? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You sound like a lawyer, but then aqgain you'd probably be in court now. This is my only account. I edited a few times before creating an account, but this is my only one. Now, back to the issue. Your thoughts about this user? MikeHasIssues (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you certain that what you call vandalism is not more accurately described as "edits to a subject which you don't agree with"? Have you discussed it with the user in question? Or on the talk page? If so, what was the outcome? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

And can I suggest in the mean time that someone speedy closes/voids Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Fasttimes68 as an inappropriate overreaction/forum shop. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Going for the Grand Slam of forum shopping. ANI, LTA, AIV, and now AE. Favonian (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Gah... deleted the LTA page and reverted the AE request. One location (here) is enough, I think. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, you commented prior to reading this user's edit history on the subject matter since 2006. I might sign off here soon and go to visit the subject's web sites. MikeHasIssues (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTFISHING, I've opened an SPI on this. There has to be a master out there somewhere. Calabe1992 19:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

"MikeHasIssues", it would be easiest if you declared any kind of conflict of interest right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've watched this one user as a non-user for 6 years - sounds like WP:WIKISTALKING, doesn't it? And I smell a WP:BOOMERANG inbound. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• I have checked a sample of 40 edits by Fasttimes68, ranging from his/her first edit to his/her latest edit. The user's edits relating to Stephanie Adams are a small proportion of his/her total of 567 edits. On the other hand, it seems that 100% of edits by MikeHasIssues are about Stephanie Adams. So who is it who is "overly obsessed with her"? (Quoted from MikeHasIssues in his opening statment of this discussion.) Fasttimes68 has removed mentions of a subject which, by consensus in a community discussion, was decided to be non-notable. That is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. MikeHasIssues disagrees with the removal, and, instead of seeking to discuss the issue with Fasttimes68, has launched directly into a string of attempts to get Fasttimes68 prevented from doing so, including calling the edits he disagrees with "vandalism", and a substantial amount of forumshopping. There is a clear consensus in the above discussion that the problem here lies with MikeHasIssues. I will warn MikeHasIssues that further disruptive editing is likely to lead to a block. That seems to be all that needs to be done, unless the trouble continues, or unless the SPI produces a positive result. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Part two: the abusive editing

There are clearly two related, but separate, issues here. On the one hand we have a sockpuppeteer who appears to have some direct involvement with Stephanie Adams. That issue appears to be being dealt with at SPI. On the other hand, we have an editor (user:Fasttimes68) who has been on a multi-year campaign against Adams, on and off Wikipedia. It is discussed in more detail than anyone cares about here, and here and quite likely here. Several editors (including admins) warned the user to stay away from editing related to Adams, but they appear to have continued. Now that the sockpuppetry is out of the way, can we deal with the other issue, please? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I closed this discussion on the basis of a careful study of those questions which had been raised here. Delicious carbuncle is quite right to point out that there are other relevant issues, and other relevant discussions, so I am reverting my closure. It seems that MikeHasIssues may have legitimate concerns. If so, it is unfortunate that, instead of expressing those concerns in a constructive way, has been obstructive and combative, which led to attention focussing on his behaviour, rather than on the problems he was trying to call attention to. It looks to me as though there are, in fact, problems with both editors. Also, I realise that I used unsuitable wording above when I referred to removing mentions of a subject which, a community discussion had decided was non-notable was "a perfectly reasonable thing to do". The discussion had decided that the subject was not notable enough to have an entire article about it, not that it should not be mentioned at all. Removing mentions of someone of low notability is not entirely unreasonable, but "perfectly reasonable" was overstating the point, for which I apologise. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Suitcivil133

The following discussion is closed. 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:Suitcivil133 is becoming a problem, this user is a supposed fan of FC Barcelona and reverts anything that seems to shame that team. This user needs to lash out at other users to prove she is correct. She recently reverted 3 of the same pictures on 3 different articles because it was FC Barcelonas rivial, Real Madrids victory. MadridistaFG7 (talk) 07:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

As per the big orange box, you're required to notify any user you report here. I have done so on your behalf (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

First of all you are probably a former banned user because you are deleting the EXACT same correct information the former banned editors did (deleting sourced information even) and constantly trying to give a bad picture of FCB. You claim I cannot write any negative words about FCB which is far from the truth. It's less than 3 days ago that I deleted information that put RM in a bad light.

I am pretty convince that this MadridistaFG7 is either RealCowboys or Seaboy123 both banned from editing on Wikipedia. Could possibly be even the same editor behind the two users (the later was proven as a sock puppet)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RealCowboys

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Seaboy123

They deleted the exact same information as this current user who funnily enough also is a RM fan.--Suitcivil133 (talk) 10:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• MadridistaFG7 (talk · contribs) and RealCowboys (talk · contribs) are a  Confirmed match. I have just indeffed the former as a block-evading sock. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:30, 29 March 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.

Probation breach

Copied from above: Domer48 is in breach of his probation. Here [12] which falls under The Troubles sanctions. Under probation, Domer is only allowed to make 1 edit per page per week but under WP:Adam_Carroll, he/she has made 4 edits in 2 weeks regarding the persons nationality. This is surely in breach of their probation outlined here [13].

This user is very aware of Troubles related pages and should know better. Gravyring (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Provide the diff's which violate any of the remedies of Troubles arbcom? --Domer48_'fenian' 22:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the link to the article edit history page has already been provided showing 4 edits in 2 weeks. Try reading other users comments first. Obviously in breach of your probation, and not your first probationary period. Something wrong with the wiki system if an innocent user like yourself Domer can found guilty so many times.Hackneyhound (talk) 09:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I think a check on Graveyring & Hackneyhound might be in order. These two seem to work as a tag team, both forget to inform about ANI and both forget to sign their comments from time to time. Bjmullan (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Ironic that Bjmullan turns up 5 mins after Domer to accuse other users of "tag teaming". Give me a chuckle.Also as a new user I was not aware that notification was needed especially if the notice was raised against a stalker. I've learned my lessonHackneyhound (talk) 09:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Unless someone thinks it a horrible idea, I'm about to block Gravyring indef for being a trouble-making, POV-pushing SPA in the Troubles subject area, who has now tried to game the system and get an opponent blocked for something they did in October of last year, and who misrepresented the situation too. Also, if he isn't a sock of a previously blocked editor, I'll eat my hat, although I don't know the players in the whole Troubles Drama well enough to identify which blocked editor. Any reason not to indef? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

  Gravyring blocked indef; I don't know enough about Hackneyhound to say whether a check is called for or not. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I object. No grounds for block, unless requesting an RFC, and trying to find a compromise on a page that is covered in pov and years edit warring. Something not right here.

I would have thought that with one SPA account being blocked for making a frivolous report, that the other SPA would have thought twice before they decided to keep it up but apperently not. First off, this was back in October 2011. Secondly, there was no violation and no supporting diff provided to suggest otherwise. Now having been put on notice already today of possible sanctions against you this is not a very good move on your part and this post is very unwise. I suggest you stop now.--Domer48_'fenian' 10:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

a link was provided to edit history of the page. That is enough evidence and is easier to read than 4 diffs. The page is troubles related as almost all Northern Ireland related articles fall under sanctions. You knew this yet continued to edit on a person's nationality while under probation. Hackneyhound (talk) 11:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Any passing admins: Domer brought this up on my talk page, but I have no time to deal with it. Just a quick note to point out that I blocked Gravyring indef for behavior that looks remarkably similar to what Hackneyhound is doing here (frivolous gamesmanship about a 5 month old issue (plus the 3rd edit was an immediate revert of 2nd edit, so no violation anyway)), and the editing histories of Gravyring and Hackneyhound look remarkably similar on a quick glance. I just don't have time to look at Hackneyhound the way I did with Gravyring, but I think a Checkuser might be in order, or even a final warning or indef block for intentionally causing trouble in a contentious area, sock or not. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not here to argue Gravy/Hackney's case, but it wouldn't be hard to see how they might feel aggrieved when they get maligned and even punished for doing things that are not much different to that which Domer/BJMullen seem to routinely engage in. It only took me 5 minutes to find out that BJMullen's one and only block is for "deliberately gaming 1RR restriction at Carlingford Lough." as recently as last month. Domer's block log is huge, and includes several similar violations. Working as a team just like Gravy/Hackney, the pairing of Domer/BJMullen appears to me to be just as much a single purpose entity as Gravy/Hackney are being painted as, unless you can find any non-Troubles related edits in their history? I certainly couldn't. And even if Gravy/Hackney are one person, that obviously doesn't warrant harsher treatment than what two people working as a team warrant. The activities of Domer/BJMullen at articles like Carlingford Lough should not be overlooked just because they are more experienced than their opponents at any particular venue. All of them are POV pushing warriors from where I'm standing, they all have multiple reverts on that one article alone, yet the only justification for Gravyring's first and only block being indef is apparently that he hasn't been smart enough to spread his interests around the Troubles area first; instead he just objected to what was going on in relation to one issue, and has seemingly paid for it. Looks to me like a just a 'win' for the Domer/BJMullen camp more than anything preventing the sort of ongoing brush fires that arise out of the continued tolerance of POV editing camps. I was quite disgusted to see an admin calling what has gone on at the Carlingford Lough talk page as an example of Wikipedia type consensus building. It's nowhere near it, as the claim about how the article title dictates what it should be referred to in the article shows - can you imagine the disputes that would be unleashed if this line of reasoning was allowed in subjects like Derry/Londonderry? It's a clearly bogus argument, presented as nothing more than as a way of getting out of the obligation of having to consider the other side's position. Truly neutral content is not arrived at this way. Neetandtidy (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Neetandtidy you have inicated you have edited on wiki before, "But who knows, maybe things have changed since I last editted" under what user name? Just as you know from the articles talkpage, the area is littered with socks, even if you would care to e-mail an admin in private about your previous account, they could say you're cool and that would be fine by everyone. Murry1975 (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Having a past account is not the same as having a sock. I'll not be emailing anyone - if someone wants to make unfounded allegations against me, that's fine, I'll just retire this one too and go about my business. Do I need to highlight that your first edits are pretty much the textbook signs of a returning user too? I only re-registered to get the island included in the opening of the loch artice, and then to try to ensure this situation is investigated properly, appearing as it does to me to be pretty one sided and ham-fisted way of going about stopping POV editting disputes. If people are less bothered about that, and more interested in maligning me as well, well, I guess that's just how it will have to be. Neetandtidy (talk) 15:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I know its not the same as having a sock account, but for clarity e-mail an admin. My first edits? I tried to intervine in a dispute and made a b@@@@ of it. I created my account in May last with the idea of learning before being invovled, and not making any mistakes, it didnt work I have to say, but all in good faith and I would be willing to e-mail an admin to prve who I am, even pertaining to my "real life" person. Its odd that you want this to be investigated properly yet are hiding your previous account, and the pattern of misrepresenting what I am bothered in, is familar too, but lets AGF. Your call on e-mailing an admin, but as socking is active in this area it would be for your benefit. Murry1975 (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The blocking admin has sided with Domer48 in this case, a user with a history of blocking offences and as of yesterday had just completed a 6 month probation on The Troubles related articles. Looking at past discussions on Carlingford Lough page, Gravyring was the first user in all the recent years of edit warring to raise a DR and RFC. This can hardly be considered dusruptive? It certainly does not deserve an indefinite block if Domer can continue to edit given his past decressions. From what I fan see Domer and Bjmullan have been tag teaming a lot longer than anyone on NI related issues.Hackneyhound (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Is that you TR or perhaps MMN? Bjmullan (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

*Any reading admin please note requests for disclosure of User:Neetandtidy to disclose his previous account have been rebuffed and met with threats of blocks and abusive language [[14]]. Murry1975 (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Note, I took up Floquenbeam's suggestion and have now indeff'd User:Hackneyhound as being the same person as User:Greyring. I have a strong suspicion both are User:Factocop who recently had an appeal to have his ban lifted turned down. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing...not sure what to do

There is a user, Arzel, who has a pattern of deleting sourced content over and over with weak arguments. Most of the deletes appear WP:IDONTLIKEIT. He has contributed very little content (maybe a comment or two), and that content poorly sourced (didn't bother to include a full reference description). A few editors have confronted him about the deletions, and discussed it at length, including myself, but without much result. He has been most disruptive on the hydraulic fracturing pages, but recently followed me to another page I was working on. Discussions of behavior can be found on Talk:Hydraulic_fracturing and Talk:Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_States. The page he followed me to was Philadelphia Water Department. I had warned him a while back and just let him know that I was reporting him for disruptive editing, though I didn't use a tag. I thought he had calmed down last week, but he's back, and wasting everyone's time.Smm201`0 (talk) 23:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The editor Smm201'0 seems to think that it is his/Her duty to destroy the Hydraulic Fracking industry by inserting every negative story or complaint about the industry into related articles. He/She then added unrelated fracking information into the Philadelphis Water Department article here. Is it sourced? Sure, does it have anything to do with the Philadelphis Water Departtment? No. The previous edit follows a clear WP:COAT model. The article is about the PWD, and there have been some water quality issues, he/she then adds in a bunch of information unrelated to the PWD talking about Hydraulic Fracking because of concerns regarding Fracking and ground water. Use of Wikipedia for environmental activism should not be tollerated. Arzel (talk) 00:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The editor also put most (maybe the whole thing) of this article into the Hydraulic fracking article and has yet to adress why the all of the anti-fracking information needs to be so many places. Arzel (talk) 01:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I have had similiar problems with Arzel. If you look at the page Talk: Seamus (dog), editors have repeatedly asked Arzel not to remove infomation that is relevant and sourced to mainstream media sites. We have tried to talk to Arzel, but he continues to remove material that his doesn't like.Debbie W. 15:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does look like a similar issue. Also, to clarify a remark above, the environmental page was split off from HF without discussion, so I brought it back and started a discussion. There were also other attempts to remove negative environmental info from HF page. I agreed to condense the environmental info on the main page and have been working at that. Disruptions delay that work.Smm201`0 (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Robin Ficker, SPAs and persistent IP removal of info

Okay, this article was flagged at BLPN as Pemilligan (talk · contribs) was encountering regular deletion of sourced, notable information (i.e. the guy was famous for being a sports heckler), so I had a look and weighed in on the talk page, along with two other editors, that makes 4 in consensus that this information is correct.

Well,

• Trainhead (talk · contribs)

• Msin147 (talk · contribs)

are both SPAs, and could well be one and the same, as the second account was created the same day as the first stopped editing the article, and Msin147 took over the job of only removing this specific material. Trainhead's last edit followed by Msin147's first edit.

I have also requested page protection here as there is an army of IPs, that all curiously remove just this info or blank the whole section, and nearly all geolocate to Area code 301, Maryland, which just happens to correspond to where the subject of the article lives.

• 108.18.138.138 (talk · contribs) geolocation
• 216.164.60.209 (talk · contribs) geolocation
• 216.164.59.229 (talk · contribs) geolocation
• 96.255.126.238 (talk · contribs) geolocation
• 129.6.180.141 (talk · contribs) geolocation
• 68.82.117.6 (talk · contribs) geolocation

Okay so the last one geolocates to Philadelphia, just up the road, and has made the same changes to the article four times so far, since Sunday, and is an SPA, who I have warned twice today about their disruptive editing. (See contribs and talk).

For the IPs I only went back as far as November 2011 but there is a clear pattern of persistent disruptive editing and the possible Trainhead/Msin147 sock. An experienced editor's intervention would be appreciated. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
* By the way, I have informed the named users about this discussion but not the IPs, is that right? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Ashrf1979

Ashrf1979 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits the articles Bahrani people and the related Template:Bahranis infobox in a disruptive way. The editor keeps inserting original research and fringe theories without any verification. He/she reverts whenever this is criticized, removes and tags and restores when unsourced and dubious passages are removed. (hist of 'Bahrani people', hist of the infobox template). Ashrf1979 re-reverts at a frequency that might be considered edit warring. He/she shows indications of "page ownership" of the concerned articles. I have repeatedly tried to discuss with Ashrf1979 and to explain Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to him/her, but the user is reluctant to either understand or accept them. (Ashrf1979's talk page, mine, article talk page) Ashrf1979 argues that the information added by him/her is just true or logic and that it must be included without any verification or reference. Discussion with Ashrf1979 is complicated by his/her difficulties to write comprehensible English. Often, I cannot follow his/her argumentation due to linguistic deficiencies. I have tried Third Opinion, but Ashrf1979 ignores this as well. (see talk page) --RJFF (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• That is a mess, yes. What about the edits on Bahrani people? You know the content of those edits--if they continue to insert the same stuff, that's edit warring and can be reported. Of course, you might be edit-warring yourself... ;) And what about their latest edit to the infobox? I haven't dealt with references in infoboxes much, and my Arabic is terrible. If the sources are not reliable, if the formatting is not correct, etc., then there is reason to revert and to question competence. As for linguistic competence, yes, there is a deficiency there, no doubt. Drmies (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

User:The Border Patrol 2

The following discussion is closed. 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 Border Patrol 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is posting dubious questions on several user's talk pages. Not sure if this is vandalism or not. Admins please decide and/or intervene. --bender235 (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Given this edit, that was easy. Bender, next time present a real challenge. Thanks for reporting. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't there a user named "The Border Patrol" brought up here last week? If so, wouldn't an SPI be more illuminating? —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 18:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes: The Border Patrol (talk · contribs). I don't see the need for an SPI, but Bender or Jeremy, if you want to start one and see if there's any sleepers, feel free. But these vandal edits are so obviously vandalism that blocking on sight is an easy call. Drmies (talk) 18:29, 29 March 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.

MickMacNee is back

The following discussion is closed. 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

 – MickMacNee was stale and SPI believes it is a Joe Job by an unrelated troll. However, may other socks of Neetandtidy found and blocked. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

A new user registered yesterday, Neetandtidy (talk · contribs) and immediately has become involved in heated discussions at articles which has seen another editor (Gravyring (talk · contribs)) blocked. The user has already confirmed that they have previously edited here using a different account. On seeing that this new user was spelling my username incorrectly some alarm bells starting ringing and after a quick search I came across this edit of one of the very few people who has gotten my username wrong. I then had a look at this new users contribution today for other signs of MMN MO (policy and swearing) and it wasn't hard to come up with...

Mention of policy: TPO OSE

Swearing: [15] [16]

Of course I may be wrong but I would request that admin action is taken immediately to investigate this user. Question for all; do we really need a editor who is not only abusive to other users but has displayed a battlefield mentality from day one? Bjmullan (talk) 06:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Clearly the same guy. I suggest that you take it to WP:SPI so that a checkuser can have a look at it; there may be other sockpuppets lurking on that IP address. Prioryman (talk) 07:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe a little bit "too clear" or "too Neet and tidy". It's possible that this may be a Joe job. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I have now opened the case at SPI as requested. Bjmullan (talk) 08:13, 29 March 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.

Angle trisection

Hello,

On Wikipedia's following webpage, the seventh heading down is entitled, "By infinite repetition of bisection".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_trisection

Over the last year or so, user(s) have added this heading to this webpage and contributed to its contents.

Using Wikipedia's VIEW HISTORY, I notified the following users of employing proprietary information contained in United States Copyright (TXu 636 519), dated 7-17-1995 and entitled, "Trisection, an Exact Solution -- Revision A".

Joel B. Lewis -- grad. student AND

D.Lazard

At first, I simply corrected their unknowing infraction by attempting to give the user(s) full credit for their portion of contribution(s) to the article and maintaining them under same heading.

User(s), just deleted my input several times and effectively told me to "get lost".

Thereafter, user(s) asked what my basis was for my input and I informed them of:

a) The US copyright information noted above AND

b) http://truescans.com/Trisection.htm webpage which contains full disclosure, rationale and proof.

After then being deleted AGAIN, I informed user(s) that they had no basis, claim, or proof for their their own portions of contribution.

After again being deleted, user(s) continued to re-enter his/their information. I then notified user(s) of POTENTIAL COPYRIGHT VIOLATION.

After a further repeat of this, I notified user(s) of PARTICIPATING IN COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT by means knowingly publishing information on Wikipedia that is considered to be in conflict with a cited United States Copyright; and further refusing to render substantiation for their own claim(s).

Lastly, I notified user(s) of Wikipedia copyright policy and informed they could be BARRED from future editing rights on Wikipedia by continuing their same course of action.

After all of this, the user(s) again DELETED my input; which is where we presently stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WIKI-1-PIDEA (talk • contribs) 19:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

There's no merit to this; I'll leave a note on the editor's talk page about WP:3RR, WP:NPLT, and ways to avoid getting blocked from editing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I've already reported this to WP:AN3 William M. Connolley (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I am having trouble finding where the material in Wikipedia's article (angle trisection#By infinite repetition of bisection) infringes the copyright of the outside document. While copyright does protect an author's written description of an algorithm, it does not protect the algorithm itself. In other words, copyright covers a particular description, but not the method described; any other author is free to describe the same method in their own words.

That said, any assertion that the algorithm in question was discovered in 1995 is laughable. I suspect it is centuries old, and trivial searching demonstrates that high school mathematics teachers were talking about it with their students at least as early as 1963: [17]. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if the original poster had some sort of connection with the true-scans website. Observe this addition to Around the World in Eighty Days and these to Jules Verne and the remarkably similar editing style (use of underlining and html code and always bolding the website title) of this editor who has added it to Daniel Defoe, Palisot de Beauvois, and er.. Gettysburg Address. The website is so off the radar that google doesn't even pick it up. Voceditenore (talk) 22:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason WIKI-1-PIDEA and Joel B. Lewis should not have tried discussing with each other on Talk:Angle trisection instead of continuing to edit war and yell at each other via edit summaries. Both users blocked 24 hours for the edit war. --MuZemike 21:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Murry1975 and accusing others of being socks

The following discussion is closed. 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 a self admitted reitiree. Having seen above the drama about Carlingford Lough, I re-registered to request an edit to here and then got carried away and decided to start this move request based on the silliness that was going on at the talk page. In that request, BJMullen said '"Not another bloody sock!" in reference to me apparently. I am not a sock, and resented this casual labelling of me as one as if it was a perfectly normal thing to do (who knows, perhaps the Troubles area has become such a cesspit this is perfectly normal). When I last editted though, calling others socks without doing anything else about it, was classed as an attempt to smear another editor without justification. Accordingly I struck it out and warned him about making such allegations, and advised him of the right way to do it if he wanted to pursue it, and to be fair BJMullen hasn't editted since, so I don't know if that was the end of it. What's pissing me off though is that Murry1975 decided to take up the cause and has been accusing me of being a sock ever since. I've informed him that he's wrong in policy and told him to file a report or stfu, and he's totally and utterly ignored me and just kept going and going, like a total asshole frankly (before anyone objects to this sort of language, just go and see how many final warnings I gave him, he has well and truly wound me up to be sure). Despite making it very very clear that I considered what he was doing was now entering the realm of deliberate aggravation, and having advised him to go and get an admin and back him up if he still disagreed with the striking (he had been removing it), he has just persisted in poking me, finally with this edit antagonise me. Now he's giving me more shit trying to pretend nobody is allowed to strike comments on talk pages, which is obviously false - I consider being called a sock without evidence and without any apparent willingess to file a report, as the sort of trolling and personal attack that WP:TPO allows to be removed (not that I even removed it, I struck it). I sincerely hope that admins agree at least on that score, otherwise I think we've probably found the answer to why nobody sticks around beyond their 10th edit anymore. The guy obviously knows nothing about the relevant policies, about what is and isn't a sock, or what is and is not the right way to deal with one, but that's not the issue per AGF etc, the issue is he persists even after he's been told of such things, to the point of deliberate aggravation. Neetandtidy (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Where have I accused Neetandtidy of being a sock? I have said Neetandtidy should connect your accounts so that we know thier contribution history. Neetandtidy has used foul and abusive langauge, I have kept calm and requested they show their previous account, even suggesting to an admin not to the community, Neetandtidy has rejected these claiming bad faith, yet accused me of calling them a sock. I have stated that I have never called them a sock and asked to show me where I have, they have not done so, bad faith indeed.

Neetandtidy has striken part of a comment by BJmullan, I have unstriken it with the proposition that Neetandtidy ask Bjmullan to strike it. AS Neetandtidy struck it again using WP:TPO in the summary I qoute it to him.

"Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request "

They have not answered in good faith about thier previous account and have used abusive language and tried to intimidate me with threats. The account is new, admits to have a retired account yet refuses to be transparent. I understand if it is a privacy issue he would be protective of it and have no problems with the editor disclosing the relevant information to prove what the previous account was and the reasons for leaving it behind and the admin declaring it clean. Their actions and words do not seem to me of an editor who is transparent and acting in the best interests of the project. Murry1975 (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

@Neetandtidy: You certainly share some Spotfixer characteristics, creating your userpage with a single sentence and jumping onto this noticeboard so quickly. Calabe1992 21:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

If spotfixer means 'suspicious user', then for what must be the fifth time of saying it, I am not a new user, and never claimed to be. I even said it in the first sentence of this report. What I am not, is a sock. And whether Murry1975 realises it or not, this is what he is not so subtly accusing me of. And whether he likes it or not, TPO allows the removal of trolling or attacks, which is what I take unsubstantiated accusations of socking as. He's had all day to file a report on me, but as I pointed out to him, it would be rejected, as he hasn't got any grounds at all apart from ABF. Anyway, I'm beginning not to care at all, it seems this whole area is screwed up - the admins getting involved either don't know or don't care what's going on and just take snap decisions. Floquenbeam basically admitted it. And take a look at EdJohnston's page, you can hardly tell who is the admin and who is the guy under probation - he's actually just asked him if it's still in effect!?!? Was that not what was being argued about above or what? Who's in control here? Domer and BJMullen appear to have this area all sewn up, the admins seem to be dancing to their tune, and editors like Hackney who are to all intents and purposes no better or worse than them as far as being disruptive SPAs goes, are just given the finger as they're automatically tagged (like me now) as automatically presumed disruptors/socks/SPAs, whatever they say and whatever they do. I haven't even editted a fucking article yet. Hackney/Gravy started an Rfc on the talk page as is directed by policy in the face of edit warriors like Domer and BJMullen, and it's then filled with total bollocks and fillibustering, which of course has but one effect - to restart the POV edit warring again, meaning my request for a simple uncontentious edit to the Loch article has gone unanswered for 10 hours now due to a protection. 10 hours! All I've done since then is deal with this accusatory shit from Murry1975. No admin gives the tiniest of fucks about the actual content or long term problem users in this area. Not one. It's been totally abandoned to the mercy of whatever the likes of EdJonston or Floquenbeam can be bothered to pull out their asses when they feel like it and have a spare 1 minute to look at one diff maybe. When you see what Ed seems to thinks represents good faith collaborative consensus building on that talk page, your eyes bleed at the incomptence. It's a joke, there is no hope of any quality content, not in this topic area. Neetandtidy (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I tend not to file reports (only 1 done so far), believing that discussion should be placed first as a means of resolving any dispute. The fact that this began here would be another reason to just continue it in the original section rather than clogging up the boards. I am still waiting for the diif of me calling Neetandtidy a sock. All I read is foul langauge and blatant battlefield mentality. Murry1975 (talk) 22:46, 28 March 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.

IPs putting improper tagging on editor's talk page.

Resolved

 – IP rangeblocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

85.210.187.29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
88.109.31.145 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
(WHOIS indicates it could be the same person, I didn't ask)
Both have been giving/reverting back a Level 4 warning on User:Alison Buchanan's talk page about being a vandal and a sockpuppet. No Level 1-3 were given. There was a CU requested for Alison, and refused at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alison Buchanan. I have reverted twice and left notices on their talk pages informing them they can't just make accusations without providing diffs and/or other proof, and decided it should just go here instead of getting into battle after they keep adding it back. The only diffs they have provided are on Alison's talk page (they finally put them there), with most being IPs and none of them being obvious vandalism, and instead being a content dispute. Making claims of vandalism on user talk page as well as being a sockpuppet without substantiation. I have no idea if there are merits to their claims, but this is a disruptive and improper way for these IPs to handle the situation. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• IP:88.109.31.145 just deleted this ANI report at [18], so I'm thinking a short term block may be needed. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Look, when I reported the other IPs, which made the EXACT same disruptive edits, in exactly the same style, nobody complained, and they were blocked, instantly. I reported them each and every time, and every time, someone responded in the appropriate manner. Why can't you? This edit here [[19]] is EXACTLY the same as this edit here [[20]] and that IP was banned as a sockpuppet....in fact, it was discovered that that IP WAS in fact a sockpuppet, right here [[21]]. Look at these IPs edits. They are EXACTLY the same. Alison is the same person. And stop preventing me from defending myself! 88.109.31.145 (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The way you are going about it is disruptive, calling someone's edits vandalism without providing evidence, starting out with a level 4 warning. The IPs were blocked based on WP:DUCK, but nothing has been done to the USER, and it is the USER to whom you kept reverting the tag. I didn't say I disagree (or agree) with your assessment of socking, but there is a proper process to follow, and posting a level 4 warning with no diffs, no explanation, just claims, is NOT the right process. And furthermore, you deleted THIS report on ANI, which is enough reason (imho) to block you for 24 hours to allow others to review the situation, for the purpose of preventing you from being even more disruptive. You never gave me a chance to agree with you because you were too busy going about it wrong, and you still fail to see that now. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to agree or disagree with me. I'm asking you to open your eyes. Anyone else who has seen this sockpuppet before KNOWS exactly what they're dealing with. Don't believe me? Ask the guys who blocked the last IP account, or blocked the other IP accounts. In my book, they received their warnings in previous accounts, which means that they are STILL valid. When it is painfully obvious that the user is not only a sockpuppet but has no intention other than to vandalise, then I think it's pretty clear that they don't deserve to be given warnings, when they can leave their account before the crucial warning and create a new one. No one else who I have reported this user and their many IPs to has had an issue with me reporting them. It is only you. 88.109.23.136 (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked 88.109.31.145 for 24 hours for repeating the disruption after Dennis made his last revert. Nyttend (talk) 17:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Stop disrupting my replies!! I'm sick of this, every time!! 88.109.23.136 (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

And don't you dare accuse me of being a sockpuppet. My IP changes every time, I can't help it. 88.109.23.136 (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

But to use a new IP address, knowing that your previous IP address has been blocked, DOES make you a block-evading sockpuppet, so you are rather destroying what credibility you may have had in making such accusations about others. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

88.109.16.0/20 has now been blocked for 31 hours. --MuZemike 21:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat?

Manveer-ampm (talk · contribs)

• In this diff the user named above makes a somewhat confusing series of comments, among them commenting that "the police are the next stage" - does this rise to the WP:NLT level? I'd say yes but the rest of the context is (at least to my decaffinated mind) as I said confusing, so I thought I'd ask before doing, or not doing, anything. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, it's a threat. Nobody Ent 18:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Well, then, NLT blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate removal of speedy deletion tag?

Resolved

 – Image deleted per CSD-F7 -- Dianna (talk) 01:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

File:EvanchoPresSanta.jpg was nominated for deletion a few days ago, with discussion proceeding. Last night, I discovered that the file's uploader had mistakenly identified the file as a publicity photograph; it is in fact a news photo controlled by Getty Images. It is therefore required to be deleted under our nonfree content policy (there is no question that the "sourced commentary" exception is inapplicable). I placed the appropriate speedy deletion tag on the file page, Shortly thereafter, User:Hekerui, in good faith, removed the tag from the file page, citing the ongoing FFD discussion. While an ongoing XfD with arguments on both sides is ordinarily enough to forestall speedy deletion, my understanding of practice is that in a few cases, like the undisputed copyright/NFCC problem here, the speedy tag should not be removed unless the copyright/NFCC issues are themselves subject to dispute. (Otherwise, the existence of an FFD on other matters would delay the removal of such copyvios, which we pretty much want expunged as quickly as possible.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack - accusation of being a racist

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

---

• ...Please find reliable sources for your racism." Admins, please correct the behavior. Cla68 (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Why are *you* bringing this here? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I have been editing that article. That diff is actually the culmination of a series of personal attacks by Hipocrite on that editor:
    • "THAS RACISS"
    • Threat
    • Again, admins, please correct the behavior. Cla68 (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Meh...what do you want them to do? Levy a fee?--MONGO 23:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I apologized to the user I inappropriately called a racist, and I'll do whatever that user wants me to do to make it up to him. I'd like Cla68 to stay away from me. Could someone institute a binding interaction ban? I don't think trolling my talk page with his "threat charges" is in any way an attempt to deescalate - in fact, it seems more like he was trying to piss me off so I'd do other stupid things. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 23:40, 29 March 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:ANKMALI

The user is apparently a huge fan of Alka Yagnik, and that is why he keeps turning her page into a fansite of sorts. I had made a short cleanup on the page, and since then the user has been reverting the page to the same version - which goes in violation of WP:NPOV, WP:WEASEL, WP:PEACOCK, WP:CITE (with some bombastic claims, really, which must be sourced). Their argument is that the info is true, and they keep doing that in spite of having been warned and despite seeing other users reverting them as well.

Another instance is the Screen Award for Best Female Playback article, where they change the winner of the 2002 award to, as expected, Alka Yagnik. I cited a reliable source (The Tribune) to prove them wrong, but they keep changing it to their own version, citing some very poor sources (clearly unreliable). I started a talk page discussion where the user, instead of trying to discuss the matter, just removed my message from the section (!).

I request that something be done as soon as possible - this is becoming insufferable. Shahid • ^Talk2me 08:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

This User:Shshshsh is trying to repeatedly delete my hardwork done on page of Alka Yagnik. All info added by me was verifiable ! Further Screen Award for Best Female Playback was won by Alka Yagnik thrice whereas this user insisting on Asha Bhosle winning the award although 2 of the 3 available sources sight Alka Yagnik as winner of the award in 2002. Further the user is repeatedly threatening to block me though I've committed no offence !! It is user Shshshsh who should be blocked !!! ANKMALI (talk) 10:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC).

You say that all of your work was verifiable. That may be, but content really needs to be verified, not just verifiable. Please don't add content without a solidly reliable source to back it up, and please don't remove something that's already reliably sourced (e.g. the 2002 award winner) without discussion with other users. And DEFINITELY do not remove other people's talk page comments; doing that is highly disruptive. Nyttend (talk) 11:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I've used extremely reliable sources for everything. As per rules of wikipedia content must be verifiable which I've always complied with. Definition of reliable can be subjective. ANKMALI (talk) 13:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

No, WP:RS is not as subjective as you think, nor does the reliable source noticeboard take things lightly. You cannot remove a info from a known RS and insert opposite information from a non-RS, period (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources cited by me are well within the purview of reliable sources as stated by wikipedia. Infact I've added a live video as the source ! ANKMALI (talk) 14:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:BLP. Rules for articles about living persons are much more strict. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 00:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I have do nothing wrong or nothing which is against wikipedia rules. Each & every info added by me is evidenced & from reliable sources . Nobody can prove what I've written on Alka Yagnik page is false. It is this User:Shshshsh who does not have reliable sources . ANKMALI (talk) 07:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources are not reliable just because you say they are reliable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Shshshsh

The user has been constantly editing my immense hardwork put in page of Alka Yagnik. Infact he has not cared about pages of other singers which are more like fan-pages. Each & every info added by me is verifiable & through very reliable sources. Further the user is threatening to block me since a while though I am haven't done anything wrong. Infact the info added by the user about Alka Yagnik has far less reliabilty in comparison to info provided by me. Would request action to be taken against the user. ANKMALI (talk) 14:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The existence of other problematic pages is not a problem per our policies — we're all volunteers, so the fact that he's not worked with other singers' articles is not a problem. As I told you above, verifiable and verified are two very different things. Moreover, your user talk page has at least one message (20,000 songs) discussing a situation in which a reliable source contradicts your writing, and the bit about the 2002 award is the same thing. Finally, did you read the message just below the "save page" button? "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here" — it's not a problem that someone or someones edit your writing. Overall, Shshshsh has been editing your hard work because your hard work is reducing the quality of our articles; his edits are necessary and helpful. Nyttend (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

20000 songs of Alka Yagnik is supported by the live video of Screen Awards. Further User:Shshshsh has no reliable source to prove his claim. He is just a huge fan of Asha Bhosle . My hard work is enhancing the quality of the article & it is Shshshsh who's reducing the quality of the article !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANKMALI (talk • contribs) 02:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Redcorreces

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

---

Resolved

 – User has been indefinitely blocked by Hersfold (talk · contribs). — foxj 03:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Redcorreces (talk · contribs) calls people Nazis ([22][23]) and say that my comments are "Gestapo nonsense."[24] He refuses to prove that his upload is free but blanks the discussion and promises to reupload the image if deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I've left a warning - I thought about just blocking, but I've given him the old "last chance". If he repeats the comment or the upload or any other nonsense, a block will be necessary.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Fine. I would personally say that I care more about blanking and copyright policies than about the Nazi and Gestapo comments. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

You people need to get a life. Seriously. Redcorreces (talk) 01:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

A couple of things are concerning aside from the apparent Naziphilia the user possesses:

• Our photos strikes a concern that this may not be just one person under this account, but it's possible that I could be taking this out of context.

• By our photos, I was referring to myself and all the other people whom Stefan2 has had the pleasure of intimidating. Is that much clearer now? Does that no longer "strike a concern"? Get a life. Redcorreces (talk) 02:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• The message in ALL CAPS here and at the bottom of File:A montage of Omaha.jpg seem to exhibit a significant sense of ownership (which, ironically, is also "in disagreement of Wikipedia's purpose")

--MuZemike 01:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Well, your nonsense policing of a supposedly FREE, NON-PROFIT and EDUCATIONAL website is reminiscent of such. Let's also not forget FAIR USE. Whatever it is I forgot to note during my upload has been addressed via discussions, etc. because I kept getting pestered in what I thought was a community. If I'm not earning a single penny from those photos, then leave them alone. OK? Redcorreces (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• • We're supposed to police vandalism, not reasonable contributions that improve the appearance of articles. But sadly, you're turning Wikipedia into playground of immature people on ambitious power trips. Grow up. Redcorreces (talk) 01:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Redcorreces, your remarks show a deep misunderstanding of how seriously we take copyright concerns here at Wikipedia. For example, one of the pictures shows a statue, which is not covered by WP:Freedom of panorama under U. S. law, and it is therefore a copyright violation on the work of art itself. If you could please read WP:Copyright violations that would be great. The onus is on you, the uploader, to provide a source for each picture in the montage and prove to us that the pics are in the public domain or licensed under a license compatible with the way Wikipedia works. Yelling people who are trying to explain these polices, and engaging in name-calling, will not prevent an image in violation of copyright law from being deleted. -- Dianna (talk) 01:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

And Diannaa, your remarks show a deep misunderstanding of how seriously I take the freedom that Wikipedia stands for. I wasn't yelling at people; I was merely pointing out how those people's actions are preventing that freedom. Redcorreces (talk) 02:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

We're here to build an encyclopedia, not to make a social statment. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

@Redcorreces, your antagonistic attitude does you no good. Diannaa is correct about Freedom of Panorama under American copyright law, and Wikipedia policy is actually more stringent than American Fair Use standards (unnecesarily so, in my opinion, but that comes from the Wikimedia Foundation and is not something we can change). However, it's still possible that the statue you show in the montage of Omaha is not under copyright if it was created earlier than 1921. I can't tell what statue the image is of, but you could do a bit of research and find out when it was made. If it's before 1921, then you can upload the montage as a free image. If not, it can only be uploaded as a non-free image and must fulfill the requirements of WP:NFCC, and must be used in an article.

Copyright law is complicated, and Wikipedia's image policies are complex as well. You'd do better to lay off the polemics and reach out to work with the people who are counseling you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Also, Redcorreces, please read WP:CIVIL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

And also, The Bushranger, policing an otherwise reasonable improvement to a page isn't civil. Maybe you all should read that first. Redcorreces (talk) 02:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Please stop changing the title of the section. Referring to people as "immature" and that they need to "get a life" is not maintaining a civil atmosphere. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

How about Please delete this nonsense attack on me section? Group think must be fun! Redcorreces (talk) 02:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

This is not an attack, nor is it nonsense; your continued refusal to understand this does not bode well for your continued participation in the project. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed; Redcourreces, if you are unable to maintain a level of decorum appropriate for a collaborative project, you will be blocked. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, Hersfold, I have maintained a level of decorum. I have not used any profanity in all of my dialogue. I have a right to defend myself, and that is what I have been doing ever since my contribution was unfairly attacked. Speaking of which, I'm glad to see you've joined in the fun of group think. Redcorreces (talk) 03:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

There are more ways to be incivil than swearing at people. Name-calling, failure to assume good faith, and refusal to listen to concerns are all examples, all of which you've exhibited in this thread. These behaviors make it difficult to impossible to work with others in a collaborative environment. I'd strongly suggest you step away from this situation for now, taking some time to read through the various policies, guidelines, and essays that have been linked, and try to view all this from another's perspective. If things continue as they are, a block will likely be issued before long. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Redcorreces, you clearly have little understanding of Wikipedia copyright policy, which - whether you like it or not - is necessary for legal reasons, regardless of its other merits. Nobody was attacking you - we were pointing out that your montage may violate our policies. Your response seems to be the only 'attack' evident - and I'd suggest that if you think being told you can't post something on Wikipedia is on a level with Nazism, you clearly don't have a clue about history, either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, AndyTheGrump, join in the group think fun. If I was not being attacked, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But I am, so we are. Again, making accusations about my contribution is not civil, either. I'm just defending my contribution, and I am not being profane about it. Redcorreces (talk) 03:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, point proven. Soapbox? Yes. Clue? No. Not wanted here... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

And as such I've blocked Redcorreces indefinitely, with a note that he can be unblocked once he can show he understands the concerns originally raised and can work with other editors. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:52, 30 March 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.

Shared 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.

---

Reopened

User(s) warned (see my comment below.) Policy changes should be proposed on the talk pages of the concerned policy. 28bytes (talk) 05:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC) Through the course of my adventures I've come across Inventcreat (talk · contribs), an account belonging to a married couple and used by both. Obviously this is a violation of WP:NOSHARE, however they do appear to be a constructive account and are apparently reluctant to have separate accounts. I would be grateful for some further opinions on this, I'm unsure how to proceed here--Jac16888 ^Talk 23:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• I saw your conversation with them--thanks for taking the time to do that. Yes, NOSHARE is quite clear: they each need to get different accounts and stick to them individually. They could take Mr. Inventcreat and Mrs. Inventcreat (I assume it's a mixed-gender couple), or Inventcreat and Inventcreata? Drmies (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I would say let common sense let em keep it... many societies see matrimony as the joining together of two persons after all . Of course to do that, we all have to pretend this thread doesn't exist; therefore I would ask some admit to close after me, and for no one else to post anything. Egg Centric 23:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Right it's been decided that closing it ain't acceptable. Well I stick by what I said. A great many married couples can be considered as more or less the same unit, ready to take responsibility and credit for anything that the one does. I see no reason they can't share the account, except for a pesky policy which we can ignore. Egg Centric 01:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

(Or we can even change the policy - especially now that gay marriage is finally rolling out amongst the civilised world) Egg Centric 01:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a special case that can be excluded from the rule, however for that to be so there should be an actual consensus here, NOSHARE makes it very clear that it's not allowed except for staff accounts and bots, and even bots need clear consensus--Jac16888 ^Talk 01:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yup, I rather hope we can come to one now... not sure this is the right place to propose it, but lets have a go: Egg Centric 01:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

A married, or similar (with "similar" to be interpreted by the community on a case by case basis) couple should be permitted to share an account. Naturally all the users of the account will be held responsible for all of its edits, and thus subject to any sanctions, even if said person did not perform the edit themselves. Additionally, such accounts must make it clear that they are a shared account, especially if running for a community position such as administratior Egg Centric 01:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support As proposer Egg Centric 01:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, how about we propse that NOSHARE be modified to allow exceptions when approved? Set up a discussion location for this, similar to usernames, etc. Calabe1992 01:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC) *Support as nominator. Calabe1992 01:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• You beat me to it. Support. Calabe1992 01:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

NOSHARE is essential in order to hold users accountable for their edits. I know that you're busy, so schedule enforcement of this policy for this particular situation for January 2015 unless they become an issue in which case it would be expedited. North8000 (talk) 01:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not in favor of actually making it policy, but I'm perfectly willing to follow North8000's approach. Turning a blind eye has a bad reputation, but it's an underutilized tool. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Turning a blind eye? To what? What were we talking about? Oh, gotta go: roast in the oven. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Still, you have to wonder, if they get divorced then who gets the account or will they agree to "joint custody"? :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose This proposal goes against Wikipedia's content license. Each edit must be attributable to an individual.--v/r - TP 03:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as T points out, this has potential licensing issues, as well as problems if a disagreement should occur. We don't accept the "my brother/sister/roommate/dog/etc. did it on my account, it wasn't me!" argument. As sweet as it might be to let this couple edit together, it's going to cause problems in the future if we make this a blanket exception. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, licensing issues. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Allow an exception if the users in question agree to always edit together, as a unit, and not to use the shared account individually. It is common enough that a book has a shared copyright, so I don't see a licensing issue. What do we gain by disallowing this?  --Lambiam 16:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Sarek. Apart from which, "On the internet, no-one knows you're a dog" - how do we know they are married? We don't. Just as we don't know if someone really has a little brother or not. Peridon (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Sarek and Peridon. Frood! ^Ohai _{What did I break now?} 18:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Married couples are not legally considered to be "one person", so allowing them to use one account messes up our licensing, as it will be uncertain which of the partners holds the rights. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Closing

I'm going to close this as "user warned". I agree we shouldn't be rules-sticklers if people are otherwise behaving productively, but the problem with turning a blind idea to policy violations is that it gives the editor(s) a false sense of security that they won't be blocked by some other admin who notices the shared account but isn't aware of the decision here to ignore it. When/if that happens, they will be understandably hurt and upset that they were blocked after being told everything is kosher, so I've left them a note on their talk page strongly encouraging them to get separate accounts at their earliest convenience and advising them that they won't be blocked now, but there are no guarantees that another administrator won't independently notice the shared account and block them later. 28bytes (talk) 05:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Reopening

Sorry, but less then six hours is simply not enough to allow editors to discuss this, and there's no consensus. I disagree with creating an exemption. This would set a bad precedent and one easily gamed. For instance, how do I know who created the copyvio at User:Inventcreat/Author’s Certificate? If at some point we end up blocking this account, do we allow one of them to create a new one or hold them both jointly responsible for whatever lead the account to be blocked? (Is there a better way to indicate I've reopened this?)Dougweller (talk) 11:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Put the heading in rainbow colours with twinkling stars? Peridon (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I meant some sort of template, although I did look for one. Dougweller (talk) 05:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

What's the actual licensing issue?

Anyone wanna explain it? Understanding it will help us see if we can find a compromise. Egg Centric 22:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

We use a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license which allows the reuse of our content as long as it is attributed to the original author or authors. In this case, it is impossible to attribute it to the author because we are unaware of which person is the author. I suppose a compromise would be if they both released all of their contributions to the public domain. They'd have to specify that on their talk page. But doing this is going to open a can of worms because organizations will also want to buy in on this. I know I am not explaining it too well. However, the license text defines the "Licensor" as "the individual, individuals, entity or entities that offer(s) the Work under the terms of this License." However, where it says "entities" it is referring to the collection of contributors on the history page. Not a shared account. This isn't a legal opinion, obviously, but that shouldn't be confused to mean accounts can be shared. Contributions must still be attributed.--v/r - TP 22:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

has the situation you're referring to actually been a problem? If they take joint responsibility it's the same as if each had given the other a power of attorney, and they've agreed to be bound by what the other does. I think this is a place to evoke IAR: the strict application of the rule is discouraging good contributors.I'm not suggesting changing the formal rule, but agreeing to overlook minimal violations. DGG ( talk ) 23:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

If the situation is how you describe it I'm not seeing the problem. As DGG says they can be treated as an entity together. Think Lennon-McCartney Egg Centric 23:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

Just to note that OrangeMike has blocked the account. 28bytes (talk) 23:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Poor show. At the very least could have waited for all this discussion to be complete. I am not at all convinced that the licensing actually does require individual users (and if it does, why are/were there wikimedia role accounts permitted?). This ban does nothing to help wikipedia, particularly at this timing, and I think it would be permissible under both policy and ethics for anyone to reverse it. Probably not wiki-politically suitable though, but maybe soemoen will surprise me Egg Centric 23:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Poor show indeed, but 28bytes called it fairly accurately. With the current wording of the policy, I don't think discussion about an unblock is going to be feasible. It's an order of magnitude easier to choose not to enforce a silly policy than to actively do something to violate a silly policy that's been enforced. I've at least modified the block to remove the autoblock and allow account creation so they can create separate accounts.

In theory, discussion about changing this could continue on WT:UN. In practice, I imagine inertia is going to prevent any official change. in either case, the ANI thread has no further use, right? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Call me naive but I think we have a useful discussion going and there is some chance at least of changing policy here. Most of those who are supporting the ban are doing so because they believe it's a licensing issue; I think we can show them they're wrong, in which case there's a lot of potential for this thread to improve the encyclopedia. Egg Centric 00:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Well I certainly won't close it myself, but I just know someone is going to come along in the next 1 to 12 hours and close it because it "doesn't require admin attention". I don't think I've ever seen a discussion at AN result in a change to a policy... have you? I think the best bet (and it's a long shot) would be to move this to WT:UN. But I certainly wouldn't stop you from commenting here some more. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Floquenbeam; much better to propose changes to policy on the policy's talk page (or perhaps a Village Pump discussion) than here, since that's not really what this board is structured for. Since the account is blocked and the ball's in their court, I agree this can be (re-)(re-)closed (third time's a charm, perhaps?) 28bytes (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll come out and say it. This board has a more eclectic and represenative audience of wikipedians than the one I'll find in those more obscure places. And I feel that for a variety of reasons, a general wikipedian will be far more receptive and open minded to this kind of proposal than the ones that will be monitoring those spaces... Even if it has to be moved, can we not just at least keep this thread to direct people to said discussion? It is not as though it will clutter up ANI... Egg Centric 00:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Even if they create the Mr. Inventcreat and Mrs. Inventcreat-accounts, who says that they will actually use these accounts as a single person and not as couple? Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

So if you allow married couples (how do we know?), do you allow same sex couples (again, how do we know), flatmates, little brothers and sisters, Mr Jones at No 46 and Mrs Evans at No 83 because they share his computer? Getting ridiculous there, I know. But how do you draw lines beyond 'one man one account'? (Not being sexist - parodying one man one vote.) As it stands, we can't easily tell if a couple IS using one account, unless they let the cat out of the bag, so long as they are behaving properly - and keeping to one editing style. As with COI, if we have no cause to suspect, why worry? But legitimising it can open a real can of worms. Do we require copies of marriage certificates? Who gets the account when (if...) they split? Who gets it when they haven't split for economic reasons, but hate each other? Does happen. What's wrong with having separate accounts? They don't share a driving licence or a social security number; they both vote in elections; presumably they do have different opinions on some things. So what hardship is there in having two accounts? Peridon (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with everything Peridon has said in this comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

This is ridiculous

I know a ton of users on Wiki who are a husband/wife team account. I'm not going to name any of them, because i'm not going to have them be blocked for this stupidity. This whole situation is just ridiculous and rude to productive contributors. Was Inventcreat even given the opportunity to reply and to obtain separate accounts or were they just blocked right off in a completely bad faith manner that i'm not surprised about at this point? Silverseren^C 06:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

As I said above, if we don't know and can't see the join, and the contributions are good, why worry? There are people editing for companies but using private names, but if they stay within the policies, they're OK. It's when these things are made open that the worms start wriggling, and there is little room left to deny User:BloggsoWashesWhiter an account. In the case in question, theoretically the account is compromised and should remain blocked. Unless they took turns typing things in, one of them actually created the account and then allowed the other one access. I can see no objection to them being allowed to start a new account apiece - and if we can't spot A using B, all's well. IMO OrangeMike was right to block, but a new start should be allowed - under two new names. Peridon (talk) 09:37, 30 March 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.

Unsubstantiated accusation of antisemitism

The following discussion is closed. 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 what has already become a heated debate, User:Djathinkimacowboy has chosen to accuse User:Youreallycan of being an "an anti-Semitic, homophobic abuser" [25]. When I asked for this to be struck out, or justified [26], Djathinkimacowboy's sole response was "I suggest you read back and find the mention of the editor being anti-Semitic toward British Jews. And stay off my talk page, will you please!—". Given that there is no mention of any allegations of antisemitism in the thread, and given the inflammatory nature of the accusation, can I ask that this be looked into, and appropriate action be taken: such unfounded comments have no place on this noticeboard, or indeed anywhere on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I see that Djathinkimacowboy had redacted the comment while I was posting this: but in the process has chosen to try to lay the blame for this on me, accusing me of "make things more personal": [27]. Frankly, this is beginning to look like trolling, or at least a severe lack of clue... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Rumor has it that he hates gingers, too, so....JoelWhy (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

You probably could've waited before bringing this up here, while the other thread is still ongoing. He's redacted the comment, and I think this is best left alone. Temperatures are running pretty hot in the other thread, and by using a little empathy I can understand why User:Djathinkimacowboy is upset. This is only going to make things worse. Oh, and if you're going to talk about unsubstantiated accusations, don't follow it up by accusing someone of trolling. That's not very sensible. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 21:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Does your 'empathy' extend to those accused (on the basis of no evidence whatsoever) of antisemitism? As for my comment re trolling, it might be wrong, it might even be considered uncivil. It is not however unsubstantiated. I have provided the necessary diffs. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Er, you haven't provided any evidence of trolling. Just an upset user making an accusation that they have already struck out, and a user getting annoyed with you since you posted on their talk page. That doesn't look like trolling to me. And yeah, my empathy does extend that far but the comment has already been struck. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 21:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: I left Djathinkimacowboy a talk page message asking him to be careful in future, and reminding him that certain comments are more inflammatory than anything and won't help calm down the situation. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 22:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Well yes, the comment (or at least the 'antisemitic' part of it) has been struck - but only as a result of me bringing the matter up on Djathinkimacowboy's talk page in the first place - which resulted in further attacks, this time on me. Still if no action is to be taken on struck-out comments, presumably the thread above concerning Youreallycan can be closed.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

In fact as I redact and retract my anti-Semitism suggestion, as said by Djathinkimacowboy. This suggests to me that he knows he was mistaken in saying that. But if it's not enough for you, what do you actually want done? ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 22:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

What do I want done? Well, judging by the thread above, the appropriate response to a redacted offensive comment is for everyone to pile in and see how much else mud can be thrown. Still, since I've made it perfectly clear that I don't consider that sort of behaviour appropriate, I'd ask that at minimum Djathinkimacowboy be formally warned that such behaviour is unlikely to be tolerated again, and that it isn't remotely acceptable to attempt to blame others, and make further attacks on them instead. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so you're implying that the cases of Djathinkimacowboy and YRC are completely identical...which they are not at all. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 22:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

True - there is at least a possibility that a reference to a 'queer agenda' might not be a personal attack (not that I would suggest it was appropriate even if it wasn't intended that way, as I've already made clear) an outright statement that someone is an antisemite (based on precisely nothing) can only be a personal attack - and a particularly offensive one at that. Still, we aren't here to discuss the other thread - so can you explain why Djathinkimacowboy should not also be asked to redact the personal attacks he has made on me? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

And incidentally, I think that the 'retraction' wasn't exactly the most sincere, was it? "Since Andy the Grump decided to make things more personal, I will strike the anti-Semitism comment"... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

"I myself was out of order with the comment I made that I have since redacted." another quote from Djathinkimacowboy, that I take as sincere. He also noted his intentions to disengage from the thread. He's not acted perfectly, he shouldn't have made the anti-semitism comment and he shouldn't have said that you give this place a really bad name, but then you also should've honored his request to stay off his talk page (for instance, you could've put a note on this ANI thread saying that you were asked to stay off his talkpage and requested that someone else inform him - would've been done in no time). Why don't you just drop this? It's not getting anywhere, and we all have better things to do with our time. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 15:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, let's see the context of his 'request': "I suggest you read back and find the mention of the editor being anti-Semitic toward British Jews. And stay off my talk page, will you please!—" Note that I'd never posted on his talk page before - and note that at this point he was still repeating the allegation of antisemitism which led me to start this thread, and per the explicit instruction at the top of this page, notify him of it. I think that part of the problem was that he posted a second 'request' to me in the 'Unacceptable homophobic attacks...' thread while I was posting here. [28] And note too that this 'request' included yet another personal attack. The simple fact is that Djathinkimacowboy has a history of such behaviour, and fails to see that it is problematic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Wait, you believe that one offensive comment is sufficient to get someone blocked now? I don't see that that's reflected in your comments above, where months upon months of homophobic comments didn't stop you throwing down the gauntlet in defense of YRC. Or perhaps the only real offensive thing is to call someone out on their behavior. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• • No. I don't think that "one offensive comment is sufficient to get someone blocked". I haven't called for Djathinkimacowboy to be blocked. Still, never let the facts get in the way of a good trolling session... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:53, 30 March 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.

Repeat disruption from 1 person using numerous IP's due to previously being blocked

I'm not sure what to do, I reported this on WP:AIV, but was directed here. 98.88.175.95 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is back to disrupt WPCH-TV by continually making this same edit: [29]. This person has also edited and been warned and blocked using 98.88.174.163 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 98.88.172.233 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 98.88.168.71 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). WPCH-TV was protected for a few weeks, but the user returned on the day or day after protection expired. Does the page need some sort of permanent protection? Any help would be greatly appreciated. InFlamester20 (talk) 05:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I've protected it for three months (had a bit of a wrestling match with the interface, which has recorded me doing it three times!!) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Bot Spamming

I've received an email in Malayalam from (which I don't read) from User:VsBot, which is run by User:Vssun who directs messages to him to be left on his talk page on ml wiki, where is he is also apparently a 'crat. On going to his talk page, there are several complaints about spam, so a) can someone look into this, and b) which account should I post the ANI notice on? MSJapan (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked the bot. That should get his attention. Probably better posting on his ml page if you can. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

On a further look, the English VsBot hasn't edited in two years (and that includes sending emails - I would be able to see if it had). He must be running a version on a ml account. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I've received the same e-mail, but, in fairness, the e-mail part of it comes from your preferences; you can just turn off UTP e-mail updates (or ask that the setting be updated globally here). It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 16:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Disruptions, deliberate

Disruptions at an ongoing mediation[30] by User:B3430715: [31] and [32]. I request a review of this and advice on next step. Several of us are perplexed by the weird disruptions caused by this user. The user has a very short history of disruptive editing. The links will also show my warnings to the editor.—Djathinkimacowboy 21:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Not really responsive, but there's something disturbing about a Wikipedia editor having a huge image saying "Fuck copyright" ([33]) on his user page.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I noted that also, Bbb23. My personal wish is that he weren't so (apparently) bad at English. If you notice, his fluency does seem to fluctuate. But he certainly knows what he's doing with his disruptions.—Djathinkimacowboy 22:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The latest weirdness may be seen here:[34]. Can't say if this is deliberate or if he really does not comprehend. A brilliant strategy, if that's what it is, though.—Djathinkimacowboy 22:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

He strikes me as a troll. Have you asked the mediator to step in?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, this[35] you must see. No, Bbb, the mediator doesn't even seem to reply to MedCab itself regarding vital issues, so ... but I did advise her of this. And I agree imho, I think he is a troll.—Djathinkimacowboy 22:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out what he's doing when he's not at the mediation cabal. I found this one really weird. He doesn't seem to like the movie as he removed a link to it from another article. Another weird edit related to the movie: [36]. Oh, a heads up to any admins watching this topic, B3 removes warnings from his Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

For all the world it looks as if he's just whipping about with the intent to troll. There's no other explanation. He's keeping off here - I trust you took a gander at his reply to this ANI on his talk page! I'll try to see how far back he goes ... I am under the impression he's very new. Yet his disruptive edits go back a ways on the Columbo artilce.—Djathinkimacowboy 01:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

What seems recommended, aside from the diffs I have provided so far, is a look at his contribs. If anyone wants it, I'll find all of his disruptive edits as they pertain to my issue. One thing I noticed way back is that he 'does his rounds', and as I said, his disruptions are sometimes weirdly subtle.—Djathinkimacowboy 01:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem with him dates back to around 22 February. All of this from the editor's talk page: personal attack[37]. I warned him about this[38]. Second weird personal attack after deleting my warning[39]. My next warning[40]. His next personal attack[41]. Here he thinks he's deleted the evidence[42]. This was his invitation to sign up to participate in the ongoing MedCab[43]. The following are the diffs from Columbo and from the article's talk page (please note the edit summaries whenever there are any): the first edit to the article, innocent enough[44]. That proves he knows how to edit properly and within rules. But then there's these two edits[45]. Clearly off his rails. Though I am repeating this, I draw to your attention his edit warring here[46] (which also shows a correction I have had to make twice now thanks to him) Note the reversion, for no good reason. I leave you with his blatant edit warring in the removal of the RfC I had there a while back (he removed that tag repeatedly):[47].—Djathinkimacowboy 01:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

May I add: here[48] I apprised my fellow editor who's with me at mediation about this trouble as well.—Djathinkimacowboy 02:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked at his entire history, but I don't think his "stupid people" ES is any more of a personal attack than you calling his answers schizophrenic, or telling him "... and learn better grammar while you're at it". I can quite understand that you're irritated by the guy, Djathink, but in terms of the shades-of-grey area between attack and not-attack, I don't see that you're actually that far apart from each other. Try toning it down with him a few (several?) notches, and see if setting a better example to him might make him more inclined to communicate more peacefully. Pesky (talk) 05:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Mediation has failed, and the disruption is not clear-cut enough to warrant any immediate admin action here. Hence, you need to request arbitration, in which case the Arbitration Committee will look at the evidence and likely issue admonishments, topic bans, and even complete site bans, depending on the severity of the situation given. --MuZemike 07:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

This edit: hardly an improvement, IMHO. Muddying the water. A slight competence issue, perhaps? 114 total edits. Wow. Hey: this is not a personal attack, folks. This is Columbo we're talking about, here. Can old dogs learn new tricks? We'll be monitoring... Doc talk 08:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to show this[49] as an example of how this editor can edit properly, and knows what he's doing. Of course it is also proof that his English is really much better than he usually pretends. Reply to Pesky: Have you looked at the disruptive editing I showed from the mediation that he's done? And also from his talk page? When I responded angrily to him it was because he was just trolling about and sticking his tongue out - do you see him replying here? He's been responding on his talk page. This was enough trouble. I don't see what arbitration is going to do, except perhaps send me back here.—Djathinkimacowboy 17:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Here[50], an extremely recent edit, he is asked why he placed an image of a copyrighted DVD cover in place of an old image. Note his reply in edit summary, and his insistence on using schizophrenic reasoning when he does reply to other editors. So, he adds what is likely a copyvio and says it is because 'People love color photo ... ' This is but a taste of the insanity this editor brings, to disrupt articles. In one or two new edit summaries, he is asking what the Columbo catchphrases have to do with ANI. This user is a troll. I am beginning to expect him to be treated as one; why is it that we're supposed to try to charm him into behaving?—Djathinkimacowboy 17:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Query: I'd like to know why this issue is being ignored here. The issue as I tried so hard to explain clearly is the following, about the editor in question:

1. After editing normally for a good while at Columbo, he suddenly became a little belligerent.
2. We either worked with him or ignored him until he became a bit offensive.
3. When I approached him politely on his talk, he attacked me.
4. When I warned him about this, he attacked again.
5. Recently in the Columbo mediation, he altered at least one of my posts, and injected disruptive, weird posts in odd places.
6. He was warned about this in about the same way as you see above.
7. He disrupted the mediation again, all the while his English getting 'worse' and 'worse'.
8. He responded to this ANI on his talk page with strange ramblings and began mentioning the ANI in his edit summaries.

I don't understand what more you guys needs to give me a perspective on this. It certainly does not help to say to go to arbitration - so this troll can laugh at us some more?—Djathinkimacowboy 00:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Based on a reading of Talk:Columbo#Lead image: WP:COPYVIO problem, there could be a compromise about the DVD cover. The above discussion shows that no admin is prepared to issue a block at this time. If the editor is really trying to cause trouble, he will be back here soon. It would be better if Djathink would wait for someone else to make the next report. EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Fine - message received loud and clear. What do we do here now? Close and archive this where no one will ever see it, when the editor goes round the bend again? Just wondering.—Djathinkimacowboy 05:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Please see[51] and note the post above it, where the editor keeps responding to the ANI there. Yes, let's do drop this for now and let him keep trolling. ANI just makes me so proud at this moment. And of course, no one could at any time have even bothered him, by going to his talk and asking him to respond here. This board is asinine in the extreme. Let's just wait for "the next person" to come and report him.—Djathinkimacowboy 06:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any trolling, and think you should probably stop using that word. I do see an editor with poor English skills, who is perhaps editing beyond his means, but I don't see any bad faith. I find it completely understandable that a new user might suddenly start editing a mediation page, even though they weren't previously involved, and then not "sign-up" since the mediation was basically already over. You've been fairly threatening, and used some pretty strong language yourself. Trolling is a really strong claim: you're implying he is only here to disrupt Wikipedia, make false edits, antagonize people, etc. And yet I don't think you've come close to showing that through diffs. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

As a side note, I did nominate the page he created for deletion per A10 (he essentially took the stuff removed from the List of episodes page and made a new page to keep it under a similar name), but, again, I don't see that as being intentionally disruptive. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

WOW! OK, let me begin by addressing Qwyrxian that good faith can be assumed unless proven otherwise and let me assure you that B3430715 is desperately doing so. Its not that the user is bad in english, actually he is competent enough to put a very graphic English term on his userpage. Getting down to the point. Have you gone through the revision history? It shows that some really meaningful comments have been removed expertly from the page giving the appearance that the user is a happy-go-lucky type of user. His talk page will show you that he is an expert in feigning ignorance of the language unless it comes to the art of rudely dismissing a person, or acknowledging a compliment. This is certainly not contributing to a harmonious working environment. --Wikishagnik (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Is a manic and inappropriate obsession with a subject a kind of trolling? W., I truly thank you for showing that there is a problem with him and it needs to be somehow addressed. That is exactly why I came here asking for advice and direction regarding what steps could be taken. That editor has deliberately disrupted several things and has persisted in doing it. It's a shame nobody sees this pattern, especially Qwyrxian. But as I said to Q, I'm prepared to drop this whole issue for my part. Someone else will come here about him if he persists. Does anyone note how sweetly behaved he's been lately? Still playing the troll ... I apologise if that term offends some people. But I still say he is a troll.—Djathinkimacowboy 18:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Dja... remember this little piece of advice and your reply? - DVdm (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, God, I was just waiting for something like that. I went and put my foot in it, didn't I? Now this is all about me, whilst B3430715 gets justified and protected. This is NOT about me, DVdm. I am trying to stop someone much worse than I ever was! He's doing it deliberately, DVdm! Why don't you read the things before coming at me like this? Please, don't come here again to post stuff like that. Post it at my talk page. Please.—Djathinkimacowboy 20:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course he is doing it deliberately, that's the whole point. I have read the things, and I'm not coming at you, on the contrary. But if you insist, I will not comment any further. Forget about it. - DVdm (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Those working here are free to review me if they wish. I do not object. As for me, I am withdrawing from this silly thing and will not visit or post here again. In light of the undue attention going toward me, I leave it to the good wisdom of those whom I have seen posting (all too rarely) on this board. After all, the editor in question will get in trouble if he persists in wrongdoing or whatever it is he's doing. I leave you with this warning: keep examining issues in the way you did here, and LOTS of these types will eventually rule WP. I sincerely thank all of you who participated.—Djathinkimacowboy 20:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

May I say something? Apparently I received tons of disruptions from a same person. This person would like to controls everything. When someone disagrees him, he will argue and argue until you are just tired of it.

For ex, in the mediation case, I simply point out what was wrong with proves. But this person starts to avoid the thing when he knew he is wrong,and begins some pointless arguments. (same with the table issue back in Feb)

Moreover, this same person is being a dictator, he thinks that he represents ever wiki users... look how many time he made his decision even no one agrees him.

I remains silent and chose not to come here but today, to avoid having another fight with this person. However, this person continues his personal disruptions.

I know for sure that the Admins can tell who is right or wrong, and they'll need no instructions from anyone. So for now, I will remain silent again. B3430715 (talk) 07:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

An observation from an uninvolved non-admin: if this is indicative of User:B3430715's skills regarding the English language, I can see little prospect of him/her making any positive contribution to this encyclopaedia. Regardless of any other issues, I'd suggest that B3430715 would be better employed elsewhere: basic literacy in the language of the relevant encyclopaedia is a necessary precondition. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

“ he is asking what the Columbo catchphrases have to do with ANI. ” — Djathinkimacowboy

Reply,because someone said this, thus I replyed(talk) 10:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - B3430715 please don't use quotation marks unless you are quoting someone else. Please mention whom you are quoting if you do. Please don't use phrase, instead try complete sentences. This is not a poetry competition but a legitimate discussion. If you use random phrases like you did now, I will strikethrough your comment and request a more complete and comprehensible statement. --Wikishagnik (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikishagnik, You are in this discussion since the beginning. I quoted the phrase right from this page. But since you are having confusion, I added the person whom I quoted from.

• Just imagine：

when someone who edits Columbo says that Columbo season 11 has just released, and gives a [French version DVD] as a prove...

when someone wants to change the existing episode order to "1~10 + Specials + 11 + Specials" instead

while on the other hand, the Columbo page said this in 2009:

In the UK, (Region 2) all episodes have now been released as ten seasons, the tenth season covering all the shows from "Columbo Goes to College" (1990) to the finale "Columbo Likes the Nightlife" (2003). However in France, and The Netherlands (also Region 2) the DVDs were released as twelve seasons.

Anyone will say things like hey you, look at the big photos, you are talking about an old things that will not be used in an English wiki article. Because in UK, all episodes have now been released as ten seasons

But if someone tries to avoid the fact, and claims you are being disruptive, being disruptive to a place where nobody is there.

anyone gets nuts--B3430715 (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

B3430715 - Good attempt at answering the questions but I suggest you may condense your answers even more and avoid the excess formatting as it confues the reader. Next time you have region specific variations for any TV sereal please mention it clearly in the article and provide suitable references. I am sure no-one will object to that. --Wikishagnik (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Really, sometimes it is impossible to go away and leave something alone! Yes, Wikishagnik, really good. However, none of that is to the point, if you will look at my opening statement. It does not explain his disruptive editing, or his inserting things into my posts (whic he no longer does since he knew it was wrong in the first place). It also does not explain the nonstop broken English when it's convenient, and a much better fluency when he really wants to communicate something. It does not explain this sudden and singular interest in Columbo and the restoration of discarded WP:UNDUE material (which was also not to the original point). Honestly, don't you think this is encouragement of the worst kind?—Djathinkimacowboy 17:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

By the way, did anyone notice this[52] from yesterday? Yes, keep encouraging B3430715. I see he has many of you fooled as to the true nature of his activities here.—Djathinkimacowboy 17:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

General comment:My fellow WPs, this is what ought to occur on ANI:

1. The problem is stated.
2. All involved editors come and open with statements.
3. An admin comes in as soon as possible, having reviewed preliminaries and makes a statement.
4. Depending on the issue, commentary should be welcome in general. Especially commentary from other admins and knowledgeable editors.
5. An agreement should be reached as to appropriate action.
6. 'Closing statements' if you want to call them that.
7. A firm final declaration - not binding or otherwise violating ANI - issued by an admin. A bit like the Supreme Court does opinions, so a dissenting declaration should be there also.

Instead, this is what happens on ANI:

1. Problem is stated.
2. WP:CHINESE FIRE DRILL ensues.
3. Everyone who is interested comes to air grievances, from WP:UNDUE disagreements to complaining about the brown spots on giraffes.
4. And all of that only if anyone is interested in responding at all.
5. Lots of yelling can occur. No one listens to anyone.
6. Almost immediately the original problem is high jacked and lost forever. If an editor comes to remind everyone of the original problem, that editor is ignored or shouted down.

Who is ever going to fix this place?—Djathinkimacowboy 17:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Djathinkimacowboy, it sounds like you're unhappy with the way this particular AN/I report has been handled, and are making the extension to assert that there's a pressing, general problem here. Now I'd be the first to agree that there are times when AN/I resembles a zoo, and it's not known as the dramaaahh board for nothing. But at the moment I think it's generally functioning rather well. Most reports are dealt with quickly and appropriately, but I do agree it's frustrating on those rare occasions (like this one) when they are not. For what it's worth, we had a very long and full discussion of some principles rather like the ones you set out - just look at the most recent talk page archives for this project page. The consensus was that a strict protocol such as you suggest is not needed (and in fact is unworkable) because reports of so many different sorts are made here, and one size does not fit all.

On your specific report, I'm sorry you've not had the resolution you wanted. Reports are left unresolved for a number of reasons, such as:

1. There's clearly an issue, but it doesn't seem major enough to warrant admin action yet
2. There may be an issue, but it's been reported in an unclear way (eg without sufficient diffs)
3. There may be an issue, but it's hard to see one side as exclusively in the right
4. There may be an issue, but process issues (such as conflict, incivility, trolling or digressions) make it hard to see.

In this case, I think the inaction you are seeing is partly because of 1) above - other people don't yet feel as strongly as you about this issue. It's muddied a little further by noticing interactions such as these from you, which reduce your credibility even if you have a good case. Continually reposting here when you don't get an answer can feel like nagging, and puts people off as well. How you present your self and your case is almost as important as how good your case is, in Wikipedia as in life.

Having said all that, I'm going to post a warning on the user talk page of the editor in question because at the very least there are some WP:COMPETENCE issues going on. I don't think anything further than a warning is warranted right now, so would suggest we close this thread as resolved once I have done that. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 18:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've had a closer look at both main protagonists' posts and I have left a mild warning at B3430715's talk page. However on reviewing all edits more closely I gear there is a WP:BOOMERANG coming back at you, Djathinkimacowboy. Posts such as this, this and this are, in my view, much worse offences. Your very own talk pages asks people to "not bite the newcomers" and yet that is exactly what you have been doing here. I don't see the evidence of trolling that you do, rather I see a newcomer who is fairly unfamiliar with WP protocol and with English being mocked and tied up in bureaucracy. From what I can see, with a helping hand, this user might be an asset. Why not extend one, rather than a sarcastic comment? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Kim, you posted some very wise words, and I appreciate the evaluation you have given the ANI process (as a reply to my venting steam). However, I think you are in error when you say that B3 is some sort of innocent newcomer, because he is clearly not a newcomer, only a new account: he knows how to edit quite well when he wants, he expertly removes warnings from his talk page (wonder how long yours will last), and can ratchet up his fluency in English when he likes. Then suddenly he's posting in near-gibberish later, when it suits. Too many helping hands have gone out toward B3 already, only to be nipped-at. If you looked at the other events, his contribs and what some admins have said, you'd know that. I myself am not going to offer a helping hand to someone I see as a troll! Help him how, by letting him feel all the security he wants? I'll say something further, I do not care about appearances: I'm beginning to think B3 is a sock. My evidence is thin, and no one wants that, so I'll shove that where it belongs for now. There, now you have my unadulterated personal feelings as well. And I'm sorry I came off so badly here. I never thought this place was the bastion of diplomacy. What do you want me to do aside from 'buzzing off' and not posting anything further here? A love sonnet to B3?--ain't gonna happen.—Djathinkimacowboy 23:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Kim--you suggested we close this "as resolved" once you post a warning on B3's talk. That is not satisfactory, unless another admin seconds it. You are moving too quickly, which was never what I wanted from anyone. If "no one gives a damn" is the criterion for closing a thread as "resolved", then by all means!—Djathinkimacowboy 00:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Had Kim not taken the time to provide helpful feedback, this would have been automatically archived anyway for receiving no action. I agree with her assessment. You have just now escalated from claiming this person is a troll to claiming that they're a sockpuppet (implied by your claim that they're an experienced editor, despite the relative new-ness of the account). I have not yet seen a single piece of convincing evidence that this is intentional disruption of the project. I do believe that, if the user's future edits continue to be argumentative while still being fairly incomprehensible, that WP:COMEPETENCE (regarding English language competence) may come into play, and they may end up blocked. But that point has not yet been reached. It's time for you to back away. Keep editing the Columbo articlees. If you have problems with the user on those articles in the future, you're welcome to bring them to me (or even back here, though, of course, be wary of the boomerang). Don't start watching their contributions, or their talkpage, because several of us really think you're seeing this wrong. Could Kim and I be wrong? Absolutely--speaking for myself, I've been wrong plenty of times before. Did both of us check the contribution history, and disagree with your assessment? Yes, we did. Unless you have new evidence, or some other editor significantly disagrees, I don't see much more value in this thread. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Close it then. I did express an opinion (and I said it had next to no evidence) that B3 is probably a sockpuppet. That opinion notwithstanding, I of course bow to the decisions made here. But I do not have to be pleased about it: and I am quite certain I have expressed gratitude for the "advice" that has been given here.—Djathinkimacowboy 19:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Though I bow to the decisions here, let me say this. Yes, in light of this[53], this[54], and this[55], I can see why we ought to leave this editor to his own devices!—Djathinkimacowboy 20:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)??--My apologies for the last post, which I have redacted. I was in error about those edits. Special thanks to Qwyrxian for patience and assistance in this. Is anyone else noticing terrible slowness and other problems editing at WP lately?—Djathinkimacowboy 00:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I had that on tne weekend, and had to get a new internet gateway. You could also try clearing your cache and deleting cookies etc. The site is working fine for me. -- Dianna (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Dianna, thank you. I tried it all except anything that cost money! It seems better today, after I had to shut off my PC overnight and kept the modem disconnected all day. As to this thread: being obviously a dead subject I move that it be closed. Has anyone noticed B3 totally ceased all activity on WP after his post here?—Djathinkimacowboy 20:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Hershebar sockpuppetry continued

The sockpuppetry from this user is continuing, now using 74.101.6.200 (talk · contribs). It may be worthwhile to semi-protect some of these pages. Wilhelmina Models, List of women writers, July 24, Fairleigh Dickinson University, Stephanie, and Playboy Playmate were the ones hit by this IP. A new SPI is still pending. Calabe1992 18:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

For passing admins, the SPI is here. Calabe1992 18:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Hellotoyoumyfriend (talk · contribs) has now been created also, added to the SPI. Calabe1992 18:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Rollbacker abusing powers, tryed to warn me about something I did not do

Mtking ^(edits) 21:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC) warned me for WP:3RR, except I did not break that rule, when I confronted him about it he said: "you were fast approaching it". Clearly an abuse of his rollbacker powers. As well as he has been repeatedly trying to delete credible MMA related articles, and harassing people on Afd to sway votes. Glock17gen4 (talk) 07:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

First off, you need to notify users about ANI threads. So, I've notified Mtking.

Mtking mentioned 3RR but didn't accuse you of violating 3RR. The warning Mtking gave you had the eminently reasonably statement:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.

Ideally, you should have both proceeded to the talk page to have a sensible discussion about improving the article. The warning was perhaps slightly OTT, but I don't see how this as an abuse of the rollback functionality. Mtking gave what look to be basically reasonable edit summaries for his reverts; this isn't a rollback issue at all, just a simmering editing dispute.

The best thing would be if both of you were to try and explain your reasons for the article being the way you prefer it on the talk page. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately I fast concluding that Glock17gen4 has a terminal case of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT with regard to the notability requirements for MMA Events (see WP:MMAEVENT), the whole rational behind the creation of 2012 in UFC events is as a replacement for the articles on the individual events (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability and the section Omnibus articles) the intent being that the articles on the individual non-notable events will be redirected to this new page. There is no reason why wiki-links back to the soon to be redirect pages should be added, which will need to be removed when the redirect are put in place. This was explained in the edit sum of the first revert I made Reverted to revision 484482820 by TreyGeek: Actualy no, as the pages will be redirected here. - if you disagree take it to the talk page... As for the claim of "abuse of his rollbacker powers" that rather requires rollback to have been used which as the page history shows, was not the case. As for the template warning {{Uw-ew}} was used, and I stand by it being appropriate given the situation where the edit sum I used pointed the editor towards the talk page if he should disagree. Mtking ^(edits) 08:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

As with others, I'm confused how warning you (correctly or not) is an abuse of rollback powers. Was the rollback function used to try and keep the warning after you'd removed it or as part of the edit war? Note that anyone can give warnings, even anonymous users (IPs), it's not restriced to people with rollback powers. The only extra functionality rollback powers gives is the rollback function.

Also as has been explained above, warning people before they have actually violated 3RR is the norm, as one of the key purposes of the warning is to try and stop people from violating 3RR, particularly since it's can be seen as unfair to block people for something they weren't aware of. It's far less use warning people after they have violated 3RR, as by that stage it's somewhat too late. (Remember there's a difference between warning someone and reporting them.) And as has also been started, you can be blocked for edit warring without going over 3RR.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't edit warring, thats the thing, I was fixing the page to be in the correct order, but he is still trying to throw the rule book at me, I did nothing wrong. And I believe his intent is not to warn me of anything but to try and flex his online muscle and make me look bad, and make it look like I dont know the rules. I have been a great editor on here for awhile, I know what I'm doing. Glock17gen4 (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

This is purely an extension of editors with an interest in MMA filling pages full of crap; for example, this AfD resulted in a result that dozens of articles that failed numerous policies should be redirected; instead, MMA editors have merged those articles, resulting in a smaller number of articles that still fail all the policies that resulted in the original AfD. Example; Bellator Fighting Championships: Season Five. Frankly, all of those articles should be AfD'd as well - it's just a shame they couldn't be deleted as G4. Black Kite (talk) 19:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thats your opinion, why not attack boxing though? We the people all voted to keep the articles, our voice was ignored, why have a consensus vote if they dont matter anyways? That makes no sense at all. And MtKing kept pestering those who voted to keep the article, even tho the article was legit. The UFC is listed as a notable organization under the rules, I point that out to MtKing, he trys to twist the rules in his favor, if the rules are that vague, then they need to be changed. But if wikipedia keeps attacking MMA related articles, expect many people on wikipedia to get angry. Some of us just dont care for boxing or baseball or basketball or football or what have you. Yet how come those sports arent under attack? That proves how biased MtKing and his cronies are. Another thing: My so called "vandalism" and "edit warring" was me trying to fix MtKing's C-Grade page, look: [[56]]. See that page? The events are listed from latest at the top, earliest at the bottom. Look at MtKings page! [[57]] It's backwards, latest at bottom, eariliest in 2012 at top. So I try and do him a favor and fix that, and then he ACCUSES me of Vandalism and edit warring. Really? How is FIXING something so it doesnt look like utter crap, vandalism? Yea. Thats what I thought, that is a blatant abuse of his position. And he knows it. Glock17gen4 (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

We the people all voted to keep the articles, our voice was ignored, why have a consensus vote if they dont matter anyways? - WP:NOTAVOTE, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see what I have done to abuse anything. The rules are not vague, there is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER : most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion there is also WP:MMAEVENT :Individual events are not inherently considered notable because, on the whole, the coverage they receive is routine in nature. To me that is as clear as clear can be. Mtking ^(edits) 20:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

You wrongfully accused me of vandalism and edit warring when I was IMPROVING your article, thats what you did. If wikipedia articles can be improved, not replaced by a worse article, I'm all for improving. But this [[58]] is just terrible looking and disgraceful. And if I try and IMPROVE the article I get wrongfully accused of stuff. So I dont know... Glock17gen4 (talk) 20:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

please provide the diff where I accused you of vandalism or retract the statement above. As for 2012 in UFC events it is a vast vast vast improvement on the 100's of fancruft stuffed event articles. Mtking ^(edits) 20:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok WP:DE and WP:3RR I guess not Vandalism, but in no way was my editing disruptive, and in no way did I break the 3 revert rule. Another thing, yes the fights that are upcoming and fights that already occur SHOULD be listed, or you dont have much of an MMA related article to work with. So yea, not a vast improvement. Glock17gen4 (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I will take that as a retraction then. It was disruptive, you continued to edit after being pointed to the talk page, as for the WP:3RR notice, did you not read Nil Einne's contribution above ? If you want a wiki that has all the fight stats, why not create your own MMAWiki, the MediaWiki software is available as open source and if you use a CC-BY-SA licence you can even have transwiki copies of all the deleted articles. Mtking ^(edits) 20:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

To throw my two cents in, if 2012 in UFC events belongs to anyone it's mine as I wrote it. Glock's complaints seem to boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT more than anything. He says the events are listed in a different order than List of UFC events. There is a difference between a list-style article and a regular article. 2012 in UFC events is intended to be read from top to bottom discussing, in chronological order, the UFC events of the year. It makes perfect sense to me, but maybe I'm just weird. Back to the point of this ANI, User:Mtking did not use the rollback function to revert User:Glock17gen4's edits. When Glock reverted the revert, he got a warning about edit warring. It's a warning, nothing more. Glock wasn't reported to admins for edit warring, there was not request for his editing privileges to be taken away. I started a discussion on Talk:2012 in UFC events in regards to the ordering of events, apparently Glock isn't interested in pursuing that discussion. To me, this seems to be a non-issue in terms of User:Mtking's actions. This discussion should, in my opinion, be closed as such and a reminder to all parties involved (including myself) is that if you are going to complain about someone else's behavior, be sure that yours are clean first. --TreyGeek (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, how was I supposed to know that I had to go to the talk page to edit the article 1st? There was no lock on it. So yes I assumed it was ok to edit. And MtKing, I'd do that, but I am a very busy man. Glock17gen4 (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

MtKing, there already exists a number of Wiki's focusing on MMA according to this WT:MMA discussion. Glock, if you get reverted, it is generally advisable to go to the article's talk page or at the very least provide a descriptive edit summary (and no "fixing" is not descriptive). --TreyGeek (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Nope, I'm done with all this nonsense, I'm gunna stick to my favorite pages that havent been corrupted and thats that. I give up... Glock17gen4 (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll be blunt your comment 'I know what I'm doing' doesn't inspire much confidence when you've 1) Said someone was abusing rollback when rollback was not used. 2) Apparently failed to notify Mtking when starting this thread (as the orange box tells you to do). 3) Even after multiple people have explained it to you, you seem to keep talking about how you did not make 3 reverts when regardless of whether or not the warning was justified or even whether you were edit warring, no one ever accused you of making more then 3 reverts but simply gave you a warning about our policy. 4) Keep talking about the 'rule book' (see the fifth pillar). 5) Seem to be failing to WP:AGF when you claim 'I believe his intent is not to warn me of anything but to try and flex his online muscle and make me look bad' without any apparent evidence (and frankly if you hadn't brought this issue to ANI, few people would have even been aware you'd been warned). 6) Made an accusation of WP:vandalism which as I understand it you now agree was incorrect. (P.S. The rest of dispute I haven't looked at, as it doesn't seem to concern ANI as no administrative action is required. P.P.S. Just to be clear, I'm not saying all this to attack you or put you down. Simply to point out that as an editor uninvolved in the dispute, going by what I've seen here I don't see any reason to think that it wasn't resonable to assume you weren't aware or had forgotten about our policy and therefore it may be helpful to inform you of it.) Nil Einne (talk) 02:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing...not sure what to do

The unformatted text content of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive744#Disruptive editing...not sure what to do was copy-pasted here by the original poster User:Smm201`0 with a comment [59] saying "deleted before completed". I came here in response to a help desk post [60] by Smm201`0. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks, disruptive conduct

during a discussion over the format of an article, MarcusBritish (talk · contribs) has made personal attacks calling me "either stupid, or a liar" [61] and responding to serious comments argumented in policies with mocking, he even admits his attitude "Of course I'm mocking you" [62]. i've tried to maintain a normal discussion with the guy but my arguments have been countered with mere ridicule, personal attacks and provoking phrases.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Belongs at WP:WQA. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 18:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I beg to differ. This thread belongs here, MarcusBritish, because unless you tone it down a couple of notches, I'll block you. Consider this a warning. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

"Wikiquette assistance is a forum where editors who feel they are being treated uncivilly can request assistance from other editors in resolving a situation. The goal is to help all parties in a situation come to a mutually agreeable resolution. It is designed to function by persuasion, reason, and community support, not threats and blocks." Seems you're wrong. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 18:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I have always distinguished general incivility from personal attacks. Here you were not simply uncivil, you insulted your interlocutor. And wikilawyering about the venue is not going to divert my attention from that. Now you've been warned; the next insult you hurl, no matter the recipient, will result in a block. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Salvio, did you read the discussion? Maybe he's not "stupid or a liar", but he sure seems to have a bad case of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. Mojoworker (talk) 02:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

My, what a charmer. Salvio's spot on ... and beyond that, insistence on WP:WQA is a bit specious, isn't it? You're scarcely sounding as if you regret your comments. Ravenswing 07:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, mild incivility and difficult communications belong at WP:WQA - significant violations of WP:NPA do indeed belong here (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

2012 BRICS summit

Despite warning the user twice, and explaining the problem, the user Ruledouted refuses to stop removing valid and relevant content from the article. The article is currently in WP:ITN and I am having great difficulty managing the editor. He refuses to stop, and I have been forced to identify the edits as unconstructive at first, and later vandalism (twice). He has again removed the content a third time and I fear he may do more removals from the article; I have not reverted a third time or else I violate WP:3RR. This and this are the changes he keeps making. I request administrators to intervene and find a solution. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, as a note to administrators, I will not be online for another three hours due to prior commitments; if anybody has any queries for me, please wait until 1:00 UTC for a reply. Thank you. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Vandalized file version found in someone's userspace

Resolved

 – now under discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Deanybabeh/India Wharf International Airport. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• I decided to find which pages were using the image File:Heathrow Before World War II Map.jpg; that led me to page User:Deanybabeh/India Wharf International Airport, which is a vandalized version of page London Heathrow Airport. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Clearly, something will be considered vandalism if the author intentionally did something like that to the actual article. In this case, it's confined to the user space. Soviet King (talk) 14:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Looks like a textbook WP:FAKEARTICLE situation to me, probably should MFD it if anyone was so inclined. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Spam

Resolved

 – No problems here from what I can see The Cavalry (Message me) 17:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Spamming? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/66.87.0.137 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Svanslyck (talk • contribs) 11:00, 31 March 2012‎ (UTC)

I'm not sure.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

What I can hardly see is the IP is awarding users with smileys; thus promoting WikiLove. If the IP flooded a user's talk with lots of WikiLove; it was going to be spam. Otherwise; this IP is perfectly OK, and he/she needs to be given a innocent warning asking for contributing positively rather than only distributing WikiLove. Dipankan says.. ^{("Be bold and edit!")} 15:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

What would be the correct template to post?
kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 15:20, 31 March 201

The "not a social network" is the only one that makes sense ... which I have done (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Warning? What for? I posted a WikiLove instead. Such a nice job he has been doing. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanking the month's most active contributors for their contributions seems positive to me as well. The IP is even going to the trouble to vary the messages from user to user. Personally, I was happy to get mine and didn't consider it disruptive. Khazar2 (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

About 30 folks (including me) received barnstars from what's obviously the same person yesterday. I don't know about the others, but I'll take whatever I can get. Deor (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not that active an editor, don't want smileys I don't deserve, and if the are deserved I would prefer they come from a registered user, not an anon, and not in conjunction with 30 others getting this same nonsense. Thanks to all, though, for listening.
kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 20:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe they're just in love with the whole world today, and wanted to spread some good feelings around ;P Pesky (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed, another IP is doing the same thing. (See User_talk:Tomtomn00#WikiThanks). Automated? ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 21:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Suspect image over at commons.

The following discussion is closed. 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

 – Image go "bye-bye". Doc talk 05:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey all.

I don't really have much to do with commons ever, so I don't know who to bring this up with - but I'm a little suspicious of this image which was added the the arse page recently: [63] anybody know what to do? Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Contact an admin over at Commons? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I nominated it for Speedy Deletion over there. Hopefully an admin will get rid of it soon. Since Tpmorrell1 (talk · contribs) uploaded it and attempted to introduce it here, I'm sure many more constructive edits are sure to come from them. Doc talk 19:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

zomg, I am a sad individual ;P My first reaction was to wonder who it was ... Pesky (talk) 20:54, 31 March 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.

ANI edit page vandalism

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

---

You win a balloon for spotting it

Disregard

 – Looks like it's fixed SÆdon^talk 00:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

When you edit this page there is a large red note at the top that reads "Welcome to Purgatory, the giant morass where anyone can suffer." I'm not sure how to fix this as I don't know where edit page code is located. SÆdon^talk 00:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe it was a short term April Fool's joke. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that was me. Only admins and account creators can edit editnotices, although I was only half-joking about this page being like purgatory. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Suspect image over at commons.

The following discussion is closed. 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

 – Image go "bye-bye". Doc talk 05:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey all.

I don't really have much to do with commons ever, so I don't know who to bring this up with - but I'm a little suspicious of this image which was added the the arse page recently: [64] anybody know what to do? Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Contact an admin over at Commons? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I nominated it for Speedy Deletion over there. Hopefully an admin will get rid of it soon. Since Tpmorrell1 (talk · contribs) uploaded it and attempted to introduce it here, I'm sure many more constructive edits are sure to come from them. Doc talk 19:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

zomg, I am a sad individual ;P My first reaction was to wonder who it was ... Pesky (talk) 20:54, 31 March 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.

ANI edit page vandalism

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

---

You win a balloon for spotting it

Disregard

 – Looks like it's fixed SÆdon^talk 00:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

When you edit this page there is a large red note at the top that reads "Welcome to Purgatory, the giant morass where anyone can suffer." I'm not sure how to fix this as I don't know where edit page code is located. SÆdon^talk 00:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe it was a short term April Fool's joke. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that was me. Only admins and account creators can edit editnotices, although I was only half-joking about this page being like purgatory. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:35, 1 April 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.

Bradley Manning BLP

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

---

Would someone mind taking a look at the Bradley Manning BLP, specifically with regard to the subject's gender being changed from a "he" to a "she"? Thanks. AzureCitizen (talk) 03:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Er, yes - the article seems to be stating that Manning is transgender, without making the source for this clear. I think we are firmly into 'citation needed' territory here - and the only appropriate source for this would be a direct statement to this effect by Manning, I'd presume. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

It is clear, moreover, that the wholesale use of "she" while the military specifically considers the person as male, and federal law appears to aver that "non-op" transsexuals are legally their original gender as a rule, would seem improper. Conviction would likely result in imprisonment as a male as federal prisons do not perform MtF surgery AFAIK. Collect (talk) 03:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that may be a side-issue, Collect. As far as can be determined from the article, we don't have a source yet for Manning actually wanting any operation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I've semi'd the article and reverted it back to before the BLP violating edits. Whether Manning wants to be transgender is beside the point - As far as I can determine, Manning is still male, so that's where the article should stand. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "wants to be transgender" is quite the appropriate phraseology here - but without a source, we have no idea what Manning wants, needs, feels, or identifies with. The issue doesn't arise... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was hurrying, but the wholesale changes from male to female pronouns and "Bradley" to "Breanna" without a reliable source is entirely inappropriate. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 04:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

This issue would be best dealt with at WP:BLP/N however some of the above comments appear to inconsistent with policy. As in many matters, we rely more on self identification or preference then 'official' or legal acceptance, or editors personal views. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style which says

Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the gendered nouns, pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life. Nevertheless, avoid confusing or seemingly logically impossible text that could result from pronoun

So if Bradley Manning has expressed a clear preference to be referred to as 'she' or has clearly identified as female, then we would respect that (no matter if some people think 'he's still male' or the military or 'federal law' still considers Manning as male and regardless of the lack of any operations). However the above comments suggest there are no WP:RS stating Bradley Manning has expressed a clear self identification as female or for the 'she' pronoun, therefore the conclusions are likely correct (stick with the male pronoun) even if the reasoning is not.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Where a person has made no legal change of name, is not living as a female full-time, and reliable sources do not call the person female, it is an insult to readers to call a person being prosecuted as a male, female. If the person is living full time as a female as called for by protocols relating to transsexualism, you might have a case, but that is clearly not the case at hand. The particular case would, in fact, be insulting to genuine full-time MtF transsexuals. And I found no source stating that Manning intends at any point to have SRS, much less live full-time as a female for a full year per the official protocols. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems you've failed to read what I wrote, including the quoted MOS. As I've already stated, we don't require a person to have an SRS (which would illegal in some countries and in many others has to be self-funded so is not always possible even if legal and desired) or even want one (as our articles make clear, not all do), nor to live a full year as a female (which may be very dangerous in some countries) nor do we require them to follow any official protocols, nor do we follow what people are being prosecuted as (which in some countries even with an SRS would still follow what the authorities consider their gender at birth based on physical anatomy), nor do we require a legal change of name (which may be impossible in some countries). Nor for that matter do we care if some of our readers are 'insulted' or if some transexuals are insulted (although I think most are far more accepting then you seem to give them credit for). As I've stated, what we do care about as self identification and as I've also said, since there's no clear self identification as female in the RS then it's likely correct to keep referring to Manning as male which appears to be in concurrence with most RS. (What we seem to have are some chat transcripts which as I understand it, weren't intended to be publicly released and precisely what Manning means seems disputed. Given the current status of Manning, it's seems unlikely RS can seek clarification from them and it's possible they will refuse to answer such a question anyway, which likely explains the unfortunate uncertainty.) But your rationale remains inconsistent with policy. BTW, our MOS policy is fairly consistent with a number of highly reputable RS MOS, hence why we usually don't have problems of having to go against them. As I'm sure you know, if you want to change our MOS, you're at the wrong place. P.S. One thing I perhaps neglected to make clear until this second reply is that in the absence of a clearly expressed preference, we do have to fall back on other considerations like RS usage. I apologise for any confusion because of this. Nil Einne (talk) 14:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I certainly read what everyone wrote. And have noted in this post and in other posts that the sources do not use a female pronoun for him, and per the genral manuals of style will not use the female pronoun unless and until some conditions are met - some of which I presented. I am quite familiar with the topic, and frankly I doubt he is a transsexual under the Harry Benjamin standards of care. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

We don't need to speculate about whether Manning may, or may not, be transgender: we have not a scrap of sourcing that Manning identifies as being trans in any regard. Nor indeed should we feel the need to come up with some sort of bizarre burden-of-proof rule under which we change gender pronouns, as they should match those used by the subject themselves — or, for that matter, under which criteria we refer to BLP subjects as being transgender. Despite the subject being an utter non-sequitur, however, I feel forced to comment that I find the debate above — about whether BLP subjects live full-time as a particular gender or desire SRS in a way implying a connection to how Wikipedia presents gender of BLP subjects — both disappointing and saddening. Do the editors commenting in this thread feel it would be appropriate to demand BLP subjects send photographs to OTRS? Even though Manning is nothing to do with this; please, people, show some sensitivity, for God's sake. --Tristessa (talk) 00:59, 1 April 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.

Allegations of gross incivility by Evlekis

( Section titles here must not be prejudicially phrased. Converted heading to neutral, w/ anchor to original.  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC) )

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

---

Resolved

Brings the edit war from the talk-page [65], to [66], you may NOTS ets. Majuru (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a note to say that the matter has since developed and a consensus has quickly been reached to reverse my original action on the article target page. Majuru is not a new user and is aware of the procedure which is why I had to point out that editors do not have the right to remove sourced information except if observing consensus or other very rare occasions. Majuru's reason for removing the text with three citations which are unequivocal in their purpose was because the inclusion does not fit in with his Albanian nationalist outlook. The article itself however has since been modified by me to feature the title per Majuru's move request which I also hope will follow shortly. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 15:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Majuru, I see no incivility in those two diffs (in fact, one of them is one of your own edits). If you wish to make such allegations, please provide some evidence. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I think he refers to the second citation, the heavily stressed "not". I admit it was a curt summary but the squabbles between Majuru and me are ongoing, we have debate but I assure all admins that I make no comment in bad faith. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 16:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, I have now fulfilled my pledge to restore the artcle in question to its rightful place[67]. Come what may, I foresee no conflict with Majuru. This was indeed his proposal. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 16:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

This was just a content disagreement, already concluded in a civil manner - there's nothing to complain about here, and no action needed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks Bong, I'll remember not to use block caps when editing the summary. Regards. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:11, 31 March 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.

End of RfC to issue 10

On 23 August 2011 I rised, among others, issue 10 in War of the Pacific's talk page and after fruitless discussions I rised the RfC issue 10 and, at the end of the day, the editors were (see current part of the discussion in Issue 10 Grau's gallantry)

For inclusion of the gallantry text

• MarshalN20
• DonaldRichardSands
• Ian Cloudac

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.131.3 (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC) 

For exclusion of the gallantry text

• Alex [68]
• Keysanger (believe me, I am against)
• Noleander [69]
• Ludwigs2 [70]
• John Carter [71]
• Chiton Magnificus [72]

I deleted the verbose peacock [73] according to the majority of the editors. We know that Wikipedia isn't a democracy but, it is the only way we have until now to resolve such impasses.

Now, editor MarshalN20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverts the consensus change and wants to discuss the issue further.

I don't know what to do. I will not begin a edit war, the pros and cons have been explained in a RfC and a consensus reached.

I ask to an admin to take measures to end the discussion and to impose the consensus.

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 09:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

No consensus has ever been reached. This user has already been warned (by another editor in this board) not to bring content disputes in here, but Keysanger is not listening.

His deletion of material includes content which describes the Huascar's actions in the war, a matter which has nothing to do with the discussion on Grau's gallantry. This is not only noted by me, but also by user Chiton ("what is at stake is not all of Huascars actions").

Here I diminish the disputed content into half a sentence ([74]). Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll point out that, in the current article, the controversial text has been moved to a more appropriate location (per the recommendation of user Chiton). See [75]. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Possible misuse of Wikipedia

I don't really know if this violates any policies or what the right place to discuss it is if it does, or, indeed, whether it's been discussed or not, but I figured I'd just drop a note and a link here to see what others think of it. Possible WP:NOTHERE?

http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-03-sbu-awards-contribute-higher-wikipedia.html

--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

You think Barnstars violate WP:NOTHERE? Ironholds (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Or moreso, someone did a study which may show a way to increase participation in Wikipedia! NO, stomp this out. We cannot have better editor retention at any cost! We need to work harder at driving away new editors, not being welcoming! Fuck them! --Jayron32 02:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

But what if they like being fucked? It wouldn't work! Pesky (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

But there are so many people actively involved in driving away new new editors. Do we have to notify them all of this discussion?--Shirt58 (talk) 02:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

We should rejig ClueBot to issue them a standard notification. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That's fascinating! 60% more productivity? Wow! Pesky (talk) 03:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say there was necessarily anything wrong with it, just thought maybe there should be a few eyes on it. Sheeeeesh. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

It could work on an "opt-in" system like SuggestBot. Established users could elect to receive notifications of new accounts creations, and then go and hassle them. If we are really serious about alienating new editors, I am sure there could be a WP:BOT written to do just this. From what I can see, there are a number of acceptable scripting languages that... erm... --Shirt58 (talk) 11:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

2012 in UFC events—Battleground disruption

Hi, folks. 2012 in UFC events and related articles seem to have evolved into virtual battlegrounds regarding some new change to a relevant guideline. Thinking it's best to let the lot of you know before things get out of hand. There seems to be a small coordinated attack on these pages by multiple users engaged in multiple facets of disruption—vandalism, personal attacks, incivility, edit warring, etc. I believe there is also a discussion in progress on the main article's talk page. Good luck. NTox · talk 00:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not involved in the current dispute. This wasn't a change of guideline as much as it was simply enforcing the existing ones, started by User:DGG, the closing admin at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 149. For the record, I agree with his assessment that this will reduce all the AFDs because of questionable notability on each event, still allows for separate articles for events that are clearly notable. What I have seen in these discussions is a total lack of concern regarding the policies by a large number of users. What they WANT Wikipedia to be isn't the same thing that Wikipedia is. The problem is that there are great numbers of editors with this philosophy participating, and a look at any of the previous MMA related AFDs (meatpuppeting and sockpuppeting included) bears this out. [76] [77] [78] [79]. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oh, and I'm not so sure it belongs here at ANI right now. It will likely end up here, but I don't see any actual diffs or claims against specific users. Not sure what action can be taken without more info. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)There is also further discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability/Archive 2#Omnibus articles started by User:Beeblebrox following the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 140 (2nd nomination). Mtking ^(edits) 01:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Ah, good, I've piped in my agreement on the progress happening there. I'm still not sure that anything in this ANI is actionable at this time, however. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

As mentioned above, there hasn't been a change in policies, but an actual enforcement of the existing policies (most of the discussions are linked above). I think what may be important for the ANI board are issues such as the repeated vandalism of 2012 in UFC events which is current waiting for page protection and the comments at Talk:2012 in UFC events which has already had to be amended to remove personal attacks. (I honestly don't mind being called a "motherfucker", but I don't think it fits the bill of being constructive discussion about the article.) There may also be a surge of reverts of redirection of the UFC articles to the 2012 article, which Mtking and I can fix only so many times before being in violation of 3RR. I'm currently in the process of writing 2012 in mixed martial arts events which could lead to redirect of more individual event articles which will draw the ire of more forum fans. So, it may be good for admins and other Wikipedians to know what's going on in our corner of Wikipedia and that some of us may be under the virtual gun at the moment. If there is a possible need for page protection across the board, at least currently for 2012 UFC articles, (temporary/semi or permanent/full or somewhere in between) that may be something that needs discussing. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

there is also an ongoing discussion at afd2 for that article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 149 (2nd nomination). Whatever the merits of expanding our coverage of individual sports events as greatly as some people want, there would need to be a general consensus for it, which I think from what has been said that it certainly isn't present. This is one Wikipedia, & the enthusiastic fans of a particular thing do not get to dictate what they want unless the community accepts it. I would have closed afd1 as a redirect to TreyGeek's article had it existed at the time. DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• That is exactly what I felt you would say DGG, TreyGeek's & Mtking's efforts are 100% in line with your close, the consensus in other AFDs, and I believe, the guidelines here. And I wouldn't worry about getting into 3RR territory if you are reverting obvious vandalism or disruptive edits that are clearly outside of the concensus, that isn't what 3RR covers. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all of the context. In any case, I think some level of page protection is pressing. NTox · talk 02:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• I added a note at Request for Protection, but no action and perhaps a backlog. If any admin here feels bold, 30 days of semi-protection would be helpful. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

We're still waiting on page protection for 2012 in UFC events but I personally want to thank those who have helped keep it in shape. When UFC event articles were redirected to it today I knew a shitstorm was going to happen. (I love that Wikipedia has a link for that.) I think it will increase as the weekend continues and I'm mostly welcome to let the IPs and non-established editors vent at the article's talk page. (Though it may need to be archived as the din dies down.) I'm going to wager that a week from now people will start to rely on MMA news media for the latest and greatest updates on UFC events and not Wikipedia as they have been accustom to. As the writer of the 2012 in UFC events article (through the vandalism I don't see any many changes from what I originally wrote) and the soon to be created 2012 in mixed martial arts events article, I welcome suggestions and feedback on how to improve the articles themselves. I'm going by the seat of my pants as to trying to make them conform to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies as best as possible. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to calm things down on the talk page, not much progress yet though. As one of the persons pushing this idea it would probably not be appropriate for me to protect the page, but I agree it needs doing. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI, 2012 in UFC events has been put up at AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 in UFC events). --TreyGeek (talk) 16:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing

It has now been made clear that there is offsite canvassing going on, and one user is threatening to do more of the same in order to cause a "shitstorm of epic proportions." It's getting late and my wife just opened a bottle of wine, so I am going to be absent for a while here, but more admin eyes are needed as this situation is going from bad to worse. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Or wikipedia could just listen to the outcry of the people and go back to the old individual pages, just a thought! Glock17gen4 (talk) 05:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

So members of the Sherdog forum get to ride ruff-shod over established WP polices that we are not a news service ? Mtking ^(edits) 07:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

You're missing the point, everyone loved the individual articles, there was no problem with them. If it aint broke dont fix it! This new article does not cut it. Glock17gen4 (talk) 10:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Who's 'everyone'? It seems quite clear that's it wasn't everyone who preferred the old format or we wouldn't be where we are now. Clearly some people did feel there was a problem, did think it was 'broke' and felt it better to fix it. Nil Einne (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I and everyone I know prefer the old format MUCH more so than the unhelpful changes. --Spyder Grove (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess that mean's your not an active editor in the subject matter then Nil Einne (talk) 14:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Glock, Wikipedia is not a democracy, and consensus is not determined by voting. "The outcry of the people" is not, and should not, be used in any way, shape, or form to determine Wikipedia content - policy should be, and the format you've so vehemently opposed to has been determined by consensus and policy. Please drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Two observations come to mind about the tidal-wave of SPAs coming from these couple of MMA forums. First off, that I'm quite bemused a bunch of alleged sports enthusiasts have such a problem with policies and guidelines; sports, in my long experience, are pretty rigid when it comes to doing things according to the rules. Secondly, for all their disruption, I wonder if they've yet noticed that they haven't accomplished anything, other than to perhaps provoke some experienced editors to join the scrutiny of these unqualifying articles? Ravenswing 16:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia exists not for the sake of a few editors, but for humanity. And far more members ofhumanity find this content worthwhile as individual articles than a couple anti-MMA accounts trying to merge or delete it. --Spyder Grove (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Side note. Spyder Grove (talk · contribs) indeffed, basically, per WP:NOTHERE. He has already started socking to evade his block. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I should have known you had something do to with this Bushranger, please explain how that meaningless wall of text was determined by consensus and policy? Maybe your policy... The old format was perfect, and did not violate any policy! Glock17gen4 (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Really, you aren't a news service? So what's that on the right side of the mainpage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.131.3 (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• A section with some current events and a link to http://en.wikinews.org, which is a bit of a news service. Wikipedia is not the same as Wikinews. The key to being a successful smart-ass it to first be correct. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban from MMA articles of Mtking

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Not going to happen. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

---

User:Mtking has certainly and unquestionably violated WP:TROLL, WP:DICK, WP:EDITWAR, WP:TEND, WP:BULLY, WP:DISRUPTION, etc. with regards to MMA related articles. I therefore call for an immediate block of Mtking and a topic ban of this account from MMA related articles to stop the disruption and dishonesty. --Spyder Grove (talk) 13:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Shut up, Spyder Grove, or you will be blocked from editing here. It is unacceptable to create a new account and on your third edit start calling people names and demanding blocks. Go be productive, or go away. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:43, 31 March 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.

attack section header redacted

WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY WP:IGNORE Glock17gen4 (talk) 16:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

At this point in time I am inclined to agree with Glock that sanctions made need to be put in place against at least one user. However, we'll disagree on who deserves the sanctions. In the last 24 hours, Glock has been combative, disruptive and has not made any constructive comments. I'd individually link to the examples but it'd be the same as looking at their recent edit history. In fact, he's current taken to spamming the two policies above everywhere he can (here, on user talk pages, at AfDs, and on article talk pages). I know blocks shouldn't be used for allowing people to "cool off", but allowing to someone whine all the time isn't productive to Wikipedia. --TreyGeek (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind.... it's been taken care of already. --TreyGeek (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

"(edit conflict) Side note 2, I blocked Glock for 31 hours for disruption. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Support block — clearly becoming extremely disruptive. I see this as preventative and not 'cool off'. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

You beat me to it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I see the whole band is here. I would support the short block to let him cool down. I've tried to be a voice of reason (I don't edit content on these articles) but there are many, many users involved who are confusing what they think Wikipedia should be, and what it actually is. Glock is one of those, cherry picking sentences from guidelines to cobble together a rationale that doesn't stand up to scrutiny, and being disruptive in expressing it. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Does look like textbook wikilawyering. His unblock request says as much. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Side Note More disruption, with the nomination of the article for deletion without a valid rationale: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 in UFC events. I only mention it as I'm sure we will be back at ANI with this jewel. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Based on his block log, I would say Glock got off pretty light. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm trying to communicate with him, and get him on the right side of events. He doesn't know it, but he already agrees with much of the changes, he is just fighting "change", but I think he is coming around. He does have a tendency to over-react to events, but I'm trying to work with him on that. As to the effectiveness, who knows, but I think I should at least try. Not sure that traditional mentoring would be effective. We are always better off if we can convert disruptive but good faith editors rather than losing them. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Things seem to have calmed down a bit now that the most disruptive users are blocked and the page is semiprotected. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

It has only calmed down because User:Anna Frodesiak and others have revered the redirects, so the members of the Sherdog forum have got "their" stats pages back, the debate over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability is not offering any poilicy or guideline reason to keep the articles other than we don't like it or WP:IAR. Mtking ^(edits) 23:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The question remains, are the individual articles notable? If not, then AFD is the solution. Keep me in the loop if they go that way, I would be happy to look at them. Some of them did get enough WP:RS coverage (sport illustrated, etc.) but those are rare. The point of the new system isn't to eliminate all individual articles anyway, just most of them, ie: the not notable ones, while still maintaining much of the content. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The point in creating the omnibus articles was to not have to AfD articles. At least that was what User:Beeblebrox suggested when he opened the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability/Archive 2#Omnibus articles. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• And User:DGG independently came to the exact same conclusion when he closed the first AFD, 149. Likely, this will need to be dealt with, one article at a time, by selecting the weakest articles (lowest hanging fruit) and working toward all the weak article becoming redirects. But there will be a few more AFDs, I would bet. Not really what AFD is for, but it is the hammer that is often needed to get a merge. It may take a few weeks to first week out the redirect, which is ok, and maybe some of the editors will warm up to the idea as you go along. It isn't a race, just a destination. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

UFC on FX: Alves vs. Kampmann

For the record, I've brought up the fact that User:Udar55 has violated WP:3RR by reverting edits by myself and others four times in 17 hours, on the redirect UFC on FX: Alves vs. Kampmann, and suggested he take it to WP:DR, which he did at [[80]], in case any admin wants to look into the violation. This is another of those articles with weak sourcing that was redirected, and the editor is now claiming ownership of, to the point of being disruptive. This is all part of the 2012 in UFC events controversy being fought in a different forum now, it appears. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you said "This is unnecessary reverting. The sources don't support a stand alone. You are welcome to take this to dispute resolution if you like." I took it to WP:DR and then you brought up the WP:3RR. A bit different then how you claim it went down. I am not (and have not) claiming ownership of the article. Also, you did not notify me about me being the subject of this discussion per Wikipeida rules. Udar55 (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• This isn't a new ANI, it is part of a long and ongoing one. I had thought you had already participated here and was watching it, and I didn't say anything here that I had not already said at the DR discussion anyway. But yes, you are correct and I should have dropped you a note. It was an honest oversight, and I apologize for that. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

User:72.255.224.3

User:72.255.224.3 just went on a retaliation/revert campaign against some of my most recent edits[81]. I suspect its connected with this incident although it could connected with this incident. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

New Statesman

This article has seen repeated deletion of fully sourced circulation figures from New Statesman article by IPs User:2.25.67.29 and User:82.132.239.90.[82][83][84] Semi protection was put in place and as expected User:Tottingham123 appeared within 3 hours making exactly the same type of edits, something he previously[85]. IPs failed to engage in discussions or give reasons for the edits despite a discussion being opened on the talk page, the user's only comment is that having the circulation figures is "malicious" and has now even started removing mentions of circulation in the 1960s.[86] User:Robbyyy also looks to be a previous account though not presently active. There may also be COI issues.[87]--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at this please. Also would appreciate it if a few people could keep the page on their watchlists. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I probably should have gotten to this earlier. Firstly, I've notified Tottingham123 about this ANI discussion. I've reverted Tottingham123 and left him a user talk page message telling him to use the talk page at Talk:New Statesman. If he persists in reverting or removing content without using the talk page, further admin action can be taken. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Where was this talk on AN about fringe theories noticeboard?

I removed an RfC request tag this morning from WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#RfC: Should there be advice to notify an article if discussion is extended or invites action? which I had proposed originally but wasn't going anywhere, provoked a lot of aggro, and the contributions had tailed off. I had been hoping to get some uninvolved person to close it with a quick summary but an editor there User:86.**_IP archived it practically immediately. Is that archiving right? I'm not too worried about that but that user also put a note there last night that I just noticed

No. First of all, this RfC is malformed. It's on the wrong page. Secondly, an AN thread on the same topic was just closed, with a finding of no action being required against the noticeboard. Thirdly, it's been two weeks since you began this, and have only served to stifle any productive discussion by randomly attacking people. Any productive discussion will need to happen after some time, begun by someone who's not throwing random false accusations of fake wrongdoing everywhere. 86.** IP (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

but I can't ask them about the discussion on AN as they have banned me from their talk page and archived the RfC. Could someone here perhaps point me at this discussion they're talking about? Thanks Dmcq (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I think he meant Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive233#Coordinated voting by Fringe Theories/Noticeboard participants in AfD and other debates ([88]). --Martynas Patasius (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

So it was yet another person complaining about the fringe noticeboard but the complainant was a sockpuppet so that was why it was dismissed. Par for the course I guess. Thanks. I hadn't realized there was a noticeboard at WP:AN I thought it would be some policy or something with the noticeboards below, I should have looked. Dmcq (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

How many personal attacks do I need to tolerate from a user?

The following discussion is closed. 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 there a policy-based limit on how many WP:Personal attacks I need to tolerate from another user? A few days ago I notified user:Lung salad to avoid vulgar language and personal attacks in the context of this uncalled for personal attack which he had performed. He called my warning "spam". This personal attack was made when other users reverted his changes. And yet other users have since condemned his actions thereafter.

As a background point, I should state that User:Lung salad is on a final block warning issued by User:Bwilkins due to his general disruptive behavior, and he was characterized as "one of the most obtuse and disruptive editors I've come across in my 7 years and 10 months contributing to Wikipedia" by another editor during that ANI discussion. So this issue has been ongoing and he has been blocked before, etc.

My day today started with personal attacks here and here. He had been told to "address the issues related to content" yet continued to attack at a personal level. Why should I tolerate these? Is there a Wikipedia policy that states that I should just tolerate these continued personal attacks, just because a user feels like making them?

But then the personal attacks continued today. User:Lung salad then "followed my edits" to make a similar attack on an Afd page I had started fixing a few days ago based on an Afd. My fixes there were in the context of that Afd, as clearly indicated on the Afd page. I was adding references to that page because users such as user:DGG had suggested that the page needed to survive and user:Bearian directly requested that references be added, so I started adding sources. Yet I received this personal attack again as I was adding references to the page, per the Afd discussion. I did not even express any opinions on that page whatsoever, all I was doing was adding sources. That was all. Yet I received a personal attack again.

I think this user needs to be blocked. He can not just attack other users "at will" then follow them around and attack them again for adding references which have been requested on an Afd page.

I have notified the user about this ANI thread. But my frank question here is: how many of these personal attacks do I need to continue to tolerate? Is there a Wikipedia policy that states I have to continue to tolerate personal attacks? History2007 (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I dunno, 37? Mr. Salad is going a bit over-the-top with the anti-Catholic tirades, though. Tarc (talk) 14:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no archaeological evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus Christ and this information is given in books written by conservative christian scholars - yet this information cannot be given in a Wikipedia article without a fight. Wikipedia articles should be free from Religious Fundamentalist agendas. Lung salad (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

None of that matters; you need to stop this shit. Plain and simple. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, this notoce board is not the place to "discuss content". Content should and can be discussed on article talk pages per policy. This discussion is about the ongoing personal attacks which have continued across pages. This thread is about inappropriate user behavior, no content. History2007 (talk) 14:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Allegations of not understanding logical argument - that's an ad-hominem attack, yes? Lung salad (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

In other words, you are either too dumb to understand what the problem is or you're playing dumb and thus will continue to launch your personal rants. In that case, we can discuss your topic-ban right away. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

If someone is a religious fundamentalist that's going to be reflected in the editing, as it transparently clear in this case. The deletion of cited content from verifiable sources that fits in with Wikipedia guidelines is one example. The verifiable source in question being The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies Lung salad (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I will just point out that I added the criticism section yesterday, when user:DougWeller asked for it. But that is enough now and I let other users comment now. History2007 (talk) 14:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I came across this when "patrolling" recent changes. The previous characterizations of Lung salad are spot-on from what I've seen. He reminds me of the "Time Lord" who was fighting the great "Time War" against WP:ERA, except with a religious ax to grind instead. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 14:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I should note that Lung salad was blocked for 60 hours for personal attacks. But I would suggest that the topic ban discussion below should continue. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah sorry, you edit conflicted with me coming to say I've blocked Lung Salad for 60hrs for this, which I consider an outrageous attack on one section of the community. Sorry if that impedes your discussion on a topic ban. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what's so terrible about that particular diff, which seems like a (marginally) acceptable statement of opinion about biases that may affect our articles. I disagree with what ArbCom ruled about Will Beback, and here this editor wasn't even pointing the finger at a specific individual. Other diffs cited by the original complainant above seem much more objectionable, as they specifically dismiss and disparage his point of view. Wikipedia is not here to decide whether God exists or not; all properly sourced points of view are welcome and should be documented impartially, side by side. Wnt (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for your attention. But I think the topic ban discussion can continue anyway, so we do not have to do this again. History2007 (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

To answer your question, the number of personal attacks one must tolerate is widely variable. Three are three factors that influence this limit: the editor making the personal attack, the editor at whom the attack is directed, and the nature of the attack. To take the last of these first, if the personal attack is of a nature that is in opposition to the strongly-held personal political/ideological views of certain admins, the attacker will be blocked as soon as their comments are noticed. On the other hand, admins may dismiss the attack if it corresponds to their own strongly-held views and berate the complainant instead. If the person doing the attacking is out of favour with the community, they will be blocked (and this is often used as leverage for further sanctions such as topic bans or full bans). If the positions are reversed, and the person being attacked is in the bad books, the personal attack guidelines are ignored and any complaints made by the target editor are taken as more evidence that the attacks must be deserved. For example, feel free to call me a homophobe. I am not, but editors can suggest I am (or even make things about about what I have said or done) with absolutely no fear of admin action. In my case, the only limit on the number of personal attacks I must tolerate is the amount of time I choose to remain active here. I hope your experience is better. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I find personal attacks very counterproductive. The time spent in this discussion could have been used for more productive purposes. If personal attacks can be somehow stopped the whole operation of the online encyclopedia will become more effective. Personal attacks also make editors unhappy at a personal level, and less productive. So I really do not like them, needless to say. History2007 (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Post script comment: Congratulations on gaining an outcome, History2007. It's depressing when editors descend to this sort of behaviour. Delicious Carbuncle's assessment seems 100 per cent accurate: admins take an arbitrary approach to taking action against editors who insult and inflame. After two ANIs against User:AuthorityTam (the last is immediately above this thread) there is still zero interest in dealing with someone who has serious behavioral and personality issues. He continues to exhibit the same behavior and of course will do so in the future because admins won't address it. From my perspective the diffs you provided of Lung Salad's attacks are no more serious, and arguably less disruptive, then this (phrase removed and retracted) who haunts Jehovah's Witness-related pages, where he taunts and derides opposing editors and provides endless, endless historic diffs in an attempt to justify his moronic, time-wasting conduct. Sadly, my complaint against him has turned into a "pro-JW vs anti-JW" sideshow that misses the point entirely and blinds the outlook of certain editors who are more intent on seeing articles devoid of critical content on the JWs. Your opening question (how long do I have to put up with this?) is exactly the question I asked. So .... good work on securing a result. Maybe my turn will come one day. Alternatively, I could take the absence of admin action as en endorsement of this guy's tactics and descend into a tit-for-tat war. BlackCab (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban

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

---

As seen above, user doesn't even understand why these personal attacks are unacceptable and will likely continue. Propose topic ban concerning anything related to Jesus. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand the definition of personal attacks. Lung salad (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

OH, so you understand the definition, but vow to continue? Or you know what personal attacks are but haven't understood that they are not acceptable here? Which one is it? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban (add: widely construed). St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 14:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, of course, or more. User has been on "final warning" anyway. History2007 (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. User seems unable or unwilling to discuss articles relating to religion without resorting to ad hominem attacks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Apart from the user's personal attacks, his behavior during this ANI discussion alone shows that he is incapable of even discussing the problem constructively. Editors shouldn't have to put up with this sort of behavior while editing articles. Yes, a topic ban seems to be warranted. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Also, I'm rather surprised this topic isn't under permanent sanctions by ArbCom like Climate Change and the I/P areas are. This is at least as controversial as those are. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. It's a shame that it's necessary, but these personal attacks can't continue, they poison the debate. I can't agree however that this topic has the heated battles that Climate Change and I/P. Dougweller (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support: So let's not let this topic get to the heated level of some other areas. Whatever Lung salad might promise, now or subsequently, it's plain that he sees himself as a holy warrior carrying the anti-Catholic banner against the minions of evil, and zealots of that sort don't suddenly slap their foreheads one day and exclaim "My God, I've been so horribly wrong!" Ravenswing 15:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Ummm, to me it sounds like you're doing exactly the same thing he just did. As we're telling him to do now, please, focus on the edits, rather than demonizing the editor. Perhaps he'll have a Pauline conversion. :) Wnt (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually the nature of edits and the patterns are discussed at length in this ANI complaint by user:Eusebeus. The point user:Loremaster made there was that user:Lung salad stops for a while, then comes back and it is Déjà vu time. In the past he has crossed the "11RR line" (yes, 11 reverts in one day) and as User:Bwilkins stated, he can suddenly "bombard" administrators with emails, etc. So the edit patterns do speak plenty. History2007 (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

And that's valid criticism; cite the problem and hope it will be fixed. It's the "holy warrior carrying the anti-Catholic banner" bit that sounded like an echo of the contested comments. Wnt (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

But you know, the problem is all this wasted effort. This user's contested edits do not usually survive for very long because multiple editors will oppose them on different pages. But by the time all is said and done chaos has set in, life has been wasted, personal attacks have taken place, etc. and that is not the way to do cooperative editing. This must stop. History2007 (talk) 21:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The point of a topic ban is that an editor cannot be trusted to edit constructively in a particular area of Wikipedia, while there is no such perception in other areas. It makes very little sense to entertain that notion out of context; why, exactly, can an editor be trusted in some areas but not in others? Either an editor has demonstrated a particular bias or he has not, and the reasons we feel he does not only merit discussion, but they're the point of the discussion. Do you feel that my characterization of Lung salad's views is inaccurate? If so, I expect that you would oppose any topic ban. Ravenswing 07:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

There are a number of issues with respect to that editor, but one of them has been (and continues to remain) the position that 19th century (and at times 16th century!) scholarship is superior to 21st century scholarship. We do not seem to have succeeded in making the point that Wikipedia needs to use modern scholarship. I do not see how that issue is going to go away. We have repeated "Wikipedia needs to use modern scholarship" too many times now, to no avail. History2007 (talk) 08:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, but that's a content dispute unsuitable for ANI, even if you buy into the Newer Is Automatically Better shibboleth. Ravenswing 01:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban as user clearly does not understand how to use Wikipedia when strong feelings are involved. Johnuniq (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Though Draconian solutions rrely work and I generally oppose them, this particular user appears to be one case where even a small chance of success is better than none. Collect (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Sadly, I can't see anything else working. Pesky (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Request for admin closure: There is a "10 to none" count on this now, which may well amount to consensus. I suggest that this issue should be resolved with a "topic ban agreed to" conclusion, so we can move on. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 07:57, 1 April 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.

IP 119.237.156.246 hasn't learned from previous blocks

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

---

119.237.156.246 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been blocked twice for generally being disruptive, but also being a sockpuppet. He denies being a sock, which is neither here nor there considering the disruption. He came back yesterday evening and immediately began revert warring where it left off last time. This restored invalid move requests that involved ArbCom issues, restored invalid CFD headers to discussions that have never existed, and other general disruption that has generated 3RR warnings. I don't see a point in warning an IP that has already been blocked twice for this behavior. Based on talk pages, he knows ins and outs of policy and expected behavior (as you'd expect by an accused sock) and just doesn't care (as you'd expect by an accused sock). Based on disruption and stench of sock, can someone put a long block, like a month, on it please? SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Indeed, the IP doesn't look to be dynamic from the behavioural patterns, I agree it needs a longer block. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat is disrupting Wikipedia. He removed a the consul-general-designate from the British consulate-general article, and the names of two ordinances in the flag desecration article, and insist to add the same picture twice to the article on Tung Chee Hwa but with a wrong caption, to name a few. I was only acting to revert his disruptive edits. 119.237.156.246 (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The IP is either Instantnood or someone doing an incredibly good impersonation. As I'm the admin who blocked it twice, I won't do it myself, but someone block the IP again for a month. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, fine, I'll do it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• FWIW, we need to apply WP:RBI when dealing with BANNED editors (such as Instantnood) when they start their nonsense again using anon IPs as their cover; they've wasted enough of our time here so we shouldn't waste more to handle such drama. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:04, 1 April 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.

WikiSceptic's disruption

Earlier in the month, while observing the recent changes, I discovered some articles authored by WikiSkeptic (talk · contribs), and I nominated them for deletion because they were bereft of any sources and they did not appear to be notable. He naturally opposed these changes, and repeatedly asserted that because he was on Wikipedia in its early stages (a common claim is that he is the original author of Cat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) or he is responsible for a disproportionate amount of the content on the site based on mathematics of how much he has written, and the level of traffic the most visited articles receive), it is not necessary for him to adhere to the current guidelines and policies when it comes to sourcing and other issues.

His reaction to this is to either unnecessarily disparage the preferred subject areas of editors he finds himself in conflict with, or to directly attack them. He has in the past used his user page to host these comments. My latest AFD on a series of articles on books he wrote was met with disparaging what he assumes is my topic area, while also insulting my intelligence (part deux). He was blocked in 2008 for these later reasons, but there's something more pressing than personal attacks or ignoring WP:V that may be more damaging than just to inter-user relationships.

In the latest edit to his user page, he claims that he has violated the core policy of WP:No original research, and his statement was published in a textbook and then used to cite his own original statement. This damages the very reputation of this project and the summation of human knowledge and this should not be allowed at all to continue. It is clear that WikiSkeptic cannot keep up with the times or play well with others anymore, and in order to protect the website from his possibly false information, we need to find out what he put on Wikipedia that has since become a falsely cited fact.—Ryulong (竜龙) 09:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The bit about ArbCom and how many articles he wrote is very bad. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 09:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, Cat was created in 2001, and his account was created in 2007. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/WikiSkeptic See the log). ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 09:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a clear case of childish disruption that needs addressing, and there's no sense in just letting him carry on this sort of behaviour. I'm going to go ahead and block him for 1 week; if he persists, I'd suggest an indefinite ban, since I can't see any substantative project contributions that would be lost. --Tristessa (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

While the block certainly helps, it does not solve the ultimate problem here, which is the fact that WikiSkeptic claims he has possibly negatively affected a published work because he added his own personal opinions into an article.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

My gut feeling is that that claim is weapons grade bullshit, no more credible then his claim to have pwn3d arbcom. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

While that may be true, his account has less than 300 article edits, so it cannot be that hard to ferret out the content if he is telling the truth.—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree the claim is probably bullshit, judging from the user's editing history. Even if it wasn't, though, Wikipedia cannot control external information sources and there's really nothing to be done. What matters is he's being incivil and trolling, and we're giving him way too much limelight by giving his bait a single iota more of our attention than it deserves. He's blocked and, if the block doesn't make him stop, I'll indef him as a trolling account. Whilst at that stage he could then appeal the block, I find it unlikely an AN/I discussion would think the cost-benefit ratio worth having. --Tristessa (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Ryulong: If the block doesn't resolve the thread, what can I do to resolve it for you? --Tristessa (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I'd say indef and WP:DENY immediately. Nothing of value will be lost. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The block is fine, Tristessa. It's just that this disruption of his has been ongoing, and I don't think 7 days in the timeout corner is going to solve anything in the long run. If he's lying, fine. This BS of his needs to stop. This is not his first time in trouble, and the only thing we lose by getting rid of him completely is an unsourced stub factory.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. However, his contribs show at least some nominal effort towards good faith mainspace work, even if it is unproductive and counterbalanced by all this silliness elsewhere. Since he hasn't yet been blocked for longer than 48 hours, and that was years ago, I think indef would be an excessive escalation step. Should he continue to ignore standards of behaviour after his block expires, however, then that's another matter. --Tristessa (talk) 03:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

An indef would be excessive, yes, but it is clear that his years of unbecoming behavior may be an issue we will have to deal with at th end of the week. He needs to be reminded that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and dismissing others merely because they did not learn two dead languages and the cultures that surrounded them needs to stop.—Ryulong (竜龙) 23:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Allegation of hounding by an administrator

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

---

( Section titles here must not be prejudicially phrased. Converted heading to neutral, w/ anchor to original.  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC) )

The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Administrators should behave in an exemplary manner and assist us mere mortal editors, and the goal of WP. Sadly this is not always the case. I am being hounded by The Rambling Man for some inexplicable reason. Here are some of his recent caustic edits:

• [89][90][91][92]

I want to him to stop this pathetic, unconstructive behaviour. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a garden-variety conflict, and does not involve the use of administrator tools. What you are going to have to do is use WP:DR. In cases like this, I highly recommend WP:MEDCOM to mediate interpersonal conflicts like this. Otherwise, however, there is no intervention by admins that needs to be done here. --Jayron32 22:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:DR and WP:MEDCOM is part of it but I am mainly concerned with his behaviour towards me. It is WP:UNCIVIL. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::I can vouch for that at least one action of The Rambling man was entirely helpful, Alan, removed categories, he should have replaced and not removed. For someone like me, who is a little thick as far as categories go, gross categories come handy, if Alan does not like them, he should replace them and not remove them, leaving article uncategorised. I support The Rambling Man in this edit of his[93]. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree that incorrect categories should be removed and where possible replaced but there is method to my madness. In the case you mention I removed Category:India from maybe three articles. The Rambling Man reverted at least one and maybe three of my edits by putting the articles inappropriately back into Category:India. My rationale for removal rather than replacement was because I did not know where to re-categorise them and by leaving them uncategorised it brings them to the attention of other editors who will know how to categorise the, Also, as far as I recall the articles needed other work so leaving them uncategorised is a sort of alert to have them fixed up. This technique seems to be effective and since categories are not a major means of navigation for readers there is no harm in leaving them uncategorised. It tends to be for the short term anyway. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Bad rationale, really. Better categorized to some degree than uncategorized. Again, there was no use of admin tools, and something tells me you didn't even approach him about it first, especially as per WP:BRD (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

In the absence of data it is only an opinion from you and I. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I see your point, but I don't know whether it is right to do so or not? Nobody likes tags on "their" articles is all I can say. Which bugged me. I think you have put pressure on me to be a little less lazy with categories. Perhaps a template which says that the category selected is too vague, that will solve the problem. Someone would have to make such a template if it isn't there. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I also don't like the tags but use them if a make a judgement that they will be effective. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

See you can use this template it will solve your problem and won't leave the article uncategorised. Win-win? {{cat improve}} Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• No admin action needed. Not a WP:CIVIL violation. (Is it Apr 1st yet?). This needs to be taken to the appropriate board (WP:DR).--v/r - TP 00:19, 1 April 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:Shshshsh

The user is violating all norms of wikipedia.

Firstly on Screen Award for Best Female Playback the official site of Screen clearly states that Alka Yagnik has won 4 Screen awards whereas the user is adamant that she has won only 2 Screen awards.

Secondly on Alka Yagnik page user is refusing to accept the fact that Alka Yagnik has sung in over 20000 songs & 1000 films depsite newspaper report as well as live award video as sources. The source Award has the most distinguished panel who nobody can call unreliable. Further the user on Sunidhi Chauhan page is adamant on stating that Sunidhi has sung over 2000 songs without any reference. He clearly has double standards.

This user is constantly harassing me on wikipedia & something needs to be done about him. ANKMALI (talk) 08:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Sang 20,000 songs in 1000 films? The article says she first started at 10, so that is 556 songs in 27.8 films per year? IMDB shows 609 movies, which is a feat by itself. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and the WP:BURDEN to provide that proof is on you, not the other editors. The current talk page discussion is both civil and productive, and has only been going on for one day. As for Screen Award for Best Female Playback, you just now added a comment on the talk page and haven't allowed enough time for anyone to respond, thus you are being unreasonably impatient. There isn't anything for an administrator to do here as no one has done anything that warrants action. Dennis Brown (talk) 09:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Ankmali is probably at risk of WP:BOOMERANG here - he was reported during the week by Shshshsh, and although we chose to not take any action against Ankmali at the time, they're continuing to use non-RS sources, and apparently remove valid ones. I smell short term topic ban ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about ? I'm using the reliable sources. Further its this User:Shshshsh who's not using any reliable sources !! Please examine the matter carefully before arriving at any decision !!! ANKMALI (talk) 10:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• If you are talking about this source, that you put on the talk page, [94], then Bwilkins is correct in assessing that it doesn't pass WP:RS. I suggest you read the essay he linked, WP:BOOMERANG, because the more you demand action here, the more likely that action will be taken. And you might not like the result. Dennis Brown (talk) 10:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • [95]. Doc talk 10:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

  Am I the only one smelling a sock of Dr.Mukesh111? This wouldn't be the first time he did exactly this; do a search for User:Wings spread. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 11:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The diff Doc provides above is actually okay, re Ankmali's behavior. The content he removed was cited to a ref that lands on a "page not found" error at The Hindustan Times, or at least it does currently. That's no doubt what he meant by his too brief "not sourced" edit summary. It would have been better if he'd just done a quick search for an alternate edition of the article, of course: It took me about 30 seconds to find one myself at the Times of India. But it's possible, too, that this content isn't freely available within India.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Turns out the Times of India article had the same title, but very different content than the one in The Hindustan Times, so I struck through that link, in my preceding. As I've just noted on the Sunidhi Chauhan article's talk page, however, I did find a link that currently works for me, to reach the intended target of the broken link, ie to reach the 8 May 2007 article in The Hindustan Times. Here it is, but it appears not to support any of the content it's currently used as a cite for in the article. If the working link is swapped for the broken one, that content will need a {{Failed verification}} tag, in other words. Might be better to just delete all reference to the Hindustan Times article altogether, though, if it's not being used elsewhere in our own Sunidhi Chauhan article.  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

@Blade: I did look at User:Wings spread, and I do see similar behavior, of course. But lots of genuine new users act this way, too, out of legitimate confusion about our policies plus a strong dash of ego-involvement in response to feeling thwarted. Can I suggest that you ask a friendly checkuser to have a look? No one, myself included, wants to waste time on a sock, but this user shouldn't have to "live under a cloud" of admin-initiated suspicion that way if he's legit, either, imo.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Please see Screen Award for Best Female Playback. The official site of Screen has said that Alka Yagnik won 4 awards . ANKMALI (talk) 11:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Another important issue is Screen Award for Best Female Playback. The official site of Screen has said that Alka Yagnik won 4 Screen awards whereas page is only showing her with two wins . ANKMALI (talk) 13:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

( Please note timestamp of the above. Ankmali's preceding 13:14, 1 April 2012 UTC comment moved here from current end of thread, alongside his second nearly identical 11:48, 1 April 2012 UTC statement, to avoid disruption to continuity of threaded discussion. Please see WP:INDENT, Ankmali, about preserving thread flow, and WP:DEADHORSE re this assertion, which you've now made three times here. - Ohiostandard 13:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC) )

• @Dennis Brown: I don't edit in the topic area, Dennis, but I'm confused by your statements. While Hindilyrics.net clearly doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources, I can't find anywhere Bwilkins said IBN Live fails those standards. He didn't say so in the previous AN/I thread about this dispute, at least.

Further, I strongly doubt BWilkins would say that, either, since IBN Live is a CNN and Time-Warner media property, in collaboration with what appears to be a very large Indian television group, Global Broadcast News. In other words, contrary to your assertion, the cite to IBN Live that ANKMALI presented on the talk page for our article on Alka Yagnik certainly appears to be a reliable source, a very reliable source, actually, even an "exceptional" one, for this kind of information.

About your arithmetic: It's my impression that most Bollywood movies shoot and "wrap" very quickly, so 30 or so films a year isn't out of the question for a top star in India. And we all know they're very musical, so the 20 songs per film that your math implies, at, say, one to three minutes per film isn't out of the question, either. At 2.5 minutes per song, she'd be singing for 50 minutes, on average, out of a 2 hour film, yes?

But that's just for plausibility: Neither my "original research" or yours on this is really relevant. A reliable source says 20,000 songs in 1,000 films, and no other reliable source disputes it. That means it belongs in the article. Likewise with the awards thing, which I didn't look into as thoroughly. IMDB has been ruled out as a reliable source at our reliable sources noticeboard repeatedly, btw, since it's crowdsourced content, as I understand.  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, though, that the link Bwilkins provided, above, of ANKMALI's removal of another editor's talk page comment documents behavior that has to stop, immediately. If he won't agree to stop doing that, right now, then I'd certainly support a block. I likewise agree that he'd do well to study up on what constitutes a reliable source for the purpose of Wikipedia editing. He also needs to work harder to remain calm when he's in discussions with other editors. Unless an SPI or checkuser says he's a sock, of course, as Blade posited. If that turns out to be so, then please block him until 2079, at least.  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC) ( Re strikethrough: My bad; see my next comment, which I'll add in a moment. - Ohiostandard 12:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC) )

( I provided the wrong diff, above. It's here that ANKMALI removes one of user Shshshsh's talk page comments. It's remotely possible that was done accidentally, I suppose, although I doubt it. In any case, I'll reiterate that he absolutely must never do that again. I'd strongly support a substantial block if he does, absent a really good reason like a clear cut BLP violation or unequivocal vandalism. I'd also like to hear his explanation as to why did it in this instance.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC) )

Yes , OhioStandard that was done accidently/unknowingly & will not be repeated. But I want you all to once & for all settle dispute on Alka Yagnik & Screen Award for Best Female Playback.

1) Alka Yagnik sang 2-3 songs daily throughout 80's, 90's & 2000's in various Indian languages hence 20000 songs & 1000 films isn't a tall claim for her. Further testimony of CNN-IBN as well as esteemed Screen Awards live video are not unreliable sources.

2)Screen Award for Best Female Playback official site of the award clearly states that Alka Yagnik won the award 4 times while page only shows 2 awards for her. There's a serious error which needs to be settled by you all. ANKMALI (talk) 13:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed that User:Shshshsh removed my IBN source from the Alka Yagnik page. ANKMALI (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Ankmali, you're asking for something that's outside the purpose of this board. I suggest you read about your options for dispute resolution concerning content issues. All that this board can deal with, in practical terms, is very clear cut and egregious violations of policies. You'll find you'll get better results in the future, btw, if you avoid making over-the-top statements like "The user is violating all norms of wikipedia", and "This user is constantly harassing me". Neither statement is true - all that's going on here is a good-faith content dispute. Making inflamatory remarks like that just prejudices other volunteers against whatever legitimate complaints you might actually have, if any.

Extended content, posted in collapsed form

That said, I'll also just mention that I've tried to follow the content issue, but it's been more difficult because you've kept referring to "the official source" without specifying what you mean by the phrase, anywhere that I've seen, anyway. It seems clear to me, in any case, that the official source for an award is the institution that confers it. You're not referring to awardsandsandshows.com are you? If so, it's my impression that all they do is enter data into their own site that they've copied from other places, presumably the offical sites themselves, or perhaps even from us, ie from Wikipedia. Perhaps I'm wrong about that; you might want to ask for opinions at the reliable sources noticeboard. It's my opinion, however, that the CNN/Time-Warner site you've used, IBN Live, is a reliable source overall, although please remember that even very reliable sources make occasional mistakes - see wp:otto - And since discussion is ongoing on the relevant talk pages, and has barely begun on some points of dispute, the issue should be worked out there. Btw, I just now ( note timestamp of this message, relative to my earlier comments below ) realized that we're not discussing actresses, but singers who sing songs for the actresses who actually appear on screen. Sheesh. Anyway, singer Sunidhi Chauhan says in one 2008 interview "There are more than ten projects that I’m singing for.. ", so if they're singing for that many films at a time, it doesn't seem unreasonable that Alka Yagnik could get to 20,000. Re the whole dispute over who won what award when, btw, there does seem to be some confusion among sources. That is, some appear to report that so-and-so won a particular award for a given year, while others seem to report that the same person won the award in a given year; the award in dispute among editors is awarded in January of one year, for work in the previous year, I gather.

Again, please work these issues out by WP:CONSENSUS with other editors on the relevant talk pages, and give that process a week or two to work. The discussion on talk pages looks productive so far, and you need to give the process there a fair chance. If you feel you absolutely must, after no progress for a few weeks that way, you can initiate steps in the content dispute resolution process. But this really isn't the place for content disputes.  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) IMDB is isn't reliable enough to establish notability, but that isn't the issue here. It can be used for sourcing of some facts. If the sentence was "at least 609 films" and IMDB showed 609 films, then that would be acceptable in every venue I've participated in here. It isn't for biographical info, but it is for technical info, ie: who directed, who starred in, release dates, etc. As to IBN, looking at it certainly doesn't make it clear that it is reliable, but I will admit I'm not 100% confident on that point. That they have an article here doesn't mean they are reliable, only notable. For example, Slashdot.org has an article and has been around over a decade, but they can't be used for any type of sourcing, as they are notable, but not reliable in the least. And even in Bollywood, 20k songs in 1k films is an exceptional amount of work for a 46 year old, thus requires exceptional sources, which this falls short of. Regardless, that is a matter for the talk page or WP:DR, not WP:ANI, as the discussion are new and ongoing with no show of bad faith by the other editors. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The only issues I see here, at present, are whether Ankmali's behavior merits any boomerang sanction and, since admin Blade of the Northern Lights suggested the possibility, whether he might be someone's sock. He certainly can't be blocked for citing a CNN/Time-Warner media property like IBN Live, which I think we're just going to have to disagree about as to its reliability; I think it's perfectly fine for the purpose he cited it.

Ditto re IMDB, a lot of people at RSN don't like it, but that's not a question for this venue either. I've never actually seen a Bollywood film, so I'm no authority, but I noticed that two people on "Yahoo Answers" said that many such films take 2 - 3 days to shoot. And they're essentially musicals, of course. But don't let's argue, Dennis: We penguinheads need to stick together! ;-)

We probably need to recognize that, assuming he's not a sock, Ankmali has only been around three months now. It's clear he doesn't quite understand how we all work together here, yet, but that's not unusual for someone with his experience. He does need to slow down a bit, and try to deal with others more calmly and respectfully, of course, but I haven't seen a very great deal so far that would make me want to bite him just yet.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• We can have different opinions, or slightly different interpretations without it being arguing :) My primary point was that it shouldn't have been brought here to begin with, it wasn't abuse by other editors, it was a content dispute. They put themselves at risk once other piped in with their experiences, and was just taking BWilkins at his word regarding boomerang on the other problems, not sourcing. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

No, no! No one must ever have any different opinions or interpretations from mine! Mine! Mine always! Mine alone! :P Well, it took me a while to figure it out, wading through an unfamiliar topic area, but I've finally come around to your same conclusion: This is nothing but a content dispute, and it shouldn't have been brought here. But Shshshsh and Ankmali have bigger problems, I've discovered through this process. Almost all of our current article on Alka Yagnik is plagiarism. It's lifted from the IBN Live 19 March 2012 news article! I have no idea what to do about that. I think it'd be appropriate penance, though, if we all asked Ankmali to deal with it. ;-)  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see, it's only a couple of paragraphs (early life and the first para of career) that is a straight copy. I've just deleted the material. Someone needs to rewrite from scratch. It's been in the article a while, haven't managed to trace who added it yet. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC) On closer inspection, it is IBN Live that is copying Wikipedia. Their article is dated 19 March 2012, but the content was in the Wikipedia article with exactly that wording well before that date. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

It didn't occur to me to look for ... what do you call that? "Reverse appropriation" (?) coming from a CNN/Time-Warner company. Thanks for catching that. "Naughty, naughty, IBN Live", as you say. That finding smokes that IBN Live article as a reliable source, then. I wonder where they got the 1,000 films and 20,000 songs number? Anway, we obviously can't use it. Solves that part of the content dispute, anyway, so there's a silver lining.  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

IMDB source cited by User:Shshshsh on Alka Yagnik is incomplete & unreliable. Several of her popular scores like Slumdog Millionaire, Raaz, Saawariya, Imtihaan, etc are missing on the IMDB page. Hence if noone has any valid proof of the correct nos. better not to put any numbers on the page at all. Further page Screen Award for Best Female Playback matter is yet to be settled. ANKMALI (talk) 01:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Cornwall

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

---

• MJC59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:MJC59 has returned after several months to resume his insistence that Cornwall should be described as a Duchy and not as a county of England. He has refused to engage in any discussion on this in recent days, but is simply repeating the behaviour of last year, when he did make a couple of comments on his talk page. Apart from catching him under 3RR, I'm not sure what the best way forward is. He clearly has strongly held (but very very fringe) views on this, "as an elected representative serving in Cornwall" who is "not prepared to be spoken to by someone who apparently lives in Somerset....", etc.(!) Incidentally, I'm aware that I erred in using rollback last time, so apologies for that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

They don't seem to grasp the fact that the "County of England" part purely relates to how Cornwall is administrated as a County of England, which is disputed by a very small as you said, fringe group(s). --Τασουλα (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

MJC59's contribution history looks like a broken record regarding his fringe view about Cornwall. Here he is calling another editor a Fucking English idiot. If this case were submitted at WP:AN3 it is very likely that a block for long-term warring would be issued. I'd recommend an indefinite block. If the editor would make assurances about his future behavior, the block could be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I've knocked him on the head for two weeks. He's only ever been blocked 24hrs so an immediate indef seemed OTT. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:56, 1 April 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.

Brain–computer interface

The following discussion is closed. 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 have an IP editor edit-warring to insert paranoid nonsense into the article, sourced to a Daily Mail article. Options are a 3RR block or semi-protection -- I bring this here because I'm not sure which is preferable. I will notify the IP address. Looie496 (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Quote is from a verifiable source. Two editors do not like what is being said, but that does not change the fact that it has been said and by a reputable source. 92.23.46.108 (talk) 18:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

For an alternative view regarding the reliability of the Daily Mail, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Prepare to be horrified. Looie496 (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The IP is editing the wrong article. They are looking for electromagnetic weapon. Viriditas (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The link in relation to the Daily Mail does not relate to the Daily Mail in any way. Whilst there can be a case made for addition to electromagnetic weapon, the basic principle requires a BCI first. 92.23.46.108 (talk) 19:11, 1 2012 (UTC)

Alas, I think a link to the Daily Mail really does relate quite strongly to the Daily Mail. I'm really not sure what your second point is here. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't linking properly, ended up at the bottom of the page. There is nothing notable here, just a few comments that may or may not be accurate. 92.23.46.108 (talk) 20:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Note that I have repeatedly suggested to the IP that this be brought up at WP:RSN, as would be appropriate - but the IP has not done this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:RSN concerns itself with verifiability. The source is verifiable and WP:RSN would be redundant. 92.23.46.108 (talk) 20:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we have a clear indication at this point that the IP is utterly clueless, or a troll. Can someone please show them the door? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Editor has stated that a source is unreliable, but cannot explain why. The same source is references in tens of thousands of Wikipedia articles. 92.23.46.108 (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we have yet another indication that the IP is utterly clueless, or a troll. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Not agreeing with the source, does not make it unreliable. Unless you have evidence of the unreliability of the source, drop it. 92.23.46.108 (talk) 21:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Where the reliability of a source is disputed, it is discussed at WP:RSN - take it there, or take a hike... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

You have offered nothing that constitutes as a dispute to reliability. 92.23.46.108 (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Whereas you have offered ... The Daily Mail. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I've given him a 60hr time out for edit warring. Let me know if he starts up again. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That's your opinion, not evidence of general unreliability. Show that the source is unreliable. If it is, it shouldn't be too difficult to prove. 89.242.102.22 (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

This could get tedious. I've blocked the obvious sock, and semi protected the article for two weeks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Could an admin please have a chat with User:Luciferwildcat about Wikipedia guidelines?

This user is having difficulty with maintaining NPOV in the article pink slime, specifically recent edits [[96]] [[97]] have been so blatantly inappropriate that I call it vandalism. As it seems this user has been involved in edit wars with other users in the past, I do not believe I can reason with this user. He also made up the term "salvage meat" in Wiktionary for use in the article. Rip-Saw (talk) 07:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I listed some of their redirects at RfD, and prodded the salvage meat page, as they are clearly on some kind of anti-pink slime crusade. Canuck_{My page}^{89 (talk)}, 08:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Prod removed, so I listed his dictionary article at this AfD. Canuck_{My page}^{89 (talk)}, 08:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

As it turns out, his behaviour has been previously been the subject of an earlier discussion at ANI. Canuck_{My page}^{89 (talk)}, 09:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it is highly suggested we check user all hardcore opponents of adding any negative material about pink slime and I have suspicions BPI PR people are afoot here, some have tacitly admitted it already or have Iowa IP address and single purpose accounts. The users here have repeatedly attempted to whitewash sourced material (from independent third party news sources) that pink slime was originally only a pet food product. In an encyclopedia that covers the entire history of a product I thought it was important to note. I also added a quote from the pink slime microbiologist whistleblower to balance the quotes from BPI but those were removed as well. This article needs to reflect the truth about pink slime, not just the official BPI company version and without sanitizing or whitewashing or sugarcoating. I am not on any crusade, I have been a long time editor and usually work to improve and expand articles related to the San Francisco Bay Area or languages in addition to making major contributions to wiktionary.LuciferWildCat (talk) 08:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I just came across some of LWC's recent edits on the talk page and I support the OP's take on the matter. LWC seems emotionally involved in the issue and doesn't seem to be editing neutrally. He has answered valid sourcing problems with logical fallacies (sources calling it "scrap" doesn't mean that it's not "waste" and since "waste" is better than "pulverized cow anus" we should use "waste"), has insinuated that those who disagree with his position must have some sort of industry motive, and all around has a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. I mentioned on the talk page that he should keep WP:COOL and I hope others here will reiterate this advice. For the record, I am generally in agreement with LWC that this stuff is gross and have said as much on the talk page, but that's not an excuse to lose neutrality. SÆdon^talk 09:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

@LWC: Please note that our article is not supposed to reflect the WP:TRUTH, it's supposed to be verifiable. SÆdon^talk 10:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand, it's just that when I first arrived at the article it was mimiced some of the company's talking points and structure and framed everything bad as some sort of witch hunt or lie so I just did some complete copyediting. But you are right and I will make sure I can verify the truth as much as possible if not keep looking for not inserting. I think at this point the article is free of any corpcomm and I am more than ready to collaborate with any other editors that think things should be reworded. Some editors have a "no no no" mentality even to verifiable additions instead of "but" "well" "no" "ok" "maybe" which honestly is what I endeavor. I have asked some other editors that I am familiar with and have more experience to come take a look as well they have a history of collaborating with me and chastising me and sometimes praising me as well.LuciferWildCat (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear you understand, and please don't take my comment here to mean that your work at the article is not appreciated - it is and I generally agree on your take that the article was too biased before. Stick to sources and follow the guidelines, comment on content and not contributors and the page will look great - just don't make the mistake of tipping the bias in the other direction. SÆdon^talk 00:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• • Yes of course that would also be bad, but since the pro content was already there I focused on the cons, but have since diversified once finishing that and called over some other editors to help neutralize the topic with the goal of creating a featured article. Also the more attention than can be brought to this article, the better the quality will be, and the fewer biases in general. But yes a sources based approach is what is needed and my plan, I find it unfortunate that the nominator of this thread continues to remove content repeatedly and then post a threat on the talk page about it that only they comment on and claim to have consensus on the matter, it really troubles me and IMHO is a disingenuous form of editing from a contributor that does not add new content in which I think would be best.LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• I too am quite concerned about LuciferWildCat's edits on the topic, both in tenor and in frequency. There is no semblance of neutrality on the primary article page at this point, and the 59 edits in the last 12 hours is a bit extreme. I have deleted one of his redirects, and note that another is up for deletion (I would have summarily nuked it too if it wasn't being RFD'd). As for the assertions of bad faith streaming from him towards anyone who wants to maintain NPOV, I think that needs to be curtailed as well. I don't think a topic ban would be out of line at this point. Horologium (talk) 11:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Completely disinterested and impartial observer chiming in here. I just took a cursory look at the discussion and do not see the blatant battleground issues that are being depicted, rather a series of content disputes is underway. Neither of the parties, and I see it as mainly two editors that are primarily involved, are willing to moderate their positions, however, the interplay remains courteous and tends to remain on topic. Bringing an issue like this to ANI is a concern, can't editors work out personal differences through discourse on their talk pages? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC).

I agree. I'm seeing rational discussion on the article talk page as well. Editors seem to be too quick to bring trivialities to the Dramah boards. Someone should just close this before it wastes any more editors time looking into this issue. Mojoworker (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Yup, me too. I think Luciferwildcat has been somewhat unjustly demonized here. Pesky (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments like "Only a bias minority with a stake in profits is disputing that and the use of pink slime has already been voted on and approved" are inappropriate because they attempt to categorize editors who disagree with him as corporate shills. It's an insinuated personal attack plain and simple and it's what I was referring to when I brought up WP:BATTLEGROUND. SÆdon^talk 00:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

comment A look at the talk page will show that in a community discussion the consensus was a landslide in favor of using the term pink slime. That is no personal attack. It was directed at editors with single purpose accounts or IPs that clearly were only making pro meat industry edits and others that were routinely whitewashing sourced content that could be seen as embarrassing for the company and its stockholders. That is not what wikipedia is about and I am not about to hold my tongue when I see this behavior going on. People trust wikipedia to get to the bottom of things. We don't rely on any advertisers and that keeps us independent.LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I started off supporting the title but after having done some research I am now opposed to the title. Am I corporate shill or can you acknowledge that people can hold a different opinion than you without nefarious intent? Furthermore, what does it add to WP when you get personal with other editors? When you accuse other editors of such things do you think they'll be better editors because of it? or do you think it will simply lead to more emotionally charged discussion (and a trip to ANI)? What ever the case is, I'm sorry but what you are doing is, in fact, making personal attacks. Speculating upon the motives of other editors is heavily frowned upon, which I'm guessing you already know. If it's true that the editors in question are influenced by the meat industry and are giving WP:UNDUE weight to promotional sources then you can invoke WP:FRINGE and WP:COI to deal with it, but there is absolutely no excuse to make the accusations that you have unless you have solid proof. So yes, please "hold your tongue" and comment on content, not contributors. SÆdon^talk 08:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course you are not. I have focused on the content as much as possible but this article is the subject of repeated vandalism that is nefarious and obviously straight from corporate shrills. All legitimate disagreements have led to engagement on the talk page and compromise edits and have been largely uncontroversial. I did not start this ANI thread and I find it completely unfounded, a request for comment would have been a much better option. I think it should be noted that the user that started this thread has only removed content and only inserted pro-pink slime content. This user has not added any neutral nor positive content. Furthermore this user has not even dotted an i nor crossed a t. This user has made a few edits about once a year for a few years and then suddenly began editing pink slime and only pink slime with what appears to me as an agenda from a largely single purpose account while using rather aggressive rhetoric. I refuse to get into ad hominem arguments with this user and I sought out the help of other editors. Colleagues that often disagree with me or agree with me or neutrally help me reach consensus with others and I believe this article has done very well by this. I will hold my tongue but since there is such rampant vandalism and to me it doesn't look good, can we do a check user on the nominator?LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

In case anyone missed it, there is also a discussion of the article at WP:AN#Pink slime. There have been several accounts blocked for socking at the article, and more Single Purpose Accounts showing up today that caused the article to be semi-protected. I'm assuming that LCW was directing his comments toward those types of editors – the ones that are completely ignoring Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Mojoworker (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That is exactly what I meant.LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - To reiterate what LCW says above, he's a content creator that keys on Bay Area, California content and is not a single purpose editor on a vegan crusade or anything like that. I haven't looked at the specific pink slime edits and have no opinion on those. I did vote for deletion of salvage meat at AfD on the grounds that in my opinion it's a non-notable neologism. Carrite (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by user

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

---

Inception anyone?

This user and I have been engaged in a minor edit war at an article I recently created. Any help would be much appreciated. Juliancolton (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

No names and no links other than your own sign. The diff[98]. April 1st?--RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 01:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

No, much cleverer than that. Mouse over "article" and watch the cursor spin (hence Inception). Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, OK that explains that explains the tie to Inception. I liked that movie!--RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 01:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I was going to suggest a 24 hour boomerang block for confusing everyone. And the mouse doesn't spin on Chrome/Win7, just an hourglass. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Yet another reason to use Firefox. →Στc. 02:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Pssst...it doesn't spin on Firefox either (at least 5.0). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Then someone needs to update his Fox. We're on v11.0 now) Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I would, except I'm a technophilic Luddite (yes, I know that's an oxymoron) and since 5.0 ain't broke for me, I'm refusing to fix it! ;) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't spin on 10.whateverI'vegot which was about a couple of days old when they started pestering me about 11. Peridon (talk) 11:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

ummm ... perhaps it has to do with the icons you have configured for various windows "states"? — Ched :  ?  16:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I still refuse to move beyond 3.6.x before support is dropped, as the interface is horrendous on later versions. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 23:19, 1 April 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.

Compromised 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.

---

I have reason to believe that the cats have hacked into the boa constrictor's account. The dog told me. Pesky (talk) 03:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:DIFFs? Have you notified them of this discussion? Have you considered nominating any them for adminship?--Shirt58 (talk) 04:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how to find the diffs, as the dog can't spell the boa's username, and the boa won't tell me. I told them all, but none of them answered, apart from giggling. And the boa reckons she pwns ArbCom. Pesky (talk) 04:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The boa should be blocked immediately. That user has been nothing but abusive to me and my brethren, making jokes about "eating me" and stalking my edits with a hungry expression. I demand that something be done about this; to ignore it is a vile miscarriage of justice! ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 05:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

She'd just wriggle out of a block; she's been really defensive since someone told her she looked like a sockpuppet. Pesky (talk) 05:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

If the boa has eaten the rabbit, this becomes a content dispute. Take it to WP:DRN. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could just wait for things to come out all right. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Now listen to me very carefully. WP:BOAs and WP:DOGs have been a WP:PROBLEM from WP:DAYONE. My advice is simple: just l.b. on the m.sL. and wait.—Djathinkimacowboy

The discussion above is closed. 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 blocked

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

---

Why is my account blocked? I can't edit from it.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 03:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Huh? How did you post here? You were unblocked in November, and the only other block you've gotten was overturned immediately because it was a mistake. Nyttend (talk) 03:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The joys of April Fools.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 03:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

It's because you have one of those fake 'you have new messages' banners on the top of your user and talk pages. I'm sure that if you remove that silliness, you'll find that you can edit without any further difficulties. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Awww.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 03:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

At least he was kind enough to put all of the blue text in the wrong font. Calabe1992 04:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

See here:

"Per decree by Jimbo Wales, effective 06-01-2010 the editing history of each editor will include the carbon footprint of the editor. If the ratio of the carbon footprint to productive edits is too large, the editing privileges of the editor will be suspended until the editor has donated enough carbon credits to the Wikimedia Foundation as compensation."

Count Iblis (talk) 03:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Ooh. Having just wrapped up my time zone's Earth Hour slactivist nonsense a couple hours ago, I like that joke! Resolute 04:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

And unless it's just a joke for today, you need to get rid of those "You have new messages" banners on your user pages. See WP:NEWMESSAGE. —SW— ^comment 06:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course it's only for April Fools. It activates and deactivates automatically.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 01:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

So, not only are you too lazy to come up with an original gag, you're too lazy to flip the switch on it every year? Damn, that's lazy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't have to do anything about laziness. I may be abscent when it comes time to flip the switch. I haven't been able to come up with a good gag this year so look out for me next year. Perhaps you might be the one to get fooled. ;)—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 01:55, 2 April 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.

Aprils Fools jokes....

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

---

Don´t change anything that affects articles or their printed versions.--Müdigkeit (talk) 06:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, that may be your opinion, but... how is this an AN/I issue? Calabe1992 06:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Doing so may lead to a block? It might be indistinguishable from vandalism. Dougweller (talk) 06:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes..... and this is a very bad idea.--Müdigkeit (talk) 06:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Did you know ... that Herbert Grossman was horny as a youth, but learned to conduct himself after serving in World War II? ( Too late for main page ( sniff! ) so I brought it to the party here. Is there a buffet, or a hosted bar? )  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Not for April Fools, but I like the editnotice at Gadsby (novel). For April Fools, I like my version of this editnotice. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Your edit notice is spot on, Blade. But couldn't we have an audio edit notice, too, in article space? Just to discourage new editors? That'd be pretty cool, too. I nominate Molly Lewis' Wikipedia Breakup Song.  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

As a sock of Jimmy Wales, I may have proof that he is a puppetmazter 174.252.59.113 (talk) 07:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Sockie, forget it. You are the old guard, and oblivion just tweeted that your presence is required. You should probably try to be more like me.  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC) ( lol; jk; :P - plagiarized from Drmies, Journeyman Clever Chap, International Brotherhood of Irony Workers. see context. )

I see editors adding hoax AfD templates to mainspace articles, I hope no one gets blocked for removing them. Is adding these templates really funny? Dougweller (talk) 09:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll invited Dennisthe2 (talk · contribs) here. Dougweller (talk) 09:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

If I see another person adding a joke AFD template to mainspace, they will be taking a forced break until this silliness is over. T. Canens (talk) 09:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Invoking "double secret probation" in times of wiki emergency will win you few fans today! "No more fun of any kind!" Doc talk 10:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd support a block, these templates, etc in article space are meant to amuse other editors, but are confusing to our general readership and are thus disruptive. Dougweller (talk) 10:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Someone in this town is trying to burn the playhouse down.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I've previously been asked not to put the AFD templates in the main articles. Near as I can tell, it pretty much means not relying on Twinkle. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That's true. And article space is not a playhouse, right? Dougweller (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Tim is speedy deleting joke MfDs and inappropriately citing G6. Obviously he needs to be beaten within an inch of his life by a pack of Scottish dwarves. I also propose that he be forced to wear a funny hat every April 1st. Should he fail to comply with that then he will be immediately subject to the aforementioned punishment.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Why must they by Scottish? I much prefer Canadian dwarves. ^{[natit citsejam] [klat]} dE 17:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd personally recommend he be hanged by the neck until he cheers up. =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

ok, me have no good honest bones. been all 'acting like eNglish' but no have noledge of a thing (single). do not ban me. many childrens, must to feed all.—Djathinkimacowboy

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

Goodbye Wikipedia

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

---

All those months of working here...and now I'm banned. See my user page. :( Bmusician 08:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Block Log says nothing. (April Fools?) ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 08:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

...wat. User declared that they were "banned" on 26 January, then requested their page be full-protected. There is zero evidence of this "ban" having ever occurred. If this was an April Fools' joke, it sure happened really, really early. DOES NOT COMPUTE. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 08:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Banned 7 September 2011 also. Doc talk 08:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 09:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I knew this wouldn't work. Bmusician 09:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Timing is everything.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 09:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The annual "wacky day" here on WP. All day long. Joy! Doc talk 09:14, 1 April 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.

Improper use of full protection?

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

---

Death of Sian O'Callaghan has been fully protected by User:Fred Bauder after he deleted most of the content -- on the basis that this is necessary to conform with WP:BLPCRIME. While it's arguably reasonable to insist on omitting material about the suspect, Fred has deleted a great deal of content that is *not* about the suspect (it's possible to see the earlier version via google cache). This is all being argued out at the AfD, and there's a more general issue of whether Wikipedia should show such deference to one country's legal system. In any event, excessive deletion followed by full protection seems inappropriate here -- it's the full protection issue that I think needs review. I haven't discussed it with Fred first because others have already done so at the AfD and it's clear that he doesn't intend to change his position. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds pretty improper to me (WP:INVOLVED and all...), but he'll simply cite BLP and say that no other consideration is more important.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not involved, "an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area." I never looked at the article or even knew about the matter previously to the request received from law enforcement in the UK. I'm open to changing protection provided a consensus is reached regarding Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Crime_perpetrators issues. I'm not inclined to invite edit warring. Nearly all sources, if not all, involve details regarding the investigation of the case which is why I deleted edits which contain links to them. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The UK police are trying to avoid the libel/contempt of court fiasco that followed the Murder of Joanna Yeates. This led to calls for a change in the law on how the media could report the arrest of suspects, but this was rejected.[99] The same man (CH) is charged with two murders, and this is available in UK reliable sources. The UK police appear to have exceeded their powers with this request.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

They have the right to make a courteous request to us to act responsibly. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not think the UK police have exceeded their powers, this is a normal part of how censorship in Britain works. A large part of the sources used in the article have also been forced off-line. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to focus on the question of whether full protection is appropriate here (I think it isn't). thanks, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like another example of an involved editor using admin tools to push a POV, despite the overwhelming majority wanting otherwise. JOJ ^Hutton 17:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not involved, "an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area." I never looked at the article or even knew about the matter previously to the request received from law enforcement in the UK. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

What POV? That accused persons are entitled to a fair trial? Gotta guard against that one, it threatens our status as a collection of the latest garbage and innuendo slapped up somewhere else on the web. Franamax (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The law? I can't see that the need for an article on a nn crime victim is worth a miscarriage of justice. Secretlondon (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• This is another WP:NOTNEWS. We should have a policy that we do not have articles on unfolding criminal cases, because until the case concludes or the trail goes cold, 95% of what is published in the media is speculation anyway. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • That may be, but it still doesn't justify full protection. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Nor does it justify the editor/admin who opens and AfD on an article (13:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC) by the stamp and log) to continued to edit (18:40 through 18:41, 2 edits, 31 March 2012), delete (18:44 same day) and restore a single instance of their last edit (18:45 same day), and then fully lock that version (18:46 same day). Fred Bauder was involved the minute he took the page to AfD. At that point he should have left the AfD to run it course, not edit the article. And definitely not take administrative action on the article. If he felt the AfD was a mistake, too slow, going wrong, being hijacked, or whatever, he should have brought it to here or the BLP board and let a different admin who hadn't participated in editing the article or commenting on the AfD deal with it. - J Greb (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Just from looking at it, this seems to be an attempt to influence the outcome of an AfD by the person who opened the AfD. No matter how much anyone argues it, we all know that AfD opinions are influenced by the state of the article at that moment in time, even if references exist elsewhere and all of that. By shaving the article down to this bare bones content that doesn't properly exhibit the claimed notability of the subject, it is attempting to influence more people to vote delete based on how the article looks. And Fred is clearly involved, per J Greb above. Silverseren^C 18:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• As I already stated here, the hat note on the article now improperly states that it is locked and censored as a result of a community decision, or at least based on community guidelines. This is NOT the case as we can see from the discussion that preceded the action. I request that if the article is to remain locked the hat note should state: "This article has been redacted to comply with the Sub judice requirements of British law." -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

When he started the AfD and put his support on it, he acquired an interest in being upheld sufficient to involve him.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The OTRS request should have been passed to WMF, because administrators don't have authorisation to act as censors. Couldn't somebody just close the AfD and unlock the page? FormerIP (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• FormerIP has just given the right answer. As this was (apparently) a request from UK law enforcement agencies (and not a private individual asking for information to be removed from their article), it should have been handed to the WMF. The WMF have access to legal counsel, who can advise whether or not the request should be complied with. If it should be, the article should be deleted as an office action. I am going to close the AfD - as "the UK police asked us to delete it" is not a valid reason within Wikipedia policy to propose deletion of an article. I am going to refer it to the WMF. I am not going to unlock the article, but I will take over the protection from Fred. The reason I am not unlocking it is that I want to see what the legal advice from the WMF counsel is, and I do not think the world will end if the article remains a stub for the next 24 hours. I apologise for not picking up on this sooner, would probably have saved some hard words. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Unlock article in full version. Wikipedia should not start to censoring its own articles. End of story.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how a 24h lock is going to hurt, so long as it doesn't creep. My guess is that the chances of there being anything illegal/unadvisable in the article are slim at best, but it is better to be safe than sorry.

We could do worse than losing the makeshift hatnote, though. FormerIP (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: there was a parallel discussion going on here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Death of Sian O'Callaghan vs WP:NOTCENSORED -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:42, 1 April 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.

Problems of a user

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

---

Hi, hopefully I am here at the right place. A user from de:wp asked me for help on my german talk. If I understand him right, user:Taxi Berlin created his userpage (like in de:wp) and it got deleted and he seems to be blocked. He wanted to reveal his professional background and then translate an entry of de:wp in English. Could someone tell me what went wrong? Thanks for your help! Catfisheye (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

He used his userpage as a spam article and had a promotional username. We routinely block people for having promotional usernames and delete userpage promo articles. His talk page explains why he is blocked - User_talk:Taxi_Berlin Secretlondon (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Hm, in de:wp it is not considered a promotional name and with SUL it would be nice, if he could have just one account. In de:wp he has not made promotion, so could you copy me here the text of his userpage? (btw i had the understanding listening to a presentation at wikimania last year, that people should make clear when they might have a CoI; he states, he tried to make "full disclosure" here.) so is there a chance that his username is accepted here? (The text at his userpage is really unreadable for a non-native speaker.) thanks for your help btw. Catfisheye (talk) 19:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Our username policy is different from de. We do not allow you to have an account which is the name of an organisation. We considered his en userpage to be an advert, but we wouldn't allow his de userpage either as that links to his business. His deleted userpage had: Taxi Berlin is a taxicab dispatching company in Berlin. German user page: Taxi Berlin (de) Secretlondon (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I will tell him. Thanks. Catfisheye (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

again: he cannot create an account with another name, because of the autoblock and a static IP. As said in de:wp AFAICT he does not make promotional edits and if he would do so here, you could still block him. So would you be so nice and remove the autoblock? Thanks again. Catfisheye (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

He should now be able to request a new username. Will that do? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Or make a new account as the autoblock is gone. I suspect our name change unblocking process maybe too hard for a non-native speaker. Secretlondon (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I will tell him and think also, that it will be easier to create a new account. Thanks a lot for your help! :) Greetings from Germany Catfisheye (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

As long as he picks something other than Taxi B, I'll unblock him. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Now unblocked. I do think this is all just a misunderstanding, so I hope he has no further problems with editing. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks like de wikipedia have different ways of handling COI issues. We nuke any promotional usernames which does disguise the issue. I have wondered whether we should go for full disclosure instead. Secretlondon (talk) 22:29, 1 April 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:Gamezero05

The following discussion is closed. 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:Gamezero05 appears to need a community imposed wikibreak. At the MMA discussion [100], he has taken a fancy to calling me a liar repeatedly. [101], [102]. TreyGeek has approached them on their talk page and took the time to explain why they can't do this, but they don't get it and replied back with a warning template on TG's page [103]. As I told him, I have no problem with someone attacking my logic, but attacking my character in a discussion is very disruptive and interferring with the discussion, in what is already a heated topic. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• I hate to be so quick on the trigger, but we have had enough verbal abuse in the MMA articles, and blocks seem to be the only things that work when someone is this far over the line. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

First off, you said something which was untrue, so I said you were lying about it. I did not repeatedly call you a liar, so stop over-dramatizing it. Secondly, you, TreyGeek, and MTking have an agenda and are trying your damnedest to silence those who oppose you.

The reason I replied back with a warning template is because it was done to me first. I was simply returning the favor.

And it is extremely petty of you to waste your time with this because I said you were lying. If you take that as an attack on your personal character, then you are being very, very petty. Gamezero05 (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, you just said "blocks seem to be the only things that work when someone is THIS FAR OVER THE LINE". Really? Because I said you were lying? (Which you clearly were). How can something so petty be "so far over the line"?

I know your game. You are acting like you were verbally assaulted really bad and you are a victim. Now you are trying to seem like the civil one in order to get me blocked because I oppose your view on the MMA articles. Gamezero05 (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

There are far more WP:CIVIL ways to call someone out on an untruth (not saying that what was said here is one way or the other, just to be sure) than by using the L-word. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe Denis was only giving a couple examples, a couple of examples of incivility and over the line activities can include refering to people as slimy and decitful, threating to canvass people from outside Wikipedia to participate in the discussion, and calling people Nazis calling people motherfucker.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any Nazis in that last diff, but I do see somebody who uses a word that's not appropriate (since he's not talkin' bout' Shaft). That is particularly egrerious and should be struck immediately, or else the user blocked for making such a personal attack. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I did say that, I admit. I wasn't completely aware of the rules at the time and it wasn't meant to be a put-down. I meant it as "this guy". And about calling somebody slimy and deceitful, that I did not do. I said certain actions taken were slimy and deceitful. What these guys were doing was putting articles up for deletion and then discussing that they wanted to merge several articles because people were putting them up for deletion... except they were the ones who put them up for deletion in the first place. That was slimy and deceitful. Gamezero05 (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• The fact that you still call Mtking slimy and deceitful, and don't see why we are upset that you called TreyGeek a "motherfucker" only reinforces the reasons I requested you be blocked to prevent further disruption. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Must have linked the wrong one, it's there, I'll find it.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I just now saw where he called Trey an "MF". Wow. It will take about another month to work the rest of the details on the project. I don't expect it, but it would be swell if it could be done without his disruption. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Appologies, it was an IP who invoked Godwin's Law, with Gamezero05 with suggesting it was nothing to be offended by. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Even if you give him a complete pass on the Nazi comment, it is clear that his actions are highly disruptive, and he is not here to build an encyclopedia, but instead to prevent change by bullying and attacking others. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

You sound really desperate to get my opinions out of your way. And you cannot say that I am not here to improve the encyclopedia. Who was the one who suggested keeping a similar format as the individual articles when you merge it into one big article? Me.

Who added all of the fight results / upcoming fights and event poster table to the right side of the page? Me.

I've done just as much on that article, if not more, than everybody except for TreyGeek. So there you go again... another "untruth". Gamezero05 (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Even the best of contributions do not mitigate a uncivil battleground mentality; if you cannot contribute in a fashion that is a constructive part of the community as determined by the community you are not here to help build an encyclopedia. It doesn't matter how much you've contributed, if you cannot do so as a civil part of the community, Wikipedia does not need you. You need to stop dismissing everyone's comments just because you "know" you're right. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Udar55

I think it would also be appropriate to look at the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality of Udar55 as evidenced by his posts to Sherdog here and here , and to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability‎‎ it is clear that he sees this as a battle. Mtking ^(edits) 00:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• I previously mentioned he reverted 4 times in 17 hours at UFC on FX: Alves vs. Kampmann, but I haven't seen anyone even mention it to him. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I did post to his talk page, and to his credit has reverted his last edit. Mtking ^(edits) 00:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thats good that he reverted himself, that shows good faith, but the edits on external sites are troubling, but not really actionable here. It does show there is a grass root effort to disrupt here, and "get their way", guidelines be damned. If not for the disruptions, the design work might already be done. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it might be appropriate for some one uninvolved to post to his talk with some words of advice, it is better to avoid the situation of this escalating to a point where a block might be needed, prevention better than cure and all that. Mtking ^(edits) 01:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• I agree. His methods need work, but he doesn't seem to be totally unreasonable. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

No need, I'm not bothering with it anymore. Udar55 (talk) 02:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Dennis Brown

Dennis Brown is going around and threatening anybody who disagrees with him with blocks. Look how petty he is being right above. He wants to block me because I said he was lying about something.

That isn't the real reason. The real reason is that I have been vocal about how much I disagree with what he and a few others are doing in the MMA section. Gamezero05 (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Please provide diffs for your claims. And in the future, if you file an ANI, you should post the proper template on the talk page. I didn't see this until BWilkins joined them. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• I'm still waiting for the diff's where I am going around and threatening anyone. Otherwise, this would look like a bad faith effort to smear my name at ANI, or should be struck. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

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

IP vandal resumed after 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.

---

IP vandal resumed after fifth block. Last one was 6 months, we should use something longer now...

95.180.18.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Just check IPs history for more. --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:48, 1 April 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.

98.125.119.62

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

---

User is trying to make a point but refuses to participate in consensus building and is conducting an edit war with several other editors. Several of the edits made by the IP were quite aggressive in tone, were OR or not NPOV. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/98.125.119.62

The edits by the anonymous editor, 98.125.119.62 (talk · contribs), are relatively innocuous. They have indeed been repeatedly adding their criticism that doesn't match the given source to the article, and wording the text they reinsert in a non-neutral way; but the actual edits are not too bad. I'd say it appears to be a good faith effort however to contribute to the article, even though the user's position is obviously slightly slanted. As such, I've left a standard warning on their talk page. I don't see any evidence of anything requiring admin attention at the present, however. --Tristessa (talk) 02:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Could an admin please have a chat with User:Luciferwildcat about Wikipedia guidelines?

This user is having difficulty with maintaining NPOV in the article pink slime, specifically recent edits [[104]] [[105]] have been so blatantly inappropriate that I call it vandalism. As it seems this user has been involved in edit wars with other users in the past, I do not believe I can reason with this user. He also made up the term "salvage meat" in Wiktionary for use in the article. Rip-Saw (talk) 07:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I listed some of their redirects at RfD, and prodded the salvage meat page, as they are clearly on some kind of anti-pink slime crusade. Canuck_{My page}^{89 (talk)}, 08:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Prod removed, so I listed his dictionary article at this AfD. Canuck_{My page}^{89 (talk)}, 08:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

As it turns out, his behaviour has been previously been the subject of an earlier discussion at ANI. Canuck_{My page}^{89 (talk)}, 09:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it is highly suggested we check user all hardcore opponents of adding any negative material about pink slime and I have suspicions BPI PR people are afoot here, some have tacitly admitted it already or have Iowa IP address and single purpose accounts. The users here have repeatedly attempted to whitewash sourced material (from independent third party news sources) that pink slime was originally only a pet food product. In an encyclopedia that covers the entire history of a product I thought it was important to note. I also added a quote from the pink slime microbiologist whistleblower to balance the quotes from BPI but those were removed as well. This article needs to reflect the truth about pink slime, not just the official BPI company version and without sanitizing or whitewashing or sugarcoating. I am not on any crusade, I have been a long time editor and usually work to improve and expand articles related to the San Francisco Bay Area or languages in addition to making major contributions to wiktionary.LuciferWildCat (talk) 08:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I just came across some of LWC's recent edits on the talk page and I support the OP's take on the matter. LWC seems emotionally involved in the issue and doesn't seem to be editing neutrally. He has answered valid sourcing problems with logical fallacies (sources calling it "scrap" doesn't mean that it's not "waste" and since "waste" is better than "pulverized cow anus" we should use "waste"), has insinuated that those who disagree with his position must have some sort of industry motive, and all around has a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. I mentioned on the talk page that he should keep WP:COOL and I hope others here will reiterate this advice. For the record, I am generally in agreement with LWC that this stuff is gross and have said as much on the talk page, but that's not an excuse to lose neutrality. SÆdon^talk 09:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

@LWC: Please note that our article is not supposed to reflect the WP:TRUTH, it's supposed to be verifiable. SÆdon^talk 10:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand, it's just that when I first arrived at the article it was mimiced some of the company's talking points and structure and framed everything bad as some sort of witch hunt or lie so I just did some complete copyediting. But you are right and I will make sure I can verify the truth as much as possible if not keep looking for not inserting. I think at this point the article is free of any corpcomm and I am more than ready to collaborate with any other editors that think things should be reworded. Some editors have a "no no no" mentality even to verifiable additions instead of "but" "well" "no" "ok" "maybe" which honestly is what I endeavor. I have asked some other editors that I am familiar with and have more experience to come take a look as well they have a history of collaborating with me and chastising me and sometimes praising me as well.LuciferWildCat (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear you understand, and please don't take my comment here to mean that your work at the article is not appreciated - it is and I generally agree on your take that the article was too biased before. Stick to sources and follow the guidelines, comment on content and not contributors and the page will look great - just don't make the mistake of tipping the bias in the other direction. SÆdon^talk 00:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• • Yes of course that would also be bad, but since the pro content was already there I focused on the cons, but have since diversified once finishing that and called over some other editors to help neutralize the topic with the goal of creating a featured article. Also the more attention than can be brought to this article, the better the quality will be, and the fewer biases in general. But yes a sources based approach is what is needed and my plan, I find it unfortunate that the nominator of this thread continues to remove content repeatedly and then post a threat on the talk page about it that only they comment on and claim to have consensus on the matter, it really troubles me and IMHO is a disingenuous form of editing from a contributor that does not add new content in which I think would be best.LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• I too am quite concerned about LuciferWildCat's edits on the topic, both in tenor and in frequency. There is no semblance of neutrality on the primary article page at this point, and the 59 edits in the last 12 hours is a bit extreme. I have deleted one of his redirects, and note that another is up for deletion (I would have summarily nuked it too if it wasn't being RFD'd). As for the assertions of bad faith streaming from him towards anyone who wants to maintain NPOV, I think that needs to be curtailed as well. I don't think a topic ban would be out of line at this point. Horologium (talk) 11:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Completely disinterested and impartial observer chiming in here. I just took a cursory look at the discussion and do not see the blatant battleground issues that are being depicted, rather a series of content disputes is underway. Neither of the parties, and I see it as mainly two editors that are primarily involved, are willing to moderate their positions, however, the interplay remains courteous and tends to remain on topic. Bringing an issue like this to ANI is a concern, can't editors work out personal differences through discourse on their talk pages? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC).

I agree. I'm seeing rational discussion on the article talk page as well. Editors seem to be too quick to bring trivialities to the Dramah boards. Someone should just close this before it wastes any more editors time looking into this issue. Mojoworker (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Yup, me too. I think Luciferwildcat has been somewhat unjustly demonized here. Pesky (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments like "Only a bias minority with a stake in profits is disputing that and the use of pink slime has already been voted on and approved" are inappropriate because they attempt to categorize editors who disagree with him as corporate shills. It's an insinuated personal attack plain and simple and it's what I was referring to when I brought up WP:BATTLEGROUND. SÆdon^talk 00:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

comment A look at the talk page will show that in a community discussion the consensus was a landslide in favor of using the term pink slime. That is no personal attack. It was directed at editors with single purpose accounts or IPs that clearly were only making pro meat industry edits and others that were routinely whitewashing sourced content that could be seen as embarrassing for the company and its stockholders. That is not what wikipedia is about and I am not about to hold my tongue when I see this behavior going on. People trust wikipedia to get to the bottom of things. We don't rely on any advertisers and that keeps us independent.LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I started off supporting the title but after having done some research I am now opposed to the title. Am I corporate shill or can you acknowledge that people can hold a different opinion than you without nefarious intent? Furthermore, what does it add to WP when you get personal with other editors? When you accuse other editors of such things do you think they'll be better editors because of it? or do you think it will simply lead to more emotionally charged discussion (and a trip to ANI)? What ever the case is, I'm sorry but what you are doing is, in fact, making personal attacks. Speculating upon the motives of other editors is heavily frowned upon, which I'm guessing you already know. If it's true that the editors in question are influenced by the meat industry and are giving WP:UNDUE weight to promotional sources then you can invoke WP:FRINGE and WP:COI to deal with it, but there is absolutely no excuse to make the accusations that you have unless you have solid proof. So yes, please "hold your tongue" and comment on content, not contributors. SÆdon^talk 08:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course you are not. I have focused on the content as much as possible but this article is the subject of repeated vandalism that is nefarious and obviously straight from corporate shrills. All legitimate disagreements have led to engagement on the talk page and compromise edits and have been largely uncontroversial. I did not start this ANI thread and I find it completely unfounded, a request for comment would have been a much better option. I think it should be noted that the user that started this thread has only removed content and only inserted pro-pink slime content. This user has not added any neutral nor positive content. Furthermore this user has not even dotted an i nor crossed a t. This user has made a few edits about once a year for a few years and then suddenly began editing pink slime and only pink slime with what appears to me as an agenda from a largely single purpose account while using rather aggressive rhetoric. I refuse to get into ad hominem arguments with this user and I sought out the help of other editors. Colleagues that often disagree with me or agree with me or neutrally help me reach consensus with others and I believe this article has done very well by this. I will hold my tongue but since there is such rampant vandalism and to me it doesn't look good, can we do a check user on the nominator?LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

In case anyone missed it, there is also a discussion of the article at WP:AN#Pink slime. There have been several accounts blocked for socking at the article, and more Single Purpose Accounts showing up today that caused the article to be semi-protected. I'm assuming that LCW was directing his comments toward those types of editors – the ones that are completely ignoring Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Mojoworker (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That is exactly what I meant.LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - To reiterate what LCW says above, he's a content creator that keys on Bay Area, California content and is not a single purpose editor on a vegan crusade or anything like that. I haven't looked at the specific pink slime edits and have no opinion on those. I did vote for deletion of salvage meat at AfD on the grounds that in my opinion it's a non-notable neologism. Carrite (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by user

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

---

Inception anyone?

This user and I have been engaged in a minor edit war at an article I recently created. Any help would be much appreciated. Juliancolton (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

No names and no links other than your own sign. The diff[106]. April 1st?--RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 01:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

No, much cleverer than that. Mouse over "article" and watch the cursor spin (hence Inception). Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, OK that explains that explains the tie to Inception. I liked that movie!--RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 01:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I was going to suggest a 24 hour boomerang block for confusing everyone. And the mouse doesn't spin on Chrome/Win7, just an hourglass. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Yet another reason to use Firefox. →Στc. 02:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Pssst...it doesn't spin on Firefox either (at least 5.0). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Then someone needs to update his Fox. We're on v11.0 now) Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I would, except I'm a technophilic Luddite (yes, I know that's an oxymoron) and since 5.0 ain't broke for me, I'm refusing to fix it! ;) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't spin on 10.whateverI'vegot which was about a couple of days old when they started pestering me about 11. Peridon (talk) 11:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

ummm ... perhaps it has to do with the icons you have configured for various windows "states"? — Ched :  ?  16:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I still refuse to move beyond 3.6.x before support is dropped, as the interface is horrendous on later versions. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 23:19, 1 April 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.

Compromised 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.

---

I have reason to believe that the cats have hacked into the boa constrictor's account. The dog told me. Pesky (talk) 03:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:DIFFs? Have you notified them of this discussion? Have you considered nominating any them for adminship?--Shirt58 (talk) 04:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how to find the diffs, as the dog can't spell the boa's username, and the boa won't tell me. I told them all, but none of them answered, apart from giggling. And the boa reckons she pwns ArbCom. Pesky (talk) 04:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The boa should be blocked immediately. That user has been nothing but abusive to me and my brethren, making jokes about "eating me" and stalking my edits with a hungry expression. I demand that something be done about this; to ignore it is a vile miscarriage of justice! ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 05:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

She'd just wriggle out of a block; she's been really defensive since someone told her she looked like a sockpuppet. Pesky (talk) 05:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

If the boa has eaten the rabbit, this becomes a content dispute. Take it to WP:DRN. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could just wait for things to come out all right. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Now listen to me very carefully. WP:BOAs and WP:DOGs have been a WP:PROBLEM from WP:DAYONE. My advice is simple: just l.b. on the m.sL. and wait.—Djathinkimacowboy

The discussion above is closed. 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 blocked

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

---

Why is my account blocked? I can't edit from it.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 03:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Huh? How did you post here? You were unblocked in November, and the only other block you've gotten was overturned immediately because it was a mistake. Nyttend (talk) 03:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The joys of April Fools.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 03:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

It's because you have one of those fake 'you have new messages' banners on the top of your user and talk pages. I'm sure that if you remove that silliness, you'll find that you can edit without any further difficulties. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Awww.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 03:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

At least he was kind enough to put all of the blue text in the wrong font. Calabe1992 04:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

See here:

"Per decree by Jimbo Wales, effective 06-01-2010 the editing history of each editor will include the carbon footprint of the editor. If the ratio of the carbon footprint to productive edits is too large, the editing privileges of the editor will be suspended until the editor has donated enough carbon credits to the Wikimedia Foundation as compensation."

Count Iblis (talk) 03:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Ooh. Having just wrapped up my time zone's Earth Hour slactivist nonsense a couple hours ago, I like that joke! Resolute 04:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

And unless it's just a joke for today, you need to get rid of those "You have new messages" banners on your user pages. See WP:NEWMESSAGE. —SW— ^comment 06:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course it's only for April Fools. It activates and deactivates automatically.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 01:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

So, not only are you too lazy to come up with an original gag, you're too lazy to flip the switch on it every year? Damn, that's lazy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't have to do anything about laziness. I may be abscent when it comes time to flip the switch. I haven't been able to come up with a good gag this year so look out for me next year. Perhaps you might be the one to get fooled. ;)—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 01:55, 2 April 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.

Aprils Fools jokes....

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

---

Don´t change anything that affects articles or their printed versions.--Müdigkeit (talk) 06:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, that may be your opinion, but... how is this an AN/I issue? Calabe1992 06:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Doing so may lead to a block? It might be indistinguishable from vandalism. Dougweller (talk) 06:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes..... and this is a very bad idea.--Müdigkeit (talk) 06:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Did you know ... that Herbert Grossman was horny as a youth, but learned to conduct himself after serving in World War II? ( Too late for main page ( sniff! ) so I brought it to the party here. Is there a buffet, or a hosted bar? )  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Not for April Fools, but I like the editnotice at Gadsby (novel). For April Fools, I like my version of this editnotice. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Your edit notice is spot on, Blade. But couldn't we have an audio edit notice, too, in article space? Just to discourage new editors? That'd be pretty cool, too. I nominate Molly Lewis' Wikipedia Breakup Song.  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

As a sock of Jimmy Wales, I may have proof that he is a puppetmazter 174.252.59.113 (talk) 07:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Sockie, forget it. You are the old guard, and oblivion just tweeted that your presence is required. You should probably try to be more like me.  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC) ( lol; jk; :P - plagiarized from Drmies, Journeyman Clever Chap, International Brotherhood of Irony Workers. see context. )

I see editors adding hoax AfD templates to mainspace articles, I hope no one gets blocked for removing them. Is adding these templates really funny? Dougweller (talk) 09:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll invited Dennisthe2 (talk · contribs) here. Dougweller (talk) 09:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

If I see another person adding a joke AFD template to mainspace, they will be taking a forced break until this silliness is over. T. Canens (talk) 09:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Invoking "double secret probation" in times of wiki emergency will win you few fans today! "No more fun of any kind!" Doc talk 10:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd support a block, these templates, etc in article space are meant to amuse other editors, but are confusing to our general readership and are thus disruptive. Dougweller (talk) 10:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Someone in this town is trying to burn the playhouse down.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I've previously been asked not to put the AFD templates in the main articles. Near as I can tell, it pretty much means not relying on Twinkle. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That's true. And article space is not a playhouse, right? Dougweller (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Tim is speedy deleting joke MfDs and inappropriately citing G6. Obviously he needs to be beaten within an inch of his life by a pack of Scottish dwarves. I also propose that he be forced to wear a funny hat every April 1st. Should he fail to comply with that then he will be immediately subject to the aforementioned punishment.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Why must they by Scottish? I much prefer Canadian dwarves. ^{[natit citsejam] [klat]} dE 17:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd personally recommend he be hanged by the neck until he cheers up. =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

ok, me have no good honest bones. been all 'acting like eNglish' but no have noledge of a thing (single). do not ban me. many childrens, must to feed all.—Djathinkimacowboy

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

Goodbye Wikipedia

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

---

All those months of working here...and now I'm banned. See my user page. :( Bmusician 08:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Block Log says nothing. (April Fools?) ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 08:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

...wat. User declared that they were "banned" on 26 January, then requested their page be full-protected. There is zero evidence of this "ban" having ever occurred. If this was an April Fools' joke, it sure happened really, really early. DOES NOT COMPUTE. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 08:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Banned 7 September 2011 also. Doc talk 08:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 09:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I knew this wouldn't work. Bmusician 09:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Timing is everything.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 09:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The annual "wacky day" here on WP. All day long. Joy! Doc talk 09:14, 1 April 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.

Improper use of full protection?

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

---

Death of Sian O'Callaghan has been fully protected by User:Fred Bauder after he deleted most of the content -- on the basis that this is necessary to conform with WP:BLPCRIME. While it's arguably reasonable to insist on omitting material about the suspect, Fred has deleted a great deal of content that is *not* about the suspect (it's possible to see the earlier version via google cache). This is all being argued out at the AfD, and there's a more general issue of whether Wikipedia should show such deference to one country's legal system. In any event, excessive deletion followed by full protection seems inappropriate here -- it's the full protection issue that I think needs review. I haven't discussed it with Fred first because others have already done so at the AfD and it's clear that he doesn't intend to change his position. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds pretty improper to me (WP:INVOLVED and all...), but he'll simply cite BLP and say that no other consideration is more important.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not involved, "an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area." I never looked at the article or even knew about the matter previously to the request received from law enforcement in the UK. I'm open to changing protection provided a consensus is reached regarding Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Crime_perpetrators issues. I'm not inclined to invite edit warring. Nearly all sources, if not all, involve details regarding the investigation of the case which is why I deleted edits which contain links to them. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The UK police are trying to avoid the libel/contempt of court fiasco that followed the Murder of Joanna Yeates. This led to calls for a change in the law on how the media could report the arrest of suspects, but this was rejected.[107] The same man (CH) is charged with two murders, and this is available in UK reliable sources. The UK police appear to have exceeded their powers with this request.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

They have the right to make a courteous request to us to act responsibly. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not think the UK police have exceeded their powers, this is a normal part of how censorship in Britain works. A large part of the sources used in the article have also been forced off-line. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to focus on the question of whether full protection is appropriate here (I think it isn't). thanks, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like another example of an involved editor using admin tools to push a POV, despite the overwhelming majority wanting otherwise. JOJ ^Hutton 17:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not involved, "an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area." I never looked at the article or even knew about the matter previously to the request received from law enforcement in the UK. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

What POV? That accused persons are entitled to a fair trial? Gotta guard against that one, it threatens our status as a collection of the latest garbage and innuendo slapped up somewhere else on the web. Franamax (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The law? I can't see that the need for an article on a nn crime victim is worth a miscarriage of justice. Secretlondon (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• This is another WP:NOTNEWS. We should have a policy that we do not have articles on unfolding criminal cases, because until the case concludes or the trail goes cold, 95% of what is published in the media is speculation anyway. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • That may be, but it still doesn't justify full protection. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Nor does it justify the editor/admin who opens and AfD on an article (13:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC) by the stamp and log) to continued to edit (18:40 through 18:41, 2 edits, 31 March 2012), delete (18:44 same day) and restore a single instance of their last edit (18:45 same day), and then fully lock that version (18:46 same day). Fred Bauder was involved the minute he took the page to AfD. At that point he should have left the AfD to run it course, not edit the article. And definitely not take administrative action on the article. If he felt the AfD was a mistake, too slow, going wrong, being hijacked, or whatever, he should have brought it to here or the BLP board and let a different admin who hadn't participated in editing the article or commenting on the AfD deal with it. - J Greb (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Just from looking at it, this seems to be an attempt to influence the outcome of an AfD by the person who opened the AfD. No matter how much anyone argues it, we all know that AfD opinions are influenced by the state of the article at that moment in time, even if references exist elsewhere and all of that. By shaving the article down to this bare bones content that doesn't properly exhibit the claimed notability of the subject, it is attempting to influence more people to vote delete based on how the article looks. And Fred is clearly involved, per J Greb above. Silverseren^C 18:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• As I already stated here, the hat note on the article now improperly states that it is locked and censored as a result of a community decision, or at least based on community guidelines. This is NOT the case as we can see from the discussion that preceded the action. I request that if the article is to remain locked the hat note should state: "This article has been redacted to comply with the Sub judice requirements of British law." -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

When he started the AfD and put his support on it, he acquired an interest in being upheld sufficient to involve him.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The OTRS request should have been passed to WMF, because administrators don't have authorisation to act as censors. Couldn't somebody just close the AfD and unlock the page? FormerIP (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• FormerIP has just given the right answer. As this was (apparently) a request from UK law enforcement agencies (and not a private individual asking for information to be removed from their article), it should have been handed to the WMF. The WMF have access to legal counsel, who can advise whether or not the request should be complied with. If it should be, the article should be deleted as an office action. I am going to close the AfD - as "the UK police asked us to delete it" is not a valid reason within Wikipedia policy to propose deletion of an article. I am going to refer it to the WMF. I am not going to unlock the article, but I will take over the protection from Fred. The reason I am not unlocking it is that I want to see what the legal advice from the WMF counsel is, and I do not think the world will end if the article remains a stub for the next 24 hours. I apologise for not picking up on this sooner, would probably have saved some hard words. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Unlock article in full version. Wikipedia should not start to censoring its own articles. End of story.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how a 24h lock is going to hurt, so long as it doesn't creep. My guess is that the chances of there being anything illegal/unadvisable in the article are slim at best, but it is better to be safe than sorry.

We could do worse than losing the makeshift hatnote, though. FormerIP (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: there was a parallel discussion going on here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Death of Sian O'Callaghan vs WP:NOTCENSORED -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:42, 1 April 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.

Problems of a user

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

---

Hi, hopefully I am here at the right place. A user from de:wp asked me for help on my german talk. If I understand him right, user:Taxi Berlin created his userpage (like in de:wp) and it got deleted and he seems to be blocked. He wanted to reveal his professional background and then translate an entry of de:wp in English. Could someone tell me what went wrong? Thanks for your help! Catfisheye (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

He used his userpage as a spam article and had a promotional username. We routinely block people for having promotional usernames and delete userpage promo articles. His talk page explains why he is blocked - User_talk:Taxi_Berlin Secretlondon (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Hm, in de:wp it is not considered a promotional name and with SUL it would be nice, if he could have just one account. In de:wp he has not made promotion, so could you copy me here the text of his userpage? (btw i had the understanding listening to a presentation at wikimania last year, that people should make clear when they might have a CoI; he states, he tried to make "full disclosure" here.) so is there a chance that his username is accepted here? (The text at his userpage is really unreadable for a non-native speaker.) thanks for your help btw. Catfisheye (talk) 19:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Our username policy is different from de. We do not allow you to have an account which is the name of an organisation. We considered his en userpage to be an advert, but we wouldn't allow his de userpage either as that links to his business. His deleted userpage had: Taxi Berlin is a taxicab dispatching company in Berlin. German user page: Taxi Berlin (de) Secretlondon (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I will tell him. Thanks. Catfisheye (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

again: he cannot create an account with another name, because of the autoblock and a static IP. As said in de:wp AFAICT he does not make promotional edits and if he would do so here, you could still block him. So would you be so nice and remove the autoblock? Thanks again. Catfisheye (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

He should now be able to request a new username. Will that do? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Or make a new account as the autoblock is gone. I suspect our name change unblocking process maybe too hard for a non-native speaker. Secretlondon (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I will tell him and think also, that it will be easier to create a new account. Thanks a lot for your help! :) Greetings from Germany Catfisheye (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

As long as he picks something other than Taxi B, I'll unblock him. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Now unblocked. I do think this is all just a misunderstanding, so I hope he has no further problems with editing. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks like de wikipedia have different ways of handling COI issues. We nuke any promotional usernames which does disguise the issue. I have wondered whether we should go for full disclosure instead. Secretlondon (talk) 22:29, 1 April 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:Gamezero05

The following discussion is closed. 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:Gamezero05 appears to need a community imposed wikibreak. At the MMA discussion [108], he has taken a fancy to calling me a liar repeatedly. [109], [110]. TreyGeek has approached them on their talk page and took the time to explain why they can't do this, but they don't get it and replied back with a warning template on TG's page [111]. As I told him, I have no problem with someone attacking my logic, but attacking my character in a discussion is very disruptive and interferring with the discussion, in what is already a heated topic. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• I hate to be so quick on the trigger, but we have had enough verbal abuse in the MMA articles, and blocks seem to be the only things that work when someone is this far over the line. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

First off, you said something which was untrue, so I said you were lying about it. I did not repeatedly call you a liar, so stop over-dramatizing it. Secondly, you, TreyGeek, and MTking have an agenda and are trying your damnedest to silence those who oppose you.

The reason I replied back with a warning template is because it was done to me first. I was simply returning the favor.

And it is extremely petty of you to waste your time with this because I said you were lying. If you take that as an attack on your personal character, then you are being very, very petty. Gamezero05 (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, you just said "blocks seem to be the only things that work when someone is THIS FAR OVER THE LINE". Really? Because I said you were lying? (Which you clearly were). How can something so petty be "so far over the line"?

I know your game. You are acting like you were verbally assaulted really bad and you are a victim. Now you are trying to seem like the civil one in order to get me blocked because I oppose your view on the MMA articles. Gamezero05 (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

There are far more WP:CIVIL ways to call someone out on an untruth (not saying that what was said here is one way or the other, just to be sure) than by using the L-word. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe Denis was only giving a couple examples, a couple of examples of incivility and over the line activities can include refering to people as slimy and decitful, threating to canvass people from outside Wikipedia to participate in the discussion, and calling people Nazis calling people motherfucker.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any Nazis in that last diff, but I do see somebody who uses a word that's not appropriate (since he's not talkin' bout' Shaft). That is particularly egrerious and should be struck immediately, or else the user blocked for making such a personal attack. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I did say that, I admit. I wasn't completely aware of the rules at the time and it wasn't meant to be a put-down. I meant it as "this guy". And about calling somebody slimy and deceitful, that I did not do. I said certain actions taken were slimy and deceitful. What these guys were doing was putting articles up for deletion and then discussing that they wanted to merge several articles because people were putting them up for deletion... except they were the ones who put them up for deletion in the first place. That was slimy and deceitful. Gamezero05 (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• The fact that you still call Mtking slimy and deceitful, and don't see why we are upset that you called TreyGeek a "motherfucker" only reinforces the reasons I requested you be blocked to prevent further disruption. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Must have linked the wrong one, it's there, I'll find it.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I just now saw where he called Trey an "MF". Wow. It will take about another month to work the rest of the details on the project. I don't expect it, but it would be swell if it could be done without his disruption. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Appologies, it was an IP who invoked Godwin's Law, with Gamezero05 with suggesting it was nothing to be offended by. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Even if you give him a complete pass on the Nazi comment, it is clear that his actions are highly disruptive, and he is not here to build an encyclopedia, but instead to prevent change by bullying and attacking others. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

You sound really desperate to get my opinions out of your way. And you cannot say that I am not here to improve the encyclopedia. Who was the one who suggested keeping a similar format as the individual articles when you merge it into one big article? Me.

Who added all of the fight results / upcoming fights and event poster table to the right side of the page? Me.

I've done just as much on that article, if not more, than everybody except for TreyGeek. So there you go again... another "untruth". Gamezero05 (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Even the best of contributions do not mitigate a uncivil battleground mentality; if you cannot contribute in a fashion that is a constructive part of the community as determined by the community you are not here to help build an encyclopedia. It doesn't matter how much you've contributed, if you cannot do so as a civil part of the community, Wikipedia does not need you. You need to stop dismissing everyone's comments just because you "know" you're right. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Udar55

I think it would also be appropriate to look at the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality of Udar55 as evidenced by his posts to Sherdog here and here , and to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability‎‎ it is clear that he sees this as a battle. Mtking ^(edits) 00:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• I previously mentioned he reverted 4 times in 17 hours at UFC on FX: Alves vs. Kampmann, but I haven't seen anyone even mention it to him. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I did post to his talk page, and to his credit has reverted his last edit. Mtking ^(edits) 00:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thats good that he reverted himself, that shows good faith, but the edits on external sites are troubling, but not really actionable here. It does show there is a grass root effort to disrupt here, and "get their way", guidelines be damned. If not for the disruptions, the design work might already be done. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it might be appropriate for some one uninvolved to post to his talk with some words of advice, it is better to avoid the situation of this escalating to a point where a block might be needed, prevention better than cure and all that. Mtking ^(edits) 01:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• I agree. His methods need work, but he doesn't seem to be totally unreasonable. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

No need, I'm not bothering with it anymore. Udar55 (talk) 02:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Dennis Brown

Dennis Brown is going around and threatening anybody who disagrees with him with blocks. Look how petty he is being right above. He wants to block me because I said he was lying about something.

That isn't the real reason. The real reason is that I have been vocal about how much I disagree with what he and a few others are doing in the MMA section. Gamezero05 (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Please provide diffs for your claims. And in the future, if you file an ANI, you should post the proper template on the talk page. I didn't see this until BWilkins joined them. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• I'm still waiting for the diff's where I am going around and threatening anyone. Otherwise, this would look like a bad faith effort to smear my name at ANI, or should be struck. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

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

IP vandal resumed after 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.

---

IP vandal resumed after fifth block. Last one was 6 months, we should use something longer now...

95.180.18.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Just check IPs history for more. --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:48, 1 April 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.

98.125.119.62

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

---

User is trying to make a point but refuses to participate in consensus building and is conducting an edit war with several other editors. Several of the edits made by the IP were quite aggressive in tone, were OR or not NPOV. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/98.125.119.62

The edits by the anonymous editor, 98.125.119.62 (talk · contribs), are relatively innocuous. They have indeed been repeatedly adding their criticism that doesn't match the given source to the article, and wording the text they reinsert in a non-neutral way; but the actual edits are not too bad. I'd say it appears to be a good faith effort however to contribute to the article, even though the user's position is obviously slightly slanted. As such, I've left a standard warning on their talk page. I don't see any evidence of anything requiring admin attention at the present, however. --Tristessa (talk) 02:44, 2 April 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: Dave1185

I think that the things are became too hot ultimatively, but this user is exaggerating. In the Swiss Hawker Hunter page, he defined me as 'nothing but a troll'. He repeated the same concept also in in the face of utter hostility/stupidity... I don't think I can ever be like you when dealing with such trolls, even with a barnstar dedicated.

Now i could be a lot of things, a warm head or whetever, but surely i am not a troll. When i edited for the first time the Hawker Hunter page i wanted just to improve it in some parts and correct some evidently herrors, such the Mk.6 version ('50s) being armed with Mavericks ('70s tech) and so on. Dave reverted [112] without mercy anything i wrote and refused basically to discuss about the removed stuff, atleast in order to improve it. So i started the Swiss Hunter page in order to post the info available on them.

Dave swiftly asked the deletion of the page, and not happy enough he put the page in deletion, with a discussion in which he failed to show why that page should be deleted, so the decision was to keep it.

I have quit to post in wikipedia for several days, after there were further discussions with another user that disagreed with some sources used. I thinked it was necessary, in order to cool down the situation, and i came back only because i recently discovered new sources (Google books) about the stuff that i'd like to add. But, as i have stopped to edit, those gratuitus insults made by Dave are, IMO, not accettables: what's the point to insult someone 5 days later he stopped to edit?Stefanomencarelli (talk) 11:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I think Dave is generally a good-faith editor who can get easily frustrated sometimes and this boils over. I have not looked at the specifics here, but I want to generally vouch for Dave and make it known that if the community decides it's a good idea, I'm willing to work with Dave on his Wiki-temper. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) That would be a good idea. He certainly does good work, but judging from an old incident involving myself and some other messages he wrote that I have come across, I think everyone would benefit if he could be talked into slowing down before accusing others of malice and error, and being less aggressive toward perceived malice. wctaiwan (talk) 13:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Adding to the previous post: as prescrived in wikipedia policy, i had noticed the discussion opened here in his talk page. Just seven minutes later, Dave reverted also this post, calling the WP:Boomerang as reason to do it. I think there is something wrong in his attitude, or is normal deleting any message you don't like, even if it just an ufficial comunication? It is done under the wikipedia rules, after all.Stefanomencarelli (talk) 12:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:USER, users have a right to remove or rollback messages left for them on their user talk page. He can remove what he wants from his page. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Technically true, but that action was not necessary, and the edit comment quite irritating/provocatory. Once he call me troll and then refuse to discuss anything. Bah!Stefanomencarelli (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how it "was not necessary". If he felt he had to remove his message, he's quite welcome to do so. I agree the edit summary was unfortunate, but the edit itself is perfectly fine. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Mmmm, a few seconds perusal of Talk:Hawker Hunter in service with Swiss Air Force and a couple of things are immediately apparent:
1. User:Stefanomencarelli has a lot of latent hostility towards User:Dave1185, this report smacks of retaliation. Hence, I propose a WP:TROUT for both of them.
2. User:Stefanomencarelli has been quite hostile to User:Kyteto (who btw thoroughly deserves that barnstar) and I would suggest someone looks at that a little closer. At least a warning of WP:NPA is warranted and if it continues a block should follow.
3. There also appears to be a lot of WP:OWN, WP:TEND and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT from the OP. Watch out for that WP:BOOMERANG. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

1_: then you should take more time and see when and where that latent hostility was born (not surely in Swiss Hunter talk). Anyway, i have just said that Dave's experiences were OR by a wikipedia POW, not that they were non interesting or false; therefore, there was not the need to insult me calling troll.

2_: the hostility vs Kyteto is related with his convinction that some sources cannot been used in that article, while the 'consensuns' that he claims to be about them is far to be real, as i explained with the quoting of other contributors that, instead, rate them as 'reliable' or atleast, 'acceptable'. Atleast until we found new sources there is not much point to delete the older sources and filling each line of CN. This has nothing to do with OWN; if the article was based on totally unreliable sources, then it was deleted with the (Dave) request, but it was not so, it was considered valid neverthless and we talk about just 10 days ago. OTOH, that i do not want the ownership of that article is indirectly shown as i said nothing (not talk about reverting) about the Kyteto text modifics, about those i have nothing against other's editing. Just my 2 cents.Stefanomencarelli (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Possible automated talk page spam

• 188.165.246.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I just came across the contributions of 188.165.246.91, who has created three new talk/archive pages only containing semi-random strings of words. I have left them a note about editing tests, which may be the only action needed if this is an isolated incident. I am concerned that this may be automated, though, and I am posting here to see if anyone else has noticed any edits like this. If this is part of a larger pattern, we might need to consider blocks or maybe a new edit filter. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Update - the pages have since been deleted, so now people should check the "deleted contribs" link above (admins only). — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

There is probably more than one quite active spambot at the moment. They're being tracked by edit filter 271 (admins only). This one looks a bit different, but possibly related. I've given it a block. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

FYI -- The 'Http' above yields the following 'WoT' review:

This IP classified as dangerous for one or more of the following:

• Attackers who try to spy or remotely control others' computers by means such Microsoft remote terminal, SSH, Telnet or shared desktops.
• Threats for email servers or users: spiders/bots, account hijacking, etc.
• Sites spreading virus, trojans, spyware, etc. or just being used by them to let their authors know that a new computer has been infected.
• Threats for servers: exploits, fake identities/agents, DDoS attackers, etc.
• Port scans, which are the first step towards more dangerous actions.
• Malicious P2P sharers or bad peers who spread malware, inject bad traffic or share fake archives.

Classification: SPAMMER

~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 14:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It's basically a dedicated server. There's a whole pile of nonsense currently coming from OVH's servers - not anything new I have to say. I'm looking at a new rangeblock, but spambots don't often stick within IP ranges. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Gross NFCC violations and edit warring at Linda Ronstadt

The following discussion is closed. 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:Sharkentile has repeatedly added a set of nonfree images (album covers) to the Linda Ronstadt article. None of these images have appropriate article-specific rationales for use in the artist's article; none are related to relevant sourced commentary about the cover images in that article. It is a well-settled point that nonfree album covers may not be used as general illustration in artist articles, or as pure illustration in discussion of those albums within those articles, even though rationales may exist for use in the album-specific articles. The claimed use obviously does not meet the requirements of our nonfree content policy, and is rather clearly incompitable with widespread practice regarding the use of such nonfree album covers in recording artists' biographical articles. Despite the rather clear statement in {{WP:NFCC]] that "A file with a valid non-free-use rationale for some (but not all) articles it is used in ... should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale" (unless/until a valid rationale for those articlesis created), Sharkentile has repeatedly added the images back without even attempting to create a rationale for the Ronstadt article use, responding instead with a range of accusations of "VANDALISM" (caps in original)[113] and personally directed invective like "Its obvious, HW, as editor is living in another world"[114] as well as the odd claim that my editing is marked by "a pattern of orthodoxy and arrogance which lacks credibility."[115] I'd agree with the (inadvertent) claim that my views about NFCC enforcement are "orthodox", but disagree strongly with the idea that following the plain language quoted above of WP:NFCCE, a settled policy with legal considerations implementing a WMF directive, is "arrogant" or otherwise inappropriate. I therefore ask that Sharkentile be strongly warned, subject to blocking for any repetition, that his editing violates our NFCC/copyright policies, and that the inappropriate nonfree content be removed from the article involved. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk)`

Wikipedia Administrators, please review the consistent actions of User:User:Sharkentile and patterns. Look at his talk page. Why are people afraid to call this editor out, block or warn. Look at the complaints and grievances. Example one commentator wrote:"Just because I overturned your wrong and unhelpful tag bomb at Chelsea Charms doesn't mean you should try to gut every edit I ever made." That's not community or improving or informing, that vindictiveness. Wikipedia should be a community for all not "our" "me" and "mine" As for the Linda Ronstadt article at issue. HW, Argument that {{WP:NFCC]] that "A file with a valid non-free-use rationale for some (but not all) articles it is used in ... should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale" (unless/until a valid rationale for those articlesis created)"A file with a valid non-free-use rationale for some (but not all) articles it is used in ... should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale" And that I have repeatedly added the images back without even attempting to create a rationale. .............My response to this is, if you read the history of ever image, there have been discussion on their inclusion, well-settled points dating back to 2008, some as far back as 2007, Coupled with the fact that this subjects album covers, posters, magazine covers—basically her entire rock n roll image conveyed—was just as famous as her music and point and topic hammered away and referenced in and throughout this subjects page. As I continue to inform this particular editor. In addition to this HW editors accusations that there is no rational referencing how about READ THE PHOTO TEMPLATES. Click on the photo. As to the nature of what is a " valid non-free-use rationale" That again, was a discussion we had, on my talk page and on the photos themselves, we all came to agree on, and its obvious that validity has held up for FOUR YEARS. Again, all photos that you have elected to delete without discussion have Non-free content criteria compliance rationale. As for "inappropriate nonfree content" what does this mean? Do images of historical musical figures that our out there, public (free and non free) have now suddenly become one of whether the image is one of ethical to the public? This is encyclopedic reference sight for the public to use and police rationally. Copyright 101 is as follows - the primary purpose of copyright law is not so much to protect the interests of the authors/creators, but rather to promote the progress of knowledge. “What kind of respect and observance of copyright law would we want others to follow if we continue to grant a few people monopoly over what is appropriate and not great exemptions and exceptions. If I'm correct, NFCC as exceptions and rationales for this reason. Sharkentile (talk)`

Hullaballoo is 100% right actually about this being a copyright abuse. You cannot use album covers of every album any artist ever produced. You could claim the same thing for any musical artist and say its encyclopedic. But image copyright law won't permit it. Sorry, but that's the way it is. The fact that they've been there since 2007 does not mean it is somehow OK.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Sharkentile and Hullaballoo: This may seem harsh, but I've blocked you both for violating the three-revert rule. Revert-warring on both sides of NFCC disputes is not acceptable, in both directions; it is clear there is a dispute between the two of you as to whether the images are NFCC-compliant or not, and the correct approach in this circumstance is to discuss it. Sharkentile, you cannot add non-free images to an article unless there is a clear rationale, and you cannot revert war to keep them there. Please use appropriate discussion channels to determine whether the images should be kept or not, such as on the article's talk page, instead. --Tristessa (talk) 18:30, 2 April 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.

Snowlocust at George Galloway

Resolved

 – Snowlocust blocked for 24 hours by Elen of the Roads.

Could an admin please make Special:Contributions/Snowlocust stop violating the WP:BLP policy at George Galloway by repeatedly adding poorly sourced WP:SYNTH about the subject holding Islamic beliefs, being a Muslim etc. He has been reverted repeatedly. It seems he won't stop without admin intervention. See Talk:George_Galloway#Convert_to_Islam.3F for the editors arguing style e.g. "Therefore, by extremely simple logic, George Galloway, by the Islamic definition, is a Muslim". Sean.hoyland - talk 19:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Above user has flouted the first rule of the Incidents section "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." No action to be taken until user does this. Additionally can I counter-request some sort of page protection for the article. The actual line "Galloway holds many Islamic beliefs and stances, such as refusing to lie during Ramadan, and counts himself as part of the muslim world [13][14], although he has never directly said he is a convert to Islam." is finely sourced. Finally I feel users such as above are trying to place their own Islamophobic attitudes onto wikipedia and, if others agree with this opinion, it would be great for them to be more educated/disciplinary action taken.Snowlocust (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The appropriate way to deal with content disputes is by discussion on article talk pages - not by edit-warring, and by insulting other contributors. We have strict policies regarding sourcing, particularly in relation to sensitive matters like the religious faith of living individuals. The multiple editors who have reverted your edits are correct in their interpretation of policy - the sources you provide are inadequate to support the statement you make - which is weasel-worded and too vague to be meaningful anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Many editors tried to discuss it with you. You violated policy. You got reported. My Islamophobic attitude ? Interesting. Stop talking about your feelings. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect, the sources are perfectly adequate. For example, the statement "George refuses to lie on Ramadan" is cited by an interview where he says "I won't lie on Ramadan". Page is obviously only being reverted due to biased anti-Islamic agendas. Seeking further discussion/admin actionSnowlocust (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The 'source' appears to be a badly-dubbed video, produced by who-knows-who, placed on YouTube. Ridiculous... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

(ecx2)Irrespective of the merits (or otherwise) of this specific edit, the editor currently appears to be at 8RR (at least) on this article, and should surely have been blocked by now. RolandR (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

CfD backlog

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion#Discussions_awaiting_closure

Month old backlog. Any uninvolved admins like to come help out? - jc37 19:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Massive move of articles to diacriticless versions by Cerrot

The following discussion is closed. 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 Cerrot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has unilaterally moved a host of articles from diacriticized versions to their diacriticless versions – see user's contributions – in contradiction to guidelines at WP:COMMONNAME: "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources". S/he has then edited each redirect, effectively blocking any attempt to revert the changes.

Such behaviour has previously resulted in blocks. Can anyone with rollbacks rights wave his/her wand?

User is notified.

HandsomeFella (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• No edits in many months, then returns today and all their edits have been doing this. Is it safe to call for a block as a possible compromised account? Especially with no prior such contributions. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

User has only 127 edits before this move spree (even with the replication lag taken into account). HandsomeFella (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Note that he has 4 pre-move edits today 1 2 3 4. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• I have blocked him indefinitely. I cannot use rollback - he has edited all the redirect pages (the way Dolovis did) which prevents his edits being rolled back. see here. This is another reason for blocking him. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

And I agree, it does look likely that it is a compromised account. Did someone have a tool that undid all of Dolovis's page moves? Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

A thought: anyone trying to hack a user account is likely to have to try a couple of times with regard to the password. Is there any mechanism in place to log the ip address for failed attempts to logon? Or maybe that would not be appropriate? HandsomeFella (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• I noticed from his contributions that, outside from the page moves and talk page creations for previously created articles, he has zero non-article space contribs. There's an outside chance that he is unaware of the controversy surrounding diacritics and this is just an innocent but extremely bold group of edits. I talked about a situation like this recently at Wikipedia talk:Don't be a bull in a china shop.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Prior to this spree of moves, Cerrot never moved any pages. In June 2011, there was, however, a curious bout of prods of Czech sportsmen BLPs, most of which sported diacritics and were soon after undiacritically moved by Dolovis.  --Lambiam 19:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• This is almost certainly a ban-evading sock of Dolovis (talk · contribs) (the two topic bans on diacritics are logged at WP:RESTRICT). There has been a strange interest in Dolovis's stubs by new or almost new accounts:

• Daer55 (talk · contribs) (first redirects...)
• Bloodpoint (talk · contribs) (...and then categories to prevent non-admin moves)
• Upan atom (talk · contribs) (older account, but probably related)

Counting Cerrot, that's four inexperienced users doing an obscure task on obscure pages. All the accounts have somehow managed to contribute to Dolovis's cause to keep "his" articles diacritic-free. Prolog (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

If that is the case, and SPI with CU is warranted. - J Greb (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

And an SPI submitted - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dolovis - J Greb (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• You know, it would be nice if we could actually discuss this topic and come to some decisions without pulling out the knives. Getting opponents blocked and/or topic banned is hardly a satisfactory form of arriving at a consensus, and the harassment and name-calling directed at anyone who dares to open a move request over the issue is no fun to deal with at all. And then, of course, there's the issue of certain Wikiprojects coordinating "patrols" in order to ensure that article titles (and content) retain the use of diacritics.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • It would be. But since both sides are engaging in snark, snipe, and ignore, all we can do is play fire brigade. - J Greb (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
    • This is not about the diacritics issue, it's about 1 user dropping out of the sky and making a series of BOLD page moves. Is the account compromised, is it a partisan sock, or is he just an exopedian with little or no experience outside of article space doing what to him makes sense? (though I think the last possibility is now unlikely) Whatever the case I would love to hear what Cerrot has to say. He's definitely got some splainin to do. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

      But the diacritics issue is still the root cause (and I'd characterize the behavior here as "pointy" rather than "bold"). I agree with J Greb too though, in that both sides are (still) at the point where all of the comments are "snark, snipe, and ignore", which is what's rather frustrating to me. I believe that the problem is that the largest cross section of articles that this issue impacts are sports related personality articles. Sports topics especially (and other pop culture topics to a lesser extent) seem to be prone to overwrought emotional confrontations, and so my hope that this will ever be settled to most people's satisfaction is remote.
      — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

      Complicating matters is real world problems. I was writing an article on a Swedish hockey player today (with a diacritic in his name), and came across articles on the International Ice Hockey Federation's own website that both used and disused them. I have publications from this year that use them, whereas last year they did not. And in the case of a player like Sven Bärtschi, his junior team spells his last name one way, and his pro team another. Asking Wikipedians to form a consensus on the matter is impossible when the real world itself lacks one. The best we can do is compromise, but that'll never work so long as people insist on ignoring compromise to enforce personal viewpoint. Resolute 04:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

      Honestly... and, I'd be perfectly accepting if anyone wants to call me crazy about my conjecture here, but... I really wonder if a handful of people are taking some of the diacritics arguments here out into other parts of the world. It only requires a handful of well placed people (at most) to affect something like this. If that is what's happening then I suppose that the issue will settle itself eventually, but... sheesh! Regardless, my personal opinion is that the use of diacritics should follow the same patterns that English loan words have historically, in that they slowly adapt to become... more English, over time. I'm fairly confident that will happen actually, for various reasons, and so... why get into a knife fight over it all? It's not as though the article titles are being permanently embedded into the SQL tables or anything silly like that. Some reasonable discussions over some titles (in both directions, at this point) would sure be nice is all.
      — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I ran a CU on the basis that it was a compromised account, but nothing came up. I don't think it's Dolovis - although the edits are identical, they are constrained by the interface so could not be different and achieve the same result. Let's see what he comes up with anyway. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

(sigh) Missed this... sorry Elen... - J Greb (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, I was wrong. They are all Dolovis, on his annual holiday from the look of it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Then I would think all of the relevant edits from the 4 socks be reverted and all of the redirects created with them for the past week or so be deleted. These were done in breach of a ban and should not stand. - J Greb (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe you are right, but I'll wait until morning before trying my luck with Special:Nuke. All those redirects are going to have to be deleted, and the articles moved back. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll take care of it; I've been waiting for an excuse to use the Nuke button. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Aaaaaww... Why can't us lowly non-admins at least get to see what the Nuke button looks like? All I get if I click the link is a page entitled 'Unable to proceed', and a rude message rubbing my nose in it. Is it big, red, and shiny? Does it set off sirens? Should I duck and cover now that I know it is being pressed... ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is a screenshot already. Shiny, yes. Red. no.

Sometime I'll get a screenshot for you; it has Username, IP address or blank, Pattern for the page name, and Maximum number of pages: 500 (that's the limit). You enter a username, and it gives you the list of recently created pages and a button appears that says "Delete". Remarkably simple. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Uncle Joe would be envious, George Orwell wouldn't be surprised. Don't let the power go to your head. ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've reverted a bunch of the moves, but a lot still remain. Time for me to go to bed, so if anyone else wants to finish up the cleanup, have at it. —SW— ^speak 06:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• I have reverted the rest. Prolog (talk) 07:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• A thought: couldn't the move tool be updated, so that when one moves a page from a diacriticized article to a diacriticless name, it would include the {{R from diacritics}} from the beginning? It seems to be a valid template/category, and would be helpful whether an editor is acting in good faith or not. It would save edits, and it would not block reversions, so we wouldn't have to use Nuke. HandsomeFella (talk) 06:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I hate to spoil the fun here, but you don't need the nuke function at all. Just check the box that says "Leave a redirect behind" when moving the page. I don't have time to work on this right now though. Graham87 06:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
    • You may not have the whole background. Cerrot has been leaving a redirect behind. The problem is that s/he has then edited it, adding the R from diacritics template. A move cannot be reverted if the redirect has been edited, unless you're an admin. HandsomeFella (talk) 07:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes, I'm fully aware of that. As you know, admins can move pages even if there are other revisions in the way; while doing so, they can uncheck a box that says "Leave a redirect behind" (yikes: I meant "uncheck" in my previous post!) :-) Seems like it's all been dealt with, anyhow. Graham87 09:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Atleast Dolovis' page moves were accurate & correct. Afterall this is supposed to be the English language Wikipedia, not the multiple language (my home country/ancestry country) Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't start that again. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:59, 1 April 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.

Re-open case?

I fear that there may be a miscarriage of justice here.

First, as Ron Ritzman said above, this might be the case of an editor acting in good faith, albeit being extremely bold. If you think that redirects to titles that have diacritics should have the template R from diacritics, then there's no way of obtaining that without editing the redirect after the move. (This is why I suggested that the move tool might need an update.) So there's no way of knowing if Cerrot was acting in good faith or not. On the other hand, the pattern is disturbing. Why did Cerrot suddenly return from his long time passiveness of almost 10 months, just to carry out these moves and redirect edits? The same thing goes for Bloodpoint.

Second, I find some of the reasoning connecting Dolovis to the other editors unconvincing, such as "editing while Dolovis wasn't editing". That proves absolutely nothing to me. Cerrot was probably editing while several thousands of editors were not editing. Also, I think I saw some reasoning somewhere – I can't find it now – saying that "Dolovis was on his annual vacation" since the edits (of Cerrot, I assume) were not carried out from Dolovis' usual location. That is also unconvincing to me. Another interpretation is that it isn't Dolovis socking as Cerrot.

Given Dolovis' obvious desire to contribute to wikipedia – whether it's for his own pleasure, or for the good cause (just as with the rest of us) – it seems rather unlikely to me that he would do such a thing. I mean, he has played some tricks and has been testing the limits, but such an all-out attack, if it really were him, he would know that it would only result in a total block, preventing him from doing what he obviously very much wants to do. Kind of like a wikisuicide-by-admin – but for what reason, given his desire to edit wikipedia?

I don't know which tools the admins have, and I'm not an admin, so I cannot perform much research myself. The contribs of Daer55 seem to be deleted, so even that is not available to me. Can we be absolutely certain that these editors are socks for Dolovis? Given the pattern of these editors, isn't it possible that they could be socks of each other, but not of Dolovis?

So, is the evidence against Dolovis convincing, or is it just circumstantial? (I admit I should have aired my concerns earlier. But, blocks can be lifted.)

HandsomeFella (talk) 09:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

He has been caught twice before for sockpuppeting and let off when single admins believed his story. It is quite possible and quite likely that he thought he was untouchable as far as sockpuppeting went because he had gotten off it twice when CU had pretty much confirmed it was him both of the previous times. I think this is definitely a case of 3 strikes you are out. -DJSasso (talk) 11:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

For now I'll say this. I'm not too crazy about the "X must be on vacation argument" because it's an unfalsifiable charge that can be made against anyone where checkuser evidence is inconclusive or even unrelated. Aside from outing himself and providing ironclad alibis for the time in question, there's no way for a "usual suspect" to prove that he wasn't on vacation and using socks at hotels. As far as this case goes, I haven't had time to dig through the diacritics controversy but Dolovis can't be the only person on the planet who thinks they shouldn't be used on the English Wikipedia. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Dolovis, is most definitely not the only editor who feels diacritics should be eradicated from English language Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

GoodDay, you would be well-served to stop encouraging other editors' socking and disruption. 28bytes (talk) 00:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

No problems at all if others want to review the evidence or ask another Checkuser to take a look. I didn't say Dolovis was on holiday - I said he was moving around (edited to add - sorry, I see above where I made a flip comment about him being on holiday. Seems a bit tasteless now, since he says he was attending a family funeral). He's now said he was moving around. Incidentally, he's not 'back home' - if 'home' is where the fixed line IP addresses. He's currently 2000 miles from home on wifi. Checkuser not being a magic spy ray, I obviously can't say that it's the identical laptop, but it is exactly the same build as the four stooges, same updates etc. I don't think anyone is questioning that these four are socks of each other - the way they went over each others edits etc (for those who can't see, Bloodsport even went over all of Daer's redirects, adding the 'R from diacritic' tag). So if these four - who are in three locations - are socks of each other, it is certainly technically possible that Dolovis is the sockmaster. The distances/timings are not impossible. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Dolovis is admittedly not one of my favourite Wikipedians, but as I noted on their talk page, it would be one hell of a coincidence for these apparently novice editors to suddenly take interest in the use of diacritics in obscure Eastern European hockey player articles. So much so that they performed the exact same two-edit redirects that Dolovis did, or completing the second edit on articles that Dolovis moved previously. It would be far too remarkable to believe that these accounts are unrelated given how many of their moves or edits were on articles/redirects Dolovis created, or were created by editors whom Dolovis has clashed with previously. A second look is never a bad thing, but there is some very loud quacking here, IMNSHO. Resolute 22:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

  I generally agree, but be careful with the "obscure Eastern European hockey player" thing. Players who are drafted by NHL teams can fairly safely be said not to be "obscure" any longer. This is not really on topic here, but it's a relevant point to the underlying issue.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

  Agreed, but in this case, most of Cerrot's moves were players in the Czech Extraliga without any relationship to the NHL. Pretty much all of them were single-sentence sub-stubs that Dolovis created which were moved to a diacritical version by someone else. I could believe that a Czech editor would be interested in these articles, but their interest would typically be to move to titles with diacritics, not away. I respect HandsomeFella's attempts to AGF on Dolovis and sockpuppetry, but this is pretty obvious. Resolute 00:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

  I don't dispute that at all. Any of it. :) Actually, I'm fairly certain that a bunch of the articles could be deleted, and I'm sure that at least some of them will be at some point (the AFD brigade is fairly thorough, after all).
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Unblock needed for a broken expired block.

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

---

User:Glock17gen4 was blocked two days ago for 31 hours[116], which should have expired but he currently is still blocked and asked me to get an admin to look and see what the glitch is. If an admin would look at this, that would be swell. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

He seems to be editing normally now. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

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

IP sock of BANNED editor is back at it 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.

---

• Patrolling Admin please take note, see User talk:119.237.156.246 (evidence here), a very obivous IP sock of the BANNED editor Instantnood is back at it again despite being BLOCKED. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 14:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of who the IP may be, I am pretty sure that Dave1185 should not be removing his unblock request from the talk page like he did here. If someone else could have a look at this I would appreciate it, as Deve1185 and I have been in contact recently on another issue and I might be construed as involved. Thanks. -- Dianna (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly legitimate (although, mind you, I was the first one who reverted it). It's a quacking sock who really shouldn't even have talk page rights. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 22:35, 2 April 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.

Problem uploader

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

---

Re: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sridhar1000 I was referred here from a help page (unsure which one). However, this report substantively differs from above entries, so I'm unsure if this is the right place. I found it necessary to initiate a Puf on an image file (this is not the issue). In the process, I added the required tag to the uploader's page, and couldn't help but notice a vast history of problems. This includes uploading a s-load of images, and basically waiting to see which ones stick. While many files have already been challenged and/or removed, the list also contains many that haven't (their validity is dubious by association?). All I really wish to happen is have somebody check out his page, and see what, if anything, should be done. -- However, I've just realized that this is WP, and the problem is on Commons; I'm not terribly familiar with the relationship between the two. Would I need to find the Commons equivalent? Could you somehow refer this? Or can this be handled from here? ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard is the equivalent to this noticeboard. Issues about the uploading behaviour of someone on Commons have to be handled there, not here. Some administrators here are also administrators on Commons, but most are not; you'd probably be better off taking the matter up on Commons directly rather than hoping that anyone else does it for you. Bencherlite^Talk 15:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done ~Eric F184.76.225.106 (talk) 16:41, 2 April 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.

Loose cannon Lung Salad

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

---

He's evidently upset and looking to be banned. Trying to wreak havoc here. Need someone to stop him quickly.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for another day. If he resumes after that, I guess he can be indeffed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

And ... extended to indef with e-mail access blocked too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:58, 2 April 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.

Cat Creek, Montana

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

---

Would there be any sysop that would like to deal with the hoax repeatedly added to the article on Cat Creek, Montana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by the user Catcreekcitycouncil (aka Catcreek, Timothyjohnson12 etc.)? He also constantly deletes the hoax tag and has added an obviously fraudulent source to support his claims, which even if had existed would likely not pass the RS criteria since, as the user claims, "there are only a handful of copies still floating around in the rural Montana area", thus the information given is merely unverifiable. --glossologist (talk) 11:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• First, you need to notify them; I've done so. As for the editing...oi vey. I've reverted the hoax and sent things to SPI to deal with the ducks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've also sent to WP:UAA. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Is everyone sure it is a hoax? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC).

• 100% certain. Unless Peterson, Audubon, and Kaufman are all wrong... (It might not be a "lol let's fool some people" hoax, but it's a "local legend" hoax at least, and a hoax is a hoax.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

FYI — unlike the lions thing, the article itself is not a hoax, so the hoax should be reverted rather than being tagged with {{db-hoax}} or sent to AFD. Nyttend (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Which has been done long ago. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:12, 3 April 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 name query

The following discussion is closed. 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

Just wondering about the appropriateness of this user name: redacted

I've notified the users redacted and User talk:Nyttend --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:30, 3 April 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.

Shy Boy Title page

Hello

I hope someone can help, and please forgive me if I have posted this on the wrong noticeboard, there are so many options it gets confusing sometimes.

I wish to raise an issue regarding the article name Shy Boy which is the title of several pop songs. For many years, this title has directed to the song by English girl group Bananarama. On 22nd March 2012 user Mazic altered this to direct the title to a song by Korean pop band Secret. The reason given was "Changed Shy Boy page with a more popular article(Secret's Shy Boy)". The Bananarama song was moved to title Shy Boy (Bananarama song) whilst the Secret song was given the title Shy Boy. There is also an article for Shy Boy by Katie Melua and confusingly, another article for Shy Boy by Secret, this time titled Shy Boy (EP).

I'm not completely sure what the convention is, however I think that changing the title to the Secret song because a single editor believed it was "a more popular article" is non-NPOV and should not be allowed. Secondly, I would think that the Bananarama song has "preference" over the Secret song for several reasons: it was released some 30 years before the Secret song, being an English song it should have preference on the English Wikipedia over a Korean song, and it was a bigger global hit than the Secret version whose success was confined to South Korea.

I tried to move the articles back to how they were, but I received an error message saying there were conflicting edits.

Can anyone help with this, whether I am correct in believing the change on 22nd March should be reverted, and if so can someone with more experience than me change it?

Many thanks Paul75 (talk) 06:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I would also add that the user Mazic who made the change lists on their user page that they are a fan of the band Secret, I'm not sure if this brings into question their neutrality?? Paul75 (talk) 06:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a bit of a mess. Looks like a bunch of copy paste moves. Will see what I can do to restore it back to what it was. A discussion can then be started on the talk page about whether to move the titles. AIRcorn (talk) 07:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds to me like Shy Boy should be a dab page... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks, I agree it is a mess. It may be best to just have a disambiguation page for Shy Boy Paul75 (talk) 08:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban request

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

---

I propose that Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) and Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) both be indefinitely topic banned from the Jim Hawkins (radio presenter) page, its talk page also from discussing JH's date of birth or place of residence anywhere of Wikipedia.

See comments made by Jimbo at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 April 2#Jim Hawkins (radio presenter). As I've been involved with both these editors over the article, the 3rd AfD, discussion at AN and elsewhere, I feel that my unilateral stepping in and topic banning these editors would possibly breach WP:INVOLVED. Thus I'm throwing this open for discussion. I will notify the editors in question of this discussion. Mjroots (talk) 09:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It's already being discussed here and here. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 09:35, 3 April 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.

Report for New IP of Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Nipponese Dog Calvero

114.42.150.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was confirmed to be the puppet of Nipponese Dog Calvero in zhwp. After his block, he came to en to abuse me in my Userpage [117] and talkpage [118].--Zhxy 519 (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Unacceptable homophobic attacks by Youreallycan/Off2riorob

At an AfD discussion, Youreallycan has made the following personal attacks on myself:

• [119] - accuses me of "repeated NPOV contributions"; without any evidence to support it
  • [120] - I respond to this baseless accusation
• [121] - reiterates the same accusation, and includes another editor as well. Calls me a disruptive troll.
  • [122] - Greyhood notes that personal attacks are not on.
• [123] - I make a comment to another editor in response to their accusation that I am here to push an agenda.
  • [124] - Youreallycan posts: Was it your queer agenda? - or just your fucking agenda, can't you just pack all your fucking agendas in your fucking suitcase and Fuck off?

He was asked to redact the comments, and he has struck them. Unfortunately, the damage is done, and a redaction is not enough in this instance.

I don't think I've ever really said one way or the other whether I am queer, but I have recently defended a high-profile editor in what many deemed to be homophobic-driven attacks. But most importantly, I have never really edited "queer" subjects, so how exactly am I pushing a "queer agenda" anywhere on this project? The only agenda I have been involved in is speaking out against homophobic attacks on GLBT editors, and urging the community to protect editors.

Numerous editors have in the past expressed serious concerns relating to what has been construed as homophobic comments made by Off2riorob/Youreallycan towards other editors. A recent example was Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive232#Topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Youreallycan_.28ex_Off2riorob.29. In previous instances, when this has been brought to the community's attention, he has gotten out of jail by using the BLP card.

Unfortunately for youreallycan/off2riorob, this time there is no BLP to hide behind.

He made outright an outright homophobic attack on another editor, and I am asking that he be given:

1. a lengthy block for his inexcusable attack

# A DIGWUREN warning given the topic area. - as per fluffernutter, this was already done. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 03:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The community finally needs to do the right thing by its GLBT editors here. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 02:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

"Queer", in the context he used it, is not a homophobic slur. In this context, he is likely calling your "agenda" out as being questionable or odd. It does not look like the two of you had a good interaction there, but you asked him to redact and he did. Unless you want an administrator to look at the interaction between the both of you, I'm not sure anything further is necessary here. Resolute 02:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not the 1940s. I don't think "queer agenda" can be reasonably taken not to have a homophobic connotation here. FormerIP (talk) 02:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

What FormerIP said. I really don't see "queer agenda" meaning anything other than homosexual agenda. LadyofShalott 03:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, for UK editors of a certain vintage the use of the term Queer for Gay wasn't in use in the early 70's when I was growing up and it was a word that would have meant odd or strange. Wiktionary agrees too. The only person who can explain what YRC meant is YRC and unless they do so anything else us just supposition. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll revise my comment. It isn't the 1970s. FormerIP (talk) 03:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the word queer has that meaning, no argument. However, combined with the word agenda, and given the concerns people have already had with certain comments from O2RR/YRC concerning the subject matter of BGLT people, it seems to reduce the liklihood that any meaning other than that of homosexual agenda is viable. LadyofShalott 03:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Admittedly, knowing nothing of Youreallycan's history in this regard, I took the positive context (such as it is) by default. It seems that assumption was poor on my part in this case. Resolute 04:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Of all the Wikipedia editors I have ever encountered, Youreallycan has impressed me as the most homophobic. At Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive232#Topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Youreallycan_.28ex_Off2riorob.29 I spoke in favor of an LGBT topic ban for the guy. I continue to hold this opinion, now more strongly than ever. Binksternet (talk) 03:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Insulting a person as "most homophobic" since July 2007: That seems to be an extreme, vicious personal attack on a person who used the word "queer" in this reported incident. Just counting all the editors whom you "have ever encountered" since first editing as "User:Binksternet" (since 28 July 2007: contribs), how many editors do you count who were not the "most homophobic" in Wikipedia? -Wikid77 (talk) 08:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I stand by my words; they exactly reflect the impression I have gathered over four years. I have not met a more homophobic editor. Binksternet (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm disappointed but entirely unsurprised that YRC/O2RR has continued this pattern of attacks on other editors. I hope that since it's not about any "favorite" politicians this time, his defenders will finally be forced to drop the lame BLP excuse for not banning him. This has gone on for way too long. (See evidence linked here and his list of past blocks for personal attacks.) Given the number of times he's been asked to stop and/or brought to a noticeboard over such comments, his failure to change his behavior indicates that a block or ban would clearly be preventative rather than punitive. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Though Russavia and I have clashed nastily on several occasions, I agree with him 100% on O2RR. I have watched his disgusting hate speech flare up numerous times on the boards, only for him to slither away from sanctions by masking his revolting remarks with policy. This time, he has nothing to hide behind. He's already been warned under DIGWUREN, but I think that is really a secondary concern here. I firmly support a lengthy block for O2RR. This has gone on far too long. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Note: I logged my warning today to YRC (diff above in russavia's original post) as a DIGWUREN (now known as ARBEE) warning, since I informed him that he was operating in that topic area and needed to be wary. It was an informally-phrased warning, however, and I suppose there's no reason that he can't be given a more explicit templated version of the discretionary sanctions warning if someone feels it's necessary. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Hey Fluffernutter, thanks for your intervention there. I really do appreciate it mate. I don't know if you got my message on IRC, but I just stated that after discussing this with some other editors, and because of the history of shocking comments towards other editors, that something more substantial needs to be done in regards to him. Thanks again for your assistance with that. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 03:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• [Non-admin observation] I do not in any way endorse the language above (though I'm wondering what prompted Russavia to introduce the big and clever 'F' word to talk about his contributions to en.WP on getting Fucking, Austria onto DYK) but while we're here, can a grown up admin please curtail Russavia's 7-day RM process on Zhirinovsky's ass and get it off centre-stage in DYK queue please? Please. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • No, this is the misuse of a Wikimedia project for a blatant homophobic attack. We deal with blocking the homophobe before using interest in the case to escalate punitive measures against the target of abuse. If we were dealing with a persistent racist who started calling another editor the n-word, there would be no hesitation in taking appropriate action here. --Fæ (talk) 03:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Fæ, actually I agree, homophobic comments shouldn't be tolerated, ever. FYI I suppose my WP:AGF has been tested a little by the gaming to get Zhirinovsky's ass on DYK, I already noted concern at BLP Noticeboard yesterday. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Very little hesitation, anyone who thinks that somehow it's not a slur is dreaming and living in a Mickey Spillane novel. That was then this is now. RxS (talk) 04:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Queer as Folk was homophobic? John lilburne (talk) 08:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Queer as Folk was as homophobic as Huckleberry Finn was racist. Got it now, John? Blake Burba (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

If you are referring to stereotypes we have a number of one dimensional characters on stage in this thread. John lilburne (talk) 12:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Russavia himself has pointed out in this thread that he is not known to be gay and has not edited LGBT-related topics to any extent, so there is reason to question whether or not YRC intended the comment to be an attack. The comment itself is ambiguous, but given the previous concerns expressed here, it was an unwise choice of words at best. I think it would be wise to wait for YRC to explain himself before deciding if a block is in order. In any case, an LGBT topic ban is probably overdue. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Re your first sentence: "I don't think I've ever really said one way or the other whether I am queer, but I have recently defended a high-profile editor in what many deemed to be homophobic-driven attacks." This context makes it much more likely that it was intended as an attack. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

A minor point, but YRC's comments about a 'fucking agenda' need to be looked at in the context of Russavia's previous post: [125]. It seems to me that Russavia set Rob up... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

That may explain the repeated use of "fucking" but would not justify making a homophobic comment. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me Andy, but my post was not attentioned towards Rob, nor was it in response to anything that Rob said. It was in response to the editor directly above me who stated that I was pushing an agenda. I simply pointed out an article that I (unbelievably) managed to 5x expand -- the only agenda being because I could. To say that I set Rob up is an inexcusable assessment to make at this point. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 05:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

For the life of me I can't think why any instance of homophobic abuse - let alone a persistent pattern of it - should receive greater indulgence than, say, racist or anti-Semitic abuse. Oh why anyone would try to justify it by blaming the victim. Writegeist (talk) 04:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Abuse is abuse, period, regardless of the target, end of line. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• It has only been a month or two since the last ANI discussion of YRC and homophobic attacks. Perhaps we should automate the initiation of threads like these -- or keep a permanent discussion going here, since there appears to be a lack of will to do anything about it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm at a loss as to how someone so concerned with BLP issues can do something like this. Dougweller (talk) 06:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

As am I. A topic ban here is the least we can do, but were this any group besides LGBT, I can't help but feel like a long time out would be issued post haste. AniMate 07:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Queer - is not a homophobic descriptor in any way, its a totally acceptable word these days - User:Russavia uses it extremely often. It is his (at least on wiki) preferred word for homosexuality. He use the self descriptor with great regularity. - Using a word that the complaint uses himself regularly can hardly be an attack. Youreallycan 07:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Baloney. Spoken like a heterosexual willfully ignorant of the current usage of the word "queer" or someone desperately trying to make himself appear so. The re-appropriation of "queer" as a self-descriptor by the gay community is not license to fling it about in a pejorative manner while simultaneously claiming it is an innocuous or "acceptable" term. Blake Burba (talk) 07:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Queer eyes for the straight guy, Queer as Folks Queer is not some phrase from the ghetto but in mainstream usage. John lilburne (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Blake Burba, context is important here. Many black rappers liberally use the n-word in their lyrics and Dan Savage, a well known gay activist, has a history of addressing his readership using Hey Faggot!. This is not an excuse for any Wikipedian to start addressing other contributors using these highly offensive words without permission or without expecting them to be immediately treated as defamation and a blatant personal attack. --Fæ (talk) 09:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Context is the very nub of this discussion. Way back in January 2009 I found a red-link somewhere or other, and started the Crittenden Report article. Lets say I got this response on my talk-page: "Hey girlfriend! Thanks for queering up Wikipedia!" How I would have reacted to the very same message is all in the context.

• If it was the first edit from an IP user, I would have welcomed them and asked them if they were interested in WP:MILHIST
• If it was from a registered user who was active in LGBT matters, I would have taken it as a compliment
• If it was from a registered user that had a history of intolerance in LGBT matters, I would have taken it as a slur against me and LGBT editors.

Context is what is important here. That disingenuousness about context is very much not to the credit of those editors who would appear to have overlooked it. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

As there's pretty much no doubt now what YRC meant, and as he still thinks that there's nothing wrong with it, I've blocked for a week. It's longer than usual due to his history of NPA blocks. T. Canens (talk) 07:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks TC. Long overdue. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Arguing about the use of the word "queer" here is a complete sidetrack, and frankly a non issue. What is abundantly clear is that there was a definite breach of civility in that discussion. I don't think the accusation that Russavia has a pro-homosexuality agenda is in itself anything to be concerned with - it may or not be true but editors are accused of bias all over Wikipedia and the fact that this alleged bias regards homosexuality doesn't make that any worse or any better. What is a concern is the rest of that sentence. That's a clear personal attack and is inexcusable.

But the important thing is that User:Youreallycan did redact the comment when asked to. Since blocks are preventative not punitive it seems clear to me that User:Youreallycan is aware his actions were incorrect and is not about to repeat them, so a block is not appropriate here.

A topic ban, however, is worth considering. I recommend that User:Youreallycan is warned that any similar behaviour in future will result in such a ban. Beyond that I don't think any further action needs to be taken at this stage. waggers (talk) 07:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, I don't think he's aware that his actions were incorrect at all. As I said on his talk page, I wouldn't have blocked him, since he redacted the comments when requested. However, in his current unblock request, he seems to think it's fine to make comments of that nature. When/if he acknowledges that it isn't, I'd support an unblock. 28bytes (talk) 07:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You are being manipulated by the application of false dramah for the lulz. Back in the 70s Queer was a preferred term used by members of the LGBT communnity, this was replaced by Gay from about teh late 70s, but never went away as Queer tended to be used to used as a shortened form of LGBT without resorting to acronyms. John lilburne (talk) 08:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Is your comment a reply to me? It's indented as though it is. And yet it has nothing to do with my comment. My point, in case I wasn't clear, was that I'd support an unblock if YRC agrees not to make any more comments like "Was it your queer agenda? - or just your fucking agenda, can't you just pack all your fucking agendas in your fucking suitcase and Fuck off?" That would not be an OK comment to make even if "queer" were replaced by a synonym. 28bytes (talk) 09:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure you mean 'synonym', is it not the case that you are really complaining about accusations of 'agendas' regardless as to whether they are 'queer', 'fucking', or 'WASPish'. John lilburne (talk) 12:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Redacted usernames from insulting thread title: As an uninvolved editor, I have changed the title of this ANI thread to replace usernames "Youreallycan/off2ri..." as "Yrc/o2r" and link-anchored the prior title. Of course everyone realizes that calling someone's actions "homophobic" is an extreme personal attack of the most vicious and hateful sort. It is one thing to claim a remark was a GLBT-slur, but to generalize, universally, as being "homophobic" is just begging the question as if stating "wife-beater attacks". As a formal debate judge for years, I will try to reduce all this rampant use of word "homophobic" as unneeded hate-mongering with ad hominem attacks on accused editors. Please remember, the use of the word "homophobic" is completely, totally, and utterly unacceptable in this manner, especially in the title of a thread. Comment on the actions, not the contributor. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

  Nah. If an editor has a long and ongoing history of making homophobic attacks, describing that person as homophobic is right on target. A person who makes racist comments is a racist person. For the present case, it's becoming clear that it's the person that needs dealing with, not just a distinct set of remarks. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

  YRC/O2RR's personal beliefs are frankly entirely irrelevant. He could really be a homophobic person or he could be on a sustained campaign to troll us all. Either way, the attacks on LGBT editors need to end, and since he shows no sign of stopping of his own accord, preventative measures are the solution. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• To me this looks like one final round of gaming from Russavia, who is currently looking at a likely 6-month ban at WP:AE for ... gaming. Yes, Youreallycan's statements were uncivil. On the other hand, he redacted them immediately when called upon, and they also reflected exactly what went through this editor's mind. If I had been asked to say what I thought of Russavia, honestly, in light of shenanigans like these, and his involvement in stuff like Zhirinovsky's ass and Polandball here and on German Wikipedia, all of them real embarrassments to this project, I would have said exactly the same. Why are we putting up with Russavia? Lastly, the term "queer agenda" is in mainstream media and scholarly use. That agenda is as unwelcome in Wikipedia as any other type of agenda-based editing. --JN466 09:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The trouble is, you have not been asked here to say what you think about Russavia. Having just replied to you at User_talk:Youreallycan#unblock_request, could you tell me exactly how many forums are you intending to use to canvass against Russavia with the same text? When there is an ANI thread about Russavia we can discuss Russavia. This discussion is not an excuse to repeat offensive claims about Russavia or to promote your personal views that there is a "queer agenda" that Wikipedians you think might be gay and don't like must be following. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • This attempt to justify YRC's homophobic remarks reflects poorly on those contributing to it. "Queer" is one thing, but the term "queer agenda" is usually used by those seeking to denigrate it, and in fact JN466 is wrong to say it's "in mainstream media ... use" -- in all of Google News archives, there are 68 hits, very few of them "positive" in any sense. In any event it's painfully obvious how YRC intended to use the term. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• The thing is, the best response to those carping about the "agenda" remark is to demonstrate that Fae actually pursues such an agenda. i.e. those who create and support the retention of articles such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gay bathhouse regulars. Creating articles wit the specific intent of agenda-promoting needs to be called out. Tarc (talk) 12:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Tarc, your claim about me is a bad faith personal attack attempting to devalue my opinions in a consensus process (other admins here, please take note). As for "List of gay bathhouse regulars" that is way off-topic for this discussion about Youreallycan and a reply to Jayen466's wife sweeping aside this attempt at smearing my character is already on Jimbo's talk page. --Fæ (talk) 12:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• It is not a personal attacks to point out things you have done under prior user accounts, I'm afraid. There is no good-faith reason to support that article's existence, there fore we're left with the bad-faith reason. Tarc (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• • Er, no, "homosexual agenda" and any of its variants are not in common mainstream-media or scholarly use. What a ridiculous claim. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• • • See NYT [126], [127], and a multitude of NYT uses of "homosexual agenda." "Queer agenda" used as a self descriptor at [128], Village Voice at [129] etc. You may dislike it, but is absolutely in mainstream use now. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

An extraordinarily bad accusation here after the baiting of YRC which has been repeatedly done and is fully as objectionable - and the use of "homophobe" as an "attack word" is getting too dang commonplace on Wikipedia. Time to retire the attacks and get down to actually editing the dang encyclopedia. I also note this was placed at UT:Jimbo to get the maximum effect. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Too dang commonplace? Can you link to some instances of it being used where the editor in question has not attacked LGBT fellow-editors with homophobic language? Or is it your belief that the word "homophobe" is so incredibly hurtful (more so than the homophobic slurs users like YRC/O2RR fling around, too) that we should avoid using it even when an editor clearly demonstrates that it applies? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe he's not homophobic but opposes agenda-pushers, of all varieties, who persistently skew Wikipedia content off NPOV. However, sexuality and oppression of minorities are highly emotive and important topics, and there is no room in discussions for flippant use of ambiguous terms like "queer". Obvious personal attacks, like "fuck off", are almost never appropriate. (I can think of a couple of instances where such language was spot on, but this certainly wasn't one of them.) So, I think the block is appropriate for the obvious personal attack, but this was not a homophobic attack, that's a smoke screen frequently thrown up by gaming tendentious editors to undermine YRC's quite often legitimate concerns. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you aware of YRC/O2RR's very long history of homophobic comments about other users? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Note that Fae is now forum-shopping...or foundation-member-shopping...this around as he is not getting the answers he wants here or at Talk:Jimbo. Tarc (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • You obviously believe there is such a thing as a "queer agenda", logically that means there is an "anti-queer agenda". Do you think some of the editors expressing rather inflammatory opinions here might subscribe to that second agenda? I thought this ANI thread was about Youreallycan. If you are making it all about me and pointlessly repeating old and tired allegations about me, could you please follow the guidelines and leave a note on my user talk page before having a personal crack at me here? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• I understand you're not addressing me but, if I may, It's highly likely there are bigots of all flavours on this site. Given his obvious capacity for empathy, demonstrated by his frequently-expressed (and acted-upon) concern for human rights and the feelings of other editors, our subjects and our readers, and the absence of any convincing evidence that he is homophobic, I can't condone lumping YRC into that category. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Is this meant to be sarcasm? It's hard to tell over the internet. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Looking over the evidence of YRC's past behavior under his two accounts, I think we're seeing two issues here. First, blatant incivility yesterday, which he quickly redacted at my request. Tim's block was valid at the time, since there was no commitment from YRC to avoid such personal attacks in the future, but I note that YRC has now apologized for his outburst and stated that "I will keep a tighter lid on my emotions and can accept a heightened level of civility restriction for the rest of the original block length, a one strike and blocked def con level". At this point, I think an unblock should be on the table, as long as YRC understands that civility is required, not something one does for a week as a sort of probation.

  The second issue is that homosexuality is clearly a reactive issue for him. It matters little whether this is because he's homophobic, because he dislikes (what he perceives as) POV pushers, or because a witch once turned him into a newt (he got better!) - no matter what the cause, his presence in LGBT-relates areas of the 'pedia ends up being disruptive because of his reactiveness to the topic. I would support a topic ban for YRC from LGBT-related pages, broadly construed across all namespaces, and from calling attention to the sexuality of other editors in any way. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think he's any more reactive in this topic than others. I've seen YRC in action on several different topic areas where he perceives tendentious editing, and he is prone to emotional responses in all of them. I'd like to see a commitment from him to reign in his thymos on all areas of the project. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Numerous such commitments have been offered in the past. Offering them appears to be easy; sticking to them not so much. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• FWIW, what Anthony says is my impression too. I don't think he's more reactive in this topic than others. --JN466 22:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hm. If that's the case, this is a more difficult matter. We can topic-ban someone from an issue that pushes their buttons in the wrong way, but if any and every issue pushes or could push their buttons, little other than a draconian civility parole or an indef block seems likely to remedy the matter if the person can't control themselves. And civility paroles, well, they never seem to work. It's possible we could offer some sort of "official last chance" to YRC, with the warning that the next time he flies off the handle, he'll have exhausted his chances and be indeffed, but...none of these options really feel entirely comfortable to me, and I'm open to other ideas. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've not looked closely (nor will I for a while) but it does look like a good block. Given the relatively long history of similar issues, I don't think an unblock is appropriate at this time. Hobit (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Unlike the editor who provoked him into making this outburst, Youreallycan actually contributes something of value to this project on a daily basis, rather than schoolboy humour. --JN466 21:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Russavia did not force YRC to make homophobic remarks. Neither did any of the other users whom YRC has attacked in a homophobic manner. YRC had the choice not to make those remarks, but he made them anyway. If Russavia's behavior is sanctionable on its own, then deal with it elsewhere. He is not responsible for YRC's own decision to attack other users based on their sexual orientation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to block talk page access for Youreallycan

Youreallycan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is manipulating discussion of their repeated unblock requests by deleting all negative comments and leaving in anything that appears positive, even where comments were in response to each other. This is in contravention of Refactoring talk pages as it gives a deliberately misleading impression of the opinions of others. This is making it difficult for any independent administrator to assess or discuss a possible unblock. I propose that the block is extended to a user talk page block and Youreallycan can email the blocking admin if they wish to have further unblock requests created on their behalf. --Fæ (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• A lot of those messages are nothing but gravedancing and, by the by, I assume any admin worth his salt knows how to use the history tab. And you should really stop agitating against other editors. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Salvio, do you perceive support/consensus in this ANI thread for your proposal to unblock YRC? You don't appear to have support from the blocking admin. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
    • This ANI thread, honestly, is nothing but a disjointed train wreck. There are people who have gathered to lynch an editor they dislike and others debating linguistics, while only very few are discussing the actual merits of the block itself. The few who do emphasise that Youreallycan had struck his attacks as soon as he was asked to and before this thread was started, has apologised, has admitted he acted inappropriately and has promised he'll avoid such behaviour in future. Admins are allowed to use their best judgement, that's why we were made admins by the community. And my best judgement tells me this block doesn't serve any purpose any longer except to punish Youreallycan. And, therefore, should be lifted. And I don't have to have the support of the blocking admin to reverse his block; it's considered courteous to contact a blocking admin before reversing his actions, but that has never been a requirement. Especially when one is evaluating an unblock request. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Update. I have just unblocked Youreallycan. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
        • (ec)I might agree, if this weren't part of a pattern. YRC/OTRR has a history of getting emotionally invested in editing disputes and reacting poorly. If it's not personal attacks it's edit warring. He's made promises before, as noted in his block log. They don't seem to stick. A truly bad unblock. AniMate 22:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
          • Indeed -- a total of 15 blocks, including 3 on the new account, roughly one a month. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Thank you. --JN466 22:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a sad day for our community when a long term disruptive editor makes a blatant homophobic attack and gets unblocked after only a few hours, while wikilawyers quibble over whether demeaning other editors by telling them to fuck off with their "queer agenda" might not be quite blatantly homophobic enough. Poor show, bad unblock. I'm disgusted at how ineffective ANI is as a means to deal with harassment in these cases. --Fæ (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• The fact that YRC has been unblocked doesn't mean this thread can't continue to discuss the issue of if he needs any sort of further topic ban or blocking regarding his behavior in LGBT issues. I would encourage everyone to move ahead with discussing that matter, especially since now YRC is able to participate directly in that conversation on his own behalf. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Disappointingly, the rationale for the unblock seems to be that the comment "Was it your queer agenda? - or just your fucking agenda, can't you just pack all your fucking agendas in your fucking suitcase and Fuck off?" was in no way homophobic, so apologising for the swearing and refusing to apologise for the homophobia is good enough. Maybe we should preach what we practice and take "homophobic" out of the text of WP:NPA#WHATIS. FormerIP (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Salvio could you please explain the meaning of your wink and bum related joke immediately after your unblock for Youreallycan?[130] In the context of homophobic allegations it seems to deliberately make light of these serious issues and not what I would expect of an unblocking admin who has taken time to consider the nature of the serious allegations, the disruption this has caused or how LGBT Wikimedians will judge your comment as trivializing such attacks as a joke. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Of everything I have read in this debacle; this is the most disturbing and worrying thing. Fæ, when you start to see homophobia in such small detail then it starts to become disruptive. When you shop in multiple fora for a response it begins to get worring. It's bad enough that the word "queer" is now being bandied as a heinous crime, and multiple editors are being accused (even if subtly) of homophobia. I have a growing concern here that there really is some sort of agenda here - exactly what, and from whom, is eluding me at the present moment but something odd is emerging. In the light of day this comment was unfair of me, and rude, sorry Fæ. In mitigation it was 1am :) --Errant ^(chat!) 01:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I was taken aback to see your comment and its implications about my motivations, and I very much appreciate your withdrawing it in good faith. --Fæ (talk) 12:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you realise how offensive and paranoid this question is? I'm employing a commonly used colloquial expression to tell Youreallycan that I hope my actions will not boomerang on me and that I hope he'll not let me down. Have I become an homophobe too, now? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)In the recently-closed and aptly-named Civility Enforcement case (which you yourself clerked), arbcom held that in a non-emergency situation, administrators are expected to refrain from undoing each others' administrative actions without first attempting to resolve the dispute by means of discussion with the initiating administrator, even in the face of an ongoing community discussion. In a situation where there is an ongoing community discussion, administrators should refrain from undoing another administrator's actions until consensus has become clear. Since you nowhere discussed this unblock with me, care to explain how there is a clear consensus to unblock or that this is an emergency? T. Canens (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I have explained my actions earlier. It is only courteous to discuss with the blocking admin before reversing his actions; it has never been a requirement and that statement by ArbCom does not make it one. In this thread, there is no consensus that Youreallycan should remain blocked and various admins have stated that they would consider an unblock, if Youreallycan promised to refrain from making personal attacks. Since he did and since the block was no longer preventative, I unblocked. I consider my actions fully justified. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I am glad you are so comfortable Salvio. Are there any more bum jokes and winks for Youreallycan you would like to add at this point, so all LGBT Wikimedians reading this are completely clear how sensitively these sorts of homophobic attacks will be treated by administrators in the future? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Fae I think you're over reacting to the wink and bum joke, although the real joke might be Salvio saying this is a risk to himself. What's the worst that could happen? Is he going to be desysopped over an unblock some disagree with? Will he be taken before Arbcom? Will he himself be blocked? The answer to all of those is of course no, so the risk to Salvio seems minimal, while the risk of more unpleasantness being dealt with by those he edits with seems much more realistic. Perhaps instead of focusing on the unblock, we should attempt to craft some community sanction to keep YRC from this disruptive behavior. AniMate 23:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Fæ, let's not turn this into something that it isn't. Salvio's meaning with the "bum joke" was perfectly plain and in no way homophobic. This is how to react to a bum joke: by first assuming the person making it meant no offense. Let's not toss AGF out of the window here. 28bytes (talk) 23:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) AniMate, Those are not the only risks I worry about. I have taken a chance and if it turns out I was wrong, that would of course reflect on me too. That's the risk I was referring to. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
          • By all means try and get something a bit more meaningful out of this. At the moment I see only reasons to be disgusted at how homophobic abuse is repeatedly "tolerated" while anyone who might be accused of having a "queer agenda" appears to be a target of malicious harassment and canvassing on and off-wiki. I'm travelling, so it's a good time for me to take a break from looking at the issue of blatant patterns of homophobia on Wikipedia that should have been left behind in the 1970s, and focus on less disheartening matters. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
            • Fae, for what it's worth, I agree with you completely. Salvio, this is a bad time for bad jokes: unblocking a blocked editor is already a delicate matter, and unblocking someone who got blocked for anti-gay remarks with a bum joke: I expected better from you. To the rest of you: what? It's obvious that a joke was being made here, wink and all, and if you don't see how it is a bad joke, then maybe empathy workshop, required by HR, might not be a crazy idea. Fo shizzle. Drmies (talk) 04:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Don't want to add on but I disagree very much with what has happened here. Much as I agree this was a user reacting out of anger, how in the world is this [131] not a blockable offense? The comments were in no means relevant to the AfD in question (baited by another user or not) and are offensive to other users (LGBT or not) as evidenced by this thread. I would argue that the block is preventative over its duration in a user with the block history described above. I think an unblock was a very bad idea and sets a poor precedent that vitriol with accusatory overtones is acceptable on this project when an editor is baited or if they promise not to do it again after the fact. It is not, regardless of circumstance. -- Samir 23:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It is beyond credibility that you are persisting in this discussion about the term "queer". We all know TODAY, right here and now, what that word means. It's homophobic in this context. Also I take into account the proof given of the editor's horrific incivility in general. Something must be done. You cannot continue to strain to give that editor's ugly words any kind of innocent construction.—Djathinkimacowboy 00:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The workings of Wikipedia "civility enforcement" seem most mysterious to me. One editor calls some people "control freaks"^[132] or says "u r dumb"^[133] and gets banned for life, another drops the F-bomb in the process of telling a fellow editor to get lost from the project and after a few hours all is forgiven. It all seems very peculiar. I think that it is time for people to seriously consider repealing or at least reducing the scope and penalties for WP:CIVILITY violations, because the policy won't and can't be enforced in any coherent way. Wnt (talk) 05:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose This (insert whatever words you wish) business is now getting far out of hand. A block was made - and anything more sounds like "Torch his castle". Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment re: Collect's remark: You dismiss this too lightly, as do too many here. Look at the threads this has generated. And you're saying the decision is to 'torch his castle'? I am personally in favour of torching any castle that houses a anti-Semitic, homophobic abuser. I'm a Jew and I'm gay. I don't need anyone telling me who is playing at being my enemy. Point is, he should be stopped.—Djathinkimacowboy 20:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

So you are accusing YRK of antisemitism now? What next... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Since Andy the Grump decided to make things more personal[134], I will strike the anti-Semitism comment. Andy, as I told you at my talk: do not come to my talk page like that and stay clear of it henceforth. In fact as I redact and retract my anti-Semitism suggestion, I also officially take umbrage with Andy - or anyone - threatening me on my talk page about this thread. Stay off my talk henceforth, Andy. You know, you give this place a really bad name.—Djathinkimacowboy 20:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I see that Djathinkimacowboy has still not redacted this obnoxious personal attack on me, and has only made a half-hearted retraction of his outrageous accusations regarding YRK. Can I suggest that we ignore all his postings on this thread, on the basis that he clearly thinks that he is immune from being held to the same standards that he demands of others. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

And I see that you will continue to derail this discussion. Well you've gotten all you're going to get. I have said my piece here.—Djathinkimacowboy 00:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. This particular proposal is clearly obsolete since the editor has been unblocked, and should be closed off/capped. It was in any event non policy-compliant when it was made. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban

Since Salvio thought it most essential to unblock while ignoring an ongoing discussion, what do people think about topic banning YRC from LGBT related material for 3 months? AniMate 00:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd go for an indefinite topic ban on all LGBT-related articles and pages, very broadly construed, and a ban on mentioning anything even slightly LGBT-related anywhere in the project, with an non-negotiable indefinite community ban for any violation. Three months is too short, considering his history. He has insurmountable problems in this area. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, I think a topic ban can only help here, even if it doesn't fix everything. As I said up above, I'd support a topic ban for YRC from LGBT-related pages, broadly construed across all namespaces, and from calling attention to the sexuality of other editors or article subjects in any way. I'd prefer an indef duration rather than a three-month one, since time isn't a reliable fixer of, well, much of anything behavioral, but I can support 3 months as a minimum. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• I would be fine with the unblock, if the community is able to implement an interaction ban on Youreallycan/Off2riorob from interacting with me, anywhere on WP, for any reason. The attack of myself, was absolutely below the pale, and I do not accept (along with the majority of uninvolved, level-headed and open-minded editors) Youreallycan's statement that it was not a personal attack. With an interaction ban on myself, at least I will be protected from such degrading, personal attacks in the future, and particularly because Youreallycan often engages in outright harassment of editors. (He's been warned against harassment of myself some months ago as Off2riorob). I also support an indefinite topic ban as per Dominus Vobisdu. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 04:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Context: I have had no recent interactions, and never any prolonged open discord, with Youreallycan/Off2riorob. As I recall, we interacted a few times, usually disagreeing, several years ago. I really hate saying this about a fellow Wikipedian who clearly is capable of contributing constructively, but Off2riorob's repeated incivility when discussing LGBT-related topics and relating to editors he perceives as having an "agenda" has created a toxic atmosphere in various parts of the project. When I encounter his username on a talk page, I generally just close the tab and go elsewhere even if I have something worth adding to the discussion because reading his combative, sometimes blatantly offensive remarks is just too stressful. Adding to that stress is the knowledge that no matter how many times the pattern repeats itself, Off2riorob walks away scot-free—sometimes with a slap on the wrist, not infrequently with heartfelt kudos, but the point is: he walks away, free to do it again. I believe in second chances, sometimes even third or fourth, but not an infinite number. How many times must this behavior come to ANI before it's taken seriously? A topic ban per Dominus Vobisdu's suggestion is entirely warranted. Failing that, a final warning—with teeth in it—is the only other acceptable outcome of this thread. Anything less would make a mockery of WP:CIVIL in general and send a clear message that Wikipedia tolerates a hostile editing environment when it comes to LGBT-related civility specifically. Rivertorch (talk) 06:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I see claims of homophobic behavior, but the only instance I see reported is the outburst concerning "Was it your queer agenda?". The claims that "queer agenda" is a homophobic attack are nonsense: click the news, books, and scholar links in Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. I have no idea whether YRC's claim (that someone has an agenda to unduly promote LGBT issues) has any basis, and of course the redacted remark breaches CIVIL. However, it is not evidence that a topic ban is warranted. If evidence exists, please present a summary before making a proposal about a topic ban. Johnuniq (talk) 07:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

  Accusing people of having a gay agenda for being supportive of gay people and issues can certainly be homophobic, depending on circumstances and irrespective of the words used to say it. It accuses a person based on assumptions about their group identity. There's a crowd of bigots out there who are convinced that society is falling apart, losing its moral fiber, children are in danger, the suffering majority is afraid, etc., due to the concerted efforts of gays (or Jews, blacks, women, foreigners, whatever) with an agenda to control things. Like I said, it depends on context, but seeing those words used in anger is a red flag. Even if said without anti-gay malice, that kind of talk is at best divisive and unconstructive. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

  While various attempts to reclaim "queer" from the epithet gutter have met with considerable success, the word tossed around casually and carelessly is still deeply offensive to many. (See 1 2 3 4.) In conjunction with the word "agenda", it's not even so much the word itself as the phrase and its connotations (see Homosexual agenda). In any event, this instance was part of a larger pattern. I don't log these kinds of things (in fact, I try to forget about them if at all possible) and I lack the patience to spend hours meticulously combing through thousands of user contribs only to find this thread has been prematurely closed in the meantime. Rivertorch (talk) 09:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Adding: These two threads are a starting point, however. This was also sort of weird; not sure what it meant, but it seemed a bit less than civil. Rivertorch (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

  John, I suggest you look at the discussion on my talk page with AGK, where I have chewed his arse out because of the Arbcom doing nothing about acting upon what many editors saw as homophobic harassment of Fae at the RFC/U. Given that these statements were made within a short time after this on my talk page, one can safely assume that my "queer agenda" is protecting other editors from what many deemed to be homophobic harassment. It is disgusting behaviour from Youreallycan, and he needs to be removed from this entire area. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 11:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

  John, you should also look at the most recent thread linked at the top of this section, in which users linked to YRC calling LGBT people (as a class, not specific users) immature/backwards, saying that any mention of a person's non-straight sexual orientation would make Wikipedia just like a gay newspaper, vandalizing a BLP because he believed it would make LGBT users (again as a class, not specific ones) angry, etc. Since a lot of past evidence was brought up in that thread, I think people have largely refrained from linking to each instance individually, but please do read it before saying that it was just this one time. And no, "homosexual agenda" and any of its variants are, again, not used in the MSM/scholarly work. Please do not propagate this ridiculous claim. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support -- in part on the basis of clicking on the links offered by Johnuniq, which demonstrate the opposite of that editor's claims (the scholar links are irrelevant in this context as YRC has almost certainly not consulted scholarly sources). The main point is that this sort of kerfuffle with YRC recurs on a regular basis -- there has been ample evidence in this and previous threads that a topic ban is warranted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support a well demonstrated history of disruptive editing and aggressive behaviour to other editors shows that an indefinite topic ban on LGBT related topics is required, this includes an interaction ban for any contributor that Youreallycan / Off2riorob has made "queer agenda" or similar anti-gay and unprovable claims about. Claiming a Wikipedian has a gay agenda is the declaration of a witch-hunt - such a claim can be made about any of us who have ever edited gay related articles and is a malicious act to foster a hostile environment to ensure that LGBT editors leave the project or cease improving these topics for fear of outing and malicious harassment. Sadly, there is an established pattern that such branding of editors is an open invitation for stalkers to canvass against Wikipedians using off-wiki badsites to sadistically out, harass and bully such an editor; Youreallycan is fully aware of the damaging consequences of his actions. --Fæ (talk) 08:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose And noting that many BLPs have had substantial problems with people violating WP:BLP by asserting a sexual identity on a person without WP:BLP required sourcing, saying a person can not work on such abuses is absurd. Use of a topic ban in order to allow violations to go unchecked is a violation of common sense. And using a !vote in order to silence an editor whose article edits are of great value is absurd. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • YRC opposes mentioning anyone's (non-straight, of course - we can talk about people's heterosexuality all we like and it's fine with him) sexual orientation even when it is well-sourced, as demonstrated in the evidence at the last discussion, linked at the top of this section. He believes that we must only talk about heterosexual people's sexual orientation because otherwise Wikipedia would be the "gay times." I'm really rather tired of people bringing up irrelevant BLP comments. BLP does not mean "remove sourced information you don't like if the article subject is a living person" and it certainly does not mean "if you edit enough BLP articles you are exempt from all rules." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. If there is a civility/NPA problem, address that, but banning someone from enforcing BLP policy related to LGBT seems like the wrong way to go about this. The problem here is a very bad interaction with other editors, not LGBT-related abuse in articles. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

  The problems here are actually multiple, but this is an attempt to deal with very bad interaction with other editors that frequently manifests itself on LGBT-related discussions. And let's be clear: it's not a question of "enforcing BLP policy"; it's more like "edit warring to enforce his narrow interpretation of BLP policy on LGBT-related articles, questioning the motives and affronting the dignity of editors who disagree with him, getting blocked or admonished (but defended by the same select few administrators), announcing a break or retirement, and then returning in a few weeks or months and doing the exact same thing all over again". Does this happen only with regard to LGBT-related discussions? No. But it happens often with such discussions, and the continual lack of resolve at ANI thus far to do something about it is perpetuating an environment especially hostile to editors who identify as LGBT or are active in editing LGBT-related topics. It is my hope that a topic ban would have the effect of directing Youreallycan to other areas of the project where his tenacity would be less disruptive. Rivertorch (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Strong support for "broadly construed" topic ban given YRC's repeatedly demonstrated inability to edit with neutrality on subjects related to LGBT issues. Ban should also encompass any reference to another user's sexual orientation in any namespace. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Insufficient grounds shown. Admittedly this is a touchy area, but I think a topic ban to be excessive.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: My view, humbly proffered here, is that the editor be permanently blocked. No suffering should pass from hand to hand. This editor likes to cause the gay community suffering. That is an aspect of this you should all consider. I do not view this as 'burning down his castle'. He burned it down himself. Practice what you seem to preach, and get off Salvio's back - that is what I think you should also do. Unless you wish to bring further actions against Salvio, what has he really got to do with this?—Djathinkimacowboy 19:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

" This editor likes to cause the gay community suffering". Citation needed... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, you are funny. How about I cite this entire thread and the previous one. Or are you willing to cite all the examples he should be coddled and allowed to keep doing what he's been doing?—Djathinkimacowboy 19:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose If I were convinced he was making homophobic comments, I would absolutely support the ban. I just don't see sufficient evidence here. Yea, his comment was inappropriate and juvenile, but it doesn't warrant a ban.JoelWhy (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support per others. Taken in context and with knowledge of past behaviour, YRC/O2RR's remark crossed the final line. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Above I said that we may as well take homophobia out of the NPA guidance, which was meant as a throwaway comment. But if the consensus on this is denialism and an unaccountable desire to indulge the culprit, I think we really should forgo the hypocrisy and stop pretending. Because YRC refuses to acknowledge the problem, he should not have been unblocked. A topic ban is the next rung down the ladder and should be imposed instead. FormerIP (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. It's more than just a touchy area, YRC has been genuinely offensive here. He shouldn't be editing in the LGBT area if he's going to offend LGBT people - surely that's obvious. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 20:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Youreallycan has done very good work, including cases where the question at issue was sexuality-related categorisation in accordance with BLPCAT. In one case it took multiple admins and an OTRS ticket, in addition to Youreallycan's efforts, to stop the nonsense. Youreallycan has been a tower of strength in such situations. (And I am sure he earned the wrath of those he thwarted.) --JN466 20:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • In the instances where I've encountered YRC working on a sexual orientation categorization topic, he wanted to suppress sourced information (exactly compliant with the standards of WP:BLPCAT) because "Wikipedia is not the gay times - get over yourself." (To be more specific, but without getting into too much detail, he wanted to decategorize as LGBT an actor who had very prominently come out as gay because there were tabloid rumors of his dating a woman. We wouldn't allow non-primary tabloid rumors as a source for the individual being gay, but because YRC's agenda is to pretend everyone is heterosexual rather than to enforce BLP, YRC claimed that it was sufficient to make him straight.) What is this mythical "good work" he's done in the BLP area? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, that was one of those cases I recall. The actor, once proudly out, either attempted to get back into the closet, or decided he was (at the very least) bisexual. All the queer media, like queerty and hunkandgayguys, gave him a roasting for it, and there were editors here who wanted to roast him too, and make sure he would remain categorised as gay. I find it absolutely distasteful how anonymous editors, sometimes described as the "tag-a-gay brigade", seek to claim ownership over notable people's sexuality. This has nothing to do with what someone's sexual identification is, and everything to do with not respecting the personal boundaries of BLP subjects. Sexuality is private, unless there are good reasons for it not to be, and BLPCAT says we go with public self-identification, whatever that is. Their sexuality is one thing that BLP subjects have the final say on, and rightly so. JN466 12:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
      • We didn't have a source for him saying he was bisexual, and we had copious sourcing of him saying he was gay. Precisely because BLPCAT works off of public self-identification, we don't use tabloid rumors of him dating a woman to say anything about his sexual orientation. But YRC wanted to use these rumors - with no comment from the subject about the girlfriend and certainly not about self-identification - not even to say that he may be bisexual, but to say that he was heterosexual. Again, the sourcing was completely inadequate for comments on someone's sexual orientation, per the very rules you cite, but YRC doesn't care about those rules; they're just a convenient smokescreen when he wants to put someone back in the closet. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
        • That's my recollection of it, too, assuming we're thinking of the same discussion. (There have been a number of very similar ones.) I left that discussion in its early stages when it became clear that special standards were being applied by some editors purely because of the subject's gay self-identification, which was impeccably sourced. If the shoe had been on the other foot, and someone had been using tabloid reports to identify as gay an actor reliably reported to be straight, I don't suppose the BLP warriors would have been eager to accept the tabloid stories; in fact, there would have been a huge outcry (and rightly so). It was a classic illustration of a double standard that has become disturbingly common at Wikipedia wherein any number of reliable sources apparently aren't enough when it comes to non-heterosexual people. This has even spilled over into articles on deceased people. It has occurred to me that a sworn affadavit accompanied by a videotaped statement carried live on the BBC from a notable person proclaiming "I'm definitely gay and it's very relevant to my life and my career" would somehow still not satisfy some of the editors around here. So, speaking of double standards, I'd like to ask those opposing the topic ban to consider the remark that spawned this ANI report: "Was it your queer agenda? - or just your fucking agenda, can't you just pack all your fucking agendas in your fucking suitcase and Fuck off?" Now substitute for "queer" a word referring to racial or religious identity—the "n word" is a good example, but there are lots of them—and ask yourself: would we all be so deeply divided or would there be a blizzard of support for the ban? Rivertorch (talk) 23:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
          • • Rivertorch, the way to handle sexual and religious categorisation is very simple: if in doubt, leave it out. In other words, if there is reasonable doubt as to current self-identification, and it's tangential to the person's notability, don't put any categorisation in place. Let's make it easy: this was the discussion I was thinking of. (Rivertorch wasn't involved in this one.) People can read it and form their own judgment as to whether Off2riorob was trying to protect the subject's privacy, or whether he was trying to bash gays. --JN466 05:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
              • Oh, yes, that one. A separate discussion ran concurrently here in which Off2riorob claimed The Advocate is not a "quality publication" and confused sexual orientation with behavior, citing "no recent reports of any homosexual activity" as a reason not to categorize. The subject's privacy vis-à-vis his sexual orientation was not at issue, except perhaps in terms of protecting the article from unreliably sourced claims of heterosexuality. Rivertorch (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
                • His agent put out a statement that he regretted earlier statements he had made, and now considered his sexuality private. That can be taken in good faith as a withdrawal of public self-identification, even without the story that he was now in a relationship with a woman. And it really doesn't matter whether he discovered a different side to his sexuality or had the statement put out for PR reasons. Under BLPCAT, it is arguable grounds to withdraw categorisation. Basically, Wikipedia needs to keep its hands off BLP subjects' sexual identity. If there is a clear and current public self-identifcation, categorise. If there is any doubt, don't. We owe BLP subjects that much respect. --JN466 19:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
                  • This is getting too far off-topic. I'll respond at your talk page presently. Rivertorch (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support - High maintenance editor who is said to do good work. As his block log moves into well into doubt digits, its time for Rob to understand that it's time to cut the crap. Topic banning him out of one subject where he clearly "has issues" is a start. Carrite (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - No merit to the proposal. The LGBT topic area has become increasingly problematic over the years, and if some toes are getting stepped on in cleaning it up, that's a price worth paying. Tarc (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Translation: the queers are getting uppity, better bring in a homophobic blunt instrument to put them in their place. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Please spare me the Victim Card ploy. I oppose wiki-activism regardles of the ideology. I have been quite active in keeping the Tea Party and birther talking points out of the Obama articles over the years, for starters. It just happens at the moment that there is a lot of very bad-faith pro-LGBT activism going on in this project. From Ash's "gay bathhouse regulars" to the small-s santorum crusade to my torpedoing of the Marcus Bachmann hit piece, there's been a lot of bad articles to take care of lately. "Queer agenda" may have been an impolitic turn of a phrase, but the general gist behind it is clear and present. This stuff isn't being opposed and fought against because editors are gay; it is being fought because it is wrong for this project. Tarc (talk) 05:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
      • My comment was intended seriously. Why do you believe that the only way to deal with the problems you believe exist in the topic area is by making LGBT users feel unwelcome, and why do you believe that rampant and obvious policy violations on the one hand are the right tool to deal with what you believe to be policy violations on the other? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
        • I don't want to make "LGBT users" feel unwelcome, I want to make "bad users" feel unwelcome, if one of the latter is also one of the former, that doesn't mean "Tarc doesn't want LGBT editors around". As for your last question, I don't see them as equal; WP:BLP trumps civility twaddle. Tarc (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
          • The repeated homophobic attacks from YRC don't single out bad users, though; they single out LGBT users. There are many, many ways to call out bad editing without saying that LGBT people, as a class, are retarded, without invoking the far-right "homosexual agenda" meme, etc. Why is an entire class of productive users acceptable collateral damage for what you personally believe to be editing problems, while one user is not acceptable "collateral damage" (and I use the scare quotes because he's not a victim by the wayside, but the one causing the problem) in enforcing a productive editing environment for people of all sexual orientations? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
            • I would like to see a diff where YRC says "LGBT people, as a class, are retarded". And if you don't have one, Roscelese, you can look forward to a thread being started on you here, below. --JN466 05:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
              • Paraphrase of "When the LGBT sector matures and accepts itself as normal they will have progressed into my world," which it will honestly take forever to find the exact diff for but which is easily found in BLPN archive in a discussion already linked. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
                • That's good enough for me not to start a thread on you, but looking over that [old discussion, you will see that you complained about this then, and Johnuniq told you, Why do you think that observation is an attack? As I read it, the assertion is that the LGBT sector at Wikipedia should adopt the attitude that LGBT is part of normal society and human activity, and there should be no need to label everyone who may have had an LGBT experience. Johnuniq (talk) 02:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC) Now cross-reference that with [Jay Brannan's view quoted below, who was sick to death of being gay-tagged here. Does that make Brannan a homophobe? Surely not. Can you at least entertain the view that one may see gay tagging as deplorable for other reasons than homophobia? And if YRC were such a homophobe, shouldn't he have taken pleasure in Brannan's anguish, or at least washed his hands of that one? Instead, it was the tag-a-gay brigade who were driving Brannan crazy, while YRC treated that case like every other case he's handled at BLPN over the past three years or so: with respect and concern for the BLP subject, and little time for POV pushers. Some homophobe. --JN466 18:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
                  • • Johnuniq was also wrong, as Trystan explains, so I'm not sure why his reply should be meaningful to me or prevent me from pointing out that YRC has been making these sorts of homophobic comments for months. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
                  • There is a fairly clear line between opposing specific editors who are not editing constructively or within guidelines, and making blanket statements about an entire class of people. Both in the present instance, and the one Roscelese refers to, YRC was way over that line. Telling the "LGBT sector" it needs to mature[135] is disparaging and condescending to all LGBT editors, rather than objecting to the actions of the specific editors involved. If we allow individual negative interactions to be an excuse for prejudicial statements against entire groups, we may as well abandon any attempt to enforce rules against homophobia, racism, sexism and the like, because editors will always be able to point to individuals from the disparaged group that did something to trigger the statement against the entire class of people. The same goes for telling an editor to take their "queer agenda" and "fuck off", tying a profane insult to the target's sexual orientation. Particularly using a reappropriated word in an indisputably hostile and insulting context; does anyone really buy the completely unrepentant excuse that telling a queer to fuck off isn't homophobic because LGBT people use the word queer in a positive way? To see such an attack brushed aside by the deciding admin, relegating everyone concerned about such language into either a lynch mob or a group quibbling about semantics, is very disheartening.--Trystan (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose overly broad for one instance of being an insensitive dick. Also open to gaming, we'd be back here in no time arguing the scope. Kevin (talk) 00:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Please check out the noticeboard discussion linked near the top of the thread. It's not "one instance of being an insensitive dick" - these comments go back months. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: If a single homophobic or uncivil crack (and "queer agenda" is nothing short) was sufficient to elicit topic sanctions, I can think of some editors who should have been slapped with sanctions a hundred times over. Obviously Youreallycan has been offensive and uncivil generally, but there are remedies for that. Ravenswing 04:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • As I said to Kevin, this isn't a "single" comment - this is months upon months of sustained attacks on editors whose sexual orientation differs from YRC's. I refer you to the last noticeboard report on the subject. I'm also not sure why the other cases are supposed to be relevant here: if you don't believe homophobic attacks on other users should be prevented, why is it a problem that other users haven't been restricted? And if you do believe such behavior should be prevented, why does YRC deserve special treatment? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't think YRC deserves special treatment. I think the same avenues of conflict resolution should be employed as with those other editors: RfC/RfA, complete with the expected display of diffs, as opposed to an airy reference to another thread. (That being said, do you fancy you're doing your side any good by attempting to rebut almost every Oppose proponent, sometimes uncivilly?) Ravenswing 08:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
      • We're long past the point where an RFC/U is all that's needed. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support While Off2riorob/YRC has done good work, Wikipedia should make a firm stand against homophobia. I'd be in favour of a fixed term ban on LGBT topics and issues relating to gender and sexuality on BLPs. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from all LGBT related pages, broadly construed. I don't know or care if YRC is or isn't a bigot but I don't think it matters considering the consequences of his edits, which make it seem as though he is trying to marginalize homosexuals. No wikipedian, or person in general, should be subject to that kind of treatment. I also don't care if some here attempt to hammer the "queer agenda" comment out as though it's ok because gay people use the term. There is an obvious difference between naming a show "Queer eye for the straight guy" and telling someone to pack up their queer agenda. Ultimately, WP will be a more harmonious place with this topic ban and that's what matters. SÆdon^talk 23:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Sounds like a reasonable start. As others have noted the problems aren't simply linked to LGBT issues, but if that's where the very worst cases are then we can begin there and widen any ban later if needed.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I remember YRC doing good work—as Off2riorob—in the article and BLP noticeboard discussion on Jay Brannan, a gay singer/songwriter who did not want to see his life and work reduced to his sexuality, and who had asked several times to have his WP biography deleted. YRC a raging homophobe? More like the opposite. He stood up for a gay man when other wikipedians chose to torment him. Draco^E 07:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • If one instance of "standing up for" a gay person is enough to make character judgments off, why isn't a sustained pattern for months and months of homophobic attacks enough? Either the evidence presented is enough or it is not enough, but you can't argue that the evidence presented is meaningless and then turn around and say "he did a good thing for one gay person this one time, let's give him a prize." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
    • M'kay ... I see a pattern of you badgering every contributor who opposes your views, and no willingness to give YRC the benefit of the doubt. Would you mind providing diffs for your fabled "sustained pattern … of homophobic attacks"? If you're referring to YRC’s acerbic comments during the santorum mess, maybe you should try and get friendly with the definition of sarcasm? YRC has done a world of good for BLP subjects, and you have yet to provide us with one example where he has taken out his so-called anti-queer agenda on the subject of a biography.
    • Why not look at the people you're defending? Russavia's latest bits of trolling and drama mongering include writing an article that pokes fun at Polish people and looks very much like something he wrote to provoke the Polish editors of WP whom he's banned from interacting with. He didn't go for an all-encompassing article on the countryball meme, oh no, it had to be Polandball. His article on Zhirinovsky's ass is a veiled attack piece on Russian presidential candidate Mikhail Prokhorov. As for Russavia's bosom buddy Fæ: this shining example of admin excellence is by now quite infamous for accusing people of homophobia whenever they rightfully question his past and present actions. But did you know that under his previous account name of Ash, he was quite the misogynist, what with making light of a BLP subject's experience of rape? I cannot recall a single instance where YRC has acted in manner that compares to what the two WP users you're defending choose to spend their time on. Congratulations. You’ve been had. Draco^E 22:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Russavia's qualities as an editor are irrelevant to the question of whether it is acceptable to subject Russavia to homophobic abuse. Fae's qualities as an editor are even more irrelevant. FormerIP (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Well said. There are many and varied ways to criticize or even insult someone else's editing without insulting an entire class of people based on their sexual orientation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Well said? Guess why I'm taking umbrage with Fæ/Ash questioning an out and proud straight black woman's account of having been raped as a teenager while trying to insert a link to an adult streaming video website into her biography? Please allow me to remind you that out and proud straight black women are also an 'entire class of people'. As are Polish people. Now when exactly are you gonna stop your bad-faith meddling and deliver on those 'homophobic' BLP violations by YRC? Draco^E 02:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

If by irrelevant you mean forgettable I couldn't agree with you more with regard to the actual content contributions of these two disruptive, divisive characters. Though I would never go so far as to refer to them as editors. Draco^E 02:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Person made a remark that someone else found offensive...yet at the same time, people from the LGBT community use it all the time. Yet in "outrage" to this comment, they begin labeling his responses as "homophobic". What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Let a free discussion reign. Buffs (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Which is why it's acceptable for editors to use the n-word, of course. No one's ever been blocked for that. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Its a civility issue not a content one, and people need to be a little more robust in dealing with comments like that. Using obscene language generally undermines an editor's position ----Snowded ^TALK 02:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support If we are going to allow this editor to continue to participate here despite their homophobic comments, then a topic ban from LGBT is necessary. ϢereSpielChequers 07:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Support To an outside observer (me), this seems like a moderate and pragmatic course of action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhoulikan (talk • contribs) 10:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Regular oppose (not weak, not strong) by an outside observer (I don't edit LGBT articles, I don't read them - far outside of my areas of interest, along with most other social sciences - but I looked at the diffs and accusations here and did a little due diligence) on insufficient grounds. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 23:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Alternative proposal: BLP and policy enforcement ban

Youreallycan has, unfortunately, a long-running behavioral issue. I previously discussed this in some detail at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive730#User:Off2riorob / User:Youreallycan#Behavioral, not topic-based, problem. I recommend that readers of this thread should take a look. As I said on that occasion, I don't think a ban on a particular topic is going to be effective. We have seen this problem arising with a number of topics - this time it's LGBT, previously it's been British Jews, tomorrow it will be something else. Banning him from LGBT topics will do nothing to address the underlying problem.

The constant thread connecting all of these issues is that YRC has set himself up as a policy enforcer. The discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive730#User:Off2riorob / User:Youreallycan centred on his disruptive editing of a BLP under the aegis of "enforcing" BLP. A later discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive232#Topic ban proposal for User:Youreallycan (ex Off2riorob) involved his "enforcement" actions on articles related to Rick Santorum. On this occasion he has got himself into trouble over his comments in relation to an attempt to "enforce" NPOV via an AfD discussion. An LGBT topic ban would miss the point: it is not specifically the topic that is the problem, it's the pattern of behaviour related to his cack-handed attempts to enforce policy.

His contributions show that he focuses primarily on BLP and policy enforcement, areas which are notoriously prone to interpersonal conflict between editors. The bottom line is that his judgement and approach are both too flawed for him to be effective in this self-appointed role. There are many other editors who can and do manage to do this effectively. He is not one of them. For his own good as much as anyone else's, I think it would be appropriate to make him go and do something else - write new articles, contribute to DYK, help to rescue articles, whatever, but not participate in areas that are likely to lead to conflict. He should not participate further in noticeboard discussions concerning policy enforcement (including on AN, AN/I, BLPN, AfD etc) but should focus on building the encyclopedia.

I therefore propose that Youreallycan should be prohibited from (i) editing biographies of living people broadly construed and their talk pages; (ii) participating in any process broadly construed on Wikipedia particularly affecting these articles; and (iii) initiating or participating in any discussion substantially relating to the enforcement of Wikipedia policies anywhere on Wikipedia, even if the discussion also involves another issue or issues. The Arbitration Committee should be authorised to review this prohibition after a year, taking regard of his contributions to article space during this period. Prioryman (talk) 07:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support changing of account name may have given the impression that Youreallycan intended to leave the massive long term disruption he caused to the project behind and turn over a new leaf. Unfortunately not so, anyone concerned about his recent actions which have turned Wikipedia into a battleground, should review the long history of complaints on ANI about his edits as Off2riorob (talk · contribs). Wikipedia is not a playpen for Jew baiting and gay bashing; it is a pity that Arbcom and Oversight are so short of time that they seem unable to be of much practical help with these problems and some of their members appear more interested in spending their time writing replies and even creating discussions with banned users on badsites, rather than resolving their personal concerns on-wiki. --Fæ (talk) 09:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support As the other case of harassment against myself occurred on Boris Berezovsky article, in which I was using scholarly sources, Off2riorob took to stalking, accusing me of sockpuppetry, and generally harassing me. For context, there was an editor on the article who declared they had a close relationship with Berezovsky, and they were actively whitewashing the article in the lead up to a major court case in the UK between Berezovsky and Roman Abramovich. Here is the warning to him (in which he noted WP:DIGWUREN) and here is the trolling and harassment on my talk page. He tends to WP:OWN BLP pages, and thinks of himself as judge, jury and executioner on subjects he knows nothing about, thereby stopping knowledgeable editors who are mindful to NPOV and the like from editing articles. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 09:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. YRC/O2RR may have done some things wrong related to BLP articles (and he has certainly been too belligerent in support of his own position at times), but he has also done an awful lot of very good BLP work, and a complete BLP ban would be overkill. If there is to be any action or sanction, make it related to civility and NPA, not to the very important BLP work area. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• I acknowledge that he's done good work, but at the same time he is racking up block after block for the same kind of thing, over and over again. At some point it has to be resolved. A topic block is not going to do any good because the underlying problem is not confined to a single topic. There are really only three workable options going forward. 1) An indefinite block, which really would be overkill. 2) Letting him continue what he's doing now but giving him some kind of civility/NPA parole. This would only partly address the problem, as the issue goes wider than that - note the edit-warring and disruption raised in previous discussions. Frankly I don't believe he has the self-control to abide by a civility/NPA parole (God knows he's had enough warnings.) 3) Requiring him to temporarily exit the fields in which he repeatedly comes into conflict with other editors, viz. BLPs and community noticeboards. I think the latter is the most proportionate and best-suited approach. Prioryman (talk) 11:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

"A topic block is not going to do any good because the underlying problem is not confined to a single topic" - that'll mean no BLP topic ban then? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Talk about "back-asswards logic' - Wikipedia needs more who will make sure that WP:BLP and WP:NPOV are fully followed. Saying that WP:BLP should not have anyone who will seek to enforce it is absurd. And I need not point out that some who egregiously violated WP:BLP in the past per ArbCom decisions were not given this sort of overarching ban. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I was a little shocked to see this outburst from Rob (I'd seen outbursts before, but not with this terminology in this area). Accusing someone of a "queer agenda" it really not kosher (Johnuniq, this may be the first time I disagree with you) and in this context I think it is homophobic. Then again, I probably also have a queer agenda, and I think Mrs. Drmies does as well; you don't need to be queer to have a queer agenda. Anyway, Rob is a valuable BLPitbull and I oppose a topic ban. I don't know what measures would be appropriate. Rob, will you PLEASE take the commentary here to heart? Drmies (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

  It looks like I am out of step. In real life I have inadvertently offended people with plain talk that I thought was just asserting an opinion, and I have sometimes completely missed comments made by others that were apparently an insult of some kind, so perhaps my opinion is not the best here. Johnuniq (talk) 01:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I keep hearing all this praise for what YRC/O2RR does in the BLP area, but the only instances of it I've actually seen have been his campaign to delete or vandalize articles related to santorum (neologism) and his attempts to delete sourced information on non-heterosexual orientations. What is this so lauded BLP enforcement, other than a convenient excuse for people who think homophobic abuse on Wikipedia is perfectly all right and/or necessary? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you haven't seen it because you haven't looked. [136]. Do you want a list of all the non-sexual-orientation-related BLP issues that YRC has worked on? Frankly, that comment is unworthy of you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything that outweighs the destructive edits he's made in the BLP area (but I do see POV-pushing under the banner of BLP, what else is new). Perhaps he was a good BLP contributor in the past but he has ceased to be one. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Insufficient grounds shown.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Though YRC/Rob has made mistakes (who hasn't?), the evidence suggests that, in the difficult BLP area, he does much useful work - and frankly, it is desperately needed at times. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Enough protecting the real damaging elements to WP. I've had it with this "Oh, he's made mistakes, who hasn't?" He has made no mistakes. He knows exactly what he wishes to express.—Djathinkimacowboy 19:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

So you are a mind reader now? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose In general there needs to be more support for those who enforce policy, not enforcement against. The behavioral/civility issues can and should be dealt with, but not at the expense of disallowing enforcement. aprock (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Wehwalt. — Ched :  ?  20:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Andy, Wehwalt, Drmies. BLPN had tumbleweeds blowing across it before Youreallycan showed up. If it's a functioning board today, it is to no small degree due to the effort and application he put into it. --JN466 21:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Reply to Andy:' Andy, I am a post-reader, and came here to comment. I have already capitulated in good faith because I myself was out of order with the comment I made that I have since redacted. I suggest you do also begin to assume good faith. Now, I am outta here. Please do not place ANI notices on my page, or anything on my talk page, which I have specifically asked of you already.—Djathinkimacowboy 22:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

See the top of this page: "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so". I'll AGF when you withdraw the comments you've made about me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Definitely not. I'm conflicted about the LBGT Topic Ban, and feel that weighing in there would require a lot more research than I want to do, but, for me, BLP-enforcement is nearly synonymous with Youreallycan (and former names). That "position", if you will, requires bluster and aggression, because I see YRC all the time have to put up with dozens of editors who simply don't understand that BLP is policy, that it is equal in policy to NPOV, V, etc, and that, no, they cannot site a gossip show to talk about an alleged scandal from 5 years ago that never actually turned into an established fact. This is extreme and unwarranted by anything I see above. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

  "Requires bluster and aggression"? From the dictionary closest at hand: Bluster: "loud, aggressive, or indignant talk with little effect." Aggression: "1. hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another. 2. The act of attacking without provocation. 3. Forceful and sometimes overly assertive pursuit of one's aims and interests." With the possible exception of the third definition of "aggression", are these really attributes to value in an editor? Are civility and patience unwelcome in certain areas of Wikipedia? Come on. Just over a month ago on this noticeboard, Youreallycan (after losing his cool, being reported, and immediately announcing a wikibreak) claimed to have "no topic focus at all". If that's actually true, then it shouldn't be too difficult for him to avoid either LGBT-related topics or BLPs across the board. Rivertorch (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Any ban proposal made by those who have had past altercations/disagreements with the subject is D.O.A. as far as I'm concerned. Tarc (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - the "queer agenda" comment was completely out-of-line, and I'm considering supporting the LGBT topic ban, but this proposal is completely wrong-headed. This is not the solution. LadyofShalott 00:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose this is too blunt a solution. Kevin (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I wouldn't object to the discussion of an LGBT topic band if any further comments are made in the future, but this issue has spiraled into this from something much more specific than BLP issues writ large. Though the history is admittedly checkered, the user has done enough positive for BLPs, which is probably "backlogged" more than any other problem on WP, that I simply can't support such an action as this point in time. Kansan (talk) 13:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm sorely tempted to support this in recollection of some comments like at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive739#Fleming Facebook post, but I don't want to set a precedent of suppressing WikiPolitical opinions, and I think it's overthinking the problem. We already have enough policies; we don't need new theories for action. When somebody violates a civility policy and a block under it is reversed as an error, it gives the impression that he's above the law, so why try to make new ones? Wnt (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I really do wish Rob would step away from the keyboard when his emotions are running high. But, if you watchlist WP:BLPN for any length of time, it is apparent how much gruntwork Rob performs in this area. Many, many violations of BLP policy would still be up on WP pages if not for his decisive (unfortunately sometimes divisive) edits. BLP issues are often intersections of the world's most contentious and insoluble ideological differences, and it's not surprising that they divide editors here, too. But, Rob, please, pretty please, stop dropping F-bombs on other editors, and try to be more sensitive in regards to sexual orientation. The Interior (Talk) 17:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per all of the users that have remarked on Rob's presence over at BLPN and have had interaction with him, a lot of people try to twist WP to their advantage and one of the most shocking areas is BLP vandalism or just plain defamation, POV pushing or fanlike obsesssion with trivia, Rob is an enforcer, sometimes gruff, apparently over the top in some cases, but does good work. Quite honestly, I walked away from WP after some serious BLP wrangling on the Dominique Strauss Kahn article, personal attacks and plain nastiness, and at the time advocated a BLP dedicated patrol because of all the shit that you have to put up with, some people just don't get it policy-wise and need to be firmly told to fuck off with their POV pushing, albeit in a more civil manner. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 09:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, this proposal had suggested sanctioning him for acting as a patroller - rejecting it does not suggest confirming such a role for him. His positions in pursuit of BLP policy are extreme, and I disagree with him almost always; I just don't think his opinions about policy should be the issue here. Wnt (talk) 13:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per what a bunch have already stated. Buffs (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Under his previous account, this editor has frequently made offensive remarks, insisting that it is not possible for a person to be both British and Jewish. This is an extremely offensive and racist assertion. For some reason, he has escaped sanction over this, and now seems to be expanding his horizons by attacking LCBT people as well. There should be no place for Jew-baiting or gay=-baiting on Wikipedia, and a failure to take any steps would send entirely the wrong signal about what we want Wikipedia to be, and who is welcome here. RolandR (talk) 11:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose on insufficient grounds, and as per multitudinous previous oppose !votes. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 14:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose He has been playing the same game and finally crossed a line with nothing to hide behind. Assume GF and let this be his final warnning. Fasttimes68 (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Continued accusations of sock/meatpuppetry by User:PANONIAN

Continued accusations by User:PANONIAN that I am a sockpuppet and/or meatpuppet of User:DIREKTOR. Incivility, personal attacks and aggressive behavior, clear cut failure to apply WP:AGF (ie assumption of bad faith), and WP:BITE. During a discussion between myself and User:DIREKTOR on my talkpage regarding an issue that User:DIREKTOR raised with me regarding Serbia under German occupation, and before either of us had made any edits on the subject article, User:PANONIAN inserted him/herself into the discussion, closely followed by User:WhiteWriter and made an accusation that I was User:DIREKTORs sock [[137]]. He canvassed an editor that had previously accused me of being a sock [[138]], then after trying User:HelloAnnyong (a SPI clerk) [[139]], lodged an SPI [[140]]. He was rebuffed, despite my plea to the clerk (User:User:Salvio giuliano) to do the CHECKUSER to resolve this once and for all, yet User:PANONIAN and User:WhiteWriter continue to imply [[141]] and outright accuse me of being a sock or meatpuppet of User:DIREKTOR [[142]], where User:PANONIAN stated "I can be 100% sure that User:Peacemaker67 is his sockpuppet (it would be impossible that he is not)". I asked User:WhiteWriter to withdraw his/her accusation of meatpuppetry, but it was not forthcoming [[143]]. The accusations continue to today [[144]].

I feel that there is a severe case of WP:OWN on this article from User:PANONIAN. In response to a request for my opinion (from User:DIREKTOR) I conducted research to discover the official name of the territory this article relates to, but User:PANONIAN attempted to circumvent even any discussion of an alternative by creating the SPI case. User:PANONIAN appears interested only in the first word in the article title being 'Serbia', and appears willing to use unfounded allegations of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry to bully me into backing off from editing this article. This appears to me to be an attempt to retain what is a misleading and POV article title (the sources clearly show there was no country called 'Serbia' only a military territory under the direct authority of the Wehrmacht) in order to achieve some historical revisionist aim I can only guess at. User:WhiteWriter has also acted badly in this matter, but I feel this is at the instigation of User:PANONIAN.

In an attempt to diffuse the aggression from User:PANONIAN (the SPI had already occurred at this time), I removed part of a comment I made on Talk:Serbia under German occupation that had a personal tone. I have defended myself on the SPI, WP:AN and on the talkpage regarding my lack of connections to User:DIREKTOR as well as asking User:WhiteWriter to withdraw his accusation. I have asked for evidence, but they persist in insubstantiated allegations in an attempt to discredit me as having a Croatian or Ustasha POV, as well as being a sock or meatpuppet.

I would just like this behaviour to stop, but I'm not sure what you can do. I feel some sort of block or sanction might be necessary, but I haven't been here long enough to understand what would be appropriate. Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, after examining the time periods in which edits of these two accounts (DIREKTOR and Peacemaker67) are appearing I am not sure that they are sockpuppets, so I would rather accuse these two accounts for "coordinated edits in order of achieving certain goal". Both accounts reverting to each others version and both ignoring sources that I presented on talk page and trying to change common name of the article. I also see no evidence for accusation that my behavior is example of "Incivility, personal attacks and aggressive behavior" - I did not insulted personally these users in any way and I think that I have right to have suspicions about identity of users, especially in the case if suspicious revert warring and similar pattern of behavior between two accounts in involved. While claiming to be "a retired Australian Army officer", the very first edit of user Peacemaker67 was involvement in Serbia-related subject, and from that point, there is a progressive interest for subjects related to WW2 events in Serbia and former Yugoslavia (which are the main interest of user:DIREKTOR as well). And not only that user Peacemaker67 expressed interest for Serbia-related WW2 subjects, but he very soon started to revert edits of Serbian users in these articles (see example: [145]). So, I am sorry, but I would be extremely stupid if I would think that an "retired Australian Army officer" have main interest in reverting Serbian users in Wikipedia, while he did not showed any interest for Australia-related subjects (for example, I live in Serbia and most of my edits in Wikipedia are related to Serbia - opposite behavior would simply not be a normal and logical one). Furthermore, user Peacemaker67 actually personally attacked me and accused me that I am "editor with Serbian POV". I find this insulting because I have the only goal to make Serbia-related articles NPOV and accurate and therefore accusation that I want to push "Serbian POV" (without evidences that could support such accusation) is indeed example of personal attack. Furthermore, claim of user Peacemaker67 that my sockpuppet investigation request was "the second time that an editor with a Serbian POV has accused him of being a sock" means that this user indeed came to Wikipedia with a goal of "fighting the Serbian POV", which further undermine his claim that he is an Australian and which gave me full right to be suspicious about his identity. I was also accused for original research by user DIREKTOR without any presented evidences (please see: [146]) - note that I presented numerous sources that mentioning this territory as "Serbia" (please see: [147]), while user DIREKTOR who accused me for OR just ignoring these sources. Regarding WP:OWN accusation, how exactly my efforts to make article NPOV and sourced could be seen as a case of WP:OWN? Note that both users that accusing me for WP:OWN (DIREKTOR done exactly same thing: [148]) are aiming to rename the article contrary to numerous sources that I presented to them, while they either are not presenting sources that can support their claims either they misinterpret sources that they examine (I can provide further evidence for this if required). PANONIAN 14:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

PANONIAN is an extremely disruptive participant on that talkpage, and has, to all intents and purposes, taken a Wikipedia article hostage.

• The user has been caught misquoting sources, and falsely claiming support from them.
• The user does blatant WP:OR, and then often simply refuses to acknowledge its OR. For example, he's capable of deriving precise conclusions from map captions and contents entries.
• The user disregards sources that oppose his position, or, when faced with blatant contradiction, the user simply raises the bar. He may completely ignore previously quoted sources.
• The user's English skills, and I say this without an intention to offend, are borderline inadequate. The user will, for example, misunderstand a sentence and then, due to his WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude, he will refuse out of suspicion to accept the possibility of any misunderstanding on his part. He might, for example, demand "evidence" he has misconstrued a complex English-language sentence (when the mistake is painfully obvious).
• The user writes massive, badly-written blocks of text (in the aforementioned faulty English).
• To top all this off, he continuously refers to Peacemaker67 and myself as the same person - when its incredibly obvious that we're not socks. Continuously. In spite of his report having been rejected outright.

I would provide diffs for all of this, but I'm not at home at the moment, and these are more behavioral trends than actual individual infractions. The veracity of all these statements can be reviewed on Talk:Serbia under German occupation.

I, and now Peacemaker as well, have been trying for quite a while now to do some real discussion, and actual work, to arrive at a consensus and finally fix that poor tortured article. However, even before Peacemaker could post a thread on the actual article talkpage, he was being attacked on his own personal talkpage and reported as "my sock". An extreme example of WP:OWN issues. Every edit has to be "approved" by PANONIAN, who, in addition to all of the above, quite frankly has little to no actual understanding of the subject matter. The article has a nonsense, misleading title, a nonsense lede, and a silly infobox. And its impossible to get at them.

P.s. I think this should have gone straight to WP:AE. But Peacemaker is but new around these parts - and even if he weren't - I think I don't mind the fact that he doesn't give a damn about that sort of thing. He researches thoroughly and edits frequently, and that's what we call a good Wikipedian. -- Director (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

AE is probably the best place for this; I agree. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Ugh, this sockpuppet nonsense again? Come on. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, PANONIAN still considers us the same person until proven otherwise. Frankly, I couldn't care less about his personal perceptions, but this is turning into borderline harassment. That, however, is the least of the disruption. -- Director (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

But really, i cannot care less at the end about this matter. Instead of this meaningless report here, you should try to gain consensus with PANONIAN, as i tried on talk page. After we gained some reasonable arguments, we will see whats going on. We have found the main problem in there! and you can see it here all other questions are derived from this unsolved point. --WhiteWriter^speaks 16:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

@WhiteWriter, obviously you have not read the talkpage to any significant extent. Had you done so you would have noticed that catering to PANONIAN's nonsense demands and unsupported personal views is practically all that's been going on down there. The fact that users have to "appease" the WP:OWNER of the article to repair his damage, is the primary issue here. I dare say, as article owners go, PANONIAN is a bad one to boot. Agreement must be based on real sources research, and must not be influenced in the slightest by User:PANONIAN's profoundly misguided personal historical perceptions (that he thinks should be supported on his googled OR).

I must also note that, in addition to being unfamiliar with the dispute in general, you are also PANONIAN's Wikipedia friend and compatriot. And I do not think Peacemaker's report is "meaningless". If folks on ANI are (understandably) discouraged by the aforementioned massive blocks of text, I'll bring up Peacemaker's concerns on WP:AE. -- Director (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I am "disruptive participant on talkpage"? How So, DIREKTOR? Am I disruptive because I quoted source and you replied that my presentation of source is a joke? Also, I absolutely reject all accusations of user DIREKTOR as false: 1. DIREKTOR did not provided evidence that I "was been caught misquoting sources, and falsely claimed support from them" (I quoted sources that I presented correctly), 2. DIREKTOR did not provided evidence that I am "conducting blatant WP:OR" (and according to DIREKTOR, I also should acknowledge that his false OR accusation against me is correct?). 3. DIREKTOR did not provided evidence that I am "disregarding sources that oppose my position" (I accepted the sources that were introduced by other users on the page and my position is exactly respect of the sources), 4. DIREKTOR did not provided evidence that I have a "BATTLEGROUND attitude" (and reference to my language skills is really insulting - perhaps I should quit editing Wikipedia because my knowledge of English is not perfect?). As for sockpuppetry issue, I already stated that I changed my position about that after examining time periods in which edits of these two accounts are appearing, but I still have suspicions that these two accounts are coordinating their edits in Wikipedia. I will not raise another sockpuppetry investigation thread because of that, but I have right to have these suspicions due to the reasons stated in my previous post on this page. Of course, if DIREKTOR and Peacemaker67 are insulted by that, I will not express my suspicions on public talk pages any more, but I am requesting that these accounts stop with false accusations against me (I speak about accusations for WP:OR, WP:OWN, sources misquoting, etc) since both accounts failed to provide any evidence that would support these accusations against me. PANONIAN 16:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I've been following the discussion for the past few days, but have been reluctant to enter. In addition to having committed what Direktor stated above Panonian has continued to throw unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry, believe that a "conspiracy" is being carried out against him, and use personal attacks such as "warmaker67". For the record Panonian, Peacemaker has every right to edit articles related to Serbia, Croatia, Zimbabwe, etc. and may revert editors regardless of which country they may happen to be from. Serb editors are not "entitled" to these articles nor will they "own" them as you're trying to do. Your attempts to ostracize Peacemaker from editing these articles because he isn't from Serbia are incredibly close minded and contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Let it also be clear that no amount of forumshopping will replace the reliable sources that are at hand [149][150][151][152].-- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 18:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, for the record, PRODUCER is an Croatian account as well and I noticed some cooperation between him and DIREKTOR in the past, so it is not surprise that this account appeared here to trash me. There is practically nothing new in his post: while he is concerned about my accusations for sockpuppetry (for which I said that I will not raise them any more), PRODUCER is not worried at all about far worse false accusations that were raised here against me (WP:OR, WP:OWN, sources misquoting, BATTLEGROUND attitude, etc). As for my usage of description "warmaker67" it was just a joke (I love good humor). Also, I do not see that I ever stated that someone who is not from former Yugoslavia has no right to edit articles related to former Yugoslavia. I only stated that it is strange that interest of someone who claim to be an Australian would be related almost entirely to former Yugoslavia. PANONIAN 19:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

To my knowledge, PRODUCER is not a Croatian account. The man is far too reasonable... -- Director (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

He is not? Then how you explain this edit? Not quite Serb-friendly? PANONIAN 20:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Emporers-clothes was not a reliable source and the editor who inserted the info later found proper sources. Perhaps try to scratch deeper than the surface next time? This is another telling incident of Panonian failing to assume good faith. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 20:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

So, you expect assumption of good faith just after you posted your anti-PANONIAN comment on this page? Assumption of good faith works for users whose name is clean when we speak about this issue. PANONIAN 22:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Your battleground behaviour in this matter demonstrates that you really don't deserve the benefit of the doubt by anyone, PANONIAN. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

What exactly you mean by that? I only defend myself against accusations. Or to put it this way: I am attacked by the users who want to oppose my efforts to make Serbia-related articles NPOV, accurate and sourced. Is that a problem? I know behavior of these users well and they just want to see me removed from their field of interest. Also, I said that I will not say any more that they are sockpuppets. Please tell me what else I should do if you think that my behavior should be improved? PANONIAN 22:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

How many pages are you guys fighting on? Perhaps if you calmly and concisely gave your positions and then let others comment, you might get some results. Instead its this constant TLDR back and forth in an area most users don't want to get involved with. AniMate 09:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Um.. just one, AniMate :). Or two if you include this one. But I see your point. Its hard to keep this brief and structured in an ANI thread, where everyone has to respond to everyone as extensively as possible... Should it be moved to WP:AE? -- Director (talk) 12:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Probably. The regulars at WP:AE know some of the background here and the way its sectioned there you guys won't overwhelm admins discussing possible sanctions. AniMate 19:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)