Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive734

Controversial moves

The following discussion is closed. 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:Thomas280784, an apparent SPA, has made numerous controversial moves to non-English titles in violation of Wiki-policy WP:COMMONNAME and WP:UE. This user has been warned that such moves are controversial,[1] but, in a violation against Wikipedia:FAITACCOMPLI, has stormed ahead with another dozen moves just today:

• Dominik Riečický
• Ēriks Miļuns
• Ernest Bokroš
• Jiří Sekáč
• Joël Vermin
• Juraj Šimboch
• Kristiāns Pelšs
• Māris Diļevka
• Michal Čajkovský
• Mirko Höfflin
• Miroslav Přerost
• Nico Krämmer
• Tomáš Nosek
• Vojtěch Mozík

I request that these articles be moved back to their original title names per WP:BRD, and that admin action be taken against Thomas280784 to prevent him making such controversial moves outside of the WP:RM procedure. Dolovis (talk) 14:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was usual policy that accents were included in article titles where they were proper names not in the English language. WP:UE applies when looking at something like Munich, a place with an English name which differs from its local name, but not when dealing with a person. See WP:TITLEFORMAT: "Sometimes the most appropriate title will contain diacritics ... In such cases, provide redirects from versions of the title that use only standard keyboard characters". Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it is most certainly not usual policy to use modified letters in an article's title. The policy of COMMONNAME stipulates that the article title should follow the name as used in reliable English-language sources. And in the above cases, those sources do not use modified letters. In any case, BRD does apply, so these article moves should be reverted before the RM discussion takes place. Dolovis (talk) 15:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

What's a "modified letter"? Surely that's the one where a native accent has been stripped for the benefit of illiterate ASCII. Fortunately we have no technical reason to do this. Use the correct form, with the accent, and set up a modified redirect to cope with cases using restricted keyboards. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policy of Wikipedia:Article titles states that we are to use the Common Name as found in reliable English-language sources. These moves go against Wikipedia policy as there are no sources to support the name with modified letters. Dolovis (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and a reliable English-language source will correctly and competently report a European name with the necessary diacritics. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see (a) this isn't an ANI issue, (b) Thomas280784 is not an SPA, merely an editor with an interest in ice hockey and (c) DJSasso's response to Dolovis' warning is also worth reading. Number 57 15:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thomas280784 was warned that such moves are controversial, but forged ahead anyway, in violation of Wikipedia:FAITACCOMPLI, and ignoring the policy, protocol, and spirit of WP:RM; but regardless, these article moves should be reverted per BRD, and RM should be followed if Thomas280784 wishes to argue policy in support of his proposed moves. Dolovis (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• Wow. That does sound like an ANI issue. Admonish and topic ban for Dolovis? Wrong, and underhand about not disclosing their own past history when attacking another editor for doing it right. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• The right way is via WP:RM. Dolovis (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey Dolovis! The only cotroversial thing is that you're still allowed creating such ridiculous stubs and not even mentioning that there are diacritics in these guys names... So save your energy and start moving the following ones: Teemu Selänne, Patrik Eliáš, Éric Desjardins, Ossi Väänänen...just to name a few! But there are still many left especially when you look at Category:Czech ice hockey players, Category:Slovak ice hockey players or Category:Finnish ice hockey players... Thanks to User:Sam Blacketer, User:Number 57 and User:Djsasso for supporting my moves! --Thomas ^✉ 17:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The moves to diacritics titles are not supported by any sources, which amounts to original research.Dolovis (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

That is just ridiculous, using non-english sources to back something up does not make something original research. You have a very poor grasp of policy. -DJSasso (talk) 15:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

One last question: ANI and SPA seem to be abbreviations. What do they stand for? --Thomas ^✉ 17:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

A capitalised acronym is usually a shortcut like WP:ANI (You're here already) or WP:SPA (a single-purpose account), which is usually a WP:CIVIL_(sic) way of implying that an editor you disagree with is a WP:SOCK, without any evidence to support that. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not implying that anyone is a SOCK. A SPA refers to an account "whose edits to many articles appear to be for a common purpose", a lable, which looking at the edit history for Thomas28078, appears to apply. Dolovis (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record... my main account is de:Benutzer:Thomas280784. --Thomas ^✉ 17:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• Tempest. Teapot. Close before it degenerates further. Glrx (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Last time I heard, even hockey player names were supposed to have their title in English, but redirects with diacritics were ok (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The diacritic titles seem consistent with the Besançon, Søren Kierkegaard and Göttingen examples given at WP:UE. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 17:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

We follow policy here, not Wikipedia:FAITACCOMPLI. The policy is to revert controversial moves per WP:BRD, and then to open a discussion concerning the controversial move at WP:RM. Dolovis (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thomas28078, should've went the RM route. Such unilateral page moves, merely cause disruption. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't get it... Why are those moves called "controversial"? I'm not wrong by moving those pages... For example Jiří Sekáč... --Thomas ^✉ 19:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think they are. In any event WP:NOTBUREAU is still one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, so I don't see anything wrong with moving them without discussing them first. Dolovis can move them back and start a discussion if they'd like. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 19:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• Yawn. Does anyone here actually think these page moves damage the encyclopaedia? I actually think the new titles are more informative. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Did somebody say "new"?--68.9.119.69 (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

These reason these moves are wrong is that Thomas was warned that such moves were controversial, and he was told that he should proceed through RM. He ignored such warnings and made the controversial moves anyway. That is not how we do things here. If someone will just revert these moves so Thomas can proceed to make his case in an RM discussion, then that would be one way to conclude this issue. Dolovis (talk) 21:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a diff to where the consensus was established the moves are controversial. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 21:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, just to sum this up... Moving the pages to the correct spelling was wrong because I didn't request to move them?!? That's disgusting... And as the talk goes on, there's only one person who thinks that my moves were "controversial"...And that's you. I don't need those discussions because I'm not wrong in any way! Please tell me, why you didn't move pages like Patrik Eliáš? Why? --Thomas ^✉ 22:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

That phrase -correct- is viewed by many on the pro-english/anti-diacritics side as being arrogant. I'd wish you'd strike it. GoodDay (talk) 00:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Edwardian England is alive and well somewhere. Maybe if you explain it loudly and often enough, these funny foreigners will realise that they're spelling their own names wrongly. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the hockey WikiProject consistently gets their collective panties in a knot whenever an Eastern European hockey player's article is moved from the lazy title that lacks the proper diacritics present in the player's name in their native tongue, which are viable article titles on the English Wikipedia because the use of diacritic marks. Their own guidelines are no longer valid on the matter. This is a perrenial issue and someone who always feels one way about diacritics will raise a stink when pages get moved to the opposite version. I don't think there has been any sort of concrete decision about what should be done because the hockey fans on Wikipedia appear to be in some sort of ceasefire over this content.—Ryulong (竜龙) 22:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh. WP:HOCKEY did come up with a resolution on this matter, listed under WP:HOCKEY#Wikiproject Notice:

• All player pages should have diacritics applied (where required).
• All North American hockey pages should have player names without diacritics.
• All non-North American hockey pages should have diacritics applied (where required).

(Their emphasis, not mine). So it appears that on all articles on players themselves, the diacritics are to be in article titles. When the names are used on articles on the NHL and other North American leagues, the diacritics are not used on those pages, but are on others, and the diacritics are always used on other hockey league pages. So Thomas280784 is in the right on these moves.—Ryulong (竜龙) 22:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

A recent discussion Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Create_a_special_status_for_project-level_style_guidelines indicated project wide policies should be followed in preference to Project policies; Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(proper_names)#Diacritics indicates the diacritics are appropriate. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 22:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

And WP:HOCKEY agrees. Diacritics should be in article titles, which is contrary to Dolovis's preferences. They merely do not use the diacritic names (relying on piping or redirects) on pages on NHL teams.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus within the ice hockey project on the use of diacritics within the article's title. Following the MOS, diacritics are properly used within the article. Even if there was a consensus within the ice hockey project, that would not trump the Wikipedia policy of WP:AT which dictates to use the WP:COMMONNAME as established by English-language reliable sources. But this entire line of discussion just goes to illustrate the point that the moves made by Thomas are controversal, and so they should be reverted prior to an RM discussion, which is where all of you points concerning the proper title should be made - not here. Dolovis (talk) 01:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Opening an ANI thread and claiming the resultant discussion proves controversial is not a compelling argument. Repeatedly asserting your opinion is not a compelling argument. Not providing diffs to support your claim are not compelling arguments. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 04:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Removing diacritic marks does not English or common name make, either.—Ryulong (竜龙) 05:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems that Dolovis had a hand in preventing the proper use of diacritics in this debate. Per the hockey project's own guidelines, the diacritic form of the titles should be in use for all those affected pages.—Ryulong (竜龙) 11:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

When referring to WP:AT, Dolovis always omits this sentence: 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. (my bold). And, oh, this thing about "ignoring the policy, protocol, and spirit of WP:RM", Dolovis would know all there is to know about that, not to mention WP:FAITACCOMPLI and gaming the system. Dolovis had (or has) a page move ban imposed on him for this. (I guess he hasn't mentioned that either.). Recently, he has returned to his old ways of gaming the system, for which he has been reported in a section below. HandsomeFella (talk) 11:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It is getting to the point where Dolovis wastes so much of the wikis time that his diacritics move ban should be changed to a full out diacritics topic ban. -DJSasso (talk) 15:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking along the same lines. What is the net worth of Dolovis's contributions? HandsomeFella (talk) 15:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

A topic ban discussion is appropriate. However, as this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, discussion of an editor's "net worth" is not an appropriate topic of conversation here; it is personal attack by innuendo. Nobody Ent 15:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• support topic ban (or even a general block) for Dolovis on anything related to diacritics. This is a new one to me, but looking briefly back over history this is clearer a far bigger pattern of behaviour than just this one incident. Taking an inappropriate contrary position on their use is one thing, this clearly tendentious mover-warring is quite another and now as here, bringing another editor to ANI for acting correctly is quite unacceptable. Given their responses in this thread, and the time for which this has already gone on, they appear unlikely to change either their views on diacritics, or (more seriously) to accept that they're beating a dead horse with incessant vigour. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• Uninvolved here, but I have to agree with Andy - looking at the previous discussions (thank you DJSasso for pointing to WP:RESTRICT where the indef move ban is listed w/ links) and what is being done here, this has pushed past acceptable. In a way it's a shame, but an extension of the current ban to include disusing or acting on article titles that contain diacritics is supportable. The disruption involved and the bad faith exhibited by Dolovis in the OP and their contact with Thomas280784 speaks volumes that Dolovis needs to be kept - and I'd really prefer that it be "stay" but that degree of voluntary disengagement does not look even remotely likely - away from not only directed page move related to diacritics in the titles, but also initiating or participating in discussions of the same. - J Greb (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• All this drama, would've been avoided, if RMs would've been set up for the hockey bio articles. As I mentioned before at WP:HOCKEY, uni-lateral page moves on this topic, should be avoided. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

  It would also have been avoided if Dolovis had not brought Thomas280784 here. Instead, ironically, Dolovis is now at risk of having sanctions against himself expanded. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

See also

There is another report on a related issue here. As mentioned above Dovolis had a page move ban imposed on him for gaming the system this summer. Now he has started doing that again. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:51, 1 January 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.

WölffReik and his "personal library" of articles.

Can someone have a look at WölffReik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his "personal library" of articles on kick boxing here, a number of which are copyies (without attribution) of deleted articles (such as User:Minowafan/Hero's 4, User:Minowafan/SuperKombat: Fight Club ,User:Minowafan/Local Kombat). Mtking ^(edits) 01:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I opened a dozen or so of these pages, and all of them were copyvios of similarly named articles (for example, User:Minowafan/SuperKombat: Fight Club was a copyvio of SuperKombat: Fight Club), and thus I deleted all of them. I don't have time to check the rest, but since every article I've checked is a copyvio, I strongly suspect that the rest are; I'm just going to delete every subpage except for any individual pages that don't look like copies, due to (1) WP:IAR; (2) the copyvio status of everything I checked, and (3) the fact that blocked socks generally don't need subpages anyway. Anyone know a way to delete them without openening and deleting everything individually? I've already found that these pages are too old to be nuked. Nyttend (talk) 02:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

By the way, if you know of a way to delete these rapidly, leave a note on my talk page; I'm going to be busy enough deleting them that I won't notice a reply without an orange banner at the top of the page. Nyttend (talk) 02:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I removed autoreviewer status, doesn't seem appropriate for someone with this many copyvio issues.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 03:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Good call. I'm done deleting; if my count is right, there were 433 subpages, and I deleted everything except the sandbox; it seems to be a directory for all of the other pages. Nyttend (talk) 03:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

maybe one more User:WölffReik/Sandbox looks to be a mix of K-1 World MAX 2011 −70kg Japan Tournament Final and K-1 World MAX 2011 -63kg Japan Tournament Final (as deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-1 World MAX 2011 -63kg Japan Tournament Final). Mtking ^(edits) 07:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem with this user is that they utilize a wide variety of socks and ips to maintain this content. Immediately after this DRV and this following AfD I'd brought several of these sandboxes and the continuing gaming behavior to this forum (asking for an indef block), but because the editor was not actively violating policies and guidelines, nothing was done at that time. I'd like to think that at some point, an administrator should block this account, if for no other reason than we could see other user accounts exposed. This editor is a dedicated disruptor, but the disruption is done purely to build and promote this content area, even if against consensus. Does a Kickboxing/MMA wiki exist? It might be better to get the editor to utilize knowledge and willingness in such a space; instead of deletion, we could transwiki and the user might be able to contribute meaningfully there with little interference from WP. BusterD (talk) 14:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

WölffReik's sandbox deleted; it's distinct from Minowafan's sandbox, which is purely a list of names, and thus no more of a copyvio than is a library card catalog. Yes, someone please block here; I've probably done enough on this project and expressed enough opinions in the deletion that I'm past the point of interacting with him/them purely in an administrative role. Nyttend (talk) 15:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely. I've also run a quick check on his last few IP addresses for any other accounts (found none).Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

IP readding material to Talk:Muhammad after warnings from two administrators

Resolved

 – IP blocked by Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs) for 48 hours. --Elonka 17:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• 71.17.188.133 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This user was warned by me about adding contentious material to Talk:Muhammad. They were then warned again by Ohnoitsjamie and Dougweller that they would be blocked if they continued to re-add the material. They have added the material again and have even requested that they be blocked on their talk page.[2] Could an administrator please oblige? Mathsci (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks and Happy New Year from France. Mathsci (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad this has been properly taken care of; but I would suggest that you avoid the use of the term "blasphemous" in such notices, since the term is inherently going to constitute an WP:NPOV violation. --12.232.7.194 (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Please make smart alec glib comments like this somewhere else. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 00:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Please cite the policy or guideline which forbids "blasphemy." Edison (talk) 00:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

He was blocked for disrupting the talk page, if you follow things through a little more carefully. Mathsci (talk) 01:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is criticism of a controversial person who died 1,300 years ago not tolerated on Wikipedia but blatant anti-Semitism like this is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruraldave284 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

People post all kinds of stupid non-sense on their talk pages. It isn't presented as fact and reads like a rambling pseudo-historical non-sense rant. It isn't a big deal.--Adam in MO Talk 01:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it is offensive, unnecessary, and violates WP:UP#POLEMIC. I have posted a message to the editor's Talk page asking them to remove it ([3]).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone else has shifted it. As history goes, it's about as valid as Erik von Daniken. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on valid sourcing and notability. "Blasphemy" does not figure into it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Heh, you say that only because you delight in being blasphemous. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The block was for disrupting the talk page after separate warnings from two administrators, not for blasphemy. Edit summaries which read "mass murderer and pedo" are not a good sign. In addition the newly created account Ruraldave284 is almost certainly a sockpuppet of the blocked IP. Oh and sorry to ruin your fun by changing the title I chose for the thread. Mathsci (talk) 01:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Awwww, but is it true? If so, is it already in the article, and if not why?--JOJ ^Hutton 01:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Ruraldave284 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) now also blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet by Jpgordon. Mathsci (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Baseball Bugs on this. The IP editor in question hasn't behaved well, but blasphemy cannot ever be a reason for removing content. It's pure non-neutral POV. HiLo48 (talk) 01:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the ip only got a bit disruptive when his/her opinions began to be removed from the talk page. And for blasphemy no doubt. even I would get a bit ticked off if someone used that as a reason for removing any of my edits, or trying to keep me from asserting my opinion. Wikipedia is not Censored. If any one doesn't like it, tough, get another hobby or go start your own censored wiki.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

That is incorrect because the first problematic edit summary read, "‎mahomet the humanitarian chopped naked ethiopian women for fun". Mathsci (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it true?--JOJ ^Hutton 01:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The IP also asserted that I was a Muslim. Mathsci (talk) 01:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Mathsci is correct, the IP was obviously trolling. Though the header here at ANI probably shouldn't have included the word "blasphemous". Better would have just been "disruptive". Now that the IP is blocked though, perhaps we could all just swim away? --Elonka 01:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Correct, the IP was nothing but a troll and there's no point in defending him. He could have been civil and serious in suggesting that Criticism of Muhammad be incorporated into the Muhammad article, but he wasn't. He was intentionally and openly confrontational, and pushed for an anti-Islamic POV. He is no better than anyone supposedly trying to push for an Islamic POV. Complaints about "Wikipedia is not censored" and "Blasphemy is POV" are completely ignorant of that editor's behavior. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You didn't read my post, did you? HiLo48 (talk) 02:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Regardless of the reason given for undoing his actions, his actions were not acceptable and started off pretty trollish. If the reason given was "this editor is being disruptive" from the get go, the ban would still be in place. Is anyone going to defend the IP or appeal his block? If not, complaining is unnecessary. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

If you read my post, you ignored half of it. I said that blasphemy must never be a reason for removal of content AND that the IP editor's behaviour was unacceptable. You missed the second bit I think. Both parts are important to me. HiLo48 (talk) 02:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I bolded my point on that. It changes nothing whatever reason was given. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Not really concerned about defending what the ip did, but more concerned with what they said, and why it was removed and reverted, even when the ip to tone down the language. Mathsci's first revert, came with no explanation at all. If Mathsci found the passage blasphemous, then he/she should have asked the ip to reword or clarify, rather than systematically removing a comment he/she found personally offensive, without even giving a reason why. I personally found nothing offensive in the passage at all, and in fact it peaked my curiosity to try and discover more potential atrocities. If true, killing 900 people is not really one of the highlights of someones life story. The allegation about sleeping with a 9 year old girl, concerns me much less. In a time period when the average lifespan was 29, getting a head start with the baby making, made loads of sense. Probably should give him a big pass on that one, if true.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• Mathsci's motives here are transparent. He saw a disruptive editor and dealt with him. I would have dealt with it differently, but these things are a hard call. I can tell you with a fair degree of certainty, Mathsci is not acting out of bias, one way or the other, with regard to Islam. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• Imagine the article on Mao Zedong, or perhaps Adolf Hitler, stated he was a humanitarian and a philanthropist. Would we get so block-happy about an IP getting similarly heated on the talk page about the inappropriateness of such a description in those articles? Probably not. I don't think the IPs edits were disruptive at all – the way I see it is 1) the IP made a comment on a talk page 2) an editor/some editors didn't like it, removed it, and told him he wasn't allowed to add it again (despite the fact it contained no personal attacks or BLP violations) 3) the IP, quite rightly, wouldn't take that lying down and re-added his comment (as I probably would if someone tried to remove a comment I made on a talk page on the basis that it was blasphemy) 4) repeat several times 5) more experienced editors call in the cavalry at ANI, crying foul 6) IP gets blocked simply because he didn't make it to ANI first. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 02:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding.....You are correct sir. What have we got for him Monty?--JOJ ^Hutton 02:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Rather big difference, though. Mao and Adolf would never have said "if any one slew a person—unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land—it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people." Also, Mao and Adolf aren't the founders of a by-and-large peaceful and respectful religion that gave rights to women and religious minorities that Europe wouldn't give for another 1200 years. Your reductio ad Hitlerum is invalid. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Well congratulations Ian, I was wondering who would be the first to mischaracterise my argument as an ad hominem – not every statement that mentions Hitler is reductio ad Hitlerum. I'm not saying "Muhammad did the same things as Hitler, and everything Hitler did was wrong, so we should let people say Muhammad is wrong" (reductio ad Hitlerum), I'm simply saying that I think that objection to the IP's edits is based on wide international support for the subject he's criticising, rather than for any actual disruption they're causing. I'm not saying Muhammad is like Hitler. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 03:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

To clarify further, I'm just curious as to whether we'd be so quick to discount the IP's edits as unacceptable if the opinion he is attempting to convey was less controversial (e.g. if he was criticising a subject much more widely-criticised, such as Hitler). There shouldn't be a discrepancy – if the IP had made similar criticisms at the Hitler talk page and wouldn't have been censored for it, then we shouldn't be censoring him here either. Does that make sense? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 03:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

And as brought up on the IP editor's talk page: If you are not comparing Muhammad to Hitler, then "Imagine the article on Mao Zedong, or perhaps Adolf Hitler," is a completely useless and unrelated non-sequitur. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

"by-and-large peaceful and respectful?" I know a number of Muslims who are indeed peaceful and respectful of the beliefs of others. Then there are the Taliban, al Queda, and theocracies such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc, who are not at all peaceful or respectful, and who commit evils in the name of the religion. Similar criticisms could be aimed at movements and theocracies based on other world religions which claim to be peaceful. Edison (talk) 03:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Citing the Taliban and Al-Qaeda is like citing the KKK to counter the claim that Christianity is racially open. Most Iranians don't want war, it's mostly their president (who has to get the approval of a couple of councils of clerics to do anything but make empty threats), who has universally terrible approval ratings and only remains in office because he can get America to pay any attention to Iran. You also forgot Malaysia and Southeast Asia in general, where the majority of the world's Muslims live and don't cause any problems. %98 of the world's Muslims aren't even close to being terrorists (being a different sect and all), the Arab spring demonstrates that a similar number values equal rights and opposes theocratic oppression. I'd say that's safe to call "by-and-large peaceful." Ian.thomson (talk) 03:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• Folks, what's relevant here is the actions of the IP, of those who reverted, and my block. I thought the IP's actions were deliberate provocation (judging by the content and the summaries), and that's why I blocked - not because of censorship or blasphemy (I follow no religion myself). What anyone thinks of Hitler, Muhammad, or anyone else is not relevant here and this is not the place to discuss them. (And, as usual, any other admin is welcome to act as they see fit without needing to ask me) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• Good block, and suggest archiving this discussion as the heat-to-light ratio is skewing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support block. And recommend that the content-related discussions in this thread be moved to a more appropriate venue, such as Talk:Criticism of Muhammad. --Elonka 03:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Mayday, Mayday, Block-evading harasser

A person has been evading blocks and maki personal attacks agains me and harnessing me. Please see Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage, Wikipedia:SOPA initiative, an my talk page and Makaton and it's talk page for the relevant ips. Admin EdJohnson tried something but it did 't work. I don't know what to do! Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 04:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Response: You're disputing a valid refute to your statement, Ramaksoud2000. You either delete anything that goes against what you're saying, or you don't answer it. You're painting a very one-sided picture here, and that's not the goal of Wikipedia. Don't appeal to an admin simply because someone has a differing point of view. 85.237.211.90 (talk) 04:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Boomerang thrown by the IP. Blatant personal attacks. Looks like we'll have to block a range (85.237.192.0/19 or if we want to be less bold 85.237.211.0/24) here because this IP user obviously hops IPs. Obvious gaming the system.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Trying to revert all this, but I don't know if I can find it all. Calabe1992 04:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Message to ip: I don't think we can take your claims seriously after all your personal attacks against me. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 05:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying a slightly wider rangeblock. EdJohnston (talk) 13:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it worked... Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The CIDR notation used by EdJohnston means he has blocked all addresses from 85.237.211.0 to 85.237.211.127 for a week and those from 85.237.211.176 to 85.237.211.191 for a month. I cannot guarantee that this guy will not go into the uncovered spots, but all we would need to do is make a larger rangeblock.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Editor continuing to insert POV content

After being warned, user Pepeleyva continues to insert personal commentary and POV regarding author Jon Krakauer in various articles. Diffs here:

• Jon Krakauer article: [4]; [5]; [6]
• Mount Everest article: [7]
• Anatoli Bourkeev article: [8]
• Regarding POV violations, editor was warned: [9]; [10];
• Regarding 3RR violations, editor was warned: [11]
• I have communicated with the editor on his talk page: [12]; [13]
• I have also communicated with the editor on my talk page: [14]
  

Based on the number of edits under his account, editor is relatively new, there seems to be a possibility of a language barrier (based on his writing), and he's certainly displaying a severe case of WP:IDHT as other editors have attempted to communicate with him as well. (talk→ LesHB ←track) 20:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

After other editors have expressed to this user that NPOV content is essential and POV content is a violation of policy (see here and here), User:Pepeleyva is now using an IP sock (User:201.130.205.234), inserting the same POV content here and here. He's now defiantly exhibiting WP:IDHT even though other editors have tried to work with him since this report was filed. And -- could someone take the time to explain to me why no one has touched this report since it was filed? Should I have not filed it or is there some other reason? (talk→ LesHB ←track) 17:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

LesHB is right. After LesHB reverted and warned Pepeleyva, an IP editor tried to add the contentious material back into Jon Krakauer and Anatoli Boukreev. LesHB caught one and I caught the other. Either a major coincidence or possibly some socking. I've placed all three articles (including Mount Everest) on my watch list, and encourage other editors to to the same. Thanks LesHB. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Bullying, canvassing, forum-shopping, railroading?

We've got something of a situation brewing over at Talk:Association of Global Automakers. An editor hired by a company to write "their" Wikipedia article is (successfully) canvassing and forum-shopping for accomplices to come in and bully, railroad, and shout down all those who question the rectitude and balance of the article:

On 21 December, Association of Global Automakers was started by WWB Too (talk · contribs), who declares he was hired by that company (as he has been hired by others; here, here, here, and here, for example) to write "their" article. WWB Too discloses his ("potential", as he sees it) conflict of interest in each of the several arenas where he discusses the article including the article talk page and the automobiles project page.

On 22 December, Jenova20 (talk · contribs) added what look to me like warranted templates to the article with what looks to me like an appropriate edit summary, and initiated discussion on the talk page, under which WWB Too objected to the templates on grounds of having stated on the automobiles project page his intent to write the article and posting a link to draft versions in his userspace. There was fairly civil conversation, which I joined on 28 December. Biker Biker (talk · contribs) joined in the discussion; like Jenova20, he and I raise our eyebrows (and support the templates' inclusion) at what looked like an overtly promotional piece written by an editor hired to do so, with no content that could shed less than warmly glowing light on the subject organisation.

On 29 December, WWB Too requested backup from Youreallycan (talk · contribs), who went to the article talk page, belligerently and incorrectly accused two of the wrong editors (myself [15] and Biker Biker [16][17]) of adding templates, twice disregarding the diff showing the actual origin of the templates.

Meanwhile, YouReallyCan seemed to take the position that reinstating templates unilaterally removed without consensus is the same as adding templates from scratch and appears to reject all disagreement (e.g., [18]) with that opinion. S/he repeatedly harassed me (by dint of repetition; the content itself wasn't of a harassing nature) on my talk page [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]—with odd demands that I cease removing "good faith discussions" from my own talk page and a strange threat to disregard my contributions to the discussion (which gives the appearance of a belief that s/he is an arbiter or otherwise privileged editor of some kind), and also badgered Biker Biker on his talk page in similar fashion [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]. On the article talk page, YouReallyCan mischaracterised the COI template as a punitive device [32], issued orders that other editors are not to add templates [33] [34] [35], and declared there to be no support for the templates' retention despite the editor who originally placed them stating he is temporarily unavailable for extensive editing during the holidays [36] and other editors including myself pointing out that there's no timeline or deadline for the removal of the templates except perhaps one that might come not from Wikipedia policy but from the agency that bought the article in the first place: [37] [38] [39] [40] [[41]].

YouReallyCan stated [42] that "templates are of little value to the project", then—just hours after they'd been put up—unilaterally removed the templates and went to war seven times in less than two hours with editors who reinstated them [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49]. This edit war gave rise to a 3RR report with black marks for Biker Biker (and perhaps for YouReallyCan; I can't tell) and a sysop's temporary PP of the article [50].

Also on 29 December, WWB Too requested backup from Tagishsimon (talk · contribs), who declared his own unilateral intent to remove the templates if his demand is not met within 48 hours for their justification to his satisfaction, then gave a nod and a wink to WWB Too ([51], scroll down).

I started a tangential conversation on Jimbo's talk page aimed at learning if or how his 2009 opinion on bought-and-paid editing has changed; this conversation was joined by YouReallyCan, WWB Too, Tagishsimon, Ebikeguy, and others; as of this writing Jimbo has yet to weigh in. It appears from that discussion that WWB Too counts his or her userspace as "somewhere else" for the purpose of compliance with Jimbo's opinion that it is perfectly fine for someone to set up an independent writing service for GFDL / CC BY / CC BY-SA content, to be posted somewhere else, and for completely independent wikipedians to find it useful in some way. I'm not sure that's what Jimbo meant by "somewhere else"; I think he probably meant somewhere off Wikipedia, but I'm not Jimbo so I can't say for sure.

I also made substantial and reliably-supported content contributions to the article in an attempt to address some of the issues raised in the templates [52]; these appear to have upset paid article author WWB Too, who has done what gives the appearance of additional canvassing and shopping for backup on that matter [53].

I am not comfortable with what looks and feels to me like a rather successful attempt at distributive paid ownership of an article, nor with the tactics being used to take and hold onto that power. All editors named in this report have been notified of this present discussion and linked to it. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C04:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• I saw the notice on Jimbo's talk page. I don't about the other editors and incidents that User:Scheinwerfermann references, but I'm looking into User:WWB Too. So far it appears that he's completely corrupt and should not be editing the Wikipedia. This is pretty hair raising stuff and swift and drastic action may be called for here. Herostratus (talk) 06:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Note that at least 2 editors pushing to sustain the same COI-fostered edits does strike me as alarming, as a potential WP:TAGTEAM effort, especially when one editor is targetting the individual opponent user-talk pages and re-posting warnings (multiple times within 3 minutes!) to user-talk pages when those users have re-deleted warnings from their own talk-pages (specifically: the edit diff-5507 un-reverting an editor's trimmed talk-page to insist a posted warning remain on that user-talk page). Forcing users to keep warnings on their talk-pages, in at least a 2-person effort to maintain COI-fostered edits, strikes me as very alarming. I will delay further detailed comments, to avoid giving "advice" here for how to be a less-pushy WP:TAGTEAM member. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not comfortable with the article, nor with the idea of someone being paid to write it. Especially since they (WWB Too) are now spending lots of effort to maintain the article in the shape and form that they (or their bosses) prefer to see. Better no article at all, in my opinion.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Many of the diffs given as evidence of bullying and harassment etc. show absolutely nothing of the sort. The article talk page is the place for the discussions - the use of this board to gain what one does not have at an article is fraught with peril, indeed. The issue of templates is always controversial, and is best dealt with by seeking consensus at the article talk page - not here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree. For example, one diff allegedly showing Youreallycan "issuing orders" to remove templates states: Not a single user has responded to my request to explain the reason for the templates here. Youreallycan (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC). This doesn't sound like an order to me. Another diff of a so-called "order" states: The templates were not there - you added them - either explain your reasons for adding the individual templates below or stop adding them - they were there before is no excuse to add them again. Youreallycan (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC). Again, I'm at a loss to see how this can be construed as an "order". Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 08:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• Look at more diffs; other diffs do show extreme evidence of bullying and harassment, plus taken as a whole set of posted messages, all diffs considered together show a pattern of obsessive behavior, in the manner of someone re-posting variations of "You had better not do it again" multiple times to a user-talk page within one hour. The problem is not the content of each diff, separately, it is the pattern of so many similar, repeated user-talk warnings within a few hours. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• Ypu mean like [54]? Sorry - I canna think of that diff as being harassment of anyone at all. YMMV, I guess. Collect (talk) 15:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• I personally don't care who writes an article or if they managed to get a few dollars for doing it. I think it's better to look at it and say to yourself - is it better than it was and if the answer is yes then great. The template bombing of this article appears to be more of a "reaction" to the declaration that the user got a few dollars for writing it, so it must be evil personified and needs exposing rather than there being specific content issues that can be clarified and resolved. Perhaps there is a degree of critical content that could be added, then, it's not finished, just quietly add it. The community is "no consensus" on paid editors and I have found WWB to be a decent writer to GA standard, that says close to policy - there is no reason to demonize him or his work for his good faith contributions. If the energy that had been put into this report had been put into clearly stating what the specific issues with the content are then any issues would have been resolved by now.Youreallycan (talk) 11:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not bothered by the conflict of interest, i'm bothered by writing on my talk page to assume good faith and remove the tags to allow the article to exist unedited though.

I'm bothered by the sneaky rephrasing of calling this group anything other than a lobby group.

I'm bothered by the obvious canvassing now.

I'm also bothered by the clear intent to break rules by WWB to get his own way and ignore the criticism given to him by the article, either by trying to charm his way out (my talk page) or by ignoring criticism (talk page of Mr Choppers).

Admitting a Conflict Of Interest is good, not acting on suggestions from well respected and knowledgeable editors like our Mr Choppers is another thing.

I support a cleanup or deletion, either way the article can't exist in current form and this Conflict of Interest clearly runs a lot deeper by the sheer audacity of WWB's actions.

I'm also the one who added the tags for anyone still wondering.

Thanks Jenova20 13:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you would respond to my questions on the talkpage then to please clearly explain the specific reasons and related content they refer to so I and anyone else that wants to can address your issues and work towards improving the article and removing the templates. I don't accept your claim that the article can't exist in its current form, there might be minor issues but not more than that a little editing will easily resolve - deletion - well you are welcome to nominate it but I don't see that deletion would be a possibility. - Youreallycan (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• The complete absence of any mention of lawsuits brought by the Association of Global Automakers is one glaring example of why the tags are necessary. I don't know if the lawsuits are "dirt" or not, but they do show us that COI editors suffer from a kind of myopia. I suppose the reason might be to softpeddle their activities: mere advocacy, mere friendly persuasion, rather than the truth that the auto industry group is also willing to use courts to force others to do things, or not do things that they wish to do. COI editors typically whitewash conflict and controversy and make everything seem all warm and happy.

  Also, an adequate summary of the lawsuit news stories would include the positions of those who were sued by the Association of Global Automakers. So the page would not longer be only a platform for the views of the Association, but would also contain a fair summary of the views of their opponents. The template {{COI}} exists to warn readers that in its current state, such opposing views are missing.

  Clearly, the correct response to the maintenance tags would have been to spent time finding missing content from the article, rather than running around to talk pages and deleting maintenance tags. Instead of repeatedly challenging others to explain the tags, go do a search at Google News and expand the article appropriately. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• Paid editing is a contentious issue, and in my view, in an ideal situation, it would not happen. But there is no consensus against it, and in practice it would be impossible to police. And the author has been open about it, which is a good thing. On the whole, I think decisions about articles like this should be based entirely on the article content itself. Had the exact same, word-for-word, article been written by someone else, would there be the same controversy? I suspect not. So I'm with Youreallycan here, and I think we should work to make this article better rather than just argue about who created it and their motivation. If anyone wants to add tags to any parts of the content, that's fine, but they should be prepared to explain what precisely is wrong with that content on the Talk page so that it can be addressed - and if they can't or won't do that when challenged, I think it is fair to remove the tags -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment See 1 January 2011 interview with WWB/William Beutler on C-SPAN Q&A, discussing his work on Wikipedia. I watched it live, and the transcript and video will be available later. It's being replayed live now. 99.50.186.111 (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment from the COI editor in question

It is very ironic that Scheinwerfermann complains about anyone's "bullying" on this topic, as this is a very apt description of his behavior throughout this whole episode. I would invite any interested editor to read through our correspondence on the Global Automakers discussion page and conclude anything but that he is going out of his way to make me feel unwelcome on Wikipedia (even on Talk pages), not to mention stonewalling anyone who would ask about his concerns with the original article. Meanwhile, he's deleted even friendly correspondence between the two of us on his Talk page, for reasons that are a mystery to me, and deleted my inquiries as to such, which is more mystifying still.

Among other issues, he seems to willfully misunderstand the concept of canvassing, or forum-shopping. The guideline, to which he linked in pressing his case, outlines appropriate and inappropriate requests for assistance, and I can't imagine I've wound up on the wrong side of it. What's considered appropriate: "Limited posting" (I pinged two uninvolved editors); "Neutral" (in each message I said it was OK if they declined to get involved); "Nonpartisan" (admittedly these are editors with whom I had previously interacted, and whose wisdom I respected); "Open" (at least no one has accused me of hiding my affiliation).

Meanwhile, on this page and relevant others, Scheinwerfermann has referred to the Global Automakers article as "'their' article" but whom he is quoting is anyone's guess. It appears as if he's quoting me, but I don't think I've said that, and if it's my phrasing, it would be incorrect—I surely don't claim ownership of the article, nor would I. That's different from saying that I agree with some of his recent changes to the article, but I will bring that up over there, in the next few days.

For anyone who is curious about the chronology of this disagreement before it expanded beyond the Global Automakers Talk page, please see the explanatory note I left here. I think it helps to put Scheinwerfermann's innuendo-laden description of recent events in proper perspective.

Anyway, I'm not sure what is Scheinwerfermann's point in bringing this up here. He doesn't seem to like that I was engaged by Global Automakers to create an article about them, but their notability doesn't seem to be in question, and the original article was not intended to be a puff piece, so pretty much everything about this baffles me. I am well aware that paid editing is controversial and for that reason I have made every effort to disclose my potential COI and to work within all applicable guidelines and policies, including WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR—the same guidelines and policies that Scheinwerfermann seems to think don't apply to him.

And for what it's worth—although it may not be much—my agreement with Global Automakers related to the article's placement, not to final content. At this point, for me, it's all about the fact that I think I created a neutral and worthwhile article, and that my work has been badly misrepresented. I'm now defending it because what's transpired is a detriment not necessarily to the goals of my client, but to those of Wikipedia. Best, WWB Too (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Update

I have edited this report to clarify my meaning in objecting to YouReallyCan's "harassing" me on my talk page. It was his or her deliberately repetitive badgering that felt like harassment; the content of his or her repetitive posts was mostly neutral. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C18:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for clarifying, although I think you are being too kind (in saying, "mostly neutral"), but I appreciate your turn towards leniency, since we need to find some ways to all work together. Perhaps "trout-slapping" :) would be an adequate sanction in this case, where COI editors want to edit-war, and threaten users to keep POV-tags out of a lobbyist's article. Meanwhile, let me re-iterate the problems in user behavior, to let people know these types of actions cause concern:

• New Year's Eve oblivion: If someone replies to a question that they need more time due to a multi-national holiday (replied diff-444), then a proper reply would be to thank them for their reason and accept a 3-day extension on the full reply, but not take the advantage, in their absence, and delete their 4 article-tags (diff-669) while knowing they are away.
• New Year's Eve edit-orders: It is not proper to restore deleted bark orders 3x times on a user-talk page ([55]) to demand of them, "state your reasons and the specific content".
• New Year's Eve non-consensus tag deletion: It is best to wait for consensus, after New Year's Eve, before deleting WP:NPOV tags or {{Puffery}} tags from an article (diff-669) when those tags are being discussed on the talk-page (diff-797). Posting an ultimatum requesting reasons for the bias-tag templates, at 13:49 (diff-084), and then seeing only 1 partial reply in 7 hours does not permit deletion of POV-tags on New Year's Eve without a wider consensus.

I will stop at those 3 issues, as enough of a reminder to allow a few more days for other editors to respond to talk-page questions. Again, I appreciate that others wish to approach these events with a lenient attitude, so that all editors can find ways to work together on any potential bias issues being discussed at "Talk:Association of Global Automakers". -Wikid77 (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Edits by User:Brikane / IP 66.130.71.165

There has been a swathe of edits on philological / ethnological / historical articles by User:Brikane and his IP, trying to push his own personal point of view concerning the linguistic / ethnic background of various ancient peoples, which unfortunately is completely unsupported by academic research and seems to be mostly home-grown. While such contributions come up from time to time, Brikane has taken this to a level of persistence I have hardly seen before, and likes to spice it by personal slurs against other editors, first and foremost against veteran User:Nortmannus, against whom he seems to have taken a particular dislike (he further insulted him on the French WP). He has been amply warned, both on his IP and his userpage, but has neither desisted (instead opting for frequent reverts) nor provided sources for his claims, nor has he used the talk page for constructive debate. Myself and other users have been spending a considerable amount of time undoing his contributions, but I cannot say that I want to make this my hobby. It's pretty tedious. Trigaranus (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Brikane's edits, IP edits

Now blocked for edit warring, personal attacks and abuse of multiple accounts. EdJohnston (talk) 06:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Ownership

Bwmoll3 has vicious WP:OWN issues. Attempts to redirect non-notable song stubs he has created have been undone bluntly. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wicked Ways (Patty Loveless song) for more reference. All of those articles have been redirected at least twice each by me and Eric444, with Bwmoll3 playing the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT card here when an uninvolved editor pointed out that the songs didn't meet WP:NSONGS. I've gone around the block before with this editor on Talk:Politics, Religion and Her (song), which led to a RFC that unanimously endorsed the decision to maintain that song as only a redirect. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

With all respect, TenPoundHammer blanks articles with a #redirect instead of proceeding through the AFD process. His short-cutting though the proper Wikipedia process is a judgmental process which does not permit the established methodology to function, and then he gets upset when he is reverted after not leaving any comments in the edit after him and Eric444 have done what they have decided to do. If they are self-appointed administrators, then they have to conform to the established procedures for what they wish to do. In addition, I was not notified of this clandestine discussion by him as shown in the above heading. Bwmoll3 (talk) 00:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I also must bring to the Administrators attention the Unilateral redirects without merging as stated in edit summaries - User:Wtshymanski on this page, as TenPoundHammer has in the past done this on several occasions to articles I have edited, and presumably to thousands of other articles which has has effectively deleted by the misuse of the #redirect command, which goes against the grain of WP:PRESERVE. Bwmoll3 (talk) 08:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

"....I've gone around the block before with this editor on Talk:Politics, Religion and Her (song), which led to a RFC that unanimously endorsed the decision to maintain that song as only a redirect. ...." There is no factual truth to these statements. I request he supply the logs of his false accusation. Bwmoll3 (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

AFD is not required when merges or redirects are involved. --MuZemike 01:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer does not merge articles with #redirects. He abuses the #redirect function to circumvent the RFD process Bwmoll3 (talk) 07:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, I am still waiting to see my comments on Talk:Politics, Religion and Her (song). As I never made any comments on that article, I'm curious to see what TenPoundHammer is falsely accusing me of writing Bwmoll3 (talk) 07:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Bwmoll3, there are some clear guidelines for when a song is notable - I believe you've already been directed to WP:NSONGS. If it doesn't meet the guideline, and isn't notable separately under WP:GNG, then redirecting it to the article on the album (or the artist) is the correct course, and does NOT require an Afd. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Understood Elen, however, if a #redirect is used, does that also not imply that the information in the song's article be merged into the album's article as part of the #redirect process? Bwmoll3 (talk) 08:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

There are two choices: either a redirect like the ones of which you're complaining, or a deletion debate that will result in the same redirect. Why force the bureaucratic AFD? Nyttend (talk) 03:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Because the RFD is the proper procedure for deletions. A #redirect is used when merging articles, or when a title of one article is another name for another article. Using #redirect in lieu of a proper RFD is a misuse of command, and does not allow a full and proper RFD which users can comment and a consensus reached. Bwmoll3 (talk) 07:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, that's not how things work. RFD is for the deletion of redirects; AFD is for the deletion of articles. There is no need whatsoever to discuss before redirecting a non-notable article; it is called being bold, and no content is deleted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

" 'Bwmoll3 has vicious WP:OWN issues. Attempts to redirect non-notable song stubs he has created have been undone bluntly. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wicked Ways (Patty Loveless song) for more reference. All of those articles have been redirected at least twice each by me and Eric444 Bwmoll3 playing the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT card here when an uninvolved editor pointed out that the songs didn't meet WP:NSONGS. I've gone around the block before with this editor on Talk:Politics, Religion and Her (song), which led to a RFC that unanimously endorsed the decision to maintain that song as only a redirect. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC) "

I find this entire statement very rude, childish, immature, as well as the statement being absolutely false and a blatant attempt to besmirched my reputation by presenting false statements as facts. This editor should apologize publicly to immediately and also be sanctioned severely for this false, slanderous accusation against me. Bwmoll3 (talk) 08:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You had better lose the quasi-legalese terminology, or you risk being booted from wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• Have we not spent enough time on this issue now? There's no need to have an AfD or RfD before redirecting an article (although there now is one, the likely result of which will be, er, redirect). TPH has been doing the right thing in redirecting these unreferenced permastubs. Bwmoll3 - this is not the massively important thing you think it is. Read the guidelines, get a grip, and put your undoubted enthusiasm for content creation to better use. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

With respect, I didn't start this. This incident was started by TenPoundHammer with his false and inflammatory comments on this page. I'm simply making my comments with regards to his actions. Bwmoll3 (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Another view would be that you created an issue by not adhering to policy/guideline, then complaining at people when they did, then refusing to pay attention when people tried to enlighten you of what the policies and guidelines are. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Ringing an admin on this.--Ankit Maity ^{Talk • contribs} 09:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

---

So...I have a problem

Over at AFC, there is a user who I highly suspect is a paid editor. Not only is their username Submissionexpert, but they have cited this website in their page submissions. I expect that they are most likely a paid editor, and even if they are not, the username is quite misleading, and I was wondering if any administrator would be willing to place some input on if they should be blocked or warned first. Thank you. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

There is currently no policy dealing with paid editors. There is a bried mention here in the Conflict of Interest guidelines that recommends certain behavior, but right now there is nothing expressly forbidding paid editing. If the user is being disruptive, spamming advertisements/links, or writing in a very POV manner though then that is a problem. Is anything like that going on?AerobicFox (talk) 04:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

All true, but the first contribution I looked at was WT:Articles for creation/Cable Lugs where there are three "references" to a supplier of the product in the article, and a spam external link, and a helpful "Competitive Advantages" stub section. Let's spend a week discussing whether the editor is likely to be productive. Johnuniq (talk) 06:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like everything they've tried to create so far has been blatantly promotional. All bar one have been attempts via AFC, and they have all been rejected, and the one created directly was deleted as a copyvio. I'll keep an eye on their edits and if they repeatedly create promotional material we can act on that -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Need admin to revert broken change to an infobox

Resolved

 – Prodego has reverted, and articles are good. Johnuniq (talk) 07:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

A recent edit at {{Infobox scientist}} has broken the template, and the admin has gone offline. Please see Template talk:Infobox scientist#Trouble displaying non-image fields. I believe that as the server's caches are refreshed, each article with this template will hide many of the fields currently shown. Examples where this has happened include Alain Connes and Bill Joy and Donald Knuth. All that's required is a quick revert—the fix can be sorted out later. Johnuniq (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Change dabs to real pages

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

---

Following pages should be real article pages, not dabs: monofluoride, trifluoride, tetrafluoride, pentafluoride.

See discussion here: [56]

Please make change (I think this is an admin-y power.)

TCO (Reviews needed) 03:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you need admin help. A disambig page is just a page you can edit to make it an article. Dicklyon (talk) 04:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It is coded different somehow, no? TCO (Reviews needed) 04:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope, just remove the {{dab}} or {{disambiguation}} at the bottom and have at it. 28bytes (talk) 04:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for explanation.TCO (Reviews needed) 04:24, 2 January 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.

Violation of interaction ban

Please see here and then: [57]. Chesdovi (talk) 02:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC) [posted here from Administrators' noticeboard. 03:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)]

I don't see how this is an iban violation – it's not a revert. WP:IBAN states that editors under an interaction ban are not restricted from editing the same articles as each other, they're just not permitted to interact in any way. A revert would be an interaction, but this is not a revert. I think it's best that you stop trying to catch this guy out. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 08:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, would you please explain this, with regards to this ban, which states you are banned from "adding categories to articles having to do with any notions of Palestinian or Israeli, broadly construed"? You came perilously close to a WP:BOOMERANG-related head injury last time. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 09:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

For some reason I was under the impression that I was unable to edit a page if the last edit was made by that other editor. With that overly cautious mindset now relaxed, I feel rather liberated. I am just sorry I was not fully aware of what the ban actually entailed to have to trouble anyone here. Regarding the adding of Category:Burials at Har HaMenuchot to the saintly Hidah of blessed memory, I believe that clause of the ban is in sink with the topic ban which only prevents me from editing on the conflict itself, meaning that only adding cats which stipulate a person as being Palestinian or Israeli would be off limits. Have a great and prosperous new year. Chesdovi (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Block of User:Wasirg

I'm writing to report Wasirg (talk · contribs), who sole edits thus far have been to add his company to Wikipedia. Most of his pages have been speedy deleted, only for him to re-add them later on. Most of his pages have been listed at AfD and I've been monitoring his edits because I knew that there was a high chance of him potentially re-adding the pages or adding other pages that were promotional in nature. I noticed that today he has removed the AfD notices from articles that he's created and he's also been deprodding every article that he created. I know that he's able to do this since it's not a speedy, but I wanted to state that he's been doing everything he can in order to keep his pages on Wikipedia, to the point where he's been warned over his previous actions.

I want him to be blocked because he's been warned over disruptive editing and he's clearly not stopping. (See User talk:Wasirg and [58].)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

Now blocked for continued removal of AfD banners after warnings. EdJohnston (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record, Tokyogirl, in the future, requests like this can more easily be made at WP:AIV. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know - looks like a spammer, not a vandal. Hopefully he won't resume the spamming after the two days are up. Doc talk 07:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't really think he's vandalizing as much as he's just trying to spam for his company, much like Doc said. He's disruptive (in my opinion), but he hasn't really edited any other articles in a way that would be seen as vandalizing. He's added his film company to a number of pages but other than that, not really anything that could be considered vandalizing. Thank you for blocking him, BTW. Hopefully the block will kind of give him a firm shake and make him realize that he's going about all of this the wrong way. I want to consider good faith, but when you've repeatedly tried to remove AfD notices and readd pages after they've been speedied...Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

1st sentence: "Akram is the son of noted scholar Md Zainul Haque and Noorjahan Khatoon."[59] Not only is there no "note" (meaning an actual citation) for the "noted" part; there are two people listed under the one scholar credit. Maybe it was a typo. A cut and dried case of non-notable SPAM. Doc talk 08:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Without reading any more besides the last two comments, another option for these sorts of circumstances could be the conflict of interest noticeboard (or WP:COIN). ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 08:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I encourage Tokyogirl79 to open up a case at WP:COIN. They are best equipped to handle this. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary, as none of the stuff he's created is in any way notable and it is all pretty much certain to be deleted via PROD or Afd within the next week or so -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. COIN is for subtle COI issues. AIV will tackle spammers, or it can be reported here - this is an incident requiring administrator involvement - edit warring to remove AfD templates is blockable, spam is blockable, using Wikipedia for advertising is blockable. Someone needs to start a conversation with him, but I'm not convinced he reads his talkpage. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

What does one do when

Resolved

A new user keeps adding huge images to an article which has about twenty lines in it? See Matías Di Gregorio Darkness Shines (talk) 06:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Not a matter for ANI. I'll keep an eye on it. On a different note, you are a bit too liberal with the "vandalism"-button. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, hit the wrong one, was going for rollback. Sorry about that. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It certainly is a matter for AN/I if a user is being disruptive and edit warring which this user clearly seems to be doing.--Crossmr (talk) 08:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

No, not at all. I only posted here as I was unsure were else I should ) The guy is new and obviously a fan, I figured if a few users let him know what he ought not do then he would perhaps listen. I think it has worked. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Well it looks like the user in question reverted you 3 times, that's the line for edit warring. A user behaving like that is certainly an issue for AN/I, and I have no idea why Seb is claiming otherwise.--Crossmr (talk) 12:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Because that would be an issue for WP:AN/EW, I believe? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

MyMoloboaccount

I'm currently engaged in a dispute with User:Volunteer Marek and suggested to ask for a WP:3O to solve the ongoing discussion[60]. 5 minutes after I made the suggestion to ask for a third opinion User:MyMoloboaccount appeared for the first time and made a short comment[61]. As the dispute remained a discussion between Volunteer Marek and me, I continued and started a 3O request. Molobo immediately followed me up [62] and pointed out that there are more than just two editors engaged in the dispute (the third one is him), thus the 3O request was declined. MyMoloboaccount, who has a long tradition of coordinated editing with Volunteer Marek (formerly User:Radeksz), obviously joint the discussion on purpose, immediately after a 3O request was mentioned, to disrupt the request and a fast adjustment. MyMoloboaccount's support of Marek's version also circumvented WP:3RR, their cooperative editing ensured the implementation of "their" version. HerkusMonte (talk) 17:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I added my view way earlier than any request by Herkus for 30, also I commented and edited on that issue already on 3rd December 2011 so I am certainly not foreign to the topic discussed[63].obviously joint the discussion on purpose, immediately after a 3O request was mentioned, to disrupt the request A very striking show of bad faith, especially since I edited the article and the issue months before. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

As the dispute remained a discussion between Volunteer Marek and me This is incorrect. These two edits show that dispute was already in place before in December

• [64]
• [65]

So I was engaged in this already and commented as soon as I could, when it came to the main discussion page.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec)

• User:MyMoloboaccount appeared for the first time - not true. Even a cursory look at the talk page shows that MMA was quite active on the article's talk page before.
• MyMoloboaccount, who has along tradition of coordinated editing with Volunteer Marek - false, unsubstantiated accusation. The link provided by HM shows nothing of the kind. This is a kind of baseless attack that should invite a WP:BOOMERANG.
• to disrupt the request - there was nothing disruptive here. It looks like the rationale was agreed with by a person at 3O: [66].
• MMA noted his disagreement with HM, before [67] (15:55) HM filed the 3O request (16:05).
• MyMoloboaccount's support of Marek's version also circumvented WP:3RR - bullshit, pretty much outright lying. There was no 3RR here. At best, even if you count our reverts as that of one person, that'd be two reverts on Jan 2. One by me. One by MMA - noting his disagreement with HM, per WP:BOLD. If HM honestly thinks this was a 3RR violation, then take it to 3RR board. Otherwise, stop making stuff up.
• their cooperative editing ensured the implementation of "their" version - there was no "cooperative editing" here. Evidence? It's an article that both of us have edited before. We happen to agree on an issue. HM doesn't like this. So he's making groundless accusations.

This is exactly the kind of bad-faithed request which blatantly misrepresents a situation that WP:BOOMERANG was written for.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

MMA was not involved in the current dispute before I suggested a 3O request, he appeared 5 minutes after and "torpedoed" the request within minutes.

MMA and VM are not trying to resolve the dispute but to find a way to push their version

To push opponents into 3RR was a proven method of the WP:EEML ("circumvent" is an imprecise term for that, sorry)

I don't think VM is seriously denying his and MMA's membership in the EEML, the underlying battleground mentality seems to reappear here.

It's hard to assume good faith facing such a way to deal with "opponents". HerkusMonte (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

MMA and VM are not trying to resolve the dispute but to find a way to push their version - again, plainly false. Need I point out that *I* am the one who had to initiate talk page discussion on this topic [68], after you started going through and reverting my edits across several articles without so much as an explanation (except perhaps the insulting "POVpushing"[69])? It really takes some gall for someone who doesn't even bother to discuss issues on talk unless forced to do so to accuse others of not wanting to "resolve the dispute".

I don't think VM is seriously denying ... blah blah blah. Crying "witch", poisoning the well, and trying to smear editors one has a content disagreement with is a time honored tactic of bad faithed pov pushers everywhere. The underlying battleground mentality is the one that is still trying to win some battle from three or four years ago Herkus.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

MMA was not involved in the current dispute before Again incorrect Herkus.

• [70]Revision as of 16:31, 3 December 2011 MyMoloboaccount (minor, Poles were missing in the description]-- So I already pointed out this issue on 3rd December 2011, as to the rest that's a whole lot of baseless bad faith attacks.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

A single edit a month ago is not part of the current discussion. HerkusMonte (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

This is the same issue, same topic, same edit discussed. It concerns the same subject and the same debate. So sorry but it completely discredits your bad faith accusations that I "suddenly" came to the discussion. I was interested in this issue for a long time--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Darkness Shines after warning at ANI

Resolved

Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Darkness Shines are escalating even more after he was warned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive733#Personal attacks from IP editor for the same. I reported him for his edit war on multiple pages which got protected as a result and also told an administrator about the report, who was previously called in for intervention on one of the articles and was keeping a check on the content dispute. Now this personal attack he very recently made on me at another user's talk page is out right blatant [71]. How much more for enough? (Note that this report is strictly for personal attacks lest all the disputed content start spilling here). --lTopGunl (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

TG, go have a nice cup of tea, I believe the stress is getting to you. Cheerio. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The next person who makes a personal attack, who goads another editor, who hounds another editor's contributions, or generally acts distuptively in this dispute will be blocked. I really mean it. I'm getting sick of people acting like 12 year olds. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Having seen the efforts made by Magog the Ogre on this long-running dispute about topics involving Pakistan and India, I suggest that other admins may want to support his efforts. With some frustration I closed a 3RR case recently involving some of these editors. Because so many people were behaving badly and not waiting for consensus, no blocks seemed logical at that time. In the future, persistent warring and bad behavior across a range of articles is certainly worth taking admin action on, and I hope that Magog will advise on what further measures he thinks advisable. Already one of the editors involved, User:JCAla, has requested that Magog disqualify himself from further admin action regarding him. In my view JCAla should get extra credit for chutzpah. A set of community topic bans for all the editors involved in the recent 3RR report is one of the options to consider for the future. EdJohnston (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I have a proposal for atleast one article which is the main point of contention: Talk:Taliban#Consensus by community to enforce 1RR on this article. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:ChristianHistory against me, User:R-41

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.

ChristianHistory blocked indefinitely by MastCell. See sections below about a consensus on a topic ban that would have to be taken into consideration if an unblock is requested. NW (Talk) 00:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

---

User:ChristianHistory has engaged in slanderous personal attacks against me, including accusing me of being racist without evidence, launched an ad hominem attack against me that called me a "lover of lies", and has insinuated that I am part of a "conspiracy" of anti-fascists intending to discredit fascism. See the "January 2012" section of the talk page for this: [72]. User:Rivertorch told ChristianHistory that he/she was engaged in personal attacks against me, before I was alerted by Rivertorch about ChristianHistory's personal attacks. Now ChristianHistory will respond that I have been slanderous to him, saying that I am accusing him of being anti-Semitic and a neo-Nazi. This is based on a discussion on the Talk:Fascism#Secondary_sources article where ChristianHistory accused the article of being biased in favour of allegedly "unreliable" Jewish, American, and British scholars, and stated that there was a Jewish and anti-fascist conspiracy to discredit fascism, I assumed that he may have been a neo-Nazi or anti-Semitic fascist attempting to force a change in the article involving removal of Jewish, or allegedly "anti-fascist" sources. Many users on the Fascism talk page held a similar view on ChristianHistory and condemned her/his propositions as being prejudiced, to which ChristianHistory refused to partake in cooperative discussion and responded in bellicose aggressive manner to them. I entered the discussion by stating that ChristianHistory was not being cooperative to other users, was promoting the removal of Jewish, British, and American scholars' information based on a prejudiced and xenophobic view of them as being automatically "unreliable" sources based on their culture. I stated that further discussion with ChristianHistory was pointless and that the section should be considered as a soapbox, as ChristianHistory refused to listen to the criticisms of other users and was determined to force the issue on the article. ChristianHistory accusing me of being racist with no evidence, being a "lover of lies", and being part of a conspiracy is very slanderous, and he/she was warned previously by Rivertorch not to proceed in this manner, I suggest that disciplinary action be taken by Wikipedia administrators on ChristianHistory for her/his blatant violation of Wikipedia's policy of opposition to personal attacks.--R-41 (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't have time for a long winded argument. R-41 has already taken up much of my day. Any honest person can see R-41 doesn't care to follow the NPA guidelines he pretends to uphold. According to him, anyone who challenges unsourced, unfounded, and contradictory claims is an "anti-Semitic neo-Nazi". --ChristianHistory (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

ChristianHistory, given that you started the relevant talk page section with an implication that someone being Jewish was sufficient grounds to discount their material as "propaganda and nonsense" [73], I'd say that suggestions that you are an antisemite are entirely reasonable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't hold Jews to be a "race", so I don't know how I can be "anti-Semitic". Besides Arabs, Lebanese, Syrians, etc. are Semites, so what does Semitism have to do with anything? --ChristianHistory (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Apparently you don't know what anti-Semitism is. We have an article about it. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)To Andy, and if not that, the bit "there is way too much reliance on secondary sources" is pretty much totally ignorant of the WP:PSTS section of WP:NOR. To ChristianHistory, dismissing the difference in culture as "not a race" is not a defence against a charge of antisemitism. There's cultural antisemitism, religious antisemitism, political antisemitism... Racial antisemitism is only one type. Indeed, cultural antisemitism denies that Jews have a race, and accuse their religion and culture of being problems. Many of these individuals try to disprove any genetic distinction between Jews and Gentiles, (which is a recurring problem at Talk:Khazars) to try to argue they should adhere to Gentile culture. In your defense, though, you also unreasonably dismiss American and British sources here on the English language Wikipedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

So basically if Jews are a race, then I'm a racist. And if Jews aren't a race, I'm still a racist. That's so convenient, isn't it? The whole "anti-Semitic neo-Nazi" label is just a bunch of crap used to silence discussion and weed out those who dare to oppose the majority of editors on clearly slanted propaganda pieces that is the article on Fascism. See my talk page for responses to the other accusations. --ChristianHistory (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

No, acknowledging genetic differences between Jews and Gentiles doesn't make one a racist, and acknowledging that Jews are part of the same species as Gentiles doesn't make make one a racist, both statements are true. It's when one goes to extremes with either position (saying that Jews are seperate from humanity, or saying that Jews shouldn't be different than anyone else) that it becomes a problem. Implying that Jewish sources are invalid just because they're Jewish leans towards the "saying Jews shouldn't be different" position. Also, you have not responded to the point that your call to drop "unreliable" American, British, and Jewish sources and instead use sources by first hand fascist propaganda goes completely against WP:NOR. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand that users are addressing the issue of claims of anti-Semitism here involving her/his extremely controversial proposal on the Talk:Fascism article to discount sources written by Jewish, British, and American scholars. But please, let's get back to the point of ChristianHistory's personal attacks, he/she has called me a racist with no evidence, launched an ad hominem attack against me that I am a "lover of lies", and the insinuation that I am part of an anti-fascist "conspiracy".--R-41 (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that stuff's unacceptable too. Actually, given the nature of Fascism, I'd venture to say that being pro-fascist would be the aberrant position, and being "anti-fascist" would be neutral. That, the call to replace reliable sourcess (because they don't support Hitler and Mussolini) with original research based on fascist sources, and the personal attacks all add up to a problematic editor. I'm inclined to suggest a topic and interaction ban, thought I don't have the wording for it yet. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I lost my response again because apparently R-41 doesn't know how to proof-read anything he/she/it writes and has to keep editing his/her/its responses over and over again. And point proven with Ian's last response -- this has nothing to do with attacks, and everything to do with politics and POV. --ChristianHistory (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I think there are two issues: 1) The antisemitic comments, which include both the proposal that sources written by Jewish authors cannot be used as secondary sources for the Fascism article, as well as other veiled comments ("I think what we have is more of a confirmatory and Ingroup bias on the part of certain people. You're a smart guy, I'm sure you'll figure out who eventually."), and 2) the personal attack made against R-41 here immediately after being warned not to do so. Singularity42 (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

And now Singularity decides to join in the lying too. And yes, I say lying since you were on my talk page and have read it, so you know better. --ChristianHistory (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I identified the two issues that have been raised in this thread. In any event, I specifically linked to the diffs in question. Where exactly have I "lied"? Singularity42 (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)No, ChristianHistory, you calling him a racist for having a problem with Nazis is a serious problem. R-41 called for the exclusion of fascist propaganda, which is in line with WP:NPOV (and indirectly with WP:NOR). You have been calling for the exclusion of British, American, and Jewish sources because of their heritage. That's racist. If R-41 had said "no German or Italian sources" that would be a problem, but he didn't say that. If you had said "no Communist sources," that wouldn't be racist. But you said "British, American, and Jewish" sources, which excludes them based on their heritage, not their politics.

Also, I'd like to propose a topic ban: It seems that it would be best if ChristianHistorian stay away from articles pertaining to Fascism, and should probably avoid topics relating to Jews and Judaism as well. Given his focus on hagiography, I wouldn't suggest blocking him from that, so by "relating to Judaism," I mean directly related to the Jewish religion, people, or culture, except in areas which overlap with Christianity (which may be edited provided the edits affect the Christian content of the article).

EDIT: This is just a minimum proposal. Expanding to "banned from all modern political topics" would be another option. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Beyond antisemitism, which is obvious, this diff displays some critical misunderstandings of our sourcing requirements, especially WP:PRIMARY. If ChristianHistory wants to take other people's opinions into account then I'd oppose a topic ban, but if he goes on arguing then there might not be any other option. An anti-semite can edit Wikipedia constructively, but saying that any source written by a Jew is unreliable is not going to get off the ground here. (It's painful that I have to say that in 2011 2012.) causa sui (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

psst, happy new year, causa sui. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 21:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Singularity, you reiterate the lie when you say that I wanted all Jewish, British, and American sources removed -- see my talk page (again). Ian: 'Jewish', 'British', and 'American' is not a race so how can it be "racism"? See my talk page. And you know what, I'm getting really tired of this FALSE, CALUMNIATING "anti-Semitism" label. I propose every one of you be banned. --ChristianHistory (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You're implying that they should be excluded because of their heritage. From the Racism article: "Racism" and "racial discrimination" are often used to describe discrimination on an ethnic or cultural basis, independent of their somatic (i.e. "racial") differences. According to the United Nations conventions, there is no distinction between the term racial discrimination and ethnicity discrimination.

I have seen your talk page. You are implying they should be exclude because of what culture were born in, instead of what political views they adopted later in life. If you weren't, there would have been no point in mentioning the nationality of the authors. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Now ChristianHistory has accused User:Singularity42 of lying. As everyone can now see, ChristianHistory is totally out of control, he/she is slandering anyone who is in disagreement with her/him as liars. This is complete contempt for Wikipedia's guidelines - especially for ChristianHistory to have the audacity to make a personal attack against a user investigating personal attacks made by ChristianHistory against another (me, R-41). I support that ChristianHistory be completely banned from Wikipedia, he/she has no intention of upholding Wikipedia guidelines at all.--R-41 (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I should point out, as the one accused of "lying" by ChristianHistory, I would nonetheless not be in support of such a drastic move. I'm more inclined to support a limited topic ban along the lines of what is being proposed, as well as perhaps a "one strike" rule for further personal attacks. Singularity42 (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Look just a few sections above this, one minute after I posted that ChristianHistory has accused Singularity42 of lying, now ChristianHistory is saying: "I propose every one of you be banned". ChristianHistory is totally out of control and is slandering everyone who has disagreed with her/him. ChristianHistory has used up his strikes, he has attacked "every one" who disagrees with him. I urge administrators to completely ban ChristianHistory from Wikipedia and that he/she not be permitted to return to Wikipedia - he has completely and utterly defiled Wikipedia guidelines.--R-41 (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Why? He's behaving inappropriately but he's not posing any kind of imminent danger. It's too soon for a full ban and doing it now would just be punitive. Let's make some effort shall we? causa sui (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

He just removed this that I criticized him for adding minutes ago to cover up evidence that he is slandering many people, this is what he said:

"Singularity, you reiterate the lie when you say that I wanted all Jewish, British, and American sources removed -- see my talk page (again). Ian: 'Jewish', 'British', and 'American' is not a race so how can it be "racism"? See my talk page. And you know what, I'm getting really tired of this FALSE, CALUMNIATING "anti-Semitism" label. I propose every one of you be banned. --ChristianHistory (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)"

My mistake, another user added a section below it, I lost track of where it was, it is still there, my mistake.--R-41 (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't delete that from here, check the history. R-41's agenda is purely political. At least I'm straightforward. R-41 is acting like a deceitful politician, with pretended outrage to get me booted. He just sees me as a "threat" to Wikipedia, like I'm a big bad Nazi out to devour him and all Wikipedia content. --ChristianHistory (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I just said above your statement that I made a mistake, you are correct, you did not remove it. But you are in no position to criticize me for ill intention, you have just stated "I propose every one of you be banned" and you have ignored the multiple statements in this section by users. You have shown complete contempt towards every user in this discussion.--R-41 (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

To ChristianHistory: I fail to see how I misrepresnted what you proposed. Throughout Talk:Fascism#Secondary sources, you stated that post-war Jewish, American, and British acholars are not reliable for the topic of Fascism.

To Ian.thomson: I think your original topic ban is in the right track. The alternative "all modern political topics" seems to broadly worded for what we're dealing with here. I would also suggest a "one-strike" rule for future personal attacks. Singularity42 (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• On another point, I think ChristianHistory's comments on DIREKTOR's talkpage are quite inappropriate. We need less of that. If there's been any initial baiting which leads ChristianHistory to such comments, then the baiting would be inappropriate too, but I didn't see any in my brief glance round... bobrayner (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Singularity. ChristianHistory definitely isn't responding well to counseling and the disruption is severe enough that we shouldn't let it continue. Is it time for a straw poll now? causa sui (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok then. I'm assuming "one-strike" means "block for any future attacks," and not "given one warning for future attacks and then blocked." Ian.thomson (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Very well, I will agree with Singularity 42's proposal for a topic ban and "one-strike" rule. As I am the person who brought forward the issue, I don't think a vote by me would count, nor should count - I leave it up to you, but I am just stating that I support Singularity42's proposal.--R-41 (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors are not necessary for "discrediting" fascism - Hitler and Musollini did a pretty good job of doing that, all by themselves. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Could there be a clarification of what articles "related to Fascism" implies? Just so it is clearly known what this means.--R-41 (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess I meant: at large, fascist governments in theory or practice, and their advocates, critics, practitioners, opposers, or victims; except the people are notable for other issues (e.g. Pope John Paul II), provided the content is not related to fascism, and the legacies of the previously mentioned. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It's worse than that. He shouldn't be editing anything connected with religion or politics. If he wants to edit articles about basket-weaving, that might be safe. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I mostly agree (I hsve not been shown evidence he should be banned from articles on hagiographies where Jews are not mentioned), I don't think that's as likely to get through. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Since he's now indef'd as a probable sock, we likely don't need to worry about a topic ban. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Apparently I'm involved in this, since it spilled over onto my talk page. While a topic ban for ChristianHistory might be helpful in theory, I'm concerned that it wouldn't solve anything. ChristianHistory began editing under that username less than two weeks ago but claims to have "been here for over four years" and clearly has a working knowledge of WP. Whether he or she was editing as an IP or under a different account, I have no idea. Taking AGF to extremes, the best I can assume is gross incompetence; otherwise, he or she appears to be abusing multiple accounts or being deliberately disruptive or both. Clearly, he or she has an agenda that is at odds with our core policies, and close watching is warranted. Rivertorch (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't the IP address of ChristianHistory be checked to see if he/she has abused multiple accounts (a.k.a. sockpuppetry).--R-41 (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

To Rivertorch: Hm... yeah, that is concerning. If anyone knows of a previous user whose behavior resembles his, it'd be nice to know. He tends to hang in areas I'm not usually present in, so I couldn't recognize any MO if I looked.

To R-41: From my understanding of the SPI guidelines, we need more evidence, like similar behavior with another account. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand this. An investigation of banned users who have participated in the same material edited by ChristianHistory would likely determine if ChristianHistory is abusing multiple accounts. Typically a banned user who abuses accounts will open a new account shortly after one has been banned, so perhaps an investigation of recently banned users partaking in editing of similar material as ChristianHistory has.--R-41 (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for ChristianHistory

ChristianHistory may no longer edit articles relating to Fascism, and may not edit any articles concerning the Jewish people, culture, or religion, except where such articles overlap with non-Jewish content and then only to edit the non-Jewish content. Furthermore, he is under a "one-strike" rule on any future personal attacks, and will be blocked if he makes any more. EDIT: "relating to fascism" refers to articles at large which concern fascist governments in theory or practice, their advocates, critics, practitioners, opposers, or victims; except the people are notable for other issues (e.g. Pope John Paul II), provided the content is not related to fascism; as well as the legacy of the previously mentioned. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Given his inability to accept that he has made attacks against other editors, his call to violate WP:NOR on Fascism, and his inability to respect Jews; some action is needed, but given that he is otherwise useful a complete community ban is not needed. Hopefully, I should not need to have said "not needed yet." Ian.thomson (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support - The editor clearly has no business editing anything remotely connected with religion or politics. His attitude also shames his user ID, but that's another story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support - doesn't even accept that he has done wrong, let alone that he will change his ways. GiantSnowman 20:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support Obviously needed causa sui (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support - as the minimum necessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support - for the reasons already given -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support but am dubious it will work, per my comment above. Rivertorch (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I'm dubious that it will have any benefit as I think this guy is clearly on a crusade, but this is the first step to putting an end to this, and put an end to it we must. This is disgraceful behaviour. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support, but also urge calmness from all: ChristianHistory is out of control but not "totally." There are no grounds to institute a sock-puppet investigation. Yopienso (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support though I agree with others that this may be a temporary solution before more drastic measures are needed. Yopienso thank your for removing the bolding as it is not needed and often leads to the opposite of what is being demanded. CH own words are why a sockpuppet investigation may be necessary. Though, I fear, it will be hard to find any one editor who this might be. This kind of editing goes back at least as far as User:Fourdee if not further and is a mind set about what is and isn't racism/hatred etc. MarnetteD | Talk 21:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC) My bolding was a typo--accidental double instead of single quotes after "Support." Yopienso (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Oblivious. Labeling Singularity42/Direktor indicates trouble with issues. Glrx (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support per nom - we cannot allow such behavior to disrupt the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

• Let's cut this short. I've indefinitely blocked ChristianHistory (talk · contribs). First of all, this editor claims to have been editing for four years, using various other accounts. If that's the case, then his abject disregard for this site's content and sourcing policies is likely intractable. On top of that, in this account's short history it's provided a laundry list of virtually every sort of behavior that Wikipedia needs less of.

  Personally, the combativeness, soapboxing, and agenda (that Mussolini, Hitler, and fascism are "misunderstood") are strongly reminiscent of Billy Ego (talk · contribs), a prolific sockpuppeteer banned for, among other things, his incessant pro-fascist advocacy. The Billy Ego accounts are likely way too stale for a checkuser, and I think the point is largely academic since there are ample grounds for a block in this account's edits, even taken in isolation.

  If another admin wishes to unblock ChristianHistory, then they have my permission so long as the terms of the unblock include the topic ban described above. But I really think we've already spent enough time on this. It's clear this editor is here for the wrong reasons, and if he hasn't learned in 4 years (and is continuing to create new accounts to troll others on the basis of his political and racial viewpoints), then he's never going to learn. MastCell ^Talk 00:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Good block. I'm going to close this; I don't think we need to waste any additional discussion time on it. NW (Talk) 00:25, 3 January 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.

Unacceptable POV pushing by User:Plot Spoiler

Before any edit war starts, that can get me banned, I wish to seek involvement of administrators in what I see as a serious issue of bias and double standards on such an unacceptable level, by a user named Plot Spoiler, who, BTW, is in violation of the 3RR with this edit. The dispute evolves around a raid carried out by Iraqi security forces against the Mujahedin-e Khalq terrorist group. Referring to a raid by American, British, French, or Israeli forces against a group such as al-Qaeda, the Taliban or Hamas, in which only members of this terrorist organisation were killed, as a "massacre" or a "mass-muder" would be completely unacceptable (and I there is not one example of such labeling in Wikipedia) and thus the same standards should be applied to a terrorist group that targets Iranians and Iraqis. He also insists on removing the sourced fact that the group is designated as a terrorist organisation by Iran, Iraq and the United States from the beginning of the article, and as I said, he is in violantion of the 3RR. Looking at the category page "Category:Mass murder in 2011" you can also see that the articles listed are soley terrorist attacks/bombings or random civilian shootings, not a single article about a government raid against a militant/insurgent group is listed in there and if we look at "Category:Massacres in Iraq," we can see the Iraqi security forces raid against the terrorist camp is equally out of place. It is clear the user in question will not compromise or let necessary edits be done and therefore I will not touch the article as to prevent and edit war, and instead call on administrators need to intervene.Kermanshahi (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

OP is forum shopping. Oh, and I have notified the user about these threads. GiantSnowman 20:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know exactly what was the right forum to post it. This one or the general one?Kermanshahi (talk) 20:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I've closed the Kermanshahi's 3RR complaint against Plot Spoiler with a warning to both parties. Kermanshahi should be aware that forum shopping won't win any more support for his case (going to 3RR + AN + ANI). The steps of dispute resolution are open to you. If you want to try opening an WP:RFC to get more opinions let me know if you need any assistance. EdJohnston (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Today's Internet death rumour is Fidel Castro

His death is suddenly trending on Twitter, but it seems to be nothing but an Internet rumour at this point. The last time we had an Internet rumour on NYE - Robert Plant in that case - semi-protection wasn't adequate to protect the article (autoconfirmed editors were the culprits), so I'd ask people who hang around here to keep an eye on Fidel Castro before an actual incident report needs to be filed. (I know this isn't an incident yet, but it's a heavily watched board so it seemed the right place.) --NellieBly (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thankfully, the page is already semiprotected, so there likely won't be as much vandalism as there would be without anything at all. Nyttend (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's not exactly vandalism; it's disruptive, but the editors are adding the information in good faith. They're just so intent on being first that they forget the consequences of being first with the wrong information. --NellieBly (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Secondary rumor: It may be related to a computer virus.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Psychology questionnaire sites with commercial advertisements spammed.

There are users posing as psychology professionals and posting their own domains with psychology questionnaires which has Google Adsense links on them and also attempting to replace existing non-profit relevant links with his own commercial sites.

I have submitted a blacklist for the domains posted by this user, who has previously been suspended for sock puppetry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#psychology-tools.com_.26_psymed.info

The range of spams posted over the time spans many articles and it damages the quality of the articles and Wikipedia reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Booyahshakashogun (talk • contribs) 09:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Problems with user 88.247.101.165 and 46.196.33.96.

Hello again, Last week talked about this users and i felt that you don't believe me. The users I mentioned are the same person. One day before this user: 88.247.101.165 , and yesterday, with user 46.196.33.96. ( one of them warned more than once!!!!!!!!) Two of these users did not reply answers to me or they arguing with me about the same issues. They don't bring me their proof and they simply change the article, I got proof (on the talk page of Ben Gurion Airport) and they ignored them. I noticed that this 2 users edit the same things and always edit the same articles (especially Turkish airports). PLEASE HELP ME!!!--Friends147 (talk) 10:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I am not very knowledgeable with this area but perhaps you should seek assistance with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports, to have more people watching these pages and build a stronger consensus. In the meantime, I have blocked both IPs for 1 week since they have made no attempt to communicate despite the warnings on their talk page. -- Luk ^talk 11:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Please change image:box to use the right template instead of existing as a redirect

Please set Image:Box.jpg to have Image:Image.gif on it (a warning image) or something else like that, instead of existing as a redirect as it does now. Banaticus (talk) 12:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe you see the redirect because it is set that way on Commons: [74]. Perhaps it should be changed there instead? -- Luk ^talk 14:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Infinitesimal knowledge

Resolved

 – IP blocked for antisemitic trolling and inability to edit collaboratively. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

In Talk:Infinitesimal, 12.176.152.194 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has added personal attacks against editors (myself, Tkuvho (talk · contribs), Thenub314 (talk · contribs), and a few others) and some other specific living mathematicians. It's been suggested that this edit justifies a block. Whether or not I agree, it's an attack against me, so I cannot block because of it. Comments? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Even forgetting the personal insults, he indicates both anti-semitism and sockpuppetry. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see the sockpuppetry. He was at another IP before, but he admits it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:block also sites "personal, professional, or legal threats (including outside the Wikipedia site)" as a blockable offence, I think it applies here. Sasha (talk) 06:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

This edit contains the following comment: Here I am, superior to Newton, Leibniz and Cauchy. Now Rubin who is a worm next to me, which would seem to justify a block together with comments already mentioned. Tkuvho (talk) 11:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Anytime you come up against superior intellect, your last desperate response is to silence an individual. Rubin has been disdainful and insulting in his communications with me. Attacking one's intelligence is a personal attack. Rubin was looking for and initiated a squabble. Of all the users, the problem only occurred with Rubin. And this is not a new thing, as we have communicated in the past. This is all a facade by Rubin. If you block me, it means nothing to me. Wikipedia loses, not I. Rubin, what I suggest to you is this: if you cannot take it, don't dish it out. Your disdainful attitude is a personal attack. 12.176.152.194 (talk) 11:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

This is textbook trolling. Block him and move on. 74.98.35.216 (talk) 14:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked for 72 hours for the antisemitic trolling and inability to edit collaboratively. If there are any further edits in the same vein after the block expires, the IP can be reblocked for longer. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Psychology questionnaire sites with commercial advertisements spammed.

There are users posing as psychology professionals and posting their own domains with psychology questionnaires which has Google Adsense links on them and also attempting to replace existing non-profit relevant links with his own commercial sites.

I have submitted a blacklist for the domains posted by this user, who has previously been suspended for sock puppetry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#psychology-tools.com_.26_psymed.info

The range of spams posted over the time spans many articles and it damages the quality of the articles and Wikipedia reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Booyahshakashogun (talk • contribs) 09:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Problems with user 88.247.101.165 and 46.196.33.96.

Hello again, Last week talked about this users and i felt that you don't believe me. The users I mentioned are the same person. One day before this user: 88.247.101.165 , and yesterday, with user 46.196.33.96. ( one of them warned more than once!!!!!!!!) Two of these users did not reply answers to me or they arguing with me about the same issues. They don't bring me their proof and they simply change the article, I got proof (on the talk page of Ben Gurion Airport) and they ignored them. I noticed that this 2 users edit the same things and always edit the same articles (especially Turkish airports). PLEASE HELP ME!!!--Friends147 (talk) 10:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I am not very knowledgeable with this area but perhaps you should seek assistance with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports, to have more people watching these pages and build a stronger consensus. In the meantime, I have blocked both IPs for 1 week since they have made no attempt to communicate despite the warnings on their talk page. -- Luk ^talk 11:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Please change image:box to use the right template instead of existing as a redirect

Please set Image:Box.jpg to have Image:Image.gif on it (a warning image) or something else like that, instead of existing as a redirect as it does now. Banaticus (talk) 12:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe you see the redirect because it is set that way on Commons: [75]. Perhaps it should be changed there instead? -- Luk ^talk 14:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Accusations of Sockpuppetry on Article Discussion Pages/Other Users' Talk Pages

User:Keizers has edited multiple editors' talk pages and discussion pages accusing me of sock puppeting without conducting an investigation or notifying administrators. In fact, his claims were based on nothing but his own suspicions.

[[76]]

[[77]]

[[78]]

[[79]]

[[80]]

--Mmann1988 (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

So the fact that this:[[81]] shows a likely connection means nothing? Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for these mentions if they are in violation of policy, however I did file an investigation and the outcome was that Mmann1988 and RodewayInn were one and the same user.Keizers (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion might be continued at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mmann1988, which is still open. Checkuser came back as 'Likely'. EdJohnston (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks and edit-warring

Editors involved:

• Black.jeff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Niteshift36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There is an ongoing edit war at Talk:List of Terra Nova episodes stemming from this post by Black.jeff. Niteshift36 took exception to the post, which he sees as a personal attack. Black.jeff has made further disparaging comments such as "The statement is idiocy, that does not indicate that you are an idiot. Perhaps you think we are idiots and will believe your idiotic statement",[82] along with comparisons to racism. He refuses to remove the comments, which I suggested he do,[83] but Niteshift36 hasn't been blameless in all this, now resorting to edit summaries such as this. He doesn't believe that 3RR applies in this situation, claiming that he is protected by WP:BLP,[84] while Black.jeff is now claiming that Niteshift36's removal of the offending comments is vandalism and is claiming a 3RR exemption.[85] I'm now of the opinion that both editor's deserve a short block to allow them to cool off and all of the related comments, which have been edited since they were first added, should be removed from the talk page but, as an involved editor, it's not really appropriate for me to do that. I suspect that any attempt would also be reverted, as both editors are being rather obstinate about the whole "discussion" on my talk page.[86] I even suggested that Niteshift36 raise the matter here, but instead he and Black.jeff have continued with their edit war. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• The complaint isn't accurate. Although I disagreed with a number of insults and attacks he made, I let those go. There is one thing still at issue and it's what Aussie Legend left out. Jeff made an allegation of racism: "So your argument basically boils down to racism..." [87]. That has been the on-going issue. I've never mentioned race. After I took exception to it, Jeff even stated on my talk page: " I know that technically it isn't racism..."[88]. After reverting my removal a couple of times, he dug up some poorly written definition from a UN project and changed his tune, claiming it was now did fit. I went so far as to tell him the proper term (cultural bias) and even inserted it in place of the incorrect and grossly offensive "racism". The allegation that my position is rooted in racism is extremely offensive to me and I will not tolerate it. Yes, I do claim BLP applies. WP:BLPTALK states: "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, and categories". I am a living person. Further, it says "Although this policy applies to posts about Wikipedians in project space...." and that is me as well. Since libelous material being removed under BLP is exempt from the 3RR, I contend this isn't a 3RR issue.

As for being uncivil etc: I won't pretend I was civil and innocent. When I get called an idiot, I tend to push back. Is it right? No, but that's not really why we are here. We are here because an editor keeps implying that I am a racist, despite the fact that he has admitted it is not correct. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, describing your argument, is describing content, not neccessarily you. How am I meant to point out the problem with your comment (i.e. that it is racism), if pointing out problems with it constitutes a personal attack? If what you are suggesting is the case, then WP:PA would say something more along the lings of "Do not comment on contributors, additionally do not comment on the content that that contributor contributed, as that has the potential to indicate something about them, and thus may still be regarded as a personal attack."

At first, I thought it wasn't racism, as I had thought racism only applied to race, however it is still fairly similar, a race and a country that a company belongs to, with similar principles. When you suggested cultural bias, after I explained that racism was a similar term, I then went and looked up the actual definition of racism, which includes nationality. This means that racism is the correct word. Cultural bias is nothing like it. Cultural bias is not ignoring sources just because they are from a different country, it is expecting things to be the way they are in your culture. You have used a word that sounds "nicer" yet has a completely different meaning. Additionally, personal attacks clearly have nothing to do with it, as you have no problem with leaving in the comment explaining why it is racist, you just wont let me use the word racism. If I am fine to explain why it is racism, then why can't I label it racism? If pointing out that a comment is racist is not allowed, then why do you not also remove the explanation of why it is racism? It is only that one word that you are against. You also seem to be fine with what, (going by what I assume is your logic) would basically say "you are culturally biased". That statement should also be counted as a personal attack, yet, you don't think my comment with "racism" replaced with "cultural bias" is. So you clearly do not evaluate "Your argument basically boils down to x" as "You are x". So you should not take a comment saying that your argument basically boils down to racism, as meaning you are a racist. Your only problem is with me using the word racism.

I was planning on removing my comment saying that your statement was idiocy this morning, but I couldn't find the redaction template before I had to leave for work. I will find it once I have finished this and put it in.

And yes, I will admit, I was being somewhat uncivil, however as you said, when someone pushes, I tend to push back. When it is continually explained that things are separate entities and should not be treated as the same thing, yet people refuse to even acknowledge the possibility and tell people to stop quibbling and to just move on, I will get somewhat frustrated.

Finally, we are not here because someone is implying you are a racist, we are here because you seem to despise having the term "racism" applied to anything to do with you, and as such you continually vandalise a talk page.Black.jeff (talk) 06:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• You spent all that time, defending something that isn't even being contested. Yes, initially I took issue with your use of "idiocy" etc, but I have left those alone for days now. The SOLE thing I have removed/replaced in that time period is "racism". Cultural bias is not offensive. If I spell "honor" in the American English and then go around replacing "honour" because I want the American spelling everywhere, that is a cultural bias. Calling it cultural bias isn't an attack. However, when you say my actions stem from racism, there is no way that isn't calling me racist. Since I never mentioned race, since Australian isn't a race and since you have already admitted that it isn't racism, you insistence on putting it back in is purely an attack. As for your claim that my refusal to agree with you about a source is "pushing you"... well, I suspect that others will disagree. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Just when I thought you were going to be cooperative in this, you left a lengthy new post there that added more incivility to it, as well as added some to the existing test. You refuse to act in good faith while this is under discussion. Things are becoming clear. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• So one paragraph out of several, is spending all that time? Yes, that would be an example of cultural bias, however that is nothing like what is happening. With what you are trying to say is cultural bias, it would be just as bad as racism, and thus should still constitute a personal attack. When I admitted it wasn't racism, it was a mistake, as I wasn't sure of the correct term to use for discrimination based on nationality, however discrimination based on race is similar to that, and is covered by some definitions of racism, including the UN definition. When I put it back before I knew that racism covered nationality, it was because it was the closest term I knew, and what I thought it was is still very similar. Isn't describing it as racism still just as bad as saying it is racism? So wouldn't describing your comment as racism be just as bad, yet you are fine with that, it is only when I apply the label to it that it becomes bad. — Black.jeff , — (continues after insertion below.)

• Amazing how you worry so much that "cultural bias" would appear to be an attack, despite the fact that I have said I wouldn't perceive it as such, yet insist on incorrectly using a term that I have been very clear is an attack. Your "concern" appears pretty hollow. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Yet with what you are trying to say cultural bias is (i.e. discrimination based on nationality), it is just as bad as racism. So if you are fine with allegedly being accused of discrimination based on nationality, why aren't you fine with allegedly being accused of racism (Which I haven't yet done)? Especially considering several definitions of racism include nationality. Yes, I would not take culturally biased to be an attack, I am sure everyone is to some degree. They learn how things work in their culture, and need to relearn how it works in other cultures. However, that is only with it's correct meaning, not the meaning you are trying to say it has. If culturally biased meant what you are trying to say it does, it would be an attack, as I had explained above, which you either ignored, or dismissed, just like you have ignored and/or dismissed arguments before. My concern is not directly over "cultural bias" it is over you being so opposed to racism, yet are perfectly fine with a word which you are pretending means something which is basically the same (Yes, there would be slight differences). Additionally, when you break apart someone's post, you need to re-sign it, such as by inserting {{subst:interrupted|USER NAME OR IP}}, or copying their signature from the end of their post.Black.jeff (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• I made a minor error when I inserted the text. I don't need a lecture from you about where I should put a signature. Get over yourself already. Your bullshit claim about racism being the right word is transparent. The UN is hardly the most reliable source on defining words in the English language. I'll take dictionaries over the UN any day and Random House says you are wrong. Regardless, I won't tolerate you calling my actions racist. Period. You can spin, prevericate and make all the excuses you want. I won't tolerate it and, thus far, I'm not seeing anyone swooping in here to tell you that you are using the term correctly or that my refusal to tolerate your disgusting allegation is really that off-base. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it isn't your refusal to agree with me about a source, it is you continually dismissing what other people say, without responding to other than re-asserting your opinion, accusing them of wanting to quibble and that they should just move on.

As for good faith, what part of good faith requires that I do not remove a section of my comment, added by you, changing my comment, with no indication that it has been changed other than the edit summary, which would make me look like an idiot, for using a term that is so incorrect it isn't funny? What part of good faith requires that I don't add a comment to the page? As for incivility, where? I had not been uncivil on that page after you started vandalising my post.Black.jeff (talk) 06:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

"I couldn't find the redaction template before I had to leave for work" - You've quoted WP:TPO a number of times in the discussion at Talk:List of Terra Nova episodes. Instructions on what to do to redact your comments immediately follow that section. You don't actually need a template. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

However I wanted to use the template, if I had realised just how little time I had before I had to leave I would have just fixed it like I have now.Black.jeff (talk) 06:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you both agree to stop trying to edit one another's comments as they already exist on the talk page, and then try to use your very best manners in discussion with each other from here forward? Because that would effortlessly solve the problem. Nothing that you're arguing about at this point, as far as I can see, will actually result in any improvement to the encyclopedia even if resolved, so it's pure disruption.-FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I would just like to say that I haven't edited anyone's comments other than my own, I would never do that, even if it is a blatant personal attack against me (in which case I would respond explaining why they are wrong, or just ignore it). However, I will stop bothering to restore my comment to what it was, as it achieves nothing. I will also try my best to remain civil.Black.jeff (talk) 06:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I stopped editing all but a single word. I've left the rest of his incivility intact (and even answered it with uncivil remarks at times). This is solely about his improper use of "racism". I will work most things out, but Jimbo Wales himself can come to my house and ask me personally to allow that word to be used to describe me and I won't agree to it. It is vile. It is disgusting. I will not tolerate it and nobody should suggest that I should. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Regardless or what is or is not said about you, you should not indulge in tit-for-tat incivility. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Again, past the rest and ignoring it. Racism, however, is not something I will tolerate. Wikilink all the policies, guidelines and essays you want. The fact that an unfounded allegation that disgusting isn't immediately condemned is very disconcerting. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• What "racism"? The English "race" vs. the American "race"? (And he's calling someone else "idiotic"???) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

New sock of Xiutwel

This has to be the least inventive sock name I have ever seen. What shocks me more is that he's flown under the radar this long. If he hadn't outed himself on the September 11th Attacks talk page I wonder if he could have gone on indefinitely. Please swiftly take care of User:Xiutwel-0003 who is clearly a sock of User:Xiutwel asap. Thank you. --Tarage (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

And someone already got him. Nevermind. --Tarage (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Xiutwel-0003 (talk · contribs) and Xiutwel-0004 (talk · contribs) blocked and tagged. Acroterion (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

JohnC

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

Coming here after reporting at AIV page at suggestion of Reaper Eternal. Longterm and persistent issues with POV, neutrality, BLP violations, removal of content they don't agree with, and personal commentary. Most recently: [89], [90], [91], [92]. User has received numerous notices and warnings for months, and appears to edit with, among other issues, a racial agenda. 76.248.147.199 (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

You missed [93] which removes sourced content that South Africa applied white supremacist laws up till the 1990s, which cannot be a content dispute in any sane world. The addition to the Garrett Morris article is also concerning, as is his addition to the talkpage of the Miskel Spillman article, although the sentence about Garrett Morris in the Miskel Spillman article that he refers to needs to be sourced or removed. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Well I'm good, but not perfect. It's one of those 'two good edits for every disruptive one' accounts. And then there's the occasional unintended humor [94]. 76.248.147.199 (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I've left a clear warning about the content issues [95]. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Much appreciated. 76.248.147.199 (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Tombak2

Resolved

 – Tombak2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now indeffed. Page restored to version prior to start of sillyness Hasteur (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Help; User doesn't listen, inserts unsourced content and is edit warring; possible conflict of interest account as well. [96]. 76.248.147.199 (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: Tombak3 (talk · contribs) was just registered. I've reported it to SPI. --NellieBly (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I've notified the WMF Stewards, who should shortly global-lock the account. No need for SPI on this one. --MuZemike 23:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I suspect you're already on top of this, but I've commented further here [97]. Thank you for helping. 76.248.147.199 (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

membrane mess

Sorry to distract from blocking dramas, but I need help from an admin who is good at merging and deleting stuff. Not only the mechanics but the organization. The whole section membrane is messed up. And the whole thing is a snarl (so it's not like a single merge or delete request).

1. The dab page membrane is what you come to when you google in on membrane. It is a decent dab page. I can get it a little bit better organized, but it is not bad. (The term membrane is used primarily to mean a thin selectively permeable barriar. There are some name dabs, like the band or usage for roof structures. There's also a little confusion with respect to biology, where the term membrane is used for some anatomical structures that are more enclosing sacs, not selective barriars, but they also have real selective barriars as well, like the cell membrane. Anyhow, I can unsnarl that on my own by content editing, but...

2. The darned talk page for this dab...redirects to the talk page of Membrane (selective barrier), one of the subordinate pages. That needs a fix, while I unsnarl things. Give membrane it back its own talk page.

3. The article Polymeric membrane needs to go bye-bye (merge and delete into artificial membrane. The daughter article is tiny, has been for years, and has much less info than in the parent articles section version.

4. The article membrane (selective barrier) needs to be merged into artificial membrane, but giving the title membrane selective barriar to the new merged article. The first article is miserable, almost no content, almost same sections as second article, plus duplicates the parent dab to an extent. The new article would basically have all the content of artificial membrane with addition of the title from membrane (selective barriar), plus a litle bit of the lead content, plus a short section and link to biological membrane. (which is also a decent article).

And when done with all this, the redirects and double redirects and the like should be cleared.

5. Eventually membrane technology should probably be merged into the new membrane (selective barrier). But I'm not going to worry about that for now.

TCO (Reviews needed) 22:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I've done 2 + 3, but I'll leave the rest to someone else. SmartSE (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

OK. Good progress.TCO (Reviews needed) 00:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Disregard, number 4, I'm just going to have an article on artifical and an article on biological and use a hatnote betwixt them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 01:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I got it all straightened out...weh. Little different hieriarchy than in this talk. Way better than the snarl we had. no on complained. Just constructrive editing.TCO (Reviews needed) 21:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Email details need removing

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

---

Someone's mistaken Editor assistance requests for something to do with dog-shows, and has left their contact email. I've removed it, and dropped the user a note but could we please also strike the details from the history? Here's the diff. Thanks. Haploidavey (talk) 23:16, 3 January 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.

Over-enthusiastic block?

You would have thought that Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers was a widely held precept, but look what happened here. Despite about 260 good faith, constructive edits with clear edit summaries, and a complete absence of vandalism, the moment I got into a minor disagreement about a capitalisation issue, and (when warned) suggested I might change my IP address (as happens every time my modem is turned off) I got blocked by User:Toddst1, and threatened with a range block. I'm not saying that my comments here and here were acceptable, but if you treat every IP who reacts to being treated with disdain by blocking him, is it any wonder that some feel bitten? Then, just to prove that IP efforts cannot be accepted, even when they correct an article to match the MOS, User:OberRanks weighed in to re-insert the completely inappropriate capitalisation with this edit, even though the first reverting editor admitted he had been hasty in doing so! Stunning.

On the plus side, User:Kierzek and User:Bouket were completely charming - thanks for your approach.

I know I'm hardly blameless - but then I don't have to be, since working through an IP gives me power without responsibility. Don't bother leaving any messages at my talk page - by the time you read this, my IP will have changed again. I will be somewhere in the encyclopaedia, making quality edits. 88.108.247.218 (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Block evasion is, of course, always a sign of "good faith". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The IP is totally incorrect in saying that I admitted being hasty in reverting his edit on John J. Pershing. What I said was that I should have given a better explanation for my revert, not that the edit was hasty or that it was incorrect.[98] In fact, I stand by the edit.

I also note on the IPs talk page, he says, in effect, "go ahead and block me, I'll just use another IP." Given the IPs edit history, I highly doubt this person is a newbie. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Legal and suicide threat

Resolved

 – Account blocked indefinitely with no talk page access, Wikimedia notified, threat revdeleted, rants all oversighted because of the exposed contact information

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

This diff says it all. Blatant talk page abuse too.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• The account is now indef blocked with talk page editing disabled. I'll email the appropriate channels regarding the suicide threat. Tiptoety ^talk 01:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Already  DoneJasper Deng (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Abusive behaviour of an admin

no means no.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows. this appears to be going nowhere fast. In fact, it looked like it went right past nowhere into realms completely uneccessary. There is no consensus that any admin behaved inappropriately. --Jayron32 22:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC) There was this pretty silly incidence at the Bikini page (see [99]), though no policy, guideline, rule or directive was violated. In fact, I tried to discuss the issue on both the article talk page (see [100], which resulted in no response from the other party, but positive response from uninvolved editors), the other party's talk page (see [101], which resulted in an inflammatory response, see [102]), and a bigger forum (see [103]). That incidence calmed down quickly. But, immediately after I was templeted by User:Toddst1, an administrator, warning me that I could be banned for edit warring. At my talk page, he also told another uninvolved editor that there was no personal attack in the inflammatory response I've referred to here. I immediately posted to his page explaining the relevant guidelines and the incidence (see [104], which generated no response from the admin, though the admin was still busily working at the Wikipedia, see [105]). I was wondering about the malevolence, and finally I have located at least on incident where the admin was at odds with me (see [106]). Even at that time I explained my stand, quoting sensible traditions (see [107], which generated no response from the admin). If this is how an admin handles someone who doesn't agree to that admin, we have something to worry about. Threatening abusively is bad enough. But, when the threat maker has the administrative powers to carry out the threat, it becomes really dangerous. Will someone see the danger here? Haven't we seen enough rogue admins already, some of whom were actually regarded in high esteem? Someone, please, see into the matter. This is not an official WP:ADMINABUSE complaint, yet. But, as off-Wikipedia sources report (see [108], [109] or [110]) abusive behaviour like this from editors with higher level access right is not just alarming, it's detrimental to everything Wikipedia stands for. Aditya(talk • contribs) 09:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC) You were given a notification using standard Wikipedia templates of a potential issue brewing - the same template being used tens of thousands of times before. Of course, edit-warring and its associated blocks (not bans) don't care if you're "right" in your content/style editing. There's nothing malevolent, and the template is pretty self-explanatory, so follow-up with the admin in question seems unnecessary. I'm hard-pressed to find anything wrong with the warning whatsoever - there's no threat. Referring to their actions as malevolence is probably pretty uncivil on your part. You're grasping at some pretty bizarre straws, IMHO. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC) I believe it's unlikely that the template has been used thousands of times where there is no edit-war, especially on the party who's been trying to get a discussion going and has approval of uninvolved editors. I know you're an admin and you can block me too. But, that doesn't make a wrong a right. BTW, I've been templated again with a slightly threatening note added, by the same admin. I really don't see much WP:AGF going around. Aditya(talk • contribs) 08:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC) You obviously do not understand the difference between a threat and a warning. Once again, a basic template has been used on your page - why not simply take the advice? Here's an interesting test, by the way: if you decide to reply to this thread, after you click "edit" look at the very top of the page - you'll notice a big orange box. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC) In what way was there no edit war at Bikini? Note that as there was only really 2 people involved, you can't claim BMK was edit warring but you weren't. As to why BMK wasn't notified they are a regular and so are well aware of our policy on edit warring, notifying them is not necessary. Although you've apparently been here for a while, it appears notifying you of our policy was appropriate given then you then disputed you were actually edit warring. Do remember that while it is good you initated and participated in discussion, this doesn't mean it's okay to edit war to try to enforce the result of the discussion. People have already pointed out ways you can get help if you achieve consensus but continue to be reverted. Also as has been said you should have been informed both when editing this page and in the header that you need to notify people you are discussing. Since you did not do so, rather then complaining about being templated, just remember to do it next time. Nil Einne (talk) 14:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC) i think hes mad because the other user involved did not get a warning. also, aditya had conensus on the talk page and started a discussion, the other user involved still has not entered the discussion and consensus is completely against the way they keep reverting to. Bouket (talk) 21:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC) Frankly, if you are so sensitive, I am amazed that you have lasted so long on Wikipedia without leaving in frustration. I see nothing "inflammatory", nor any evidence of "malevolence". As for your claim that you were not edit warring, do you know what the expression "edit warring" means? If you don't then I suggest reading WP:Edit warring. If, on the other hand, you do know what it means, then I suggest looking at this edit, this one, and this one. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC) BMK involvement sorry can i ask a question? it seems aditya has conensus according to the talk page. the other user involved has not even joined the discussion. what is the correct course of action for aditya to follow, when he has consensus on the talk page but is still getting reverted? Bouket (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC) It appears he had the last edit on 29 December. I think his correct course of action is drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass and maybe even AGF. Toddst1 (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC) maybe youre right. can i ask why you didnt warn beyond my ken? i think that is what really bothered him. Bouket (talk) 05:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC) I can't speak for Toddst1, but as I explained above, there's a good reason not to template BMK, which as this case proved, clearly does not apply to Aditya. Nil Einne (talk) 12:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC) i see now that you said its because BMK is 'a regular'. does this mean that if he continued edit warring then he would have been blocked with a warning? note in this case that eventually it was shown that BMK was reverting against consensus and simply saying his edits 'were better' in the edit summaries. aditya should have looked for consensus after the first revert, but can you see why even though you can justify to yourself toddst1's action, they may seem biased to aditya or to any outside observer? it looks like aditya doesnt care much anymore but i think this kind of experience he had is a negative experience and wasnt really his fault. Bouket (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC) I will block regulars without warning for edit warring on the "you should know better" grounds, but it is probably more productive to warn both editors, as this often starts a dialogue and can prevent the need for a block. It's not necessary to use templates to deliver warnings, particularly with a regular editor, a bit of plain text is fine to remind them not to overstep the mark. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Expanding on what Elen said, the purpose of a warning is to ensure that the editor knows there is a policy that they are violating. I have no doubt that BMK is well aware of WP:EW and WP:3RR. However, Aditya Kabir (talk · contribs) didn't and clearly still doesn't understand that he was engaged in an edit war [111]. Time to move on. Toddst1 (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC) thanks elen and todd. so if i understand what youre saying, in this case, BMK was also engaged in an edit war, you just didnt feel a need to remind him that he was doing it since you thought he already knew and probably knew he wouldnt break the 3RR policy so that his edit warring was not actually in violation, but you were worried that adityas reverting would violate the policy. is that right? Bouket (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Why do BMK get away with edit warring over his unilateral style choices go against all guidelines? No matter who ask him stop. Dalit Llama (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC) i originally thought that BMK was mostly the problem but now i am feeling like toddst1 does not want to understand how he offended aditya. elen put it best when they said it is probably more productive to warn both editors, as this often starts a dialogue and can prevent the need for a block. i think this is the problem. aditya has no way of knowing what toddst1 was thinking. it could be that he didnt warn BMK because he thought BMK already knew policy (but if this is true, and according to what toddst1 said here [112] BMK was already involved an edit war and didnt get banned or warned. if hes an experienced user shouldnt he know better not even to start an edit war? but he WAS involved in one), or that toddst1 was showing bias. whatever toddst1's reasons, aditya is not a mind reader and toddst1 should be more careful about how his actions looked, for reasons like this and what elen said. i also didnt appreciate his comment here [113] which only insulted my understanding and wasnt helpful, and also think its weird how dismissive he is of aditya's concerns, like here [114]. i just think toddst1 should realize why his actions made aditya feel there was a bias even if there was none. Bouket (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Aditya is allowed to be offended if he wants. Get over it. As I said above, "I have no doubt that BMK is well aware of WP:EW and WP:3RR." Toddst1 (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC) its not that he was offended, its that you seemed to threaten him in an impartial matter. are you saying you dont care how your actions ad administrator are perceived by someone who doesnt know everything? Bouket (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC) See JamesBWatson's comment above. Toddst1 (talk) 22:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC) i dont think yelling at people for being overly sensitive is a good way to get new editors here. i think explaining things in a calm and helpful way would be better. but maybe i am in a minority. Bouket (talk) 22:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Nobody is yelling. Really. Get over it. Toddst1 (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC) using condescending language like 'get over it' isnt going to help anything. Bouket (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Would someone please close this bloody discussion? Toddst1 (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC) im serious its language like that that makes admins look bad, and that makes wikipedia have the bad reputation that it has. Bouket (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Bouket, let it go. Stop trying to stir this up into something much bigger than it is, and move on. Toddst1 is a sysop on an internet project, not the President of the US. If he says things like "bloody" and "get over it", it doesn't matter. He's not bound by some super-code of conduct. Wikipedia doesn't have a bad reputation, but if you disagree, then don't type it into the address bar of your browser from now on. Just let it go. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 22:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Hounding BMK Bouket, I see you are involved in a number of discussions where it seems that the mention of BMK brought you there. Is that correct? Drmies (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC) yes i am watching his talk page now. why? Bouket (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC) It looks like you've got something in for BMK and you're manufacturing a conspiracy that admins are protecting him/her. It seems like you're trying to stir up drama here. Toddst1 (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC) i never said that, thats actually what aditya said isnt it? i dont agree actually, i only found this because i was trying to get more involved, usually ive just been editing for the past 6 months. are you complaining here [115] that im not assuming good faith, and the same time youre accusing me of really bizarre things and not assuming good faith at all? and also, you dont assume good faith on the part of aditya, and dont believe that your actions could actually have seemed biased to him even if they werent. your accusation that im trying to stir up drama also doesnt agf. and you havent explained why you didnt get involved with BMK at all if you admit that he WAS edit warring. why is it its not possible im concerned, why are you now accusing me of ulterior motives instead of actually discussing issues? Bouket (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC) The paraphrase was accurate [116]. Toddst1 (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC) The issues have been dealt with except you keep agitating for action against BMK and more than one of us have noticed. No administrative actions have been taken anywhere! If you want BMK warned for something, then bloody hell, get off your arse and do it. Toddst1 (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC) i never said anything needs to be done to bmk. where did i say that? dont accuse me of things like that. i was saying that if you had warned both people none of this would have ever happened because aditya would not have thought you were singling him out. if you would acknowldge that, which elen agreed with, then we would be almost done here. Bouket (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC) We would all be better off if I had warned everyone edit warring. Now stop hounding BMK. Toddst1 (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC) thanks. i hope aditya understands. i dont know why it took so much to communicate why he was upset. maybe you should try and understand how people see your actions instead of just being defensive about them and claiming you were 100% right? well ok im done here. Bouket (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Redact hi i just wanted to point out that toddst1 has been going crazy on my talk page. he made some edits [117] that violate WP:REDACT which isnt policy but shouldnt he avoid doing that? i wanted to be done here but i guess he wants to continue whatever is going on here. i reverted his edits because i thought they were misleading and then he made a bunch more edits and from his speed i guess hes annoyed at me. if so im sorry to have annoyed you it was my intention to point out how your actions looked not to get you in trouble. Bouket (talk) 21:53, 3 January 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. Conducting unbecoming administrators (edit conflict) Per policy Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. , and Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. Administrators have failed to respond appropriately in this instance, instead biting fairly new users to Wikipedia, here and on User talk:Bouket and User talk:Aditya Kabir. While clearly there was not admin abuse in the posting of a standard template, these users deserve firm but polite explanations, not curt dismissive answers with phrases such as for crying out loud, get over it, grasping at pretty bizzare straws, if you are so sensitive, and, ironically maybe even AGF. Bouket is a 206 edit count newbie, and the last record I found of Aditya Kabir being at ANI was an August 2009 incident reported by another editor, so neither is a ANI "regular," and while there is definitely a lack of understanding of Wikipedia policies, I see no signs of malice or intentional disruption. They deserve better and Wikipedia deserves better. Therefore, if an administrator finds that he or she cannot adhere to site policies and remain civil (even toward users exhibiting problematic behavior) while addressing a given issue, then the administrator should bring the issue to a noticeboard or refer it to another administrator to address, rather than potentially compound the problem by poor conduct.Nobody Ent 22:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC) See Jayron's closing comments above. That should have ended this, and it certainly addresses Nobody Ent's comment. Toddst1 (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC) Lolz. That last one was a gem of a response. Ahahahahaaaa... too good. BTW, thanks Nobody Ent, we're all volunteers here, and we (as in all Wikipedians) don't really deserve lawful police actions by Pakistani/Bangladeshi/Columbian/whatever standards. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC) The administrators are working in good faith trying to keep Wikipedia working well, so comparing them to a police force like that isn't really appropriate. Nobody Ent 03:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion history for File:Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima.png

A discussion about this file is happening on the Wikipedia Commons and I know this used to be a file found here on en.wikipedia before it was transferred to Commons.

What I'm looking for is relevant links to previous deletion discussions for this file, whose links appear to have been removed upon the transfer to Commons. This particular image has some substantial history with this project and as a matter of fact was the seed for several substantial policy changes to Wikipedia over the years. I think this particular discussion could use the benefit of those previous deletion discussions, at least by reference.... but sadly I think it is going to take some admin tools to be able to find those discussions unless there is somebody who can help to find the previous deletion discussions in the AfD/FfD heap over the years. Some of those discussions are very early in Wikipedia history and even before the content archiving as separate pages, so it isn't a trivial task to accomplish.

I'm not asking somebody to do all of the work for me, but if there is some content history on the page of this name or a related page that has links to those discussions, I would appreciate either a comment on the Commons discussion with those links, putting those links on my talk page, or posting them here. This is a highly controversial image, and for the life of me I don't even know why it ended up on Commons in the first place, but that is a completely separate issue. --Robert Horning (talk) 04:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• The local image has not been deleted, it is still there at File:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg. Courcelles 04:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate that. It seems like a botched job then with its transfer to Commons. Thanks.... I appreciate it! --Robert Horning (talk) 04:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

EEP! How did it get transferred to Commons. That should never have happened - it's still copyright.

Sandbox political spamming

99.99.156.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — Spamming Sandbox with political views. I have contacted the user multiple times on talk page and edit summary, with the phrases "Please stop putting your political views in the Sandbox" and—more strict—"Stop fucking with the Sandbox." Edit history.

"Diffs":

• [118]
• [119]
• [120]
• [121]
• [122]
• [123]
• [124]
• [125]
• [126]
• [127]
• [128]
• [129]
• [130]
• [131]
• [132]
• [133]
• [134]
• [135]
• [136]
• [137]
• [138]
• [139]

and more.

71.146.26.8 (talk) 04:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• I've given them a final warning. Once more and they will be blocked--they seem to have stopped, at least for now. Next time, please report such behavior at WP:AIV. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

If the content's not offensive, copyrighted or libelous, surely the sandbox is an acceptable place for these posts? Colonel Tom 05:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know this was considered vandalism, sorry about that. I surely think that most—if not all—users on Wikipedia don't appreciate people screwing around. 71.146.26.8 (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, no—they are spamming their political views, which will influence other newcomers' experiences' at Wikipedia. Adding to that, I believe that the beans would take effect. 71.146.26.8 (talk) 05:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. They seem disruptive enough to me. If it wasn't in the sandbox, BTW, they'd have been blocked edits ago. Then again, Colonel Tom, maybe the matter is not so clear-cut. Perhaps, since there seems to be little dramah right now, the regulars can weigh in and start a fight. Bugs, you around? ;) Drmies (talk) 05:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I also think this is a form of trolling, as he has provoked many anonymous IPs into inappropriately editing his texts. 71.146.26.8 (talk) 05:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Abusive behaviour of an admin

no means no.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows. this appears to be going nowhere fast. In fact, it looked like it went right past nowhere into realms completely uneccessary. There is no consensus that any admin behaved inappropriately. --Jayron32 22:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC) There was this pretty silly incidence at the Bikini page (see [140]), though no policy, guideline, rule or directive was violated. In fact, I tried to discuss the issue on both the article talk page (see [141], which resulted in no response from the other party, but positive response from uninvolved editors), the other party's talk page (see [142], which resulted in an inflammatory response, see [143]), and a bigger forum (see [144]). That incidence calmed down quickly. But, immediately after I was templeted by User:Toddst1, an administrator, warning me that I could be banned for edit warring. At my talk page, he also told another uninvolved editor that there was no personal attack in the inflammatory response I've referred to here. I immediately posted to his page explaining the relevant guidelines and the incidence (see [145], which generated no response from the admin, though the admin was still busily working at the Wikipedia, see [146]). I was wondering about the malevolence, and finally I have located at least on incident where the admin was at odds with me (see [147]). Even at that time I explained my stand, quoting sensible traditions (see [148], which generated no response from the admin). If this is how an admin handles someone who doesn't agree to that admin, we have something to worry about. Threatening abusively is bad enough. But, when the threat maker has the administrative powers to carry out the threat, it becomes really dangerous. Will someone see the danger here? Haven't we seen enough rogue admins already, some of whom were actually regarded in high esteem? Someone, please, see into the matter. This is not an official WP:ADMINABUSE complaint, yet. But, as off-Wikipedia sources report (see [149], [150] or [151]) abusive behaviour like this from editors with higher level access right is not just alarming, it's detrimental to everything Wikipedia stands for. Aditya(talk • contribs) 09:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC) You were given a notification using standard Wikipedia templates of a potential issue brewing - the same template being used tens of thousands of times before. Of course, edit-warring and its associated blocks (not bans) don't care if you're "right" in your content/style editing. There's nothing malevolent, and the template is pretty self-explanatory, so follow-up with the admin in question seems unnecessary. I'm hard-pressed to find anything wrong with the warning whatsoever - there's no threat. Referring to their actions as malevolence is probably pretty uncivil on your part. You're grasping at some pretty bizarre straws, IMHO. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC) I believe it's unlikely that the template has been used thousands of times where there is no edit-war, especially on the party who's been trying to get a discussion going and has approval of uninvolved editors. I know you're an admin and you can block me too. But, that doesn't make a wrong a right. BTW, I've been templated again with a slightly threatening note added, by the same admin. I really don't see much WP:AGF going around. Aditya(talk • contribs) 08:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC) You obviously do not understand the difference between a threat and a warning. Once again, a basic template has been used on your page - why not simply take the advice? Here's an interesting test, by the way: if you decide to reply to this thread, after you click "edit" look at the very top of the page - you'll notice a big orange box. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC) In what way was there no edit war at Bikini? Note that as there was only really 2 people involved, you can't claim BMK was edit warring but you weren't. As to why BMK wasn't notified they are a regular and so are well aware of our policy on edit warring, notifying them is not necessary. Although you've apparently been here for a while, it appears notifying you of our policy was appropriate given then you then disputed you were actually edit warring. Do remember that while it is good you initated and participated in discussion, this doesn't mean it's okay to edit war to try to enforce the result of the discussion. People have already pointed out ways you can get help if you achieve consensus but continue to be reverted. Also as has been said you should have been informed both when editing this page and in the header that you need to notify people you are discussing. Since you did not do so, rather then complaining about being templated, just remember to do it next time. Nil Einne (talk) 14:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC) i think hes mad because the other user involved did not get a warning. also, aditya had conensus on the talk page and started a discussion, the other user involved still has not entered the discussion and consensus is completely against the way they keep reverting to. Bouket (talk) 21:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC) Frankly, if you are so sensitive, I am amazed that you have lasted so long on Wikipedia without leaving in frustration. I see nothing "inflammatory", nor any evidence of "malevolence". As for your claim that you were not edit warring, do you know what the expression "edit warring" means? If you don't then I suggest reading WP:Edit warring. If, on the other hand, you do know what it means, then I suggest looking at this edit, this one, and this one. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC) BMK involvement sorry can i ask a question? it seems aditya has conensus according to the talk page. the other user involved has not even joined the discussion. what is the correct course of action for aditya to follow, when he has consensus on the talk page but is still getting reverted? Bouket (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC) It appears he had the last edit on 29 December. I think his correct course of action is drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass and maybe even AGF. Toddst1 (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC) maybe youre right. can i ask why you didnt warn beyond my ken? i think that is what really bothered him. Bouket (talk) 05:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC) I can't speak for Toddst1, but as I explained above, there's a good reason not to template BMK, which as this case proved, clearly does not apply to Aditya. Nil Einne (talk) 12:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC) i see now that you said its because BMK is 'a regular'. does this mean that if he continued edit warring then he would have been blocked with a warning? note in this case that eventually it was shown that BMK was reverting against consensus and simply saying his edits 'were better' in the edit summaries. aditya should have looked for consensus after the first revert, but can you see why even though you can justify to yourself toddst1's action, they may seem biased to aditya or to any outside observer? it looks like aditya doesnt care much anymore but i think this kind of experience he had is a negative experience and wasnt really his fault. Bouket (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC) I will block regulars without warning for edit warring on the "you should know better" grounds, but it is probably more productive to warn both editors, as this often starts a dialogue and can prevent the need for a block. It's not necessary to use templates to deliver warnings, particularly with a regular editor, a bit of plain text is fine to remind them not to overstep the mark. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Expanding on what Elen said, the purpose of a warning is to ensure that the editor knows there is a policy that they are violating. I have no doubt that BMK is well aware of WP:EW and WP:3RR. However, Aditya Kabir (talk · contribs) didn't and clearly still doesn't understand that he was engaged in an edit war [152]. Time to move on. Toddst1 (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC) thanks elen and todd. so if i understand what youre saying, in this case, BMK was also engaged in an edit war, you just didnt feel a need to remind him that he was doing it since you thought he already knew and probably knew he wouldnt break the 3RR policy so that his edit warring was not actually in violation, but you were worried that adityas reverting would violate the policy. is that right? Bouket (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Why do BMK get away with edit warring over his unilateral style choices go against all guidelines? No matter who ask him stop. Dalit Llama (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC) i originally thought that BMK was mostly the problem but now i am feeling like toddst1 does not want to understand how he offended aditya. elen put it best when they said it is probably more productive to warn both editors, as this often starts a dialogue and can prevent the need for a block. i think this is the problem. aditya has no way of knowing what toddst1 was thinking. it could be that he didnt warn BMK because he thought BMK already knew policy (but if this is true, and according to what toddst1 said here [153] BMK was already involved an edit war and didnt get banned or warned. if hes an experienced user shouldnt he know better not even to start an edit war? but he WAS involved in one), or that toddst1 was showing bias. whatever toddst1's reasons, aditya is not a mind reader and toddst1 should be more careful about how his actions looked, for reasons like this and what elen said. i also didnt appreciate his comment here [154] which only insulted my understanding and wasnt helpful, and also think its weird how dismissive he is of aditya's concerns, like here [155]. i just think toddst1 should realize why his actions made aditya feel there was a bias even if there was none. Bouket (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Aditya is allowed to be offended if he wants. Get over it. As I said above, "I have no doubt that BMK is well aware of WP:EW and WP:3RR." Toddst1 (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC) its not that he was offended, its that you seemed to threaten him in an impartial matter. are you saying you dont care how your actions ad administrator are perceived by someone who doesnt know everything? Bouket (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC) See JamesBWatson's comment above. Toddst1 (talk) 22:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC) i dont think yelling at people for being overly sensitive is a good way to get new editors here. i think explaining things in a calm and helpful way would be better. but maybe i am in a minority. Bouket (talk) 22:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Nobody is yelling. Really. Get over it. Toddst1 (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC) using condescending language like 'get over it' isnt going to help anything. Bouket (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Would someone please close this bloody discussion? Toddst1 (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC) im serious its language like that that makes admins look bad, and that makes wikipedia have the bad reputation that it has. Bouket (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Bouket, let it go. Stop trying to stir this up into something much bigger than it is, and move on. Toddst1 is a sysop on an internet project, not the President of the US. If he says things like "bloody" and "get over it", it doesn't matter. He's not bound by some super-code of conduct. Wikipedia doesn't have a bad reputation, but if you disagree, then don't type it into the address bar of your browser from now on. Just let it go. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 22:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Hounding BMK Bouket, I see you are involved in a number of discussions where it seems that the mention of BMK brought you there. Is that correct? Drmies (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC) yes i am watching his talk page now. why? Bouket (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC) It looks like you've got something in for BMK and you're manufacturing a conspiracy that admins are protecting him/her. It seems like you're trying to stir up drama here. Toddst1 (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC) i never said that, thats actually what aditya said isnt it? i dont agree actually, i only found this because i was trying to get more involved, usually ive just been editing for the past 6 months. are you complaining here [156] that im not assuming good faith, and the same time youre accusing me of really bizarre things and not assuming good faith at all? and also, you dont assume good faith on the part of aditya, and dont believe that your actions could actually have seemed biased to him even if they werent. your accusation that im trying to stir up drama also doesnt agf. and you havent explained why you didnt get involved with BMK at all if you admit that he WAS edit warring. why is it its not possible im concerned, why are you now accusing me of ulterior motives instead of actually discussing issues? Bouket (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC) The paraphrase was accurate [157]. Toddst1 (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC) The issues have been dealt with except you keep agitating for action against BMK and more than one of us have noticed. No administrative actions have been taken anywhere! If you want BMK warned for something, then bloody hell, get off your arse and do it. Toddst1 (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC) i never said anything needs to be done to bmk. where did i say that? dont accuse me of things like that. i was saying that if you had warned both people none of this would have ever happened because aditya would not have thought you were singling him out. if you would acknowldge that, which elen agreed with, then we would be almost done here. Bouket (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC) We would all be better off if I had warned everyone edit warring. Now stop hounding BMK. Toddst1 (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC) thanks. i hope aditya understands. i dont know why it took so much to communicate why he was upset. maybe you should try and understand how people see your actions instead of just being defensive about them and claiming you were 100% right? well ok im done here. Bouket (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Redact hi i just wanted to point out that toddst1 has been going crazy on my talk page. he made some edits [158] that violate WP:REDACT which isnt policy but shouldnt he avoid doing that? i wanted to be done here but i guess he wants to continue whatever is going on here. i reverted his edits because i thought they were misleading and then he made a bunch more edits and from his speed i guess hes annoyed at me. if so im sorry to have annoyed you it was my intention to point out how your actions looked not to get you in trouble. Bouket (talk) 21:53, 3 January 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. Conducting unbecoming administrators (edit conflict) Per policy Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. , and Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. Administrators have failed to respond appropriately in this instance, instead biting fairly new users to Wikipedia, here and on User talk:Bouket and User talk:Aditya Kabir. While clearly there was not admin abuse in the posting of a standard template, these users deserve firm but polite explanations, not curt dismissive answers with phrases such as for crying out loud, get over it, grasping at pretty bizzare straws, if you are so sensitive, and, ironically maybe even AGF. Bouket is a 206 edit count newbie, and the last record I found of Aditya Kabir being at ANI was an August 2009 incident reported by another editor, so neither is a ANI "regular," and while there is definitely a lack of understanding of Wikipedia policies, I see no signs of malice or intentional disruption. They deserve better and Wikipedia deserves better. Therefore, if an administrator finds that he or she cannot adhere to site policies and remain civil (even toward users exhibiting problematic behavior) while addressing a given issue, then the administrator should bring the issue to a noticeboard or refer it to another administrator to address, rather than potentially compound the problem by poor conduct.Nobody Ent 22:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC) See Jayron's closing comments above. That should have ended this, and it certainly addresses Nobody Ent's comment. Toddst1 (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC) Lolz. That last one was a gem of a response. Ahahahahaaaa... too good. BTW, thanks Nobody Ent, we're all volunteers here, and we (as in all Wikipedians) don't really deserve lawful police actions by Pakistani/Bangladeshi/Columbian/whatever standards. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC) The administrators are working in good faith trying to keep Wikipedia working well, so comparing them to a police force like that isn't really appropriate. Nobody Ent 03:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion history for File:Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima.png

A discussion about this file is happening on the Wikipedia Commons and I know this used to be a file found here on en.wikipedia before it was transferred to Commons.

What I'm looking for is relevant links to previous deletion discussions for this file, whose links appear to have been removed upon the transfer to Commons. This particular image has some substantial history with this project and as a matter of fact was the seed for several substantial policy changes to Wikipedia over the years. I think this particular discussion could use the benefit of those previous deletion discussions, at least by reference.... but sadly I think it is going to take some admin tools to be able to find those discussions unless there is somebody who can help to find the previous deletion discussions in the AfD/FfD heap over the years. Some of those discussions are very early in Wikipedia history and even before the content archiving as separate pages, so it isn't a trivial task to accomplish.

I'm not asking somebody to do all of the work for me, but if there is some content history on the page of this name or a related page that has links to those discussions, I would appreciate either a comment on the Commons discussion with those links, putting those links on my talk page, or posting them here. This is a highly controversial image, and for the life of me I don't even know why it ended up on Commons in the first place, but that is a completely separate issue. --Robert Horning (talk) 04:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• The local image has not been deleted, it is still there at File:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg. Courcelles 04:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate that. It seems like a botched job then with its transfer to Commons. Thanks.... I appreciate it! --Robert Horning (talk) 04:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

EEP! How did it get transferred to Commons. That should never have happened - it's still copyright.

Sandbox political spamming

99.99.156.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — Spamming Sandbox with political views. I have contacted the user multiple times on talk page and edit summary, with the phrases "Please stop putting your political views in the Sandbox" and—more strict—"Stop fucking with the Sandbox." Edit history.

"Diffs":

• [159]
• [160]
• [161]
• [162]
• [163]
• [164]
• [165]
• [166]
• [167]
• [168]
• [169]
• [170]
• [171]
• [172]
• [173]
• [174]
• [175]
• [176]
• [177]
• [178]
• [179]
• [180]

and more.

71.146.26.8 (talk) 04:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• I've given them a final warning. Once more and they will be blocked--they seem to have stopped, at least for now. Next time, please report such behavior at WP:AIV. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

If the content's not offensive, copyrighted or libelous, surely the sandbox is an acceptable place for these posts? Colonel Tom 05:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know this was considered vandalism, sorry about that. I surely think that most—if not all—users on Wikipedia don't appreciate people screwing around. 71.146.26.8 (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, no—they are spamming their political views, which will influence other newcomers' experiences' at Wikipedia. Adding to that, I believe that the beans would take effect. 71.146.26.8 (talk) 05:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. They seem disruptive enough to me. If it wasn't in the sandbox, BTW, they'd have been blocked edits ago. Then again, Colonel Tom, maybe the matter is not so clear-cut. Perhaps, since there seems to be little dramah right now, the regulars can weigh in and start a fight. Bugs, you around? ;) Drmies (talk) 05:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I also think this is a form of trolling, as he has provoked many anonymous IPs into inappropriately editing his texts. 71.146.26.8 (talk) 05:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest a long-block for User: Shmayo

This user have since he became an editor here on Wikipedia, only contributed to Assyrian-related articles. He have started alot of edit- and revertwars. Just check his last contributes History, he have only been reverting articles, editing articles in order to raise a particular identity. He removes the term "Syriac" or "Aramean" in every article he finds, and replace it with "Assyrian". If the source clearly use the term "Syriac", then he either replace it with "Assyrian" or just adds the term "Assyrian" with the edit-comment "Neutralisation". He have started dozens of edit wars in Syriac related articles, but also in Chaldean-related articles. Just to describe the situation between Syriacs, Assyrians and Chaldeans; Three names for a same group. Some consider themselves "Syriacs" ad trace it roots back to the ancient Arameans. The other group consider themselves "Assyrians" and trace their roots back to the ancient Assyrians. The last group consieder themselves "Chaldeans" and trace their roots back to the ancient Chaldeans. It is an on-going war between them, especially here in Wikipedia in all articles related to this group. User Shmayo is seriously contributing to this on-going war here in Wikipedia, just check his History History and his talkpage Talk, it us full of warnings and debates from alot of users and administrators. He keeps starting editwars, he breaks the 3RR rule, he is guarding articles, he moves page without even discussing them, he is stalking users, edit warring in alot of articles. He keeps removing the name "Aramean" from articles and replaces it with Assyrian even if it was backed up with source he also removes the source, just because that name does not "fit" him 1, 2, 3 just for examples. All his edits can be found in his contribution-history, and all warnings and debates and everything can be found on his talkpage. His recent "contribution" were made on this article Syrianska FC. I was asked in January this year, to remake the whole article about Syrianska FC on Wikipedia, since the team got promoted from Second-division to first-division in Sweden. They wanted an article full with information and sources, and improvements to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. This was the version before i contributed Version 1, and this is the version after my contributions Version 2. I really made a huge improvement for the article, also with help from user Reckless. Then User: Shmayo came to this article and started his editwars. This was his contribution; Contribution. He removed alot from the intro, just becase a specific name did not fit him, without even discussing it on the articles talkpage. I everything backed up with sources on that article. Also, 2 months ago me and two other users on wikipedia agreed on the current version. We had a discussion about some things on the article, and at last we agreed to remove and rewrite some things, and then result was the current version. We did even not to ask for a third opinion notice from an administrator since we all already agreed. But this User: Shmayo, he does not discuss or provide sources, he just vandalize and have been keep doing this for the last two years. I suggest an administrator revert all his recent edits, and maybe time for a permanent ban? SYRIANIEN (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Did you think they missed Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive733#I_suggest_a_long-block_for_User:_Shmayo, or what is your purpose copy-pasting this just a couple days after? Shmayo (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, i dont know how everything works if an reported incident is being archived. I suggest we let the administrators solve it, if it is wrongly replaced here then an administrator can handle it. SYRIANIEN (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The guidelines for how you should do are written under "How to use this page". Shmayo (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Okey. Well still waiting for an admin to read. SYRIANIEN (talk) 12:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Admins will have read it, and they've probably just ignored it. This looks to be petty nationalistic editing and content wars; I'd advise you head to WP:Dispute resolution or somewhere else for further attention. GiantSnowman 12:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Disputed Removal of POV and COAT templates on page Jehovah's Witnesses Beliefs

I have an issue on the page [181] where I placed a {{POV}} dispute template on the page as well as a {{coatrack}} template. User user:Jeffro77 deleted the template's without allowing time for discussion after I indicated a few days (December 31st) ago that I wouldn't be able to start addressing the multiple issues with the page for a few days. The template clearly says editors are not to remove the template until the dispute is settled. I would like someone to put it back forthwith and warn the editor that his actions are inappropriate. This editor has already orchestrated the removal of a AFD tag on the page after a matter of only a few hours and now feels he can remove the POV dispute tags as well without discussion. Please address asap...thanks.Willietell (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I restored them, go and start a section on the talk page. This is what you are meant to do immediately upon tagging an article. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

That section has already been started, it was started immediately after tagging the article.Willietell (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't talk rubbish. The tag was added on December 30;[182]; only today have you initiated any real discussion about your specific concerns, following repeated requests by other users to explain your motivation. [183][184][185] You have been complaining for weeks that the article is "all lies" and should be deleted and on those occasions too, you have steadfastly refused to detail your concerns so they can be discussed and addressed. Your recent tagging the page as an attack page, and then as a coatrack, gave every evidence of being part of the same strategy -- make an accusation, then run away. People just get tired of your games. BlackCab (talk) 07:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The editor has been claiming for weeks that the article is biased, and has been requested for weeks to indicate the specifics about what he believes to be biased. He refused, repeatedly, even claiming that other editors should just know what he thinks is biased.[186] He was again requested to provide specifics, and he replied that he won't do anything for another week and a half, so I removed the templates.[187]

The editor has also been disruptive, as several anonymous IPs, at Chronology of the Bible. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Spudpicker_01/Archive

Willietell also cited the template use: The template clearly says editors are not to remove the template until the dispute is settled. It seemed entirely appropriate to remove the templates, because no specific dispute had been raised. Now that he's bothered to actually state his concerns with the article (when it's in his advantage to complain about me removing the templates, invalidating his prior claim that he would not be able to do so for over a week), I have no problem with restoring the templates. When I removed the templates in the first instance,I specifically stated that the templates should be re-added once any actual objections were raised.[188]--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Moonshiners (TV series)

Hello, on that article that I created, it has a copyright notice(the one that blanks the whole page) that it is in violation of copyright and to fix with an admin. Only the "Cast" section is in violation and that should be removed. I had no idea until the big notice popped up and when I checked it was right. However, the notice says nothing should be modified until this is cleared up with an admin, so right now I'm requesting that the "Cast" section be deleted and the notice removed. Thank you! P.S. the revision before the cast section is here however, I recommend that it just be manually removed because some typos were fixed in the main section after that. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 02:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I've compared the contents of the article to the Discovery website, and Ramaksoud2000 is correct, it's only the "Cast" section which is a copyvio and should be removed. The lede is not even a close paraphrase of the website's "About Show" section, it's a completely new description of the show. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Any admin out there? Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 13:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I encourage patience - there's no deadline for anything here. I have edited the pre-copyvio-tagged version, removing the CAST section, as per BMK (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Fastily

Fastily deleted article Alexey Pivovarov (he IS notable!) and ignored me and all my arguments on his talk page. He insists on speaking with me only through some strange link. Please revert his vandalism and let me rebuilt this useful and interesting article.--RussianLiberal (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Vandalism - "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page." Bulwersator (talk) 10:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• And you should start with discussion on his talk page rather than create thread here Bulwersator (talk) 10:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." Bulwersator (talk) 10:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• I did!--RussianLiberal (talk) 10:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • you never edited User talk:Fastily except information about this thread Bulwersator (talk) 10:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
    • As far as I can see, there have been no discussions between RussianLiberal and Fastily on either editor's Talk page -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• I am IP there!
  • Please provide diff with your polite request Bulwersator (talk) 10:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• Alexey Pivovarov was deleted using PROD so article will be restored on request. Bulwersator (talk) 10:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• So I request, claim, blame and ask.--RussianLiberal (talk) 10:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • No claim or blame is appropriate. A polite request on Fastily's talk page is. LadyofShalott 10:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• He ignored me so I will better not come there - want to insult him--RussianLiberal (talk) 10:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • WP:BOOMERANG? Bulwersator (talk) 10:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• He has not ignored you - you have to give people at least a little response time. You never asked him nicely - your first words to him were "revenge for vandalizing the article". I suggest you delete those words, and ask him to restore the article. This thread should never have been opened. LadyofShalott 10:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• See! As an IP I asked him! As an IP! So I will not delete my true words - if you want ban me. I will make Pivovarov again and bite everybody who will attack it again--RussianLiberal (talk) 10:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Listen, you need to show us exactly which edit you made. It's no good just saying "IP" and expecting us to know from that. Now that you have said "Pivovarov", I presume your message was User_talk:Fastily#Alexey Pivovarov. Fastily responded with a link to User:Fastily/E#PROD, which says "This article was deleted via the PROD process. You may request that the page be restored, but you are advised to be ready to improve the article and remedy the problems for which it was originally deleted. Otherwise, you run the risk of having the article deleted again or nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, in which deletion may become more permanent". That's a perfectly reasonable response, and is most definitely not the "vandalism" that you went on to accuse him of. And if you carry on in this beligerent manner, it's *you* who is likely to be sanctioned -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• I see you have recreated Alexey Pivovarov now. Please be aware that it currently contains no indication of importance, and neither did the previously deleted version. If you don't adjust it to at least make a credible claim of importance, it is likely to be speedy deleted. And if you do not make it comply with the notability requirements of WP:BIO, it will at the very least be taken to WP:AfD for deletion discussion. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• Nobody to write articles, everybody want to delete... bureaucrats--RussianLiberal (talk) 10:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Obviously it is untrue Bulwersator (talk) 10:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• While we are looking at this editor, should something be done about this ? Mtking ^(edits) 10:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

  I've deleted it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Now Pivovarov is normal? Notable? Is it time to remove ugly shield?--RussianLiberal (talk) 12:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You should discuss that on Talk:Alexey Pivovarov, not here. Nobody Ent 12:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Low volume but persistent spammer

Check out Special:Contributions/111.118.183.121. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I've issued a final warning - please feel free to give me a shout if you see it happen again, and I'll follow up on it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Block request for user:Meryam90

Resolved

 – resolved, both users blocked for edit warning --Ta, Chip123456 (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Reference to the page Don2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_2:_The_King_is_Back and its discussion page .

The user Meryam90 (talk) is totally unaware of wikipedia guidelines and the meaning of the word vandalism . She has been warned by many wiki editors in the past about her continuous use of removal of others comments citing vandalism . She is the editor at Don2 page and is so ridiculous that she wants to use a tweet of the worst trade expert in India - Taran Adarsh and his pathetic site "bollywoodhungama.com" for reporting box-office collections . Consensus on the SOLE USE of BoxofficeIndia.com (BOI)- the premier site on box-office collections in India has been made long ago ; and every Bollywood movie (hindi movie ) main infobox uses BOI numbers . So using any other site or especially a tweet on the twitter-networking site from a useless trade analyst is highly unacceptable and lame . Moreover , if you observe the view history of that article closely , you can easily see that the editor is making personal comments on me and using vandalism as a totally unnecessary tool here . I deleted the BO-figures n gross from the info-box and she starts harrassing and attacking me after undoing my edits . She seems to be a huge Shah Rukh Khan( a bollywood actor ) fangirl who wants to control his every film article . So , it happens to be the obvious case here , that the INFOBOX on his 2 latest movies reads box-office numbers from useless sites other than BOI. First , she abused all editors on the Raone discussion page regarding bo figures (btw which are still not according to BOI ) and now in case of Don2 she wants to degrade the standards of Wikipedia by using a lame tweet for box-office figures that too in main infobox .

So , Ra.one and Don2 (both ShahRukhKhan movies ) have now become the only movies in Hindi cinema that are using pathetic and lame sources other than BOI ; whereas all other (THOUSANDS OF )movies use BOI . This is unfair to all those movies .

So , i request an immediate BLOCK for this user for spoiling the integrity of Wikipedia for giving out box-office collections for hindi films FROM FAKE SITES as well as for using vandalism as an unnecessary tool for deleting and undoing others edts plus attacking me .

Thanks .Seeta mayya (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Has the user had at least 2 or 3 previous warnings? --Ta, Chip123456 (talk) 08:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

You never warned them about this thread. --Guerillero | My Talk 17:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I blocked both of you for edit warring. This seems like a case of WP:BOOMERANG --Guerillero | My Talk 17:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Need help with a BLP violator

Resolved

 – Edit filter created by Reaper Eternal causa sui (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

An IP-hopping editor continues to post stuff that refers to someone he fancies as his girlfriend on facebook or some such. The articles he's hit so far have been semi-protected. The talk pages also need to be semi'd. This includes Talk:Claudia Black and Talk:Name-dropping‎. A third talk page, about Rango (2011 film), has already been semi'd short-term. Rango is where this started, in late November or so. That article history has a number of items rev-del'd. Probably ALL of the references need to be rev-del'd on those 3 talk pages. However, they should first be semi'd, the keep the IP from re-adding it. Thank you, all. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

(Bugs and I have some discussion on my talk page on this but probably better to carry on here. I blocked the IP most recently being used by this vandal for 48 hours, without warnings because of the long history of IP-hopping abuse.) My concern is that he's already shown through his edits on name-dropping that he's a very persistent long-term vandal, so short-term blocks aren't going to help much. And is it really appropriate to semiprotect a talk page on a long term basis? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

As you've seen, he's had 2 IP's just in the last 10 minutes. And he's also got a tendency to post the Nazi flag, which is why he hit up me and Tenebrae before we had our own talk pages semi'd (which is within the conventional rules). I know they hate to block talk pages, but doesn't real-life BLP concern override that rule? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I at least semi'd the black and name-dropping talk pages for a week, to match the protection already in place for Rango's talk page. That doesn't seem so long as to be particularly harmful to me and should give us time to discuss the issue properly without being distracted by stomping out fires. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, to square with Favonian's protection of Rango. He had expressed the same reservations about blocking a talk page. We need some more heads on this one. If it was gard-variety vandalism, it wouldn't matter. But this is a BLP issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs is correct in his concerns, and only giving the tip of the iceberg. As I noted at Wikipedia:Abuse response/58.178.101.246, he's been blocked five times (though because he's jumped from 58.178 IPs to a couple of other IPs, he evaded censure).

He has vandalized and harassed continually from a 58.178 and 58.179 range including:

• 58.178.101.246
• 58.178.158.6
• 58.178.143.164
• 58.179.151.44,
• 58.178.154.119, and
• 58.179.132.246, as well as 210.50.115.243, [which has made the same distinctive "Angelique Carrington" edits]

He has been blocked at

• 58.178.101.246,
• 58.178.145.167 and
• 58.178.150.189

as well as at

• 203.212.133.140, and
• on Dec. 7, 2011 at 210.50.42.209 [which have made the same distinctive "Angelique Carrington" edits]

As late as December 28, 2011, he was making Nazi-related vandal edits through yet another 58.178 IP, 58.178.158.166.

I hope this raw data helps in reaching a conclusion about the best way to deal with this persistent serial vandal who has shown no sign of relenting even after several months. --Tenebrae (talk) 11:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

In view of the magnitude of the problem, I guess we have to semi the talk pages. Given the persistence of this particular pest, we may even have to extend the protection, which I know will rub some people the wrong way, but Bugs is right: BLP trumps the right of IPs to edit freely. Favonian (talk) 11:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

My problem with this is that we can't semi every talk page on Wikipedia. Why aren't we just using the abuse filter? causa sui (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that an abuse filter report may be indicated here. Further details in that regard should probably be taken to the appropriate place off-wiki (which unfortunately I don't know exactly what it is) for WP:BEANS type reasons. In addition, although we are trying to use fewer rangeblocks to avoid collateral damage, if it would be useful to explore that possibility, if the abuse-filter approach doesn't work then this possibility can be raised with the checkuser team. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm not aware of anywhere to process edit filter requests except WP:EF/R. I'm drafting something there now. causa sui (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest a long-block for User: Shmayo

This user have since he became an editor here on Wikipedia, only contributed to Assyrian-related articles. He have started alot of edit- and revertwars. Just check his last contributes History, he have only been reverting articles, editing articles in order to raise a particular identity. He removes the term "Syriac" or "Aramean" in every article he finds, and replace it with "Assyrian". If the source clearly use the term "Syriac", then he either replace it with "Assyrian" or just adds the term "Assyrian" with the edit-comment "Neutralisation". He have started dozens of edit wars in Syriac related articles, but also in Chaldean-related articles. Just to describe the situation between Syriacs, Assyrians and Chaldeans; Three names for a same group. Some consider themselves "Syriacs" ad trace it roots back to the ancient Arameans. The other group consider themselves "Assyrians" and trace their roots back to the ancient Assyrians. The last group consieder themselves "Chaldeans" and trace their roots back to the ancient Chaldeans. It is an on-going war between them, especially here in Wikipedia in all articles related to this group. User Shmayo is seriously contributing to this on-going war here in Wikipedia, just check his History History and his talkpage Talk, it us full of warnings and debates from alot of users and administrators. He keeps starting editwars, he breaks the 3RR rule, he is guarding articles, he moves page without even discussing them, he is stalking users, edit warring in alot of articles. He keeps removing the name "Aramean" from articles and replaces it with Assyrian even if it was backed up with source he also removes the source, just because that name does not "fit" him 1, 2, 3 just for examples. All his edits can be found in his contribution-history, and all warnings and debates and everything can be found on his talkpage. His recent "contribution" were made on this article Syrianska FC. I was asked in January this year, to remake the whole article about Syrianska FC on Wikipedia, since the team got promoted from Second-division to first-division in Sweden. They wanted an article full with information and sources, and improvements to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. This was the version before i contributed Version 1, and this is the version after my contributions Version 2. I really made a huge improvement for the article, also with help from user Reckless. Then User: Shmayo came to this article and started his editwars. This was his contribution; Contribution. He removed alot from the intro, just becase a specific name did not fit him, without even discussing it on the articles talkpage. I everything backed up with sources on that article. Also, 2 months ago me and two other users on wikipedia agreed on the current version. We had a discussion about some things on the article, and at last we agreed to remove and rewrite some things, and then result was the current version. We did even not to ask for a third opinion notice from an administrator since we all already agreed. But this User: Shmayo, he does not discuss or provide sources, he just vandalize and have been keep doing this for the last two years. I suggest an administrator revert all his recent edits, and maybe time for a permanent ban? SYRIANIEN (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Did you think they missed Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive733#I_suggest_a_long-block_for_User:_Shmayo, or what is your purpose copy-pasting this just a couple days after? Shmayo (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, i dont know how everything works if an reported incident is being archived. I suggest we let the administrators solve it, if it is wrongly replaced here then an administrator can handle it. SYRIANIEN (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The guidelines for how you should do are written under "How to use this page". Shmayo (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Okey. Well still waiting for an admin to read. SYRIANIEN (talk) 12:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Admins will have read it, and they've probably just ignored it. This looks to be petty nationalistic editing and content wars; I'd advise you head to WP:Dispute resolution or somewhere else for further attention. GiantSnowman 12:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Disputed Removal of POV and COAT templates on page Jehovah's Witnesses Beliefs

I have an issue on the page [189] where I placed a {{POV}} dispute template on the page as well as a {{coatrack}} template. User user:Jeffro77 deleted the template's without allowing time for discussion after I indicated a few days (December 31st) ago that I wouldn't be able to start addressing the multiple issues with the page for a few days. The template clearly says editors are not to remove the template until the dispute is settled. I would like someone to put it back forthwith and warn the editor that his actions are inappropriate. This editor has already orchestrated the removal of a AFD tag on the page after a matter of only a few hours and now feels he can remove the POV dispute tags as well without discussion. Please address asap...thanks.Willietell (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I restored them, go and start a section on the talk page. This is what you are meant to do immediately upon tagging an article. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

That section has already been started, it was started immediately after tagging the article.Willietell (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't talk rubbish. The tag was added on December 30;[190]; only today have you initiated any real discussion about your specific concerns, following repeated requests by other users to explain your motivation. [191][192][193] You have been complaining for weeks that the article is "all lies" and should be deleted and on those occasions too, you have steadfastly refused to detail your concerns so they can be discussed and addressed. Your recent tagging the page as an attack page, and then as a coatrack, gave every evidence of being part of the same strategy -- make an accusation, then run away. People just get tired of your games. BlackCab (talk) 07:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The editor has been claiming for weeks that the article is biased, and has been requested for weeks to indicate the specifics about what he believes to be biased. He refused, repeatedly, even claiming that other editors should just know what he thinks is biased.[194] He was again requested to provide specifics, and he replied that he won't do anything for another week and a half, so I removed the templates.[195]

The editor has also been disruptive, as several anonymous IPs, at Chronology of the Bible. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Spudpicker_01/Archive

Willietell also cited the template use: The template clearly says editors are not to remove the template until the dispute is settled. It seemed entirely appropriate to remove the templates, because no specific dispute had been raised. Now that he's bothered to actually state his concerns with the article (when it's in his advantage to complain about me removing the templates, invalidating his prior claim that he would not be able to do so for over a week), I have no problem with restoring the templates. When I removed the templates in the first instance,I specifically stated that the templates should be re-added once any actual objections were raised.[196]--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Moonshiners (TV series)

Hello, on that article that I created, it has a copyright notice(the one that blanks the whole page) that it is in violation of copyright and to fix with an admin. Only the "Cast" section is in violation and that should be removed. I had no idea until the big notice popped up and when I checked it was right. However, the notice says nothing should be modified until this is cleared up with an admin, so right now I'm requesting that the "Cast" section be deleted and the notice removed. Thank you! P.S. the revision before the cast section is here however, I recommend that it just be manually removed because some typos were fixed in the main section after that. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 02:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I've compared the contents of the article to the Discovery website, and Ramaksoud2000 is correct, it's only the "Cast" section which is a copyvio and should be removed. The lede is not even a close paraphrase of the website's "About Show" section, it's a completely new description of the show. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Any admin out there? Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 13:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I encourage patience - there's no deadline for anything here. I have edited the pre-copyvio-tagged version, removing the CAST section, as per BMK (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Low volume but persistent spammer

Check out Special:Contributions/111.118.183.121. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I've issued a final warning - please feel free to give me a shout if you see it happen again, and I'll follow up on it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Chairvoyance breaking 3RR (possible sock also)

The following user has constantly been reverting edits on only one article since account was created. blanked talk page of warnings, only recently created an account and only edits on C.S. Lewis, also possibly a sock.

See evidence here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C._S._Lewis&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Chairvoyance TheFortunateSon (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• I believe you're looking for WP:AN/EW. Being that the last actions were 2 days ago it's not an immediate need (and likely to be dismissed on grounds of being stale). Hasteur (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• Ok thanks, if it happens again then there will be consequences. TheFortunateSon (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Now that sounds like a threat (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You're right, Bwilkins--let's not start throwing those kinds of threats around. This kind of thing might be more helpful. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

A threat? Heavens forbid somebody gets 'threatened' with non-legal, non-violent wikipedia action as a result of their actions..., put the thinking cap on, its a warning, do I need to spell that out for some of you? I can assume that you know what happens to a sockpuppet or an editor who breaks the 3RR? I hope you do anyway, you never know with some admins these days.TheFortunateSon (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

And happy new year to you too. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You too, bye now. TheFortunateSon (talk) 17:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Sheodred/FortunateSon is now indef-blocked by EdJohnston for "Long term warring on the nationality of BLP subjects who were born in Northern Ireland." Clairvoyance, meanwhile, has been deemed a likely match to User:Freyno, indef-blocked as a sock of User:PowerSane. That likeliness is good enough for me: I'm blocking them for quacking like Freyno and PowerSane (I've already blocked two IPs this morning). ANI brings out the best in us, doesn't it? BTW, FortunateSon was right about the socking issue! Thanks to EdJohnston and Tnxman307. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

BLP issue and legal threat

Resolved

I will be logging off shortly but am in the middle of pulling out some BLP-violating material from both Kevin Gage (actor) and Talk:Kevin Gage (actor) where an editor claiming to be the subject has left a legal threat. Could another admin please take a look and I can pick it back up if need be when I'm back? Thanks, Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

To anyone passing by: please don't just blindly block. The subject is clearly acting in good faith, and I think that otrswiki:Response:En-BLP advice for article subjects-style advice might be helpful. NW (Talk) 23:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't blocked him, I have talked to him, but OTRS would be of no help here, as what he wants to add is (a) allegations about a fit-up by the local flics with regard to the hash bust and (b) information about the state of health of the actor's current wife. I note also that around this time last year, an IP editor started adding a heap of unsourced information to the article. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm back. Thanks for stepping in Elen of the Roads. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 01:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record, I was suggesting a response pointing the user towards policies rather than blocking, which you seem to have handled nicely. Looks like we're all set here. NW (Talk) 02:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I misread what you said, thought you were recommending that he contact OTRS, which is of course the correct advice where someone wants something removed from an article about them. Apologies. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not know where to ask this so

Resolved

I'm asking here. I just removed a copyright violation from Ladies vs Ricky Bahl. Is this all that needs to be done? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I revdel'd the copyright violations.--v/r - TP 21:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, you did everything right here, including reporting it (so that the copyvio could be deleted from the history). Thanks. causa sui (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks by 74.56.51.128

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.

Blocked for 48 hours. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

---

74.56.51.128 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
User notified on his Talk Page

The editor has repeatedly refused to engage is civil discussions, preferring to argue mostly through lengthy, acid & uncivil edit summaries, as can be seen on his Contributions list.

User as also been warned at least twice (1, 2) for personal attacks, which he removed both times and attempted to address through edit summaries, denying the claims, or justifying them.

Personal attacks have included calling another editor a "Source Nazi" (twice), "a control freak", calling editors "cultists" in an obvious derogatory tone, and saying on an editor's talk page "Evaluate your role in life about now" (then proceesing to admit in this edit summary he did it purposedly and intentionally to offend.) Salvidrim! 21:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I have been monitoring the situation as well and concur. ~ Lhynard (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I've witnessed this IP's disruptive behavior as well, I've had to tell him not to rant on about users on article talk pages; that those things should be addressed on talk pages, and on talk pages, he went on to taunt editors about "being schooled". Seems to be putting far more effort into insulting anyone who crosses his path than adding to the project. Sergecross73 msg me 21:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I'd like to note that despite the user claiming that we are reacting this way because he is not a regular, unregistered, (in short, an anonymous IP), there is no doubt in my mind that even is he was a registered, regular, veteran editor, I would react the same way towards his inappropriate behaviour. Salvidrim! 21:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The entire situation: I got on Myst article.... I attempt to put in some common sense knowledge.... Rehevkor reverts me three times.... I revert with sources until he considers sources legit.... HE hits ME with three revert rule.... I make snide comment he should "evaluate his role in life" as a joke... HE tells ME "go fuck yourself"... I start getting attacked by his friends for disruptive behavior.... I call him "control freak" in an EDIT LINE OF MY TALK PAGE (of all places) and point out there's a bias in my persecution.... and now we have "Incident report"... So what "disruptive behavior" is there on my part? None, only discussion. That's it.... this is a bad day for Wikipedia's community. 74.56.51.128 (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Perceived injustice (whether true or not -- I am not expressing an opinion on that) does not entitle you to attack others. Salvidrim! 22:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You do realize there's been all sorts of links to your actual edits provided above, showing that you're not as nearly as innocent as you're trying to claim to be, right? Sergecross73 msg me 22:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You first edit of today was to call someone a "source Nazi", this is not the way to get people to assume good faith. And I freely admit my own discretion, it was a gut reaction after a barrage of incivility from yourself. Яehevkor ✉ 22:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

"You first edit of today was to call someone a..." NOPE, WRONG. It was to resurrect legit and helpful information for fans of the game. See the Edit itself. Don't spin me. 74.56.51.128 (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

"Apparently this was reverted by a source Nazi." Яehevkor ✉ 22:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You should note that A) Rehevkor also received a warning on his talk page; B) Once you supplied a source, your edit on Myst was not reverted; C) I have never had contact with any of the people involved here; D) nor is leaving a warning on your talk page an attack. ~ Lhynard (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Innocent? Nah. Just pointing out these 'horrible, uncivil, terrible, awful' things I've said and done were NOT without being provoked by a domineering hypocrite. Ban me if you'd like, you've certainly made a nice case here. Do you guys work here full time? Honest question. 74.56.51.128 (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not employed by Wikipedia. Perceived or real provocation does not justify personal attacks. Calling someone a "domeering hypocrite", as you did just above, is unambiguously a personal attack. I would recommend trying to avoid attacking other editors in the AN/I report about your behaviour and personal attacks. Salvidrim! 22:23, 4 January 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 address 74., Please take a moment and read all of the policies and guidelines people are quoting at you. For reference there is Verifiablity, Reliable Sources, No Personal Attacks, Civility, I didn't hear that, and 5 Pillars of Wikipedia. While Rehevkor was less than civil on a few occasions to you, your continued personal attacks and refusal to stop and understand what good intentioned editors are trying to tell you only pre-disposes other editors to believe other people over you. Please take a break from the current conflict to see if your actions have not been slightly over the top. Hasteur (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

More harassment by user:JesseRafe

Previous ANI discussion

I recently reported user:JesseRafe here for wikistalking me, after he followed me around reverting my edits and referring to them as vandalism in his edit summaries. It was explained to him during the original discussion here that edits are not vandalism simply because he does not like them. I also posted a notice to his page about accusing other editors of vandalism without good cause. Now, he has gone to the talk pages of 5 different editors (so far) and told them individually that I am a vandal and to keep an eye on the page in dispute (presumably so he can circumvent 3rr by having others undo my edits for him, by misleading them into believing that I am a vandal). This is clearly harassment.

The original notice I posted to his page about not calling constructive editors vandals: [197]

The original complaint about his harassing behaviour: [198]

His recent edits to users talk pages telling them that I am vandalising a page they have contributed to: [199] [200] [201] [202] [203]. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Based on closing comments at previous discussion and Jesse's subsequent behavior, in my view, a block is warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

This user has refused consensus, compromise and civility, and to boot, has resorted to wiki-stalking me! The charge he or she initially and unfoundedly levied upon me, going out of his or her way to edit articles and undo changes I have made on articles I have years of history editing. This is absurd that I should be the one blocked, look at how unnecessary this user's edits have been and poorly formatted/lazy they are to alphabetize a list, yet they have the time to follow me around the internet. Absurd. JesseRafe (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

And you are running all over Wikipedia labeling the editor a vandal after being told not to use that term unless it clearly applied because ...?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Deleting entire referenced sections is not vandalism? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism#Blanking.2C_illegitimate What else would I call it? Notice in the history 1) that many other editors undid the anon IP's edits, and 2) the anon IP's uncivil discourse towards other editors - and I, a trusted, long-time editor should be the one to be banned? Are you serious? JesseRafe (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't deleted referenced material. Only unreferenced material. I'm not being uncivil. You are being uncivil by calling me a vandal and lazy. Other editors only undid my edits after you falsely called them vandalism in an edit summary, giving people the impression that they ought to be reverted. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 01:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not completely accurate. You have reverted material with citations. Here's one example: [204]. --Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

If you read those links you'll see that nowhere do any of them mention nominative determinism. All they do is mention the existence of the persons listed, they do not say anything about their names leading to their professions, so they are not references for nominative determinism. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

As I've said before, if you read the article you would see it said it was a theory that it could be, and thus these were examples, no one ever said it was a fact that their names caused their professions. Just examples of people whom the application of the theory could be applied to. And there mere existence is a primary source, so they belong to be entered on the page. JesseRafe (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, that part of policy doesn't support your position. The IP is not removing material without explaining why. Vandalism of that sort is usually clearly destructive (a silent removal of sourced material, for example). Also, I might point out that both you and the IP are edit-warring in the Nominative determinism article, and each of you has already violated WP:3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the overall issue, but to comment only on the disputed content at the Nominative determinism article - I was looking at that article and I agree with the IPs removal - there is a OR issue there and Jesse is replacing with a reason of self-evident examples of a theory. The article intro states, "a person's name can have a significant role in determining key aspects of job, profession or even character." and then there is a list of uncited names that no one has made this association about in a reliable source. Youreallycan (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

In addition, your attitude toward the IP is condescending. First, you continually refer to him as an "anon IP", which is redundant and can only serve to emphasize that s/he is not registered. Second, you call yourself a "trusted, long-time editor", which actually doesn't help you as, if anything, you should be held to a higher standard for understanding Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Finally, although the issues may be interrelated, the block (not "ban") you deserve, in my view, is separate from any possible sanction against the IP, but, thus far, the only thing I see is edit-warring, which you are equally guilty of.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Not entirely true, when the IP made the unfounded allegations the other day I stopped out of the 3RR rule. The edits today were new edits, first based on wholesale content removal by IP and then by me with a selective amount of content restored, i.e. I didn't merely undo, but pared the list down. The IP is just continuing to delete on principle. And also, might I add, he or she is ironically enough wikistalking me, randomly undoing some of my edits on other pages, such as Ghost Dog. I'll stop using the label vandal, but is that really the problem here? Not the arrogance of the IP to insult and curse at other editors and ignore consensus? JesseRafe (talk) 01:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

All I did was provide a reference for a previously uncited fact in the article... A reference you promptly deleted on the grounds that it was "sloppy". 89.100.150.198 (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

That's provably false. I undid someone else's unconstructive edit that was in poor style and not well said, and you undid my edit of that (assumedly out of spite, i.e. wikistalking because you had never edited that article before) and you undid that with a citation, but I did not remove the content because it was uncited, but because that information did not belong in the soundtracl area and in fact, already was in the right place of the article in the cast section.JesseRafe (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I count 4 reverts by you today for the purpose of the rule (and there's always edit-warring even without the rule). Stop focusing on what IP has done and focus on what you did before the first ANI topic and then in between the close of that topic and the opening of this one. How could you so quickly ignore the counsel of so many editors not to use the vandal label?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, have you actually looked at the edit history? The IP just says "fuck yourself" to me in an edit summary undoing my edit for the first time (which is what got me to notice the IP in the first place and think he might be a vandal because of the language used) and then you cite IDHT to me to admonish me? I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone. The IP refuses to get the point, because while I was away from wikipedia during the holidays no less than 3 other editors undid IP's edits only for the IP to undo them again. So which of us is not getting the point about the status of this article? And who deserves the ban? I can't believe the IP was able to manipulate this into being about me? Look at my edits, I don't engage in edit warring, but do a lot of work fixing vandalism and making underserved articles much better. JesseRafe (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The "fuck yourself" comment is old and was part of the first ANI topic. The IP was admonished not to attack editors during the topic. Yet, the IP has not ignored that admonishment. OTOH, you have ignored the counsel of others.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Eh... I told you to go fuck yourself because you referred to my constructive edits as vandalism in an edit summary. How can you possibly claim that it "is what got me to notice the IP in the first place and think he might be a vandal because of the language used". The language was used after you called me a vandal. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 01:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, I assume the 2 (which is less than 3) editors that reverted me did so at least partially based on the fact that you called me a vandal, and they assumed that you wouldn't have called me a vandal without first checking to see whether I was or not. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 02:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm more than a little offended this is still happening. Look at the IP's talk page, and how he or she has a history of edit warring and warnings for other articles. Why has no warning been put there for this time? Why am I the only one targeted by the IP's viscous character attack? This is absurd that he or she breaks multiple rules and I try to maintain the integrity of wikipedia, but the IP complains first and loudest and gets what they want. JesseRafe (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

You're going in circles. I'll let other editors weigh in on your conduct and your self-deflecting complaints.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• I commented at the last ANI discussion of this issue (to the effect that the IP is right and that JesseRafe has incorrectly used "vandal"). It is disappointing that JesseRafe shows no signs of understanding what multiple editors have tried to explain, and something needs to happen to ensure the IP is left to continue their good edits unhindered (I haven't checked many of their edits, just enough to see that the IP is at least sometimes correct, and I don't see any credible claims of a bad edit). JesseRafe has unfortunately got a little personally involved in the dispute (hint: adding unsourced examples because they are "self-evident examples" is original research—has a secondary source examined all the people named "Fish" and determined whether an unusual proportion of them are marine biologists?). Can we agree that the matter is too trivial to warrant a formal interaction ban, but there must be no further interference. Johnuniq (talk) 02:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

John, this is completely Kafkaesque. As I explained before I was suspicious about the IP when he cursed at me and selectively (not systematically) examined some of the IP edits (because how could I know it was even one person?) and then undid some of his other more spurious edits. Then, the IP began wikistalking me! I have been making edits at the Ghost Dog page for years, and the IP out of spite then begins to undo my edits there. And I long ago apologized for calling him a vandal. I apparently misunderstood that blanking entire sections is not considered vandalism anymore. Also, please note that this IP is the only one who holds this view on ND and that other editors have also undone the IP's edits, and the IP has a history of being warned about engaging in edit wars, whereas I have not. What is the issue? OK, he's not a vandal, but he needs to be blocked from the page (or the page should be protected) because he is ignoring consensus. Let's focus on the big picture and what needs to be done to stop disruption. JesseRafe (talk) 03:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• "I was suspicious about the IP when he cursed at me". No. I cursed at you after you called me a vandal in an edit summary where you reverted one of my constructive edits.

• "I have been making edits at the Ghost Dog page for years, and the IP out of spite then begins to undo my edits there". You need to read WP:OWN. I didn't undo any of your edits. You removed some material, which I then tracked down a reference for, and reinserted with the reference. I did not do this out of spite. You then deleted the reference.
• "IP is the only one who holds this view on ND and that other editors have also undone the IP's edits". Other editors reverted my edits (once each) after you falsely marked my edits as vandalism.
• "IP has a history of being warned about engaging in edit wars, whereas I have not". I have warned you for edit warring, and you immediately removed the warnings.
• "he needs to be blocked from the page (or the page should be protected) because he is ignoring consensus". Consensus and "the version you want" are not the same thing. By your logic, you need to be blocked because you ignore WP:OR and WP:CIV. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 04:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

This is the problem, that you completely miscategorize my edits and libel me on these boards and admins who only superficially examine the issue somehow get fooled by your conniving.

1. I labeled you a vandal under a misunderstanding. Previously anyone who blanked an entire section was marked a vandal, and this must have changed. Your edit appeared to be vandalism as it was unexplained wanton deletion. I apologized for this multiple times. Furthermore, one instance of a simple mistake does not warrant being told "to go fuck [my]self" -- that's the most clear and egregious breach of wikipedia policy committed by either of us.

2. Your defense about Ghost Dog is so wrong it's almost funny. You did follow me there, how can you say you didn't? And you did undo my edits. I deleted it because it was spurious unencyclopedic content and I deleted it before I even knew it was the same person (again, you're using an anonymous IP address - how can I know who you are or bother to memorize a long string of random numbers?). I had never interacted with you on the Ghost Dog page before, and had no reason to suspect it would be the same person from Nominative Determinism following me there to undo my constructive edits out of spite. And yes, I removed the reference, because it was a reference attached to a phrase that did not belong in the article at all, as it contributed nothing to the page, was redundant information and was about the cast (where the same information was already listed) and not the soundtrack (because the sentence fragment and reference was about the cast, not the soundtrack).

3. It is conjecture on your part what the motives of the other editors were. But it is still fact that they reverted your edits, which speaks for itself, whether or not they independently found your edits inappropriate (likely) or based on my say-so (which is doubtful, as must editors examine a page's changes before reverting).

4. I don't think you know what consensus means. Other editors have also been undoing your edits. It's the version of the article they want too. You're the only one who doesn't understand consensus is not the version that they themselves want. And the policy on OR is not applicable here because it deals with primary sources that are self-evident, not research. And bringing up CIV? You? "Mr. Go Fuck Yourself"? Too ironic for me to comment on. JesseRafe (talk) 04:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

1. "I labeled you a vandal under a misunderstanding. ". You called me a vandal at least 9 times, 5 of which were after other editors had explained to you that my actions did not constitute vandalism.

2. "I had never interacted with you on the Ghost Dog page before, and had no reason to suspect it would be the same person from Nominative Determinism following me there to undo my constructive edits out of spite. And yes, I removed the reference, because it was a reference attached to a phrase that did not belong in the article at all, as it contributed nothing to the page, was redundant information and was about the cast (where the same information was already listed) and not the soundtrack (because the sentence fragment and reference was about the cast, not the soundtrack)." How is referencing information not contributing to the page? How is it spiteful?

3. "It is conjecture on your part what the motives of the other editors were. But it is still fact that they reverted your edits, which speaks for itself". The idea that reverts speak for themselves is conjecture on your part.

4. "I don't think you know what consensus means. Other editors have also been undoing your edits." Undoing my edits, once, after you labelled them as vandalism. You are the only one who reverted my edits more than once.

5 "And the policy on OR is not applicable here because it deals with primary sources that are self-evident, not research." The policy on OR is always applicable. Otherwise anyone could decide that the material they wanted to add was "self evident".

6 "And bringing up CIV? You? "Mr. Go Fuck Yourself"? Too ironic for me to comment on.". You called me a vandal before I swore at you. People don't appreciate being insulted.

7 You shouldn't keep referring to my words as "libel". Give WP:No legal threats#Perceived legal threats a read. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 05:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Right, it was a misunderstanding about how the term "vandal" was being defined. I honestly thought your edit constituted vandalism. I then corrected myself. Moot, give it up.

2. You referenced information that was deleted. Once again, read what I said. It was not removed because it was unreferenced, it was removed because it was written poorly, redundant and in the wrong place. What was spiteful was that you had clearly followed me to that page to undo my edits. I.e. wikistalking me.

3. No, it is not. Another example of misunderstanding plain meaning. No matter how you look at it, your position is conjecture based on what you surmise their motives for undoing your edits was, while my position is to merely point to the fact that others have undone your edits to that page not just me. The former is idle speculation, the latter is a verifiable fact.

4. Perhaps I am the only one who has the page on their watchlist. Also, it is the holidays. Either way, irrelevant.

5. Once again, you don't understand the gist of the article and why this is NOT original research. No one ever advocated for including anything under the guise of OR, just that the self-evident in this case means they are primary sources.

6. One was an honest mistake and not an insult - it appeared to be vandalism, a statement, not a pejorative. You knowingly and willfully used obscenities in your edit summary, and your abrasive attitude implies you may be willing to do so again as you feel so justified in having done so.

7. Now you're just grasping at straws. How could I sue you? You're being silly. "Libel" is an objective assessment about you lying about me in printed form. That's libel. There need be no lawsuit or threat of legal action to accurately categorize written lies as "libel". JesseRafe (talk) 05:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Will someone please close this before the hole gets too deep. I have invited the IP to ask my opinion if the view of a third person is wanted on other articles. Johnuniq (talk) 06:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
• Well, I'd like to, but there is plenty of evidence that Jesse is badmouthing the IP as a vandal, when clearly (see the previous ANI thread) they are not vandalizing. The "fuck off" comment has been dealt with as well: it was an understandable reaction to being called a vandal. The stalking evidence is more difficult, and I do not have the inclination right now to tabulate and compare edits. I propose the following: each editor stops undoing the other's edits. Plain and simple. Stay away from each other. There is no ownerships of articles; if IP wished to edit Ghost Dog they are welcome to do so--but IP, don't undo Jesse's edits, just for the sake of appearance. Moreover, if Jesse continues to send out notifications of IP's edits, Jesse should be blocked temporarily. Even if Jesse does not use the word vandal in such canvassing notices anymore, the intent is clear: to cast dispersion.

  The phrasing "this vandal's impact" is itself blockable, and if any other admin (following Bbb23's suggestion also) finds it so, they have my blessing. I won't do it right now, since hope springs eternal, but if IP presents any more evidence of being (unjustly) called a vandal, or of the suggestion of being accused of vandalism, just one more time, Jesse should be blocked for a week or more. Err on the side of caution, Jesse--for the life of me, I do not understand why the last ANI thread wasn't warning enough. I hope a few more editors will look at this. Johnuniq, thanks for your continued interest in this unsavory matter. IP, you have my apologies. I trust that Jesse will leave you alone, and if not, I'll block them myself, appearance or not. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Support Drmies's idea for how to handle this disagreement. Regardless of who is right, a dispute that is constantly taking up space on the admin boards will probably be ended in some way that won't please both of the participants. Self-restraint (by either party) is a good way to head off this outcome. There are two reports open at AN3 right now about this same case. I suggest not closing those reports until we see if Drmies's advice is being listened to by either party. EdJohnston (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The above is good (I was suggesting the close in the hope that a little face-saving and some time might avert further problems). However, the above comments may give the impression that the IP has a significant responsibility in the issue—it would be fairer to tell JesseRafe to keep away from the IP. Another issue is some silly content being discussed at Talk:Nominative determinism where again JesseRafe is not understanding correct procedure—I am watching that, but have little patience for edit warring, particularly over such silliness, and it would be nice if an admin were to drop a hint that the article is fine the way the IP left it (with OR removed), rather than fully protecting the article as has happened. Johnuniq (talk) 02:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

John, I hoped I was being careful enough here, walking a fine line (since "fuck off" is also not really OK, of course). For the sake of clarity: the IP was making constructive edits, lots of them, and no one should call them a vandal. I had a brief look at the discussion but am not knowledgeable enough (or, ahem, interested enough). Perhaps you can leave a note for the protecting admin? This one needs to go to sleep. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy for this to be closed and for the article protection to stay—anything for peace and quiet, and it's likely that a few days of such peace and quiet will produce positive results. Johnuniq (talk) 06:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Heh, didn't know there was such a thing as peace and quiet at Wikipedia, but one can always hope.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Timeshifter editwarring

Timeshifter (talk · contribs · email) has made an addition on List of countries by income equality which three people have explained why it doesn't fit, and attempted to discuss on the talk page, with little success. Timeshifter continues to revert [205] [206] [207] [208] [209] [210] [211] instead of engaging in constructive discussion, despite warnings [212] [213]. This has been going on for a month. We need to somehow get him to understand that this is not acceptable and that he needs to start listening to others on the talk page. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like clear edit-warring against several other editors, from an editor who has a block history for edit warring, so I've blocked for 48 hours -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I meant to say, the block history is old, which is why this current block is short -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --OpenFuture (talk) 09:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

...and I have declined his "admin abuse - if I don't get my way I'm leaving" unblock request. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 01:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Consensus on Talk:Usage share of web browsers

Hello,

I don't actually know whether this is a correct place for such discussion, please forgive if I'm wrong.

There has been a discussion at Talk:Usage share of web browsers about keeping median of the numbers in some tables. The discussion is quite lengthy and occupies almost entire talk page starting at Talk:Usage share of web browsers#Consensus on median in summary. It follows a mediation request ( here) and a similar discussion at Talk:Usage share of operating systems which resulted in the mentioned mediation request.

After a month has been passed, it seems to me and some other editors (diff) that consensus has been achieved: 12 !votes supporting (11 in the poll and User:Schapel who apparently supports it), 5 !votes opposing. The problem is that User:Useerup doesn't agree that a consensus has been achieved: he unilaterally tries to close the poll (diff) and edits the affected article to reflect his vision of consensus while also engaging in an edit war (diff, diff, diff). This follows his previous attempts to close polls with results favouring his opinion (diff, also see similar poll at Talk:Usage share of operating systems) which disrupted the ongoing discussions.

Here I kindly ask two things:

1. An experienced editor or administrator to investigate whether the poll at Talk:Usage share of web browsers#Consensus on median in summary has achieved consensus and indicate the result of the investigation in the talk page (e.g. by putting entire discussion under the banners usually used in deletion/move/rename discussions).
2. Investigate whether User:Useerup has engaged into disruptive editing (specifically WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT) by repeatedly refusing to acknowledge a consensus opposite to his opinion.

Thanks. 1exec1 (talk) 12:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: This has also made the rounds to WP:DRN prior to going to MedCab Hasteur (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing attention to this. When the discussion on the talk page

• came to a standstill and
• the poll had been open for 1 month and
• there still were significant opposing (as in opposing use of the median calculation) editors

It was fairly obvious that there was no consensus. This is not just a content dispute, rather it is a policy dispute where WP:OR and specifically WP:CALC has been designed to require consensus for the inclusion of "routine" calculations specifically to avoid original research. This requirement is set deliberately to keep WP:OR out. While the discussion has been ongoing, editors have edited the numbers and updated the offending calculations. User 1exec1 has entered WP:IDHT with respect to WP:CALC, a core content policy. If I was the only editor who had qualms about the median (and the "correction" of the sources' numbers) I can see how 1exec1 and Daniel.Cardenas could claim that I was a single hold-out and just being stubborn. But the fact remains that we are several editors who still oppose the use of the median, i.e. there is still no consensus. Combined with the very clear requirements of WP:CALC I feel justified in demanding that we continue this debate with the median and other correcting calculations removed until a consensus for re-adding them can be reached. As it is evident during the rounds this debate has taken both at WP:DRN, mediation cabal, RFCs I have shown good faith (and patience) and even suggested alternative representations in order to build consensus without using the median (see my suggested graph). By leaving the calculations in the article until a consensus can be reached is in contradiction to the very clear intentions of WP:CALC: To err on the side of caution when it comes to original research.--Useerup (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with many of your points. Not wanting to start another lengthy discussion I will only point out that consensus does not mean unanimity (second sentence in WP:CONSENSUS), this was pointed out to you before. You still don't accept that opposing party is minority (less than third off the participants in the poll) and push through your opinion. That is what WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is about. But let's wait for a third party to explicitly say whether there is consensus or not. 1exec1 (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Then please read the first sentence and the third sentence; not just the second one. I never demanded that we came to a unanimous conclusion, and if I was the only one raising objections the situation would be different. But consensus takes into account all the proper concerns raised and ideally it arrives with an absence of objections. Consensus is not a majority vote, especially not when proponents inappropriately solicited uninformed opinions from visitors. There are still many legitimate concerns: Synthesis across multiple sources selected by editors, "correcting" numbers to allow for comparison, difference in sampling methods, differences in demographics. I believe that it is you who WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT with respect to 1) the very clear policy of WP:CALC and 2) a number of significant objections raised by a significant number of editors. The situation with this article is untenable, as editors continue to update the calculations in dispute. Remember, the WP:BURDEN is on the editors adding or re-inserting content. --Useerup (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Useerup also requested temporary full page protection of the affected article, claiming the usual consensus has not been reached. 1exec1 (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I did that when Daniel.Cardenas immediately and repeatedly reverted my edits where I 1) removed the median calculations (per WP:CALC), 2) removed the "corrected" numbers where editors had taken it upon themselves WP:SYN to "reduce" numbers to make a calculation across multiple, disparate sources possible and 3) a graph based on the median numbers. I reverted back and requested page protection. This was before this request on this board was opened (or at least before I was aware of it).--Useerup (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to say that 2/3s is not consensus. I don't know why this got to ANI because ANI is not part of the dispute resolution process. Consensus is not a simple majority vote. IDHT doesn't apply here. Don't confuse agreeing with hearing. This belongs at the dispute resolution noticeboard, not here. This months-old dispute is really becoming WP:LAME.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• I have opened an RfC at Talk:Usage share of web browsers so we don't have to argue over this.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Another revdel required

[214] I can find no source[215] to back this claim. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• The IP editor has put this back into the article 3 times as well. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP to stop them for reinserting the information and rev-deleted the blatant BLP violations. Oversight may still be required... --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• FYI, this is a rare case where we can start with a 4im warning. causa sui (talk) 00:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Source information inquiry for OTRS ticket # 2011111410022819

I need to know the authors of the following file and any other relevant information in order to process an OTRS Ticket:

File:EmilymarilynKevinBreak.JPG

Thank you for your time, MorganKevinJ^(talk) 22:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The file was originally created by User:Suzannegawel on October 29, 2011 with the edit summary "Emily Marilyn shot by http://www.KevinBreak.com photography". Is this the information you are looking for? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

That is all I need for now thank you, MorganKevinJ^(talk) 22:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Dolovis gaming the system – again

User Dolovis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has over the past year or so been involved in several disputes over the topic of diacritics (which he wants to rid wikipedia of). The common pattern has been a display of battleground mentality by move-warring, edit-warring and gaming the system (via editing redirects, so that page moves would not be possible without the intervention of an admin). For this, he deservedly received a page move ban (which seems to have been lifted since). After receiving the ban, he immediately started peppering WP:RM with move requests, which would normally have a good chance of going through if no-one opposed noticed it, thereby obtaining the same end result. For this, he was banned from making move requests for a while.

See also the latest (?) major quarrels over diacritics on Talk:Dominik Halmosi and Talk:Ľubomír Višňovský.

Dolovis is now back to his old tricks, making deliberate "mistakes" while creating redirects with diacritics, prompting him to edit the redirects again, adding template "R from title with diacritics". Diffs: [216], [217], [218], [219]. This is exactly why he received the page move ban.

It seems to me that Dolovis is set on having his way in wikipedia, no matter what, kind of a WP:OWN for the whole topic of ice hockey. He displays a total disrespect for other editors, in effect dismissing the whole idea of consensus, hoping to eventually wear other editors down. I think it's time to discuss expanding the ban on Dolovis to at least a topic ban for ice hockey (which is where his contributions are the most controversial) – and to reinstate the move ban and the ban on WP:RM, if indeed they have been lifted.

I think it's safe to say that Dolovis's pattern of behavior indicates that he will never learn.

User is notified.

HandsomeFella (talk) 10:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• Point of order: User:Dolovis has been wp:BLOCKed from editing for 1 week (until 17:47, 8 January 2012?) and cannot respond directly to any claims made here. See section: #Replies from User:Dolovis (far below) for responses copied from User_talk:Dolovis. -Wikid77 16:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Already being discussed: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive757#Controversial moves Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 10:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The issues are related, but not the same. Dolovis is reporting Thomas280784 for "controversial" moves, I am reporting Dolovis for gaming the system – again. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Not following, sorry ... are you saying the diacritic spellings are wrong, or that he should be making the diacritic spelling the stub and the ascii-7 (non diacritic) versions the direct? Nobody Ent 13:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

This report is aimed at Dolovis's behavior. On the diacritics issue, my view is that since they exist, and since there are articles on people, places, etc, that use them in en-wiki, it should reflect them (i.e. use the diacritics) in the title too. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd oppose any type of ban, on Dolovis. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that you are supporting his behavior, which is what this report is aimed at? Is gaming the system allowed for diacritics-critics, but not others? Do not the rules apply equally to editors, regardless of views? HandsomeFella (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Banning editors on either side of the dios dispute, will only add to the drama surrounding the topic. In future, go the RM route & there'll be less hassle. GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You did not answer the question. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I support his actions if the end result is limiting or eliminating diacritics. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You can't be serious. That is an unreasonable position. Having rules that don't apply to all editors ... I'm ... speechless. You're advocating anarchy, do you know that? Say, is there any breach of rules (or law) that Dolovis could commit, that you wouldn't oppose sanctions against him for, as long as that furthers if it furthered his fight (and yours) against windmills diacritics? HandsomeFella (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

HandsomeFella (geez.. some ego.. lol), GoodDay is well know for his strong pro-English national sentiments and Anglo-centric ideals, whether for better or for worse, that's my observation not a criticism. Simply put.. don't get drawn into a prolonged argument with him over this, you won't change his mind. On the flip side, I don't think a ban on Dolovis is necessary either. Just a firm bollocking, and told to read Wikipedia:DIACRITICS#Modified letters. I see this in the same way as British English vs American English – either use the strongest national tie, or if that fails, use whichever version of the article was created first, for the content, and redirect the other. In the end it's the same article. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 18:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Why did you have to interrupt? Goodday was just a few replies from defining himself as the first-ever wiki-terrorist sympathizer. ;-) HandsomeFella (talk) 20:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, a) that would be baiting, and b) "wiki-terrorist" might be seen as a personal attack, so best not use it. I wouldn't get too smug that Dolovis has not won his argument.. things can quickly boomerang on ANI if you get complacent. Besides, GoodDay would be cautious, as he already has restrictions in other areas and wouldn't want to make his situation worse. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 21:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• To clarify, Dolovis is redirecting articles about hockey players whose names feature diacritics to titles without the diacritics (which is incorrect to start with as the thread above demonstrated) and then editing the redirect which prevents his action being reversed without administrative intervention. He has been warned about this before and instructed to refrain from this practice. I have blocked him for a week while further discussion can take place about what should be done long term. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You can see the problem here -

• Dolovis creates Tomas Matousek [220] - which isn't correct as the guy is Swiss and his momma called him Tomáš Matoušek, and we can see above that the ice hockey guys are now agreeable to the use of diacritics for players outside of the main North american ice hockey league.
• Dolovis then creates Tomáš Matoušek as a redirct to Tomas Matousek [221], and edits the page to add {{tl:R from title with diacritics}}.
• This means that his redirect cannot be reverted, so User:Kajman87 attempts to make a mend by copying the content from Tomas Matousek to Tomáš Matoušek, which is of course not how it's supposed to be done, violates Wikipedia's content release licenses, and is going to take some poor admin several minutes to clean up.

This is just disruptive. It has been the subject of previous ANI discussions and Dolovis has only escaped sanction by agreeing not to do it again. I consider the week block a mere precautionary, and would recommend that the community discuss how to deal with this long term. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the really clear explanation. A ban of some sort seems appropriate. Nobody Ent 18:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Long term solution: follow MOS guidelines. Use templates — Wikipedia:DIACRITICS#Modified letters and {{R from title without diacritics}}. Most standard English keyboards don't have easy ways to add accents, and not all native-English speakers are aware of every form of accent.. never mind incapable of creating them. So non-accented alternatives are necessary for searching which then redirect to the correct versions. It should be policy under ENGVAR to have unglyphed redirections of accented names to make it easier for everyone. See also recent RFC discussion: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 18:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

No problems at all with someone properly creating unglyphed redirects to all the versions with diacritics - as you and MOS both agree, it's very useful. It is the way Dolovis does things to attempt to prevent the creation of the article at the glyphed title that is disruptive. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not terribly impressed by this. Dolovis and I have rarely gotten along, but I did support his request to have his page move ban lifted because he claimed to recognize how such behaviour was disruptive, and promised to cease making such edits. Hopefully the block serves as a reminder that these kinds of actions won't go unnoticed. Resolute 19:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I would add that these latest articles are all participants in the World Junior Hockey Championship, which is currently ongoing. Dolovis created them (typically with almost no information or value) so that he can dictate that the articles start without diacritics. If you wish to consider the IIHF's official literature for this tournament, he is potentially correct in some cases: all official programs and guides drop diacritics for Czech/Slovak names. However, diacritics are used for Finnish, Swedish, Danish and Swiss names. Russian is transliterated, and it appears Latvian names are also somewhat transliterated. Canada and the US have no names that require them. I would not care to guess whether the disuse of diacritics for the Slovaks, Czechs and Latvians indicates that dropping them is considered a proper spelling, or if they themselves just simplified for the sake of a North American audience. Resolute 19:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

See also this. Resolute 19:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• This is a hideously cynical abuse of the system by Dolovis; he's just exploiting a technicality to get his own way. Regardless of whether we should use accents in titles, his behaviour, considering he's been subject to sanctions for this kind of thing before, is unacceptable. I propose a full topic ban from modifying/discussing/suggesting changes to the titles of articles about ice hockey players, or any other article titles which could contain accents, as he's just causing disruption when he edits in this area. It's time for him to move on. In response to Marcus British – we don't need to omit the accents for search reasons; you'll still get to the article even if you type it in without accents. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Basalisk, you are right with one exception. The drop down / "matching suggestions" search box works by Javascript (which I just tested to confirm). Without Javascript, or with it disabled, you don't get offered accented alternatives, thus making the process harder. I know disabling Javascript based on a lot of cynicism and "more vulnerable to hacking" myths, these days, but there are people and places who still practice it. And I'm not sure how iPhone/Blackberry type handsets work with regards to searching Wiki, and Javascript, as I don't use them, but I wonder if there are more limited. So in some case there are going to be people who experience hold-ups. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 19:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, I don't really know enough about such things to bolster my opinion really! I guess I just like the authenticity of writing names the way they would be presented in their native language. I still stand by my suggestion of a ban, though. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to confirm, there would be no issue to creating an unglyphed version and redirecting it to the glyphed version. It is creating an artificial history at the glyphed version to prevent the article being at that title that is the problem. here is the original discussion concerning Dolovis, where this behaviour has been previously discussed. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC) here is the discussion from October where he asked for the pagemove ban to be reduced on a pledge of good behaviour. Dolovis is arguing on his userpage that his actions are entirely above board. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I honestly think that this is a very trivial matter. We're talking about letters here.. it's not like he's playing with fire by altering religions and nationalities, etc. This is more a matter of MOS practices and accessibility, possibly an aside to ENGVAR. However, if he has has a ban or restrictions placed previously, he should not directly aim to breach it, or indirectly the spirit of it. But again, the matter is so trivial, that imo only people with a COI or a pessimistic admin could really say there is a severe lack of "good faith" in what he is trying to accomplish. His methods may be questionable, his goal is not. Ban him? No. Stop his methods being disruptive. Yes. Perhaps a little more headway would be achieved if editors stopped trying to make a mountain out of this.. it's not a big issue. It's a few wavy lines above some letters. In the end if we can have both, accented and plain English, then we can't go about punishing an editor for trying to apply one more forcefully. We simply need to get him to adopt a more NPOV. Mentor him or some shit.. don't beat him up over it. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 20:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you want to try talking to him? He might listen to you. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd second that.

Slightly related... MarcusBritish, re bad faith. As I pointed out in the previous thread Dolovis I'm uninvolved with this but I do see them acting in poor, if not bad, faith when they level an SPA accusation at an editor that obviously isn't based on contribution record. I also see it in creating new redirects under a accented name in such a way as to block good faith editors from boldly moving articles to them. This is part of the behavior that earned the indef ban from moving pages, true. But it is as disruptive, and a little more deplorable, when they have only reason for the edit after the fact to add the category template is to "lock" the page. - J Greb (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

That'll be a first.. but will give it a go. Am not taking sides though.. from his POV I don't think he's done anything too severe, just untoward, from a Wiki POV diacritics are a pain in the ass and limit accessibility. There are solutions, and I see no reason to deny him the ability to partake in doing things the right way. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 20:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't fault you for that. The only concern I would have is if they continue to be disruptive if the "right" way doesn't match their way. We're here right now because of that. If it persists, it may become the reason for the denial of participation in some degree. - J Greb (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

This matter affects such a small percentage of articles, that it seems to me to have been over-looked and only thinly tackled in MOS. That's not the fault of the editors, but the fault of the community for not closing the loophole. It only appears that he is going against policy.. but the policy on diacritics appears so thin, it's hard to say. Maybe time to tighten up the policy like ENGVAR, and make it less open to interpretation. At the moment it's his interpretation against others. I don't care either way, because both solutions can be applied. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 21:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, he closed the discussion on his talk page whilst whining about something or other. To me that's an example of WP:IDHT. I know where he can shove my thoughts now. Later, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 22:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Concerning the article Tomas Jurco, Dolovis' rvts were correct. An RM to move to diacritics, had been held at that bio article & no consensus was reached. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

They might have been, but then again, this issue is about his other behavior. And another RM could be opened, and then there would be a new decision.

I must say that I am very pessimistic about the chances of Dolovis complying by the rules. His history demonstrates the opposite, and still there seems to be admins ready give him more room. I don't know of any editor who has been so disruptive, and yet so cuddled by parts of the community. He adapts his tactics for the time being when he is punished, and, when he thinks nobody is looking, he resumes his previous behavior. We should have learned by now. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I have opened a section about move functionality at the Village Pump. The technical problem of the edit needed to add a template to the redirect following a move causes inconvenience after any affected move, not just in cases like this. --Mirokado (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

My take on this is that Dolovis is being deliberately disruptive despite having been told in the past that such behaviour is not wanted. In the days of typesetting, diacritics were not generally used in English language text, unless it was in a book on learning a foreign language, where such use was essential. Nowadays, we have the technology to use diacritics. As we have the technology, we should use it. For those uncomfortable with the use of diacritis or unable to use them for whatever reason, a redirect should be created from the plain text version of the title whenever an article is housed at a title with a diacritic in it.

I would support any restriction that prevented Dolovis from moving such article or creating such redirects. There are plenty of other editors around who are able and willing to do such tasks without creating controversy in doing so. Mjroots (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

In this case the issue is not the need to add a template to a redirect after a move, but that Dolovis creates an article at a non-diacritic title. At a later point, he creates a redirect with diacritics (ok), then in a separate edit, adds a template so as to frustrate any non-admin's ability to move the article. It is that last edit that is causing Dolovis his issues. Resolute 23:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I fully understand that. If Dolovis cannot play nicely, then he shouldn't be allowed to play at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by mjroots (talk • contribs)

Cut and paste moves

User:Kajman87 appears to have "fixed" some of these articles via cut and paste moves. I am going to try and clean up that mess At the risk of causing a pile more issues, if they are current World Junior tournament participants, I will move them to the version that is reflected either in the IIHF programs I have (some cases with diacritics, some without) or per the result of a recent RM discussion. Resolute 23:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

2-ish¢

I'd restore the article/stub versions (plain) first to what was initially created. Check the redirects (diacritics) to see if anything points to them. If not just flat delete them. If so, delete and recreate the full redirect in one go. Then move things that need to be moved by a reliable source.

Some article won't, some diacritic redirects won't exist, and some of the moves may be yelled at, but at least the basis will be relatively "clean". - J Greb (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

In the end, it seems they only moved about four Slovakian players. I simply undid the edits rather than get complicated. As such, they are presently back at non-diacritic formats. Discussion on the proper spellings I leave to interested parties. Resolute 00:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Ugh, I hope the RM route is used for those bios 'in future'. GoodDay (talk) 06:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Indefinite topic ban proposal for Dolovis on moving/redirecting/or otherwise changing the titles of diacritic articles

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.

Over 48 hours have elapsed since this was proposed, and consensus here is clear. For obvious and repeated gaming of the system, User:Dolovis is indefinitely banned from "moving, redirecting/making diacritic related redirects, or otherwise changing titles of articles that have diacritics in the titles", broadly construed. I will notify Dolovis and update the list of editing restrictions accordingly. 28bytes (talk) 09:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Regardless of our own personal opinions on how diacritics should work (such as myself being a firm supporter of WP:COMMONNAME), it is quite clear that the diacritics issue is one that, for the people involved in it, is very highly debated. After the last huge big flare up that involved Jimbo's talk page and multiple others places a couple of months ago, things were agreed upon and everything became much more peaceful. However, Dolovis' actions here are pretty much the exact same that got him the move ban in the first place before and are extremely disruptive in terms of the agreement that was made in regards to Wikiproject Hockey and other groups. It is, to say it plainly, continued POV pushing on the subject of diacritics by Dolovis and the proper sanctions from such actions should be given out.

Remember, this has nothing to do with your personal opinions on diacritics. I'm far more on Dolovis' side of the issue than those who favor diacritics, but I can clearly recognize that these actions are deliberately disruptive. Therefore, I am proposing an indefinite topic ban on moving, redirecting/making diacritic related redirects, or otherwise changing titles of articles that have diacritics in the titles. This is indefinite in the sense that once Dolovis has proven that they will permanently stop these disruptive actions, the topic ban can be removed, but I suggest that the ban lasts a minimum of 1-3 months, if not longer, considering this is very clearly not a first offense in regards to this issue. Silverseren^C 06:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The other thing we have to question is what do we do about new articles that Dolovis makes, as was mentioned above, where s/he is making articles on newly notable hockey players with titles that are in direct violation of what Wikiproject Hockey has put together. Perhaps require Dolovis to go through Wikiproject Hockey before making them? Silverseren^C 06:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit: Based on Nobody's comment below, i'd added to the bolded part that the redirecting includes making new redirects in relation to diacritics. I assume that the intelligence of future users and admins will be enough for them to figure out when a redirect created by Dolovis violates this topic ban and when it does not. Silverseren^C 12:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Discuss topic ban

This section is for detailed discussion about the issues related to a topic ban. -Wikid77 23:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• I was unaware that WP:WikiProject Ice Hockey names could override policy WP:COMMONNAME: For years, the rule has been that no particular group of users can define a consensus viewpoint which overrides a WP:Policy statement. That means that "WikiProject Overnight Research" cannot start adding original-research text into articles in defiance of "WP:No original research" nor can a WikiProject override rules for naming articles. If President Bill Clinton once played ice hockey that does not mean the article can be renamed as "William Super-shot Clinton". I cannot support a topic-ban when a WikiProject is being credited with new policy-vio rules as being acceptable. First change one of the 63 sub-pages related to WP:COMMONNAME (WP:TITLE), such as defining policy with WP:Naming conventions (sportspeople), to clearly indicate the naming convention for notable ice-hockey players. -Wikid77 23:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• The project isn't overriding common name. Its called a compromise for a reason, there is currently no consensus that common name extends to using or not using diacritics across the entire wiki. The most recent wiki wide Rfc on the matter split almost exactly 50/50 on the topic. As such to stop the unending edit wars on the topic the project came to a compromise until such a time as the wiki as a whole could come to a consensus. Also common name specifically mentions "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." which is what is usually the case when you just strip the diacritics from a name instead of properly translating to English. -DJSasso (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Please link to the policy page which authorizes the compromise for WP:HOCKEY to circumvent policy WP:COMMONNAME. -Wikid77 11:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I will repeat since you keep calling "I didn't hear that". COMMONNAME does not prescribe the use or non-use of diacritics. In the absence of a wiki-wide policy on the use of them a local consensus can be established. This is a fundamental part of the wiki, it is done thousands of times throughout the wiki by all sorts of projects and groups of editors from single articles to groups of articles. -DJSasso (talk) 12:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I do "hear" that you claim that a WP policy about all article titles does not apply to some; however, the problem with that viewpoint is that someone could claim, "There is no written consensus that any policy applies to articles beginning with the letter 'c' so any text is allowed in those articles". System-wide rules apply to all articles except stated exceptions specifically noted within those policies. A person cannot claim, "Officer, there is no written law which says traffic laws apply to someone with my name, so I cannot be charged with speeding." It just does not work that way; instead "all" means "all". Policy WP:COMMONNAME applies to all articles except those specifically excluded within the policy. If people want special exclusions for foreign words or names written in foreign alphabets, then they need to gain consensus to change policy WP:COMMONNAME to allow foreign words (or rare spellings) which are not the most-common spellings in English-language sources. No wonder User:Dolovis is being falsely accused of disruption when other people are disrupting his correct interpretation that policies apply to all articles except the exclusions noted in the policy. -Wikid77 20:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Except there is a huge difference between your example and the situation. There has been actual RFCs on the matter. As well as wording in WP:COMMONNAME which indicate that it doesn't apply to situations where the name is inaccurate which is what a misspelling is. As well as there being other policies which also discuss the situation and indicate there isn't a preference for non-diacritic versions. There is no special exclusion. The wiki community itself has not been able to declare that a spelling with diacritics make it no longer the same commonname. To use your example if the case went to court and the judge(s) decided the law wasn't clear enough it can get struck down which is essentially what has happened in the past. The community has on numerous occasions come to the conclusion that there is no consensus that common name applies to the difference between using and not using diacritics. -DJSasso (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• It is also worth noting that:
  • Neither WP:COMMONNAME nor WP:UE (the relavent sub-sections of WP:TITLE) outlaw the use of diacritics.
  • WP:TITLE#English-language titles (the part preceding EU and the opening of EU) explicitly acknowledge that diacritics can be in article titles.
  • The hockey section of WP:Naming conventions (sportspeople) is limited to standardizing the dab phrase only.

Lacking a policy, overall guideline, or Wikipedia wide consensus it falls to local consensus, either on a Project or article level, to use or not use diacritics. All things considered, until there is a larger consensus to over ride it, WP Ice Hockey is showing a consensus on specifically how to handle diacritics over a body of related articles. This is prederable to the disruption that would be caused with each article going through the same debate.

- J Greb (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Wait, policy WP:COMMONNAME states to use the common name, and "local consensus" is not allowed to override policy. First change the official policy, before trying to force new rules on users. -Wikid77 11:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no official policy to change, the entire wiki has not been able to come to a consensus. When there lacks a policy local groups can create a local consensus. This is done hundreds of times a day throughout the wiki on all matter of topics. Its one of the fundamental steps of WP:BRD. -DJSasso (talk) 12:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a bit more than that.

The names, and specifically which is the common one which uses characters based on Latin characters, are a hot button. WP:HOCKEY invested time and effort to avoid the mass disruption of each and every article going through a debate and/or RFC as to which version of the name is the "common" one. Good on them.

For an editor who disagrees with the situation it has created to label it "secretive" stretches the assumption of good faith. The same goes for the use of the term "WikiProject Overnight Research" which is coming off as a pejorative term to dismiss out of hand a major aspect of the collaborative and volunteer effort which Wikipedia is primarily built upon.

For an editor to deliberately miss-read policy is disturbing.

For an editor to suggest that looking at sources for the diacritic spelling of a person's name is original research is more disturbing. By that standard any information pulled from any source is OR, even determining what is the commonly used name.

Now, is there anything on point - discussing what exactly a ban would entail since the discussion about whether the ban should be extended is going on below - to be discussed here, or is this going to continue to be an exercise in railing against the current status of diacritic use in articles and local consensus stepping in where there is no over-riding Wikipedia wide one?

- J Greb (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• WP:HOCKEY's dios compromise was hard-fight, but it has proven & continues to proove itself to be a capable peacemaker. GoodDay (talk) 07:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but we cannot allow any WikiProject to circumvent policies for their personal preferences, nor allow a "WikiProject Overnight Research" to have a compromise "secret pact" to insert original-research text into articles. -Wikid77 11:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what part of using a persons actual name is original research. You are aware these names can be sourced right? Which completely shuts down any claim of original research. -DJSasso (talk) 12:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

President Bill Clinton has the actual name "William Jefferson Clinton" but his WP:COMMONNAME is "Bill Clinton" which extends back to when he was Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton (for several years), and that is why his article is named "Bill Clinton" even if he once played hockey or his mother called him "Willy Jeff". I hope that clarifies why a hockey player commonly known as "Joe Smithnog" would not have an article titled "Josevisheikoe Smithnoogerphous" but the article could note his formal name as such (if WP:V verifiable). The policy WP:COMMONNAME applies to all articles except those specifically excluded within the policy. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Right and "Bill Clinton" is a properly spelled English name so thus fits under commonname. Someone with the last name "Höhener" for example with the name that shows up most often in english sports pages being Hohener would be spelled incorrectly as the proper English spelling would be Hoehener. Commonname protects against this by having a specific line that states even if the name is used most often in reliable sources it should not be used if it is inaccurate. So simply stripping off diacritics and not translating the names is incorrect. WP:COMMONNAME already makes this clear. Now please lets get off the diacritics debate this discussion is about his behaviour not the diacritics. -DJSasso (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Which specific policy statements is User:Dolovis accused of violating? Some other editors have noted that User:Dolovis did not actually violate the same policies, but rather made other changes not specifically prohibited by any policies. I do not call that "disruption", instead I call that "allowed by policy". We do not topic-ban people just because they were previously banned, were unbanned, and then did things allowed by policy. Since this is still the New Years Day holiday, I will allow a few extra days for replies here. Thanks. -Wikid77 23:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• WP:BATTLE and WP:POINT are the two that immediately jump to mind...there are many others that could be considered to have been broken as well such as his tendency to make personal attacks while in his battle mode. -DJSasso (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Refuting unjust claims is not a case of WP:BATTLE, nor is reporting an editor for non-consensus moves of a "dozen" (14) articles away from WP:COMMONNAME titles (in English-language sources) into foreign spellings. -Wikid77 11:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually yes, reporting a user for making moves which he is allowed to make by policy and then attacking the user is an issue. To repeat there is no consensus wiki-wide that WP:COMMONNAME applies to the use/non-use of diacritics. It even goes as far as to say the inaccurate names should not be used despite being the common name, removing a diacritic instead of translating is being inaccurate. -DJSasso (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Those two are the biggies. Also, Wikid77 there was no "unbanned". Dolovis is currently under an indefinite ban on moving articles with diacritic titles. Full stop. Their actions have been to game the system to continue editing in a similar manner that resulted in that ban. As a number contributors have pointed out that is the issue here, not the diacritics. - J Greb (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Ahh yes I completely forgot about the most obvious one. WP:GAME. -DJSasso (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, the WP:GAME which I see here is allowing a "secret pact" with WP:WikiProject Ice Hockey to rename articles with rare non-WP:COMMONNAME titles, against policy. Plus, then trying to claim a user was "gaming the system" when they were following written policies rather than the secret-pact agreement. -Wikid77 11:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The Gaming of the system comes from him trying new methods of doing that which he is currently banned from doing in an effort to game the system. It is a very clear breach. This has nothing to do with a secret pact agreement as you have been told numerous times now. -DJSasso (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not see evidence of him moving or copy-renaming existing articles, which was the jist of his previous move-ban. If some people want to ban him from creating, editing, or viewing articles, then that is a different matter and there is no evidence to justify that. However, the gaming of the system is to claim that he must do things to enable other users to rename articles to titles which violate WP:COMMONNAME. -Wikid77 20:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

He was also not to double edit redirects. Instead of doing it within minutes he would wait a bit and do it a little later so as not to be as obvious. This is precisely what is known as gaming the system. He knew his ban was to prevent him from editing disruptively in the area of moving diacritics spelling related articles. Continuing to do so is what has landed him here again. -DJSasso (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Support/Oppose topic ban

Consider reading and discussing the detailed issues, above, under "#Discuss topic ban" before posting Support/Oppose below. -Wikid77 23:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• suppport to my knowledge I've never taken part in this debate or had an issue with it, but this kind of behaviour is clearly inappropriate, it's been discussed before, he continued, send him packing.--Crossmr (talk) 08:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I commend Silver for getting to the heart of the issue here – this has nothing to do with my opinion on diacritics, but Dolovis' gaming of the system is damaging for the encyclopaedia. It has to stop. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 09:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support – given that Wiki offers a way of both using and not using diacritics, and that the search function can work with or without them, I agree that they are not the issue. Having tried to discuss the matter with Dolovis, he developed an WP:IDHT stance. It did not help his position. I hope a short ban will help him develop a more neutral view of the matter and allow others tidy up in the meantime. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 09:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. There's been far too much of the battleground mentality, and deliberate gaming of the system. The article creation is part of the same problematic behaviour; I would welcome some kind of constraint on article creation too. We're not so desperate to expand our collection of 2-sentence stubs on obscure hockey players that we need this particular editor to create pointy placeholders with incorrect titles... (Disclaimer: I have been involved in one of Dolovis' previous disputes, but not the current one as I generally don't edit hockey articles) bobrayner (talk) 11:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support – if it's possible to implement. I can see a problem though. Dolovis's strategy to jump at every chance of adding new Czech and Slovak players is aimed at establishing a first diacritic-less version. Since he's neither Czech nor Slovak, why else would he be doing it? He then believes that first version will decide the "fate" (diacritics-wise) of the article for all eternity, kind of like WP:DATERET. Since what he creates by definition is without diacritics, how can a ban stop him? The only way I can see, is that he's only allowed to edit articles on topics relating strictly to the English-speaking world – and that's a very tough ban. And I doubt that it's possible to implement.
  • One more thing: if such a ban is to be implemented, I don't see the point in lifting it after 1-3 months. If he'd keep a promise not to return to his old ways, he'll not suffer from having the ban indefinitely.
  • Yet another thing: judging from several of the comments in the ANI discussion here, and the "Controversial moves" section above, a new consensus seems to have emerged. Was there a new agreement over diacritics? I mean this stuff about Jimbo's talkpage, have I missed something? If there's a new agreement, where can I read about it? And Marcus B, by "tidying up" above, did you mean that it's ok start posting RM:s for articles that miss the diacritics? I mean, I don't want to end up in the same mess as Dolovis.

 HandsomeFella (talk) 11:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I meant if Dolovis has previously moved article content around cut/paste style, etc, they need tidying up back to their original form with the correct history. I don't know what RMs are. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 12:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested moves Silverseren^C 12:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, WP:RM is the place to go if you're not able to move pages yourself, or if you want a discussion first. I don't think Dolovis would perform copy-paste moves, that is only (or mostly) done by editors unaware of the WP:RM process, or the move functionality. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support - and add "creating articles or redirects" to the list of prohibited actions. Nobody Ent 12:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support Silverseren's proposal. I would extend it to "creating BLP's where the subject's name contains diacritics in their native language, whether or not he uses the diacritics." There does seem to be a new consensus about diacritics in people's names - that probably ought to be properly written up elsewhere.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, as I don't see any vandalism or socking by Dolovis. GoodDay (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

No one is claiming either; the issue is continued disruption. Nobody Ent 13:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

He aint being disruptive, he's trying to respect the fact that this is English Wikipedia & not Multiple language Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 13:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Diacritics are used in English words. Their use is no different to ENGVAR: "-ise" or "-ize", "-e" or "-é". Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 13:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Also Rudy Vallée, Zoë Bell and Noël Coward. Jafeluv (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Which should be spelt as Rudy Vallee, Zoe Bell and Noel Coward. In otherwords, I haven't changed my stance. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't expecting you to change your position, GoodDay. I'm simply pointing out that you represent this as an "English vs. non-English" issue, yet at the same time you say that we should be telling English-speakers how to spell their name in English. Jafeluv (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You mean they didn't/don't know how to spell their own names? One thing, GoodDay: there are some clues – e.g. "spelt" instead of "spelled" – that leads me to believe that your native language is not English. Is that correct? Nothing wrong with that, but that makes it all the more puzzling why you're so eager to "defend" the English wikipedia against diacritics. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that's American English: spelt, spilt, learnt, burnt. Spelled, spilled, learned, burned, in British English. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 16:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Then I suggest you ask your mentors to give you a poke with the neutrality stick. The spelling is no different, and the accented letters are still from the Latin alphabet. The addition of glyphs simply indicates a phonetic difference, because we don't all pronounce things the same. Doesn't matter what your "stance" is.. that's the way the world is regardless of what anyone thinks. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 16:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't changed my stance. I still oppose topic banning Dolovis. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

That's allright. There are another 10 editors here who haven't changed their stance either. HandsomeFella (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Life is a little more complicated that that: there are several Spanish words whose meaning out of context is only determined by the accent which otherwise denotes the stressed syllable; in German we can replace ü etc by ue but simply dropping the umlaut is fundamentally incorrect; in Scandinavian languages the "accents" are part of the glyph of a different letter – Å sorts after Z in the Danish alphabet, for example. --Mirokado (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand accents.. but in Spanish (and maybe others) I don't get ¿ and ¡ – reverted, upside-down punctuation marks means what? Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 17:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

IIUC, ¿<text>? and ¡<text>! are proper formatting of questions and exclamations in Spanish. And we've seem to have strayed a bit far afield... - J Greb (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support an extended ban as proposed by Elen. Dolovis' passion for the subject has entirely clouded his judgement, and his activities are blatantly disruptive. Favonian (talk) 13:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Now that I see he even creates re-directs that don't make any sense at all — support Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support this has been a long time in coming. He is far too aggressive in his dealings on the topic. If he would have focused his energy on helping the wiki in a centralized place come to some sort of agreement then all would be well. Instead he at first focused on overwhelming opposition by creating large numbers of move request, then he proceeded to create double redirects to make it so non-admins couldn't move the articles and then he went out looking for every marginal person he could find with diacritics in their name so that he could create them without the diacritics first. All of this is ridiculous and a clear indication of far too much bad faith and inability to work in a group to solve issues. He definitely needs to be topic banned from all things diacritics. -DJSasso (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support per WP:GAME. Dolovis should equally be indefinitely restrained from disruptive spoiler tactics such as creating worthless stubs of individuals whose names are rendered with diacritics in their native form; equally there should be an indefinite prohibition on editing any namespace containing diacritics. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Questions
  1. Am I reading this right as the indef ban specifically covering: a) Moving existing pages titled with diacritics to English-only; b) editing existing redirects under diacritic titles; and c) creating new redirects under diacritic titles?
  2. What would "...or otherwise changing titles of articles that have diacritics in the titles" cover? Use of {{DISPLAYTITLE}} to suppress titles? Use of RM? Requesting/suggesting other editors move pages?
  3. Is this intended to also address actions like #Controversial moves?

I agree that something needs to be done to stop the disruptive habits, but those habits include more than just article and redirect editing.

- J Greb (talk) 16:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I was thinking about that myself. I think it should be worded as topic banned from creating/moving/discussing articles with diacritics or which would have them in their native languages to clear up ambiguities. -DJSasso (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support ban. Sigh; it went further south. He should not create titles with diacritics (he doesn't like them anyway), he should not edit diacritic redirects (avoid gaming), and he should not move diacritic related articles (previous ban). The complaint is not about his belief but his tactics. Dolovits should refrain from diacritic gaming. Silencing his voice at RM or discussions isn't appropriate now, but I hope he will dial back his argument style -- repetition and omission are not effective. The issue is contentious, and it will come back. Glrx (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support ban, sadly - I can see merits to both sides in the diacritics debate, but in practice it seems workable using redirects whichever way they happen to be, and we shouldn't have to tolerate any battleground and gaming approaches to railroading it one way or the other -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, but some browsers cannot access titles with some accented letters, and using the common English names actually fits the spirit of WP:Accessibility. People are judging this issue who do not understand the concepts. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• You have a reference to back that claim up I assume right? Because I happen to know that isn't the case for any modern browsers within the last 5 or so years because I have tested. This issue has nothing to do with his opinion but how he goes about trying to implement it. -DJSasso (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Dolovis acted according to written policies. Policy WP:COMMONNAME directs editors to name articles by the common name in English-language sources, which he did. It was also courteous of User:Dolovis to then create redirects for the rare name with diacritics or accented letters and tag that redirect as {R from diacritics}. He implemented all in accordance with written policy. -Wikid77 14:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose ban: As an uninvolved editor, I think that User:Dolovis is unlikely to agree to consensus on this topic-ban, since it is founded on incorrect ideas. His opinions about diacritical marks and accented letters have been basically correct, and I would not fault him for some mistakes along the way. Some web browsers (IE7?) cannot access articles with diacritics and accented letters in titles, such as "Dominik Riečický" which becomes the name "Dominik Riecický" matching 1 webpage, rather than the WP:COMMONNAME used in most English-language sources, "Dominik Riecicky" (no accented letters), which matches over 20,700 Google hits, including www.edmontonjournal.com, www.hockeycanada.ca, news.yahoo.com, www.usahockey.com and indiatimes.com. The player's name is actually "Доминик Риецицкй Профиль" according to Eurohockey.com (web-link: [222]). Instead, I would think that User:Dolovis would agree to working on other categories of articles which need help removing the diacritical marks, to match WP:COMMONNAME spellings of words as found in many English-language sources. Also, we need to beware topic-banning people based on other people's linguistic prejudices against the English language. The fact that one WikiProject about hockey does not want to follow the English-language usage is not a reason to condemn User:Dolovis. I think this situation is another low point in the history of English Wikipedia: banning a helpful user who tries to convert foreign-word titles into common English form. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• You realize this proposal isn't about his opinion but about his actions right? Whether he is right or wrong, its his actions that are the problem and people who behave as he has should be topic banned from the area that they are battling in and being disruptive in. And not to rehash the ever ongoing debate, but there is no consensus that commonname excludes using diacritics. In fact there is one line in commonname that actually suggests we ignore the common name if it is inaccurate, which is what people who think we should use diacritics believe is the case. -DJSasso (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Some people might think a name is "inaccurate" but they need WP:RS sources to substantiate that unusual claim when numerous reliable sources use the spelling without accented letters. -Wikid77 14:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Доминик Риецицкй is just the kyrillic version of the name. Why should his name be written in kyrillic letters when he's born in a country that simply uses the Latin alphabet? By the way... --Thomas ^✉ 18:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Before this goes to far afield... IIUC diacritics are useable in titles since they are generally based off of the same Latin alphabet English uses. And as best I can tell that is because an English speaker has a fighting chance of recognizing/understanding the term/word/name. Non-Latin based writing systems - kyrillic, kanji, Norse glyphs, etc - are not used because an English speaker would be SOL. Hence "Thor" not "Þórr", "Osaka" not "大阪", "War and Peace" not "Вoйнá и мир", etc. - J Greb (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikid77 states something about browsers not displaying diacritics. I've been trying to confirm this without much success. Accented letters are in character sets, including UTF-8 (which Wiki sends via headers), and ISO-8859. Not sure what Wikid77 based these claims on, but he's going to need more proof before he convinces anyone that Dolovis was acting in the best interests of users with archaic browsers. As to whether Google recognises diacritics and offers alternatives.. that's Google's problem. Wiki isn't "losing" anything if Google is failing to deliver a wider range of results – it makes no revenue from visitors.. but imo, if Wiki's search function can do it based on Javascript, Google should be able to do it with their multi-billion dollar technology. Google isn't the only search engine, and there are 5 major browsers available. It doesn't justify Dolovis' methods of making non-diacritic the primary result in many cases. I think Wikid77 is on the wrong train of thought, just because many English-speaking people only think in linear A to Z fashion, doesn't mean technology has to, and the only "low point in English Wiki" would be selfishly dismissing the written form of many nations to suit our own unambitious form. That said, I think his "strong opposition" is somewhat confused and pessimistic: WP:Hockey are not choosing to "not follow the English language". They're honouring the names of people which are native to them. The letters are not foreign just because they're accented, they're just less familiar to English speakers who don't use them – letters aren't even English. Let's not confuse "linguistic prejudice" with "helpfully converting foreign-letters", because, plain and simple, it's not a NPOV to Anglicise absolutely everything.. whether it be for English readers, crappy browsers, or sloppy search engines. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 01:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The written policy WP:COMMONNAME states to use the common name found in English-language sources, which is what User:Dolovis has done.

No, he hasn't. Noël Coward's name is Noël Coward. There is no "common name" for Noël Coward, his name is what it is. Dropping the "ë" to "e" is not "common", it is Anglicising, or simplifying due to keyboard layout. Your interpretation of commonname is false, and the contribs that have been made which follow a false premis are at question. Noel Coward is a version required to make searching easier and should redirect the correctname. And the same for all these other people, rather than the other way round, which is discriminating. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 15:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Off topic, but if you search for the diacritic version, google returns both the diacritic and plain text version of Tomáš Matoušek [223], as you'd rather expect from a truly worldwide product. Of course I use a sensible browser, but Microsoft products are still very popular throughout Europe, so I'd be surprised if their browsers wouldn't render extended Latin fonts. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support because gaming the rules is simply wrong, no matter the cause; the end does not justify the means. And that behaviour, not diacritics, is the issue here. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 19:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Dolovis was not gaming the rules. He created full stubs, for notable players, with article titles meeting policy WP:COMMONNAME as names used in many English-language sources, then created typical accented-letter redirects and tagged those as {R from diacritics}. -Wikid77 14:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes and he was banned from purposefully double editing redirects to stop other editors from being able to move the article. He has admitted to doing it. And was caught doing it again but masking it in another manner. This is by definition gaming the system. -DJSasso (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support - the issue of diacritics itself is irrelevant here. It's the behavior that needs to be addressed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support the content issue, and Dolovis' attitude to it, is enough for a topic ban. The gaming of the system would be excuse for further action, such as a general block. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Creating stubs is not disruptive; it is quite the opposite — it is constructive. The issue of article titles is quite minor because redirects can be used for any spelling variations. Warden (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• The issue is not the creating of stubs. The issue is the creating of stubs with Anglicized names, against the MOS guide for Wikiproject Hockey and then also creating diacritic redirects and then making an extra edit to those redirects so the stubs made cannot be moved to them. It is explicitly gaming the system so diacritic titles cannot be used. Silverseren^C 01:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

There wouldn't be a problem with him creating stub articles, even if he refuses to use diacritics, if he wasn't also deliberately setting out to prevent other editors from moving the article to the diacritic version and leaving the plain text behind as a redirect. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter what the nominal title of such an article is. The name in the lead can be edited regardless and we can have any number of redirects for alternate spellings. What matters here is that someone is creating content and should not be punished for so-doing. Our MOS guidelines give priority to the first author of an article in matters of stylistic variation and this is fine because it encourages the creation of content. Bringing the matter to ANI so that a ban is imposed seems to be a worse violation of WP:GAME. A more constructive response by those who prefer a different style would be to create the articles in question first. The principle of first come, first served seems fair and in the interests of Wikipedia. Warden (talk) 11:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It does matter what the nominal title of an article is. If not, the editor who first created the article on John F. Kennedy could have doomed the article to forever stay under the name Jack Kennedy, had s/he created it with that name. It's not a matter of "stylistic variation". Dolovis is not punished for creating content, but for gaming the system to have his way in wikipedia. Bans are not imposed lightly on people. As has been said here numerous times before, Dolovis is not punished for his views, but for his actions. If someone on "the other side" in this debate had done the same thing, s/he would have been punished the same way. HandsomeFella (talk) 13:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

In no case has any editor "doomed the article to forever stay under the name", but instead any article can be moved/renamed, and all the history-log will move to the new name, automatically re-creating the prior name as a new redirect. The actions of User:Dolovis were in line with written policies. BTW: Wikipedia should not seek to "punish" any user; instead, the focus is to protect Wikipedia from uncontrollable harm, which is clearly not the problem with User:Dolovis. -Wikid77 14:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

On one hand, you say "Our MOS guidelines give priority to the first author of an article in matters of stylistic variation" and "The principle of first come, first served seems fair", while on the other hand, when I give an example of what could be the consequences of having such a rule (as interpreted by you), you say that an article can still be moved! What kind of logic is that? Does the first editor decide the name of the article forever, or not? You can't have both. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

OOPS! I just discovered that it was two different editors that had said two different things. Instead we have two diacritic-opponents who disagree on whether an article must stay forever at the title the first editor gave it, or if it indeed can be moved. (Psst: it can be moved.) HandsomeFella (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no dog in this fight, but if this is the problem then it is a flaw in the wiki software that should be fixed so that content from Jack Kennedy CAN be moved to John F. Kennedy, regardless of what editing has been done before. When people discover a loophole in a system or a law and exploit it, then two things can be done: 1) punish the person who found the loophole, or 2) close the loophole.

I don't know why there is such disagreement about the diacritics. When I see an article like Lucie Šafářová, then I have no problem to read it, but it discourages me from editing it because I don't have these letters on my English keyboard. In English wikipedia we should simply have the English spelling. If you go to other language wikipedia they have also changed the name according to their customs and alphabet. E.g. Séverine Brémond Beltrame becomes "Séverine Brémondová" in the Czech wp and "Бельтрам, Северин" in the Russian one. So they adapt everything to their writing, but we are supposed stick to Czech spelling in the English wp? That's not balanced no matter how you look at it. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, largely from the same rationale articulated by Wikid77. This is essentially a WP:V issue, wherein most reliable sources in English don't use the diacritics, and WP:NC says to use English if a clear majority of sources use a recognizably different spelling, which is the case with these NHL players. I do agree with instructing Dolovis to stop with the double-edit procedure to require admin assistance to redirect articles (which is clearly gaming the system), but I agree with his general reasoning regarding diacritics in English. And the MOS for WP:HOCKEY is not relevant; the MOS for Wikipedia takes precedence, as does the policy on article names. Horologium (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

  Again, this is not a question of for or against diacritics, it is a question of banning Dolovis for gaming the system. Had an editor on "the other side" in the debate done the same things, s/he would be banned the same way. Gaming the system is detrimental for wikipedia, whatever the motives and views. Please read the article WP:GAME. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I have acknowledged the gaming, and support sanctioning Dolovis for that aspect of his behavior (as I explicitly stated in my statement above). However, while I don't support the behavior, I support the rationale behind it, and a review of the discussion above indicates that this is in fact a question about the use (or exclusion) of diacritics. I understand WP:GAME; I have cited it when requesting a topic ban of an editor who ran afoul of the provisions of the guideline. Horologium (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not a discussion on diacritics. If Dolovis were here for violating the 3RR rule, and a ban for that was being discussed, would you oppose that ban? It would be like approving violations of the 3RR rule, a least for those who oppose diacritics. You can't possibly mean that. HandsomeFella (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand that it is the behavior which sparked this discussion, not the diacritics issue, but there has been substantial cross-talk about diacritics in the topic-ban discussion. As for my support or opposition of a hypothetical topic-ban for 3RR, I can't answer a hypothetical because each case is different. I don't support this topic-ban as proposed because I feel it needs to be to narrowed in scope. I have some sympathy for those who want a broad topic ban (because I don't believe that Dolovis will substantially change his strongly-held beliefs), but I think that a total ban of any type of diacritic-related editing is overkill, particularly prohibiting the creation of new articles on notable players (as cited by Colonel Warden, above). Horologium (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Whilst this discussion should be aiming to consider Dolovis' edits, you might be interested in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC, the outcome of which has not helped matters by defining clearer guidelines. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 16:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support. In the end, Dolovis was caught doing exactly what he said he would no longer do when he requested his last restriction be relaxed. This was an abuse of the community's good faith. Resolute 15:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support as above really. No comment on the pros and cons of diacritics, just on this editor's conduct on Wikipedia. GiantSnowman 15:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Elen, WP:GAME and WP:IDHT. I'm uninvolved here but after reviewing the whole situation I'm unconvinced that any other solution will work. I conclude that Dolovis is obviously being very obtuse or obstinate and is playing games with us at Wikipedia for reasons that only he knows. Boing makes a valid case for the use of diacritics either way, but I think we all agree that unilaterally moving pages or creating redirects for no specific reason if they haven't been requested for a valid reason is tendentious. Per Marcus, Wikid's rationale would only hold water if there were no officially recognised transliteration from another alphabet such as Cyrillic, Thai, or logographs. There are no problems with the display of accented Latin letters in mainspace titles. This is the en.Wiki, plenty of English loanwords use diacritics, and subsets of the Latin alphabet with diacritics in all common fonts can be read by all the most widely used browsers on character encoding UTF-8 or Western-ISO on all but the most obscure platforms. The onus is on users to download the latest upgrades of their browsers and/or operating systems if they are working with older versions. MediaWiki devs build for browser compliancy - if the search engines can't deliver, that's the problem of the search engines. Search engines are not encyclopedias. WP:DIACRITICS prevails. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• User:Kudpung, thank you for mentioning section WP:DIACRITICS in subpage 63? for policy WP:Article_titles, as some hope of getting policy changed to cover the situation which User:Dolovis faces. Dolovis mentions only the use of WP:COMMONNAME to name articles (see below: #Replies from User:Dolovis), and we need to update policies to clearly state an exception for ice hockey players (as another subpage), where President Bill Clinton should not be renamed to birthname "William Jefferson Clinton" if he once played hockey (or "Willy Jeff" if his mother called him that name), but invent some new rules which people could agree to with other users interested in diacritical, accented-letter, glyph alphabets beyond the standard 26-letter English alphabet. Note also that the unusual accented letters are a problem for WP:Accessibility (and older browsers), and the user must understand to use the copy/paste section of Latin/Greek/Cyrillic letters as shown underneath the WP:Monobook-skin edit-windows. User:Dolovis truly seems to think he should follow written policies which other users are instructed to follow. Unfortunately, the situation seems basically just that simple: Dolovis has also created recent super-stub articles for notable Swiss players which do not have diacritical letters in their birthnames or momma's come-here name). Simply change the WP:TITLES policy so that Dolovis and other users can get clear direction: solve the problem for all users, not just a narrow restriction on Dolovis and leave me and other editors to follow WP:COMMONNAME as is. -Wikid77 21:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support - a spade is a spade; equally, gaming the system is gaming the system. The purpose of this discussion is not to "change the WP:TITLES policy", neither is it to "solve the problem for all users" - we are here to discuss the actions of one user, whose disruption is quite clear to me even as someone completely uninvolved. SuperMarioMan 21:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Time to sum up?

The "ayes" have it, 19-4. I can't see that there can be much more new input on this. Time to take a decision/action? HandsomeFella (talk) 09:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I just hope it's not a topic-ban from everything ice hockey. GoodDay (talk) 09:17, 5 January 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.

Question on scope of topic ban

Will Dolovis be able to help in restricting diacritics on North American based hockey articles? GoodDay (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe the idea is to ban him from anything regarding diacritics at least that is what I see from what a few supporters have said. So he wouldn't be modifying anything that involved diacritics. -DJSasso (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

That's too bad. It would've been the ideal area for Dolovis' passion. Also, I wouldn't have minded the help. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Why should anyone need to engage in editing that involves restricting diacritics, what encyclopedic benefit is there to following such a one-track practice except to spite languages that do use them? It is not a NPOV, it is an Anglo-centric POV, and I don't think MOS will ever change to make removal of diacritics more important than retaining them. From what I gather, more countries use diacritics, especially throughout Europe, than do not. So whether anyone likes them or not, the odds are in favour of their continued use. Removing them should not be encouraged, given that their use is not uncommon. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 19:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a part of WP:HOCKEY's compromise on the usage of diacritics. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's like GoodDay says. On North America-related ice hockey articles, player names with diacritics should be piped like this: [[Nicklas Lidström|Nicklas Lidstrom]]. This is to avoid unnecessary redirecting and at the same time reflect NHL's open policy of ignoring diacritics on player jerseys, NHL web pages, etc. The exception being player articles, where diacritics are to be kept. That is the compromise. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if it's possible, and there is no strong need for that, since most editors who don't mind diacritics respect the project notice at WP:HOCKEY. And there's always you. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• FWIW, the ban as stated looks like it would prevent:
  • Moving pages currently at diacritic titles.
  • Editing redirects currently at diacritic titles.
  • Creating pages - primarily redirects - with diacritic titles.
  • Edits that are similar in nature to the above three.

The concerns I see beyond that which it does not address are:

• Abusing RM for pages with diacritics.
• Posts as per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive734#Controversial moves.

That shouldn't prevent Dolovis from editing the text of articles. They should however be mindful of any consensus, guideline, or policy that applies to that article. Bluntly: If if a Project, consensus, or guideline states should be used in a particular article, removing them would be a bad idea.

It also should not prevent Dolovis from civily and constructively participating in discussions. The keys being "civil", "constructive", and "participate".

- J Greb (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I hope he'll be allowed to monitor the North American based hockey articles, as I have been doing (for years). GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I think he will be, since most NA hockey articles don't have diacritics, with the possible exception of teams (etc) from the Quebec area, where they are French-speakers, and hte French language has several diacritical letters. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought that WP:HOCKEY says that all player articles should have diacritics, but when they are mentioned on North American hockey league articles diacritics should not be used.—Ryulong (竜龙) 22:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

That's correct, all North American hockey leauge & team articles, shall not have'em. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

That seems rather idiotic. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems that projects are always at liberty to mandate extra work so as to reduce article quality within their own project - rather like Wikiproject Aviation's removal of citation templates. The real mistake is to extend this outside the project, as Dolovis has been doing and GoodDay appears to be advocating, to then remove diacritics on the player name articles themselves. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I tend to leave the player bio articles to other editors. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Btw...

what's this supposed to be, anyways? Sure ain't Latvian... what's the point of it? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

??? Don't understand the question (insufficient caffeine). Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Dolovis made up his own diacritical version of the name. Looks more like Romanian than Latvian. At any rate, the Latvians seem to write the name entirely without diacritics, so there will be peace in our time—at least locally. Favonian (talk) 13:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep, neither of those diacritics appear in the Latvian alphabet. The family name Siksna is written without diacritics in Latvian. Jafeluv (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

That's one of the diffs I provided at the top of this section. Dolovis's purpose with first creating a redirect, and then edit it soon after, is to make it impossible move the original article – the one that the redirect is pointing to – over the redirect without the intervention of an admin. Doing so constitutes gaming the system, and that is why Dolovis has a page move ban since some time around July/August 2011. Since he did more such edits a second time around, he no also has a week long edit block.

Śikṣṇa seems to be a Latvian hockey player. Do you think it's misspelled?

HandsomeFella (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Edgars Siksna is without diacritics in Latvian (and English), and this redirect is entirely bogus. IMO it meets the criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD#R3). Favonian (talk) 13:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It is bogus, completely made up. Might as well go for Édgärs Shį́kśną or whatever... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Some points of order in this ANI report

04-Jan-2011: This whole thread about User:Dolovis started with so many invalid or untrue statements. For example, the claim (at top), "Dolovis's pattern of behavior indicates that he will never learn" is an unprovable claim, and I think completely false, and bordering on an outright lie. Above that statement, there is, "Dolovis is set on having his way in wikipedia, no matter what" which is also unprovable, and I think a false claim, and indicates a pattern of character assassination against User:Dolovis by User:HandsomeFella. But let me add some more examples, such as the thread title: "Dolovis gaming the system – again" which is an example of the improper tactic of begging the question ("Are you beating your wife again?").

Also note the unfounded claim (at top): "Dolovis is now back to his old tricks" as another implied insult with no direct evidence, plus the term "old tricks" which would be very difficult to prove, especially since, the evidence I read shows that User:Dolovis has actually been following written policies by creating stubs for WP:Notable subjects and naming those articles with names clearly the most-common name used in many English-language sources, then creating redirects as accented-letter names, where there is no written policy reason to move those articles away from their original WP:COMMONNAME titles (hence any changes to the redirect page are ok because there is no written-policy reason to rename the articles to those redirected name). As for claims that there is some secret pact with WP:WikiProject Ice Hockey to violate policies and title articles with non-WP:COMMONNAME spellings, I do not think that any user should be forced into a policy-violation agreement. This whole situation is similar to a case of duress, in meaning that User:Dolovis is being forced to act in some way to support actions which violate written WP:Policy pages, and consequently, his actions are the result of being forced to deal with people pushing him to aid in the violation of written (not imagined) policies. So then people will argue that the use of diacritics and accented-letter names is not the problem, and insist to only look at what User:Dolovis did, and ignore how other people have forced the situation. Well, I am sorry, but that is not the broader reality: it is not proper to bully someone to act in a way which allows other people easier ways to violate written policies. This whole ANI thread is predicated on unprovable (and insulting) claims, and has side-stepped the reality that some people are trying to force a set of "local consensus" rules for naming articles, or limited edits to redirects, which appear to violate written WP:Policy pages, and trying to blame User:Dolovis because his actions make those policy violations more difficult for other users. I think that says it all. Dismiss this claim against User:Dolovis, but try to get other users to either amend policy WP:COMMONNAME (and rules to deny editing of redirects) or take actions against them for trying to force a user to support their improper actions. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Summary: W77 agrees with what Dolovis has been doing. pablo 09:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Replies from User:Dolovis

Copied from User_talk:Dolovis (while edit-blocked)

• In response to being blocked while this ANI thread is discussed:

"Blocks are intended to prevent disruption, and not to be used as a punishment. This is a punitive block. If writing a truthful defense is considered to be “Wiki-lawyering” then Wiki-lawyering should be permitted. I am busy in real life, and so I will not be able to take an active part in this discussion, but I will respond to say that creating valid stub articles for notable athletes is constructive, and my editing has been in full compliance with all of the policies of Wikipedia. I am an English speaking person, and I do not speak or write any other language. The articles I have created are titled according to the sources I have used to create the article. As some of these athletes are born in Europe where non-English spellings are used, redirects have been created (following the instruction of Template:R from diacritics and WP:REDCAT) if I come across a red line for the same name, but with diacritics.

There are editors on English Wikipedia who are dedicated to moving articles to titles with diacritics, without regard for WP:V or WP:COMMONNAME. It is those same editors who have made and supported these complaints against me. As a result of those complaints I am not even allowed to object to a controversial article move - not by WP:BRD (a core principle[224] which I am banned from using) or even by bringing it to the attention of another Admin (as this has been accused of using a MEAT PUPPET)[225]. The result is that I am being punished for being an English speaking editor who follows the policy of Wikipedia:Article titles (which includes WP:COMMONNAME) and I am being held to a higher standard than other editors on Wikipedia. Dolovis (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)" –copied here by -Wikid77 16:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

So Solid Crew

Clearly currently some sort of meme. Nonsense names being continually added (and have been since at least July of last year). I've cut the list out, but it won't last. ColouredSpots (talk) 13:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article for now. It might be good for editors knowledgeable in this area to have a look to make sure other vandalism or nonsense hasn't crept it. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Persistent Vandalism

user Intoronto1125 appears to be participating in persistent vandalism, by adding unnecessary content to the Sri Lanka Armed Forces page after a very clear consensus was established in favor of leaving that content out. Distributor108 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC).

Good faith editing (that is, editing where the user believes themselves to be improving Wikipedia) should never be labeled vandalism. See Wikipedia:Vandalism for what vandalism is. Instead, what it appears you have is a dispute. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard for a good venue to resolve this dispute, alternate methods are also noted at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Jayron32 06:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe it is vandalism, as you can see from the edit history, He is continuously participating in this behavior without participating in the discussion after a clear consensus was established. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Distributor108 (talk • contribs) 06:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It appears that user Hazard-SJ is a ghost account of user Intoronto1125; as he is immediately participating in the same behavior as Intoronto1125 within seconds of me leaving a warning on user Intoronto1125 page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Distributor108 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Distributor108 was involved in unexplained content removal at Sri Lanka Armed Forces and is warning users with {{uw-delete4im}} (me included) after we reverted the user's deletion.  Hazard-SJ  ㋡  06:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hazard-SJ is not a "ghost account" rather guidance from a very helpful editor on the wikipedia chat service. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 06:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The explation can easily be found on the Sri Lanka Armed Forces talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sri_Lanka_Armed_Forces#Do_not_add_war_crimes_allegation Distributor108 (talk) 06:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

A section in which you started (with your opinion) and which resulted in to consensus. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 06:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Distributor108 has been blocked.  Hazard-SJ  ㋡  06:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

...by Dark here--Adam in MO Talk

I am trying to work with D108 on his/her talk page to come to an agreement that will bring them back as a useful editor. I would appreciate feedback, help, or any interested eyes there. Am I going down the right track?--Adam in MO Talk 07:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Distributor108 agrees to an indefinite topic ban on all Sri Lanka related pages, broadly construed, a 1RR on ally other edits and a promise not to sock. Should we unblock based on these terms?--Adam in MO Talk 07:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

That would be helpful, but I have a feeling this isn't the end of this edit war. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 13:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

While I am inclined to agree, there seems to be two ways to deal with warring socks;You can play whack-a-mole, or you can try and fold them in. I am hoping to accomplish the latter.--Adam in MO Talk 16:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Bad-faith edits by User talk:Ruslik0

This has gotten out of hand. Almost any edit I make to a dwarf-planet article is reverted by User talk:Ruslik0, most recently Haumea, Makemake, Quaoar, Orcus. He's editing in bad faith; for example, he claims that I'm falsifying sources, which is silly, since they're available online and easily checked. Despite numerous accusations, he has never provided any evidence to back up his claims. I don't know what his problem is with following RS's that provide more than one POV, but it's getting ridiculous. There are other editors involved in this dispute, but Ruslik0 is acting as little more than a troll.

The issue at hand is whether or not various objects "are" dwarf planets (DPs). According to the International Astronomical Union and various leading planetary astronomers, 3 objects are known to be DPs through direct observation, 2 more have been named under IAU naming rules for DPs and are generally accepted as such (though Scott Sheppard only says that they, along with several others, are "likely" to be DPs), and several more are accepted by various individual astronomers, with many more considered likely. The articles are all FA, which IMO makes the refusal to reflects RSs egregious. — kwami (talk) 13:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The issue here is a continuous POV pushing by User:Kwamikagami. He continues to push his own pint of view despite a consensus to contrary on Talk:Dwarf planet. He was already blocked for this back in October. Ruslik_Zero 14:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Another problem is that User:Kwamikagami often lies about sources. Ruslik_Zero 14:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

There's your evidence: Ruslik has never been able to specify where I've "lied", despite repeating that claim, as he's apparently making that up.

There is no consensus at Dwarf planet. There's instead been an interminable debate as to how we should word the section headings and organize the tables to reflect our sources.

I was blocked for edit warring, not for what I wrote. The POV I'm pushing is that of several leaders in the field. Debate over how to reflect that is legitimate; pretending it does not exist is not. — kwami (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The sources that you cite all say that some bodies are likely to be Dwarf planets, not that they are dwarf planets. I said many times to you that these two statements are not the same. However you continue to push your own point of view despite all objections. Ruslik_Zero 14:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

If you had read either the sources or the discussion, you would know that is false. And when the opposite happens, and Sheppard says that the objects you want to be DPs are only "likely" to be, you do not allow that opinion either. — kwami (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

This statement is contradictory: the first part of it claims that "this is false", while the second tacitly admits that you lied? Ruslik_Zero 14:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Ruslik, you should really closely read what those sources say, then you'd see that what you are saying is false. I can't always agree with Kwami's editing style, but I haven't caught him lying about anything. Instead, you are now inserting wordings[226] that are obviously not supported by the references. --JorisvS (talk) 15:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is not supported by references? That it is likely to be a dwarf planet? Ruslik_Zero 15:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

This is ANI. It's not the place to debate the wording. — kwami (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course, you know better! Your name has been mentioned so many times on this board that you have probably learned all existing rules. Ruslik_Zero 15:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Please folks, ANI is not the place for resolving an editing dispute. You two clearly need to head to WP:DISPUTE. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I came here because of Ruslik's behavior: any sourced edit I make is a "lie", and reverted. It's not about content. I doubt the content matters at all. — kwami (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request from Protector of Wiki

Resolved

 – There is no clear, unequivocal consensus to unblock at this time. Useful arguments have been made on both sides, however, as noted, the editor's poor behaviour continues even now on their own talkpage - they simply don't "get it". Although mentors have the right to determine their mentoring workload, even some supporters show concern over the potential "time sink". The community has therefore declined to unblock an indef'd editor, thus making this a de facto ban from English Wikipedia. Although it is recommended that anyone who commented advise the editor directly on "how to improve" for next time, that next time will likely require appeal to WP:BASC (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Copied over from User talk:Protector of Wiki

• I have been blocked for over a year. As shown above, I understand why I was blocked. I will abide by all of wiki policies, guidelines, and community consensus at policy profile pages. I look forward to writing a GA with my mentors: Elena of the Roads, Noformation, Worm That Turned, and Buggie11! Others are welcome! :) :) Protector of Wiki (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Notes:-

• Original unblock request from just before Christmas sparked a discussion on this user's talkpage - it is worth reading the discussion in full.
• User was originally blocked by Peter Symonds following this discussion at ANI. It was an admin block, not a community decision.
• His block appeal came up at AN a couple of weeks later. The community consensus was to keep him blocked, but it wasn't overwhelming.
• He was mentored by Sonia and UncleDouggie, and appealed again in March 2011. This again went to AN where the consensus was again to keep him blocked.
• Noformation, Buggie111 and Worm TT have offered to mentor him if he is unblocked, and he understands that he will be blocked in a heartbeat if he returns to problematic behaviour.

As this has come before the community twice previously, I am bringing it here now for community consideration. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

You forgot me! I think Protector has come a long way since last August, and am fully supportive of an unblock. Buggie111 (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, yes I did.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Weak support – geez, that's one hell of a history and he certainly knows how to wind a lot of people up fast. Still, I sense a lot of immaturity ebbing from this guy, and hope his mentors can put him in a better frame of mind. He seems to have a "forum" mentality rather than an encyclopedic one, which needs shaping fast. Given the lengthy block and number of mentors on his case now, and pending reblock if he goes back to his old ways of, basically, pratting about and wasting everyone's time, I support.. dubiously. Umm.. good luck! Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 00:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Wow, that's quite a battlefield - erm, I mean a User talk page. Considering it's been so long, he has two agreed mentors, and there's a condition of an immediate reblock if there's a return to the old ways, I'd cautiously Support unblock -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• Weak Support Although I am not impressed by POW's persistance in rehashing his/her "mod" arguments, I am willing to restart the assumption of good faith will the condition of an immediate reblock if things go back to the shitter.--Adam in MO Talk 01:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• Academic support. I read through the history of this debacle a few weeks back, and suffice it to say that PoW has ample capacity to be a WP:DICK. Despite the time passed, I don't think his unblock request is genuine – whenever he's made "happy smiley" comments in the past it's been nothing more than caustic sarcasm. That said, I'm going to AGF and say give him a shot; there's no reason to deny him another chance. Ultimately I think this is all academic, as I predict he'll be perma-bant again within the month, but hey. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 02:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

"AGF ... I predict he'll be perma-bant again"? To quote Inigo_Montoya "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. " Nobody Ent 16:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Weak support - "Support" because of the quality of his mentors, "weak" because I'm dubious about the editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• Weak support - on the basis of AGF, not any optimism. We can always block again, should it be needed. If so, it's sure to be quite obvious. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Let me be the bad guy here. The offers to mentor Protector are admirable, and I respect the editors that are willing to help. That all being said, reading the above comments, it seems like it's not a matter of "if" but "when" they will be blocked again. I'll ask the question: Is the project better off having this editor stick around? Wildthing61476 (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, selfishly, per an old boss who refused to OK an interesting project on the grounds that it would turn into a time sink for some valued employees. Support because three admins are willing to give it a go, and I'd like to see how it pans out. From the talk page, I get an overwhelming sense that PoW remains clueless and is only parroting answers after being bludgeoned with advice. PoW tenaciously holds on to "mods" instead of just dropping it altogether. I don't get the sense of a teaching moment or understanding. There are going to be more "mod" rounds down the road. Administrators are secretaries? Tell that to the person who runs NASA. Where is the perspective? Is PoW a teenager? PoW almost seems to be goading Elen with that Elena thing. Too friendly? Cutesy? Bite the hand that feeds? Good luck, but keep the leash handy. Glrx (talk) 05:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC) Glrx (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I had a quick look at the user's talk after the point where the unblock request was posted and the attitude indicates that an unblock will result in another time sink. A gentle suggestion was made that a major problem was a refusal to listen to consensus with one of the issues being referring to admins as "mods" (unfortunately, the comment included the trivial mistake that "mods" is against policy). The reply in full was 'Please furnish a link to the policy that prohibits the use of "mod" for "admins".' (see second comment in this diff)—there was no reply about the central point (listening to consensus). The following discussion demonstrates an inappropriate attitude: yes, "mods" is not prohibited, and we don't care if someone occasionally says "mods", but the community made it very clear that the user was overdoing it in a way that was unhelpful, and an editor seeking an unblock should not make their right to say "mods" their first priority (hint: this is an encyclopedia). If any mentors are looking for work, I'm sure we could find a dozen slightly problematic editors who need just a little guidance (e.g. we see reports here once a week of people inappropriately using "vandalism" when reverting edits—those minor issues need follow up). Johnuniq (talk) 06:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

  On that last point - "who to mentor". From experience, an editor who comes to a mentor proactively is more likely to learn from that mentor. I have mentored about 20 people since starting here, and the ones who've come to me have done better than the ones I've gone to or the ones that other editors have suggested to me. What's more, editors who have had a close shave with being blocked, or indeed have previously been blocked have more motivation to improve. The amount of mentoring required is nothing to do with it, I spend a fair amount of time in the -help IRC channel and help randoms who disappear almost instantly - at least focussing on one editor actually gets them somewhere. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Looks like a maturity issue more than anything. I'd suggest a less combative user name and a fresh start. Write some content, lose the drama. Carrite (talk) 09:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support as mentor. This chap is quite lucky to have the offer of the mentors he has - including one who has plans to help him learn how to write articles and one who is focussing on how to go about the encyclopedia. Reblocks are cheap, if he starts to get worse again or even if he doesn't show decent improvement, I'm happy to be the one to block. Basically, it's worth a shot. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose He went and did one of the things that got him blocked in the first place right in his unblock request (the one done slightly earlier on this talk page not the one copied here). This shows he has absolutely no intention of improving. As someone else mentioned this doesn't appear to be a case of "if" he screws up again but a case of "when" he screws up again. -DJSasso (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

  Also shows a complete lack of understanding of WP:INVOLVED. Appears to think that anyone who has ever even looked in his direction is involved with him. -DJSasso (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't see any sign that the user really understands what he did wrong or that he is competent enough not to do it again. Youreallycan (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I can't see any net benefit here. This clearly isn't a user whose encyclopaedic contributions justify the drama and I'm not seeing that he is ready to behave in a more consensual way yet. I don't know how old he is, but if he is a minor, he needs to wait some more before trying again. If he is an adult then its probably too late and he should find something more suited to his personality. Sorry... well actually I'm not, we have far too generous an attitude to time sinks and AGF doesn't preclude learning from experience. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - His persistent wikilawyering over this "mods" silliness and other stuff, indicates he's not ready to come back yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support - per Worm (reblocks are cheap) Bulwersator (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I'm inclined to !vote oppose, on the basis of past history. I'd probably support the unblock if (a) the user in question changes his name to a more neutral one, and (b) he makes clear that he understands what the purpose of Wikipedia is, and that his past efforts have run contrary to that purpose. It isn't just a matter of him agreeing to abide by rules - he needs to show evidence of wanting to contribute positively. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, huge time sink. As always, kudos to the mentors for their almost masochistic willingness to devote time to troublesome editors, but I'd rather see your talents be put to better use. Also, PoW's talk page threads do not look promising. As recent as 24 December they claimed it was wrong to block them and they are still rationalizing their use of "mod" instead of "admin". If that's the result of over a year of introspection, then I'd prefer they stay blocked.--Atlan (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment PoW has agreed to these three points. Buggie111 (talk) 14:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • And PoW has also stated that they will only stop calling admins "mods" if somebody conjures up a policy that prohibits this. I don't really care about this admins/mods debate, but I find his defiance in the face of community consensus and even an indefinite block disturbing. After making such a big deal about this last year, I don't understand how this suddenly doesn't matter.--Atlan (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
    • It never mattered to me, but I do understand the issue and will be tackling it with him. Worm^TT · (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support It's easy and maybe trite to say that reblocks are cheap. But they are. So it must be easy, correct and maybe trite. The history isn't encouraging, but we don't know the sincerity of the wish to reform yet. I'd feel very odd to vote for denying these mentors a chance to invest time in this, and I have confidence the community will swiftly bring an end to any return to past behaviour. Begoon ^talk 14:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

  @begoon - the problem with cases like these it is isn't just the mentor's time that is wasted if the user relapses. It is all of our time as then we will have to have another ANI discussion as to what is to be done. Syrthiss (talk) 14:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

  To some extent - but make a condition of unblock that any admin/mentor can re-block on relapse, and that's minimised a bit. I do respect your opinion - these are difficult calls to which there is probably no "right" answer without a crystal ball. Begoon ^talk 14:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support - but under probation, so they can prove they have truly changed. One slip-up and they're gone again. GiantSnowman 14:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support but come back under a different username (not just renaming this one - make a new account) known only to mentors, arbcom, and I guess anyone who really wants to know. This seems a good way to nip any potential drama in the bud. And if the drama reappears anyway, then we know it's pretty much entirely the user's fault, not the community's, and then the block decision is easy Egg Centric 15:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Query - is this user competent to perform the tasks for which he's asking to be unblocked? His unblock request centers on a stated desire to work on writing a GA with his mentors. That's a useful thing to do, but I'll be honest—looking through the guy's contribution history (survey), there are only three articles to which he's made more than two non-minor edits, and only one article to which he's made ten or more edits. The largest changes (byte-wise) are more often the insertion of infoboxes or reformatting of references, rather than extensive research and writing. He hasn't previously evinced an interest (or skill) in extended, focused editing of a single article or project, nor has he demonstrated a desire or ability to work collaboratively with other editors in the talk spaces. His constructive contributions have generally been vandalism reverts and wikignoming.

In other words, I can't help but feel that either PoW or his mentors are trying – at least a little bit – to sell us a bill of goods here. The shiny GA bauble is being used for a bit of emotional appeal and distraction—only the heartless would try to prevent a well-meaning editor from writing a Good Article, so how could we refuse to unblock? It would be a bit harsh to suggest that he request is insincere or not credible, but I do believe it's poorly thought out. (His would-be mentors may share some of the responsibility here.) We've been told that he wants an unblock so he can "write a GA"; what we should have been told is which GA he wants to write. What is the topic on which he is passionate, and into which he will dive on his return? What steps have his mentors taken on- or off-wiki to evaluate PoW's potential for writing a GA? Is it a good idea to throw an editor who has a very poor track record on inter-editor conflicts directly into a situation where his writing is likely to be minutely examined and subjected to criticism? What is the rationale for declaring a complete reversal in the type of contribution he would be making? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, he has written drafts on his talk that were later added into articles, I think I remember about 5 or so. The article I was thinking of to work on with him is Arctic Ocean, but I was going to ask him for his preferences. Buggie111 (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Although I agree with Ten's sentiments here, I don't think it's a good idea that he disclose that info, except possible via email to mentors who can confirm his genuine ambition. Reason being, it could present a psychological COI for !voters, i.e. not knowing, "I'll support him but I don't want him editing in my area of interest" vs disclosure, "Oh shit, he wants to write about things I edit, auto-oppose!!!" Knowing his area of interest might lead to unwanted provocation early in his mentoring (assuming he's unblocked). As I understand, consensus is about strength of arguments, not numbers unless they're clearly overwhelming. Opposers seem to be repeating the same few arguments, whilst supporters have a few varied points. I think closing admin needs to consider the arguments very carefully here. Given how many eyes would be on him, there is little chance of any consequences to disrupt Wiki itself.. just a few editors get worked up and he's gone fast, before disruption spreads. Without a chance, no one knows what difference a year could make. Personally, if I were blocked a year, I'd probably be "new start" socking to disappear... most IPs change in a year, so do personalities, so we should really consider this: he's requesting unblock via a known disruptive account, following policy, rather than sneaking about behind our backs under socks, as far as we know. That's a long time to wait and for us not to AGF. I'm still weak support, as I still have my doubts about his maturity and competence more than anything else.. given his list of replies he plays it like a game for his amusement rather than a community to respect. Needs to learn. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 21:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Took too much work just to have the user consent to stop using the term "mod, " especially since their repeated requests for a policy indicates a lack of understanding of WP:CONSENSUS.Nobody Ent 16:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Note It's actually surreal that it's okay to call editors WP:DICKs but not to call admins "mods." Especially since the justification presented on the page as that "no big deal" thing -- if it's not a big deal, why are ya'll sweating what someone calls you, given that's not actually perojorative or offensive? Nobody Ent 16:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support The whole "mod" thing is silly. Plenty of people will be watching PoW. Can be re-blocked very easily if necessary. Quinn ^➳WINDY 18:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment PoW has responded on his talkpage to opposes here. Buggie111 (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment Just curious, what's a 'mod'? GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Moderator. -DJSasso (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

and definitely not a rocker! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't recall any previous knowledge of or interaction with this user, and I'm sorry if it looks like I'm throwing AGF out the window a bit here, but all I did was read the current version of his talk page where he responds to this ANI section, and I see a combativeness that will not, in my opinion, be solved by mentoring.  Frank  |  talk  19:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support I don't see any problem with giving him another chance. He has three respected editors willing to help him out. If there are any problems, he can easily be reblocked. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support as a matter of principle. Opposing requests like this gives ammunition for criticism of Wikipedia (of which there's quite enough already) and creates an incentive to sockpuppetry. If there's a problem, of course, reblock.—S Marshall T/C 20:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • So, the solution to preventing sockpuppetry would be to never block anyone. Right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Off topic, but: No, the solution to reducing rather than preventing sockpuppetry would be to make everyone register, and ditch the anon-IP nonsense, totally. It would probably reduce the bureaucracy on wiki by at least 50% and give us more resources to actually make the project work better. As well as scrap a load of the coding behind what makes Wiki work, and speed it up a little. IMO, communities work better when you shake hands and share names.. not using IP numbers as an identity. I'd rather know someone is User:IamAdick than User:12.34.56.78. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 21:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Well, Bugs, that would clearly help! But my position is a bit more moderate; I believe in the eventual rehabilitation of offenders. Except in the case of the most egregious offenders, which this character isn't, someone who's been blocked for a year has done their time.—S Marshall T/C 21:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

        The connotation of "Done their time" implies the block was punishment, which it wasn't. I definitely believe in multiple chances; however my opposed (and I infer others) is based on the disruptive behavior the editor is currently demonstrating on their talk page. Nobody Ent 22:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I wanted to support, considering I respect the editor/s who have offered to mentor, and definitely believe in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th chances. But reading the Talk page of the editor, as well as the recent comments made, leads me to believe that this user is a long way off from being able to be helped by any mentor. This seems to be more of a game for him/her, and we are wasting a lot of time and effort better directed in other areas. Quite honestly, I can't see how anyone can read that Talk page, coupled with the recent comments, and support an unblock. If anything, a community ban came to mind for me. Dave Dial (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Allow me to be the bad guy again. I'll be blunt and sorry if this is bad faith but...we're being trolled here folks. It's obvious read the PoW talkpage that he/she is doing this for the "lulz" and unfortunately we're falling for it. Wildthing61476 (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• You could well be right, but I have faith that his mentors will pull the plug PDQ if his editing behavior isn't on the up-and-up. I am certain they can see from this discussion that the community doesn't have a great deal of trust in PoW, and will therefore have him on a very short leash, at least to begin with. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I'd put 80-20 odds this is not going to work out. But I hate the idea that the community gets to say to a number of extremely experienced editors, "You don't get to decide how to spend your time." If they want to volunteer to mentor, and will agree to stop any badness that happens rapidly and without drama, then more power to them. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support Many of the opposes here point to the inevitable time sink that they believe PoW to become and that the precious time of the mentors will inevitably wasted. However, I find that argument for an oppose to be patronising to the mentors. As Qwyrxian said, it is not up to the community to decide what the mentors will do with their time. If they choose to expend their time and effort to reform someone to become a productive member of the community then I feel that they should be lauded for it and every encouragement given, not a slap in the face and a "you've got better things to do with your time". That being said, PoW should find themselves incredibly fortunate that not one but 3(!) highly experience editors have agreed to be their mentor. This should be seen by PoW as a sign of a great deal of optimism on their editing future and that any failure on their part to meet the expectations of these three will be dealt with very harshly indeed. Blackmane (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• It's not just the mentors time that gets wasted however, it all those people that end up having to come here again to comment to block him again etc. And go through another one of these discussions. If it were just the mentors time wasted that would be another matter. But its the time of all the other people who will have to deal with him that is also getting wasted. -DJSasso (talk) 16:58, 5 January 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.

Ullink self promoting on ULLINK

Resolved

 – user blocked

--Ta, Chip123456 (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Ullink (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
160.79.103.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Ullink has been using the article ULLINK to self promote. First it solicited sales and added its "sales" email address ([227]). Then it reverted ([228]) Xlink bot who had removed the content and warned the user. I then reverted this edit and gave the user a final warning uw-advert4im and it stopped until 4 Jan and added self-promoting content again ([229]). It seems that it also uses the IP address 160.79.103.100. Cocoaguy ここがいい 19:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

SPAMNAME reported as such at WP:UAA. – ukexpat (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Block. --Ta, Chip123456 (talk) 20:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

New editor seeks support starting lawsuit against Santorum

User:Paul123.123 has been posting messages to various talk pages in violation of WP:NOTFORUM and in a sense WP:NLT. Paul wants to gather support for a notional lawsuit against Dan Savage because of his Google bomb against Rick Santorum, the event we know as the campaign for "santorum" neologism. Paul has been sticking mostly to talk pages but he also posted here in article space, asking for supporters in a "defamation of character" lawsuit to be brought against Dan Savage. The URL he posts is a self-published website in wordpress blog space. The lawsuit is not notable, and perhaps Paul is crossing some line we have against legal threats. Can we block him? Can we blacklist the wordpress URL? Binksternet (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not technically a legal threat. Several editors have given him level-1, -2 and now -3 warnings about using Wikipedia as an advertising medium. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

As Orange Mike says, the user has been warned not to use Wikipedia for promotion of a cause. If he continues to do so he can be blocked, and he has been informed of that fact. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The mere presence of that article here on wikipedia suggests promotion of a cause. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Blah blah blah. Don't derail the discussion of the behavior of a new user. Binksternet (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Blah blah blah back at you. The presence of that article is a disgrace to wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

We have articles on things that are far more unpleasant, loathsome, and/or disgraceful than a columnist's ten-year campaign to ridicule a politician. The fact that people care about this, and that it's getting a substantial amount of news coverage, means that it's entirely appropriate for us to have an article about it. DS (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure there are plenty of agenda-driven editors here who are very happy to keep that garbage here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Santorum shock rise in popularity - Santorum's views are popular and the promotion of them by D Savage has had no apparent detrimental affect on his career. Youreallycan (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I find Santorum's politics abhorrent. Nonetheless, that separate article serves no purpose except to further the defamation of Santorum. It's not about Santorum, it's about that Savage character. The article should be changed to a redirect to Savage and be done with it. Its continued presence here is an affront to everything wikipedia supposedly stands for in the BLP area. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I think often people overestimate the value of content in a wikipedia article - ( which is the primary reason for the battlefield position amongst editors that currently proliferates here ) although it appears at a high profile in google returns doesn't mean people are reading anything or using what they read here to develop or change their opinions. I have come to see D Savage's attack on Santorum as more detrimental on Savage's reputation than anyone else's.Youreallycan (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

And that's why it should redirect to him. It's got nothing to do with the targeted public figure - it's all about the radio guy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that the aticle-in-question will effect Santorum's campaign for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. Having said that, changing it to a re-direct is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 06:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thank you. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Considering the overly long and sometimes volatile exchange on that page last year to get it to the current name, a unilateral move after this brief discussion is far from a good idea Bugs.Heiro 06:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The article's existence is a large stain on wikipedia. Putting personal agendas ahead of wikipedia's reputation is far from a good idea. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you not putting your own personal agenda ahead of Wikipedia's role as an objective source of notable information about the world by ignoring Wikipedia's rules on notability and so forth and trying to remove an article whose content you do not like? We aren't here to self-censor for reputation reasons. Besides, anyone who thinks our reputation is lessened by covering what someone else did doesn't have an opinion worth worrying about to be honest. Conservapedia already hates us for being reality-biased, and they and their ilk aren't going to change their minds because we remove an article about a term that is probably more well known than the former senator himself is. And, sorry, but the term must be growing on you somewhat if thinking of the name makes you think of a large stain... DreamGuy (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Assuming that that guy Savage is notable, this nonsense rates maybe one sentence, within his article. It's not "well-known" in the mainstream, it's a niche thing of some kind. I never heard of it until I read it on wikipedia, which stands to reason, as it's selected wikipedians who are actively promoting it and trying to give it artificial notability. I'll concede that the average adolescent probably doesn't know who his own state's senators are, let alone someone like Santorum. Among that demographic, it may well be better known than the senator. Not among actual adults, though. The sad part is how the agenda-pushers on this and other topics use alleged "notability" to justify their "Oh, boy, let's write about this!" approach. The continued presence of such juvenile garbage here leads me to believe it's part of an episode called "Beavis and Butt-Head Discover Wikipedia". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

If it wasn't notable, Jon Stewart et el wouldn't constantly mention it, nor would there be news story after news story about it, all without mentioning our article. Just because you never heard of it before does not mean it has not generated significant news coverage. Heiro 16:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

OMG, Dude, stop the presses - a comedian mentioned it on a cable channel! If that's your idea of "notability", you might want to do a little extra reading on the subject. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Funny how you completely overlooked the immediately subsequent reference to "significant news coverage", not to mention the fact that what Jon Stewart deals with is -- wait for it -- news coverage. It's pretty much the entire point of his show, that unless it IS newsworthy he's not going to talk about about it. Maybe you should just do a little extra reading yourself -- you know, past the first clause of a sentence -- or just stick to recycling old Borscht Belt jokes. --Calton | Talk 19:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Right, and SNL News (that also deals with "news coverage") is considered some form of reliable source or indicates notability/coverage now too? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

"Assuming that guy Savage is notable", he's an internationally-syndicated columnist who's been published in dozens of markets for over twenty years, he's published five books with major publishers (one of which was the basis for an award-winning musical), and he launched the It Gets Better project, which drew the personal participation of hundreds of celebrities including the President of the United States. What you, Baseball Bugs, have or have not personally heard of, makes no difference. You've written over a hundred articles on subjects so obscure that I haven't heard of them. DS (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for helping prove the point that this garbage is all about this Savage character, and should be confined to his own page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Bugs, I've seen you comment on Dan Savage repeatedly, and I can't come to any conclusion except that you're well, a little confused. You call him "that radio guy" here and I've seen you call him a "shock jock" before. He's not a radio guy, a shock jock or any other kind of a jock. I think possibly you have him confused with Michael Savage who is a right-wing radio host who might reasonably called a shock-jock and frequently engages in detestable conduct. Dan Savage is someone who finds Santorum's politics as abhorrent as you say you do and is trying to do something about it in a way that has an element of wit to it. He's also the person who started the laudable "It Gets Better" campaign. They're not the same guy. (Note: I'm usually one of your biggest fans, Bugs.) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet getting waaay out of hand

There s a persistent sockpuppeteer (see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of HenryVIIIyes) who insists on adding material supporting Oxfordian theory to pages on Shakespeare, and also adding irrelevant screeds to talk pages (see Talk:William Shakespeare). This is beginning to get out of hand. He used to edit from IPs but has now created a spate of sockpuppets, usually in the form of insulting versions of the names of regular editors of Shakespeare pages (recently; user:Johnbanal, a dig at user:Johnuniq and user:Dumb Moonraker, a dig at user:Old Moonraker). This user is becoming more an more active in his obsession that the truth is being suppressed and that everyone doing so is part of a conspiracy of censorship. There are so many Shakespeare-related pages and the sockpuppeting is so prolific that it is difficult to keep an eye on all this. Any help appreciated. Paul B (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocked several accounts and an IP. TNXMan 19:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

...and I've upped it to a rangeblock and nabbed another one. --MuZemike 00:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Fastily

Fastily deleted article Alexey Pivovarov (he IS notable!) and ignored me and all my arguments on his talk page. He insists on speaking with me only through some strange link. Please revert his vandalism and let me rebuilt this useful and interesting article.--RussianLiberal (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Vandalism - "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page." Bulwersator (talk) 10:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• And you should start with discussion on his talk page rather than create thread here Bulwersator (talk) 10:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." Bulwersator (talk) 10:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• I did!--RussianLiberal (talk) 10:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • you never edited User talk:Fastily except information about this thread Bulwersator (talk) 10:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
    • As far as I can see, there have been no discussions between RussianLiberal and Fastily on either editor's Talk page -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• I am IP there!
  • Please provide diff with your polite request Bulwersator (talk) 10:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• Alexey Pivovarov was deleted using PROD so article will be restored on request. Bulwersator (talk) 10:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• So I request, claim, blame and ask.--RussianLiberal (talk) 10:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • No claim or blame is appropriate. A polite request on Fastily's talk page is. LadyofShalott 10:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• He ignored me so I will better not come there - want to insult him--RussianLiberal (talk) 10:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • WP:BOOMERANG? Bulwersator (talk) 10:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• He has not ignored you - you have to give people at least a little response time. You never asked him nicely - your first words to him were "revenge for vandalizing the article". I suggest you delete those words, and ask him to restore the article. This thread should never have been opened. LadyofShalott 10:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• See! As an IP I asked him! As an IP! So I will not delete my true words - if you want ban me. I will make Pivovarov again and bite everybody who will attack it again--RussianLiberal (talk) 10:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Listen, you need to show us exactly which edit you made. It's no good just saying "IP" and expecting us to know from that. Now that you have said "Pivovarov", I presume your message was User_talk:Fastily#Alexey Pivovarov. Fastily responded with a link to User:Fastily/E#PROD, which says "This article was deleted via the PROD process. You may request that the page be restored, but you are advised to be ready to improve the article and remedy the problems for which it was originally deleted. Otherwise, you run the risk of having the article deleted again or nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, in which deletion may become more permanent". That's a perfectly reasonable response, and is most definitely not the "vandalism" that you went on to accuse him of. And if you carry on in this beligerent manner, it's *you* who is likely to be sanctioned -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• I see you have recreated Alexey Pivovarov now. Please be aware that it currently contains no indication of importance, and neither did the previously deleted version. If you don't adjust it to at least make a credible claim of importance, it is likely to be speedy deleted. And if you do not make it comply with the notability requirements of WP:BIO, it will at the very least be taken to WP:AfD for deletion discussion. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• Nobody to write articles, everybody want to delete... bureaucrats--RussianLiberal (talk) 10:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Obviously it is untrue Bulwersator (talk) 10:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• While we are looking at this editor, should something be done about this ? Mtking ^(edits) 10:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

  I've deleted it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Now Pivovarov is normal? Notable? Is it time to remove ugly shield?--RussianLiberal (talk) 12:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You should discuss that on Talk:Alexey Pivovarov, not here. Nobody Ent 12:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking about framing the above discussion in my new "Wikipedia is a bureaucracy" essay. :\ causa sui (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

A round of applause to everyone involved. Perhaps if Bulwersator kept the comments to himself and another admin could've spared <5 minutes to deal with this, we'd be able to retain more new editors. Swarm ^X 20:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate to put blame on Bulwersator, whose comments here seem to me to be straight-forward advice to RussianLiberal on how to proceed. Instead, it looks to me as if RussianLiberal was rather spoiling for a fight from the very beginning, and wanted to believe the very worst possible about Wikipedia. That they left isn't a big surprise, considering that attitude. Since their article is now is much better shape than it was, perhaps they will return with a better feeling about the project; if they do, they'd be advised to be more open to the advice other editors give them, which is (usually) meant to be helpful. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Heh, since I've posted that I read that RussianLiberal has self-admittedly been "banned" seven times from the Russian Wikipedia; pretty sure they were doomed from the start. At the end of the day, however, this was a contested PROD, and the bare minimum it required was an admin looking up the article, restoring it and shooting it over to AfD, and leaving some advice to RL. Bulwersator's comments were perfectly straightforward and spot on...and they were completely unhelpful. Frustrating new users (who are evidently speaking ESL, on top of it) by debating irrelevant points ("obviously it is untrue") citing trivial policy points ("See Wikipedia:Vandalism") and demanding they provide diffs when doing so is completely unnecessary is going to make a situation worse 100% of the time, as it did here, resulting in the apparent departure of someone who came here, in good faith, to add to the encyclopedia. Nothing to be proud of there. Swarm ^X 03:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

+1 Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Gorba

Gorba (talk · contribs) is making strange 'threats' that he will not continue to support Wikipedia financially if he doesn't get his way when editing articles.[230][231] See Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses#Scriptural_references.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Gorba is free to contribute financially or not, just as he chooses, but financial contributions will not give him any additional say in content disputes, so those remarks on the talk page are pointless. There is nothing here that requires admin action. JohnCD (talk)

I'm perfectly well within my right to say I will not be financially supporting Wikipedia. This is NOT a threat against Wikipedia or its parent organizations. I also don't appreciate flagging my comments as some kind of "threat" against Wikipedia because it is not. I simply expressed my displeasure for what I perceive to be unfair treatment about a particular article when compared with similar articles of faith, and what I plan to do as a result. I hope this discussion about my comment is finally resolved. Gorba (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

How do we know that you ever actually did financially support wikipedia? How do we know you're not trying to win the argument by employing fake extortion? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Legal threats and spamming by Noncanonical

Noncanonical (talk · contribs) states on his/her user page he/she works at the Youvan Foundation. Here, here and here the suggestion of legal actions by Youvan or the Youvan Foundation is made, also talking about defamation. Further this user repeatedly --despite the conflict of interest -- adds info on books published by the Youvan Foundation on article (talk) pages, as well as original research by Youvan (at Douglas Youvan, Talk:P versus NP problem, Talk:Millennium Prize Problems). -- Crowsnest (talk) 10:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Legal treats: raspberry torts, and spam. Yum. :) The editor has only been registered since Christmas Eve, but seems to be very "knowledgeable". Obviously, an edit like this one,[232] and especially its edit summary, is unacceptable. Someone needs to 'splain' a few things to him, right after indef-blocking him for threats and accusations. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for legal threats and likely being a sock of User:Nukeh. Max Semenik (talk) 12:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Who, surprise-surprise, is a sock of Doug youvan (talk · contribs). Good catch! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

So how far back does the socking go? Should we be doublechecking the article, or questioning notability? Shenanigans like this poison the well, certainly, but if the guy's notable he's notable - shenanigans or no. But if he isn't notable, we need an AFD. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

He certainly is notable, with 90+ scientific papers on biophysics (often cited, see e.g. this Google Scholar search: "d.c.+youvan"), as well as many patents. But since 2002 this scientific production (nearly) dried out. His additions to Wikipedia, since 2008 -- as users Nukeh, Doug youvan, MsTopeka, and probably Bridgettttttte, OoZeus, LadyJosie and Noncanonical -- were (in my opinion) largely of no use, incomprehensible or disruptive. -- Crowsnest (talk) 12:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Good block. I tried to work through some of this yesterday, but questions about COI were dodged entirely. Did not see the sock angle, though - good catch, that. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

user Shariq r82 adding copyright material after CCI

A CCI was opened regarding copyright infringement by User:Shariq r82 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). This user would add summaries of Pakistani TV shows copied directly from the show's official websites. Now, a month later, Shariq r82 is copying and pasting the same material from the same source. Since this user has not changed his behavior after a CCI and numerous warnings, a block is in order. GabrielF (talk) 03:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread the date of the edit - this was contributed back in December but CSD'd today. GabrielF (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any other recent examples? Note to self: update the CCI on Sunday. MER-C 13:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

irate IP

Resolved

 – user reminded of appropriate behaviour. Report to WP:ANEW if edit warring continues.

waggers (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I have a feeling this IP is going to need a warning block pretty soon. Maybe another editor can get through? — kwami (talk) 11:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look. waggers (talk) 12:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I've left them a 4im warning: this is not acceptable. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Question on user posting Essay/OR in User Talk/Editnotice

I noticed User talk:Hafeezanwar/Editnotice is an essay, and opinion piece that clearly does not belong in a User Editnotice. I would be bold and delete but am unsure this is warranted as a speedy, or delete outright, or it should be PRODded instead. I don't want to be overly bitey but I think this crosses a line. Guidance/opinions requested. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: I just saw the user has been indeffed. This should resolve this particular instance but the question stands in general. Wikipedia:Talk#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable includes do not use as a forum but it does not specifically mention user space Editnotices. I would assume they would apply by extension and should be deletable on sight. Comments? -- Alexf^(talk) 14:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The fact that it was some sort of essay, totally inappropriate in an edit notice, did not qualify it for speedy deletion, but it seemed to me that it was promotion, which did, so I deleted it. On the more general point, it seems to me to be common sense that anything which is unacceptable in a talk page is equally unacceptable in a page notice which in effect sh9ows up as part of the talk page. Putting a brief mention of that in the talk page guidelines would do no harm. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done Added mention of Editnotice to the talk page guidelines. Thanks for your comments. -- Alexf^(talk) 15:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikihounding, attack and disruptive editing by Delicious carbuncle

Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs)
User notified on their Talk Page

Over the last 36 hours User:Delicious carbuncle's behaviour towards myself has been very concerning and at the suggestion of an admin who has already tried to resolve one of the problems and I am starting this ANI.

Following an exchange in the BLP noticeboard in which DC questioned edits I had made which were entirely inline with articles for all other British politicians, DC also included completely irrelevant comments about an unrelated article I had worked on concerning a notable racist murder. [233]. I explained that this was inappropriate and although the discussion then largely continued without any problems, ever since I have suffered a significant amount of harassment from DC, and they have behaved in a highly disruptive manner.

Conduct has has included two "time wasting" AFD submissions of articles I created [234][235] (both of which are clearly notable, especially the later) with not one single comment in support of deletion in either case thus far. One of the AFD submissions even included a personal attack falsely alleging racism on my part[236]. Other troubling behaviours have included deleting a fully sourced material from an article.[237] and links to the Parker article.

The straw that has broken the camels back is the creation of a most bizarre request for comment.[238] In it he repeats previous insinuations concerning my editing of the Parker article. DC has shown a rather excessive facination in me by combing though my contributions, and evidence of apparent serious misconduct on my part highlighted in the RFC include diffs such as:

• Adding a Daily Telegraph ref for to support the fact that Ken Livingstone resides in North London.[239]
• Creating redirects.
• An incident resulting from me exposing a network of longstanding sock puppets.
• Adding a British person with six convictions for theft to the category "British people convicted of theft" [240]

In the document DC suggests various bans for myself would be appropriate. Uninvolved parties have so far described the RFC as "obvious and disgusting attempt at a WP:WITCHHUNT".[241]

Not that it should matter in the slightest, but for the record my interests and expertise include the BBC, equality issues, and domestic violence and these are the themes which especially stirred my interest in most of the articles in question and I have a long track record in editing such topics. I'd also note that the article DC seems to object to actually achieved Good Article status mere hours before this all started, mostly all due to my edits. In terms of mistakes I may have made, I have already accepted that one heading I restored to the Qureshi article some times ago needed slight improvement, although it was not my "creation".

To date Delicious Carbuncle has refused to remove the attack on me in the AFD even after being asked to do so by an entirely uninvolved administrator User:Postdlf [242][243] , insisting that "the RFC/U which I hope will deal with the issues". Therefore the admin was forced to remove the attack themselves.[244] Postdlf describes DC's conduct as "disingenuous" and having an "apparent unwillingness to discuss anything maturely".

I believe all the above taken together more than constitutes serious harassment, not to mention a quite astounding lack of understanding of multiple Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I'm not sure what action needs to be taken, but at the very least I'd like an apology and retraction and for the attacks and wikihounding to be brought to a stop please as this disruptive behaviour is completely wasting my time and that of many others. I'd also appreciate it if people could keep an eye on the situation in future. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 04:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Re: "Other troubling behaviours have included deleting a fully sourced material from an article.[245]"--I call BS. Delicious Carbuncle was correct: you confused the wording of the Daily Mail with that of the subject. You should rather apologize for your editorial oversight; claiming that you being corrected is an example of a witch hunt is silly. Drmies (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually even DC has admitted to being in the wrong there, it's a quote and there's no "BS" or case of me being "silly", or need to apologise, try reading the source again, it's a well known quote--Shakehandsman (talk) 04:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you are right: I didn't see the opening quotes, and having been in the US for so long I guess I have forgotten how to read those quotes spread out over paragraphs. Please accept my apologies. Drmies (talk) 05:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Always nice to see an apology in such incidents, but perhaps you should be more considerate in future before calling an editor a "bullshitter." It is not particularly civil considering you are an admin, especially when one remembers that mere content editors have been hauled up in front of arbcom for such "bitey" responses... Keristrasza (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I should add that I do fully accept Drmies' apology and thank him for it, but I'd echo the commits above too. This ANI is about ongoing harassment and incivility, so it' wasn't nice to come in here and make a report of it and the first response to be even more incivility.--Shakehandsman (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm the editor who described Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Shakehandsman as an obvious and disgusting example of a WP:WITCHHUNT. I retracted my comment only because the RfC is obviously going to be deleted as ineligible. Coupled with the grotesque childishness of the accusation of racism made at [246], Delicious carbuncle has clearly stalked Shakehandsman and is seeking to disrupt his contributions by pretending to piece together an ideological position in order to project it on to him. The lack of any policy basis for Delicious carbuncle's policing of thoughtcrimes would be comical if it were not so potentially damaging to the reputation of a serious and earnest editor. To include community processes such as AfD and RfC to hound another editor in this way is not only a grievous waste of everybody's time but, surely, a very serious example of WP:HARASSMENT. Exok (talk) 11:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I find it strange to be accused of "harassment" and "stalking" merely for using the appropriate Wikipedia mechanism for addressing a problem editor. I had no knowledge of Shakehandsman prior to noticing their edits to the biography of a current British MP (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Yasmin Qureshi). Looking at some of their other edits soon lead me to realize that there was a long-term pattern of edits involving specific groups. The creation of WP:COATRACK articles designed to disparage their subjects is likely the most serious and obvious issue. Shakehandsman has previously been involved in disputes reflated to biographies of living people and poor sourcing for controversial claims. I believe an RFC/U is overdue. Note that I have not asked for a ban, but merely an agreement that Shakehandsman follow WP:NPOV and WP:BLP (with the implicit assumption that violations will result in sanctions). I have not called Shakehandsman a "racist". I characterized one of the article he created as: One of a series of articles created by the same editor that I would describe as "bad things done by brown people". I stand by that observation (which relates to the articles and not to the editor). I invite people to read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Shakehandsman rather than rely on Shakehandsman's self-serving comments here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not at all "appropriate" to nominate multiple notable articles for deletion just because you hold certain (and clearly false) views about someone's editing. It is not appropriate to constantly smear them and make personal attacks falsely alleging racism then refusing to remove these attacks even when asked to do so by an uninvolved admin. Similarly it is not appropriate to constantly assume the worst about every single thing a person has ever done here, follow them around Wikipedia and make ridiculous complaints that they have added a British person with multiple conviction for theft to the most perfectly appropriate category imaginable. Most importantly of all, it is not appropriate to do all these things all to the same person all within a 36 hour period.--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I nominated a total of two articles of yours for deletion, not because you created them but because they are two of literally hundreds of similar murders in the UK every year that have had no appreciable influence on public policy or law. Murders tend to get a certain amount of press for a short time, but these are no different from hundreds of other cases that one would not expect to find in Wikipedia. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The most recent similar documented case to the Cheema murder occurred in the United States in 1881, and that also has its own article at George Henry Lamson. The article clearly outlines why it is notable and even links to the Lamson case. Not a single person at the AFD has even hinted at supporting your argument and the consensus from totally uninvolved parties is that your submitting of it was "dubious" / "a waste of space" / "time-wasting" and that you were guilty of a personal attack. It's abundantly clear that either you need to re-examine Wikipedia notability guidelines, or you have simply submitted the article for deletion as a wider pattern of harassment against me.--Shakehandsman (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible that I just have different ideas about what meets our notability guidelines? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

If you have different ideas to absolutely everyone else then there's a serious problem. In the second AFD you submitted you yourself highlighted myself as the common link between the two articles. Also, the subject's skin colour appears to be a strong factor in your reasons for nomination for deletion, to quote your sentence at the AFD submission "One of a series of articles created by the same editor that I would describe as "bad things done by brown people". You spelled out your position against me and against the articles very clearly, it's now as if you're suggesting you never wrote that line.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I quoted that very statement above, so I am hardly trying to deny making it. I think I've said everything that needs to be said here. I suggest that in future you pay close attention to WP:BLP and WP:NPOV (especially your choice of sources for BLPs). Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Articles should be judged on their own merit, you really do need to start commenting on content and not on contributors as I advised you in our very first interaction. Your WP:AGF failings in relation to myself are massive and you need to stop your harassment of me immediately and apologise for this and your personal attack and start accepting responsibility for the amount of disruption you've caused not just to myself, but to many other editors as well. If some of this situation has arisen from an inability understand basic notability policies and guidelines then you need to stop nominating articles for deletion or at least seek advice first. And, it's the least of the concerns here, but for the record I'm not a "lady"[247] either.--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The AFD nom ("Unremarkable murder case") for Cheema was ridiculous, and could be construed by some as malicious. By DC's reasoning I, too, am guilty of racialism - I have written a "series of articles about bad things done by white people..." When all's said and done I think you and I both know what this was all really about, Shakehandsman, but no admins are interested and DC has just shrugged and ignored it. May as well forget about the whole thing and move on. If nothing else, it has drawn some people's attention to his ill-judged and poorly researched AFD nom. Keristrasza (talk) 12:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

There's no evidence the AFD was malicious, asserting same lacks good faith. Nobody Ent 18:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth, thanks very much - quote: "...could be construed by some..." This is an observation, not an accusation. Keristrasza (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Not seeing evidence of any requiring intervention; OP is inappropriately WP:FORUMSHOPPING [248]. Nobody Ent 18:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

A person attack was made against me in that AFD. Linking to the relevant ANI created to discuss the attack is not forum shopping.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Completely disagree. Not "inappropriate forumshopping" at all. Policy allows "draw[ing] attention to the issue on noticeboards or other talk pages." That AfD originally contained a PA from DC which is very pertinent to the AfD AND the simulataneous RfC. They are linked issues. Keristrasza (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Help request

Jsrogers24 (talk · contribs) created Anthony Mason (journalist) which appears to be a copyvio of CBS's online bio page. I remove the copyvio and go to the user's talk page to explain my action. Noticing the CorenSearchBot post, I look at the article's history to find that JSrogers24 has removed the copyvio tag the bot left without addressing the issue. Jsrogers24 reverts my correction of a minor citation blip and when asked for an explanation sees fit to make this reply. I've watchlisted the article so I find that Jsrogers24 has undone my removal of the copyvio without edit summary. I have failed in communicating with this individual and am requesting others with greater interpersonal skills to help. The only solution I can come up with would solve the short term problem but, I fear, be counterproductive in the long run. Thanks Tiderolls 01:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The user has been blocked once already for edit warring, and they just reverted Tide rolls back to the copyrighted version. I've issued a v4 warning and also warned them that they face an indef. block if they don't stop edit warring. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Jsrogers24 (talk · contribs) has a history of nasty edit summaries and edit warring - see [249] - how did he get rollback rights? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

He doesn't have rollback, and that's an unrelated matter anyway. I checked a lot of his edits earlier, and while this isn't a model editor yet, I don't think their history is so bad (this excepted). Drmies (talk) 04:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I should probably point out that I am not a sockpuppet of this user, and I don't appreciate being labelled as one! 2.123.152.86 (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

His User page says, I am a reviewer & rollbacker here on the English Wikipedia.. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

That's probably because he/she copied another user's userpage. Elockid ^(Talk) 19:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Move problem?

I'm not sure if this was done correctly or not but if not then an admin might be needed.

The page List of murderers by number of victims was a list until it was turned into a dab a few revisions ago. However, there is no move in the history of that article. So essentially the article was unmerged via copy paste and thus the old talk page remains on the disambiguation page. Is this proper for unmerging? N^oformation ^Talk 06:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, after a look at the relevant histories:

• List of serial killers by number of victims was merged with List of murderers by number of victims on 6 January 2009‎ and remained a redirect until 8 September 2011‎, when it was "unmerged",
• List of rampage killers existed the whole time and still exists,
• List of murderers by number of victims existed before 6 January 2009‎.

Since all 3 articles existed before 2009, I think merging the histories will create a bigger mess than the current situation (tangled/mixed histories). I suggest we leave it as it is, maybe noting the "unmerge" at the top of List of serial killers by number of victims. -- Luk ^talk 09:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

You should tag the appropriate talk pages with {{copied}}. This gives the affected authors proper attribution as per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. --64.85.221.31 (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Cool I didn't know about that template, thanks. I'll post it later on. N^oformation ^Talk 19:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

ruthless personal attack from User:Off2riorob

Unfounded allegations. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This user is attacking and making false accusations about me at WP:BLPN. I try to remove it from his comments but he keeps restoring it. Can I have some intervention please. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 21:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC) That account hasn't been used in a few weeks. GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Now goes by the name of Youreallycan (talk · contribs). Favonian (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Sorry, LGDP, I'm not seeing any personal attacks there. Diffs would be helpful. 28bytes (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC) "ruthless personal attack" is yet another example of La goutte de pluie's ridiculous over-reaction to disagreement, and her battlefield and uncollegial approach to Wikipedia in general. Btw, she has not notified User:Youreallycan of this report - I shall do so now -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Sorry, he's alleging I was blocked over Singaporean politics. No such block ever occurred. He insists on restoring that comment when I try to remove it. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 21:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I was referred here by Calabe

I was referred here by CalabeI am a very new editor (really far more of a wiki user than editor). In my time here I have run across one editor that seems to me, POV out of line. This person is a long time editor, more edits in one day then I have ever got a chance to do in my time here. However the disturbing thing about this person is that often when they make edits they add hurtful comments. Now like I say I have not edited that much but isn’t wiki about civil debate? Anyway it is not that much about actual hits to me, nonetheless this person has said hurtful things to me, it is the comments this person posts to others. Why can this person not simply edit without feeling the need to add a rude comment. Yet this person always and I mean always levels the claim that they are being personally attacked. I think a simple review of this persons edit history will prove my point. This person is most likely a competent editor if it were not for the personal attacks. this be the persons talk page(talk) I will inform them that I have placed this here.

Thank you

Soglad Tomeetyou (talk) 04:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Aggh, I had looked into this eariler (from the HelpDesk thread), then got distracted. I'll try to resolve this directly with the complainant. Short story: nothing really severe to see here, I think some quiet discussion would be better. Franamax (talk) 06:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Well done. Nobody Ent 01:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Medians in Usage share of web browsers

THe RfC at Talk:Usage share of web browsers#Medians in Usage share of web browsers is the latest in the long line of such RfC mediation edit wars discussions on various notice boards etc about using medians in this an some similar articles. Is there no way for people to get some sort of arbitration about long running content disputes rather than the arguments going on for years and years? Even if the decision is against me it would stop me getting prompted about it and saying my opinion yet again on it whenever it is raised again. Perhaps something about not raising it again until six months or a year have passed if there's no way of getting to a decision. Dmcq (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you really expecting this noticeboard to provide resolution to an RfC?  Frank  |  talk  20:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm asking if there is any way in Wikipedia of resolving or quietening down long running content disputes. Following WP:DISPUTE doesn't seem to provide a solution. Dmcq (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Not really. Wikipedia doesn't have an effective dispute resolution process. This the biggest problem with Wikipedia. There is no one in charge, there are no decision makers. Disputes can go on forever. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• No they can't! <yes they will!> No they can't! <yes they will!> No they can't! <yes they will!> No they can't! <yes they will!> No they can't! <yes they will!> --Hammersoft (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Um yes, I mean no - whatever :) That was my worry. I guess this RfC will be as inconclusive as any before. I certainly can see this as a reason for editors to get dispirited or ratty. Even tossing a coin and just sticking to it fr a year would very often make people happier I think. Oh well back to the ramparts and hopefully something different will occur. Dmcq (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Well, if you toss a coin enough, eventually it will land on its edge. Don't despair! :) Seriously, major disputes that seem endless usually end up before ArbCom if all other methods of resolution have failed and disruption is still happening. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• I wasn't notified of this discussion on my RfC. Seriously, this is being really WP:LAME and editors will be in the WP:STOCKS before you know it.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Potential blocking of Johnsith and Geoff9115

I'm writing in because of an article currently up for delete, Never shout Nevermind. It was uploaded by what appears to be the game's creators ([250], [251]), whose sole purpose for coming onto the wikipedia was to submit an article for their game. Their sole purpose on Wikipedia is to advertise for their game. They have even created their own sources by submitting articles to news sites that allow users to create their own content, then listing them as reliable sources. They are trying to pass them off as reliable sources that show notability, although they have been called by multiple users (including myself) on the origin of the two blog/news sources. They have also posted a question to Yahoo Answers asking for people to come and vote for them, which isn't a blockable thing in itself but is just further proof of them attempting to game the system to keep their promotional article on the page.

I do want to assume good faith, but this is pretty blatant and obvious attempted advertising and manipulation of the system.16:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

They're promotional single purpose accountss. At least block Johnsith as a sockpuppet of Geoff9115, as one of the "sources" "they" provide has the username "John9115." Ian.thomson (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think he's a sockpuppet, to be honest. I think that John is a meat puppet and one of the friends of Geoff that was asked to come on and contribute to the article and most importantly, to remove the PROD from the article. That's what really gets me about these two users: that do little things like this that show that they're aware of some of the protocol on Wikipedia, such as the original article creator not being supposed to remove the PROD from the article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

Either way, Johnsith should be blocked for puppetry. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

They should at least be topic banned from promoting their 'thang. Oh, and last I checked, you could decline a PROD on an article you yourself created... Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 17:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

A topic ban would be useful if they ever bothered contributing anywhere else. As it is, they're single purpose accounts. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anything is needed right now. Once that article is deleted, I suspect they'll disappear - and if they recreate it, we have G4 at our disposal -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I deleted it as speedy G11 and A7. I am not protecting because , who knows, it might become notable when it gets released. If reinserted before that, I urge whoever deletes it to protect. DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat

Possible legal threat: editor threatening to contact police and report cyber harassment of minor [252]Nobody Ent 18:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

User indeffed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeffed? Why?!? Seems ridiculously harsh to me. 2.123.152.86 (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Editing the encyclopedia while a legal threat is extant is not a compatible situation. Please see WP:NLT. Considering you are under a personal attack warning yourself I don't think you quite have a grasp of Wikipedia policies. Syrthiss (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec) That's the normal process - read the WP:NLT page for the reasoning and the extremely simple remedy. Ravensfire (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

This one was a particularly bad legal threat; I've told them they need to show a thorough understanding of why what they did was bad, not just retract it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

+1 ... possibly one of the most brutal attempts at "chilling discussion" I have seen (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Well, it's an attempt. But to me, an uninvolved party, it's blatantly transparent to the point of hilarity. Assuming the below IP is related to same, this self declared minor will be retaining the services of one John Phillips (jurist), who has been retired from legal service now these six years. No, what I see here is a teenager who's gone off on an emotional bender. Got involved in a dispute, grabbed his keyboard, and jumped into the deep end of an empty pool. This is routine stuff. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It's kinda funny to read through, despite the LT because it was made apparently with a fair amount of sincerity and in reality would probably get any lawyer involved with it a request from a judge as to why they shouldn't be sanctioned. Ravensfire (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I was sorely tempted to leave them a message telling them their grasp of cyberbullying laws was nonexistent, but I decided to let him figure it out himself. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to learn something: in a similar case, should I report here at ANI or through some silent overview? -DePiep (talk) 04:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is good, or alternatively you can leave a message for an admin if you see they're editing; either way works. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Waddle, "QUACK!", (smile for the camera)...

(probably related to the above thread)

This IP is in need of blocking...

94.8.118.132 (talk · contribs)

Quack quack quack...

The legal threats of are of course a joke, but it's obvious there's block evading going on. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll leave it up to a CU to modify the block as needed, but I already had blocked them for 24 hours for obviousness. Syrthiss (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I've extended the block to a week; check the ANI archives for a Mr. L Phillips, QC. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive584#Administrator's Noticeboard?
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive585#Notice of Intent to Sue
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive586#Legal Threat (including a £10,000,000,000 lawsuit)

Couldn't tell you whether or not it's the same person, though. --MuZemike 22:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

74.197.89.32 needs a smack.

 Done Penyulap _talk

Penyulap _talk 06:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Warn them first, and if they don't respond, use WP:AIV instead of here. --Jayron32 06:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

mvd. Penyulap _talk 06:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Whitewashing of Boris Berezovsky article

Hello All,

I'd like to inform you about whitewashing of Boris Berezovsky article on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Berezovsky_%28businessman%29

Recently the following paragraph has been added to the article:

In 2000 Klebnikov published a book "Boris Berezovsky: Godfather of Kremlin or looting of Russia" which was a very extended version of the above mentioned article. Berezovsky did not contest the book in court.

which was blatantly immediately erased by user Collect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Collect). First he claimed the paragraph had not been properly sourced. After the source was provided, Collect erased it again claiming that such phrase cannot be in the article, because of "implying that that fact means it was not the subject of legal action or that Berezovsky does not dispute the contents". Where as the sentences actually only said that the book was published, and that it has not been contested in court, nothing else. I'm not much into Wikipedia regulation and not sure which policies Collect has violated, but think that most likely he violated Vandalism and Deletion policies, by deleting absolutely neutral in point of view and well sourced material. He also engaged in edit warring on Berezovsky page (including discussion page, you can check both. despite multiple warnings on his talkpage, which he repeatedly deleted as well). Please will administrators action this somehow, the justice should be restored in the article.

Just in case, a discussion has started already on BLPN page, which hasn't led to anything: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPN#Boris_Berezovsky_.28businessman.29

Thank you very much anyway! 170.148.198.157 (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that justice has been restored already, with the removal of this obvious attempt to skew the article by insinuation. Collect was absolutely right to delete this, according to WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Please advise how two above sentences violate BLP? 170.148.215.157 (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

They violate WP:BLP policy as an obvious attempt to skew the article by insinuation. This has already been explained to you on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't "explain" anything. As two above sentences do not "skew" anything in the article. I would like some other people to comment as well on this. And, in any case, the 1st sentence (that the book was published which was a very extended version of the article) cannot be accused of anything at all, and is just a mere statement of fact.170.148.215.157 (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, a 'statement of fact' can be made in such a way as to insinuate things not borne out by the 'fact', and secondly, the sentence isn't 'factual': it gets the title of the book wrong. And come to that, there is nothing to indicate that this book has been seen as in any way significant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

a 'statement of fact' can be made in such a way as to insinuate things not borne out by the 'fact' - indeed, but it doesn't have anything to do with the paragraph in question. it does not insinuate anything, it just states a fact. it could have been phrased much stronger to insinuate something against Berezovsky, but it hasn't. if the book's name isn't correct in the sentence, then it could have been corrected instead of erasing the whole paragraph. and, again, there were several titles of the book in publishing, and i think the version provided in the article was actually correct, i.e. one of those 170.148.198.157 (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of WP:AGF, but your particular use of grammar has my spideysense tingling (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Deepdish7 the indefinitely blocked user was fixated on these exact same issues. Youreallycan (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The statement of fact is not made in such was as to insinuate anything in this case. The book actually had several versions and titles in the publishing. If the title isn't correct, then please correct it, instead of removing the whole sentence. And the book actually is significant enough to be present in that section of the article. At least it does deserve so. As the fact, that Berezovsky did not contest it in court 170.148.215.157 (talk) 08:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It is very interesting to see how people completely ignore addressing the reported violations, but instead prefer to accuse the person who reported the violations of wrongdoing. Will please some administrator have a look at the violations in question at last instead of accusing the whistle-blower? There has been a blatant violation of Delete policy. Is anybody at all going to do something about it? 170.148.215.157 (talk) 10:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I am currently having a sabbatical for a few days, however, I will post more in this thread in the next 24-48 hours, because both the IP editor and Collect are being disruptive to some extent, and this article needs to be dealt with for once and for all. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 09:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Even if the title is correct, the second sentence violates WP:BLP unless it appears in a highly reliable source. (If the title were in Russian, we'd need a reliable source for the translation, as well....) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

What is a "highly reliable source"??? Source used for the 2nd sentence is reliable indeed. If anyone has proof of Berezovsky having sued Klebnikov for his book, please provide it. But he clearly did not sure him, that's what the truth is.170.148.198.157 (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's clearly a policy violation using leading synth. I called him a murderer and he didn't sue me, so.... (add your own uncited conclusion here) Youreallycan (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

One thing is to call someone a murderer, another to publish a detailed book. And the phrasing is brief and short. There's no allegation Berezovsky didn't sue Klebnikov because he was afraid. It's just said that he didn't contest the book in court, that's all. It does not violate any policy 170.148.198.157 (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Well I and others do, for the reasons posted above. Also as User:Deepdish7 is blocked and you appear to be him please consider requesting to be unblocked prior to returning to editing. Youreallycan (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)+

So far you have not provided any explanation on how BLP is being violated. You simply do not like any negative information posted against Berezovsky. But it doesn't mean BLP is violated in any way170.148.198.157 (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The situation around Boris Berezovsky (businessman) article is indeed quite tense. The subject is a very controversial figure who is currently involved into the enormous Berezovsky-Abramovich lawsuit in London High Court that is referred as the most expensive litigation in the history of Great Britain (BTW I am surprised by the lack of info about this case in the article as well as by the timing of the hike of interest to the article coinciding with the beginning of the hearings). Either side of the litigation could easily try to sway public opinion using Wikipedia. Berezovsky is also a very controversial figure that is often additionally demonized by Russian government. He is quite alive and very litigious, so every requirement of our BLP policy should be obeyed by 100%, still we want to provide objective sourced information without neither demonizing nor whitewashing. I think it will be very good if more neutral admins put the article on their watchlists.

The current editorial problem regarding Klebnikov's books seems to be a trivial NPOV of wordings, I have restated the phrase to be more objective. Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, a least one unbiased admin out there 170.148.198.157 (talk) 11:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Some phrases has been removed from Alex's change. It's very interesting to see how some people continue to whitewash this page. Someone please revert changes again80.5.0.28 (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Ethnic insults and revert warring by Balkan editor

Edvini (talk · contribs) is revert warring and making ethnic insults in his talkpage posts and edit summaries [253] [254] [255] [256]. He is pushing a clear ethno-nationalist agenda [257] using outdated, unreliable or highly partisan sources such as these [258]. I have tried to reason with him [259] [260] [261], but he is extremely hostile and seems impossible to reason with. He is revert-warring across multiple articles [262] and is rapidly becoming disruptive. Athenean (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• It seems to me that Edvini is indeed making assumptions based on nationality, and that is unacceptable. Their sources are indeed doubtful--you don't enter into the Balkan articles with the Lonely Planet under your arm. The personal insults/accusations are blockable already. Drmies (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It might be the case you say, but I was only citing sources like Encyclopedia Britannica, and that citation was repeatedly deleted by Athenean, on the grounds that Encyclopedia Britannica is not a reliable source. (Edvin (talk) 10:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC))

Urine Therapy - POV pushing - Islam section

Hi, there is persistent user (user:Inai09) on Urine Therapy that is going against a compromised consensus [263] with another administrator and I and keeps POV pushing [264] with the Islam section [265] [266] [267] [268]. For the past 3 hours I've tried to compromise with the user but he keeps reverting it back to the old version - a version that was not agreed on in consensus by both the admin and I. He's desperate to try to prove me wrong (I've placed in a lot of references whereas he's just relying on two or three) and has used personal attacks before to berate me [269] [270] having repeatedly going against the administrators advice of not making the Islam section too long [271]. After making the section as neutral as possible the said user then reverted to pre-consensus many times whilst I suggested for him to include his quote with in the NPOV written section that I wrote - but he's not listening. He seems like a relatively new user with no idea of any of the policies of WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV and WP:OR [272]. He's including irrelvant sections into the article as well - of which has nothing to do with urine therapy per se by copying a statement from a book that has been refuted by the authors, and talks of the prophet Muhammad saying a mad, irrelevant thing that doesn't say anything about urine therapy. I just don't understand why he keeps trying to POV push, after the administrator agreed with me that the section was becoming more and more neutral [273] Could someone please check for neutrality sake? NarSakSasLee (talk) 12:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Please check which one is more neutral:

version by NarSakSasLee - 5 references relevant (includes differing views and NPOV balanced) - 0 irrevelent

version by user:Inai09 - 4 references relevant (includes a single view POV not balanced) - 2 irrelevant

NarSakSasLee (talk) 13:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

WonderFulSoneElf

All uploads by User:WonderFulSoneElf appear to be copyvios. 92.40.33.151 (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Good catch. All of the files have been placed up for deletion, as it is required that files have both sources and license tags. A passing admin could probably get away with nuking the edit history of the user and deleting the files. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I got everything, including a trio of Commons uploads. Now all that is left is to wait for the files to get deleted. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Unjust deletion in Albania article

Encyclopedia Britannica has been accepted by Wikipedia as a reliable source so please return my editing, in Here The uprisings of 1910-1912, the Ottoman defeat in the Balkan Wars, and the subsequent Montenegrin, Serbian, and Greek invasion of Albania, led to the proclamation of independence by Ismail Qemali in Vlora, on 28 November 1912. I have checked many articles, and Britannica is accepted as reliable. It seems that we have a prejudiced decision stemming from nationalistic sentiments.(Edvin (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC))

I would also request to revert the deletion of new facts i brought in the Religion in Albania article,here, where i duly cited the book on Illyrians from Aleksander Stipcevic, which can bee seen here. (Edvin (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC))

My understanding is that we can't source anything directly to Britannica since they're just a composition of various primary sources, in other words, they're an encyclopedia like us. I have found many errors in Britannica as well. I'd be surprised if Lonely Planet passes WP:RS either, but maybe I'm just out of touch. —Soap— 16:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there a reason why we have two related sections open on what is essentially a dispute over sources? The reliable sources noticeboard is a more appropriate venue; no admin action is required here or at the thread above. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Crissy Moran - low-level edit war, block evasion

There appears to be a prolonged, low-level edit war on Crissy Moran, the biography of a former porn performer, replacing a rather tame upper-body portrait (file:Crissy_Moran.jpg) with a cropped version of the same (file:Crissy_Moran_cropped.jpg). I would not bother bringing this up here, but a new user, User:Dbiela1, has inserted a link to a Facebook page purported to belong to Moran. User:Dbiela8293 was previously indef blocked for repeatedly inserting unsourced information about the real name of Moran, which makes me wonder about the authenticity of the Facebook page. Note also the similarity of usernames. Perhaps semi-protection of the article is in order, if nothing else? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Jeffrey Epstein

We've got a major case of whitewashing going on in the Jeffrey Epstein article - complete with SPAs acting on behalf of the biographical subject. This is a LOT more than one admin can handle without support. The short story is that this guy is a convicted sex offender and friend of Prince Andrew. The case and relationship were all over the news last year. The edit summary here and the SPAs pretty well sum up the problem. As much as I'd like to, I don't think it's appropriate for a single admin to go in and single-handedly block and revert all the SPAs involved. Rklawton (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

This could very easily be someone out to discredit him (yeah, I know, discredit him ) - I doubt that a professional reputational management firm would act like this - it's just begging for news coverage. Don't see why one admin can't handle it unless there's a lot of oversighted edits. Egg Centric 22:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm requesting help because there are several SPA's involved (or socks) and because it involves significant BLP issues. Unless we have a "blocked due to whitewashing" option (which we don't) the whole thing will look more like an edit war where the SPAs quibble over details and then complain here about a "rogue" admin. By requesting help here, we can hopefully prevent a lot of wasted time. Rklawton (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok dokey. Oh, and watchlisted it. Egg Centric 01:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. As time permits, I'll go back over previous edits and see if anything that was removed requires restoration. Some stuff, like putting the "negative" information at the bottom of the article (a standard whitewashing practice), can wait. I'll probably start restoring reliably sourced information about his relationship with Prince Andrew - as it's all been removed. Rklawton (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I have done a bit of "whitewashing" of my own, however - I think the speculation by IPs that he is a paedophile (and involved in child porn and the white slave trade in one case!) on the article talkpage is a BLP violation. Removal is here and I wonder if it is appropriate to revdel them? Fortunately, not being an admin, it isn't my call to make Egg Centric 01:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

There's a difference between a discussion about improving article content and making a statement as if it's fact. To wit, "Should we list him as a pedophile because of the accusations that he engaged in sexual activities with underage girls?" is OK to put in a discussion page. Saying "XYZ is a pedophile", unless he has been convicted, is not OK anywhere - even on a talk page. Rklawton (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I think by that standard the second section I removed is probably ok; the first section on the other hand is accusing him of being into child porn and people trafficking. Worth doing anything about? Egg Centric 17:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It continues Egg Centric 22:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Final warning given, per that edit. A misleading edit summary used to disguise the removal of content is not ok, period. The next time he does it, he will be blocked. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It's especially amusing because the change he made (aside from the stuff he hoped no one would notice) was actually incorrect; the IAS isn't part of Princeton University, so far as I can see. Egg Centric 23:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• Checkuser  confirms abuse of multiple accounts here. Blocked, and the article put on semi for a while. Courcelles 23:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Surely this is trolling

The more I look at this the more I'm convinced this is trolling, or at least editing by opponents of his (and I should imagine he has a lot of them). Could you imagine an edit like this seriously having come from anyone on Epstein's side? Only if he is so charitable he provides employment for those whose central nervous system is nothing more than a spinal cord. If that is the case, perhaps it explains the gushing... Egg Centric 23:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Excessive deletion of sources and parts of articles by User:Athenean

I have been editing the article Albania, by providing western reliable sources, especially in the parts History and Religion of Albania. But the User: Athenean keeps deleting them, and provides no sources or some dubious sources which are not in English. It seems that he has some personal issues with me, because he goes to every article that i edit, and keeps deleting my posts. Some of the deletions are: , and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religion_in_Albania&diff=469980311&oldid=469785912. I demand that some measures to be taken against this member, as he keeps interfering with my work. (Edvin (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC))

Slightly tangential, but I was wondering if anyone can advise me what the current consensus is on the use of non-English sources on articles relating to the Balkans and eastern Europe? It seems to me that sources used to substantiate claims about such contentious topics really should be English to maximise verifiability. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:NONENG Nobody Ent 03:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

English-language sources are preferred where available, but if we only used evidence published in one language we'd hardly be fulfilling our potential as an encyclopædia.

Sometimes if editor X disagrees with editor Y who uses foreign-language sources, it's tempting for X to assume that Y is misrepresenting what a source really says, but I've never actually seen it done directly (though I've seen people skirting round the edges of that on a couple of other Balkan topics) - best to assume good faith. Also, there should be other people around with sufficient knowledge of the language to identify any problems - a wikiproject page can often be a good place to ask for help understanding sources. bobrayner (talk) 04:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

There's no excuse for using Scribd as a source though. If the content in question is actually true then surely there's a more reliable source which supports it - try browsing a few historical journals on Google Scholar. bobrayner (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica has been accepted by Wikipedia as a reliable source so please return my editing, in Here The uprisings of 1910-1912, the Ottoman defeat in the Balkan Wars, and the subsequent Montenegrin, Serbian, and Greek invasion of Albania, led to the proclamation of independence by Ismail Qemali in Vlora, on 28 November 1912. I have checked many articles, and Britannica is accepted as reliable. It seems that we have a prejudiced decision stemming from nationalistic sentiments. (Edvin (talk) 10:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC))

There is a clear problematic pattern by Edvin: use of aggresive style language ([[274]] proclaming that Albanian related articles have been attacked by 'outsiders' and should be cleared from outside vandalism). Similar pro-national activity by edditing, like ([[275]][[insist on the term 'Albanian ethnic territory' referring to regions outside Albania). There is also use of aggresive edit summaries by adding fringe theories about ancient use of svastika in Albania [[276]].Alexikoua (talk) 11:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

And? You deleted those posts. I am requesting that the post which i have cited from Britannica to be returned. It is the exact word used by Britannica and i request that to be returned. I have just added information, not edited what was already there. (Edvin (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC))

Are you saying that Books are not anymore a source for Wikipedia? Check this. (Edvin (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC))

The sources claim something completely diferrent: both Britannica (no word about Lebensraum and 'Albanian ethnic territory', or unjust invasions by other Balkan countries) and Stipcevic (use of Svastika by Illyrians in an article named 'Religion in Albania' is at least irrelevant)Alexikoua (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The sentence deleted was "The uprisings of 1910-1912, the Ottoman defeat in the Balkan Wars, and the subsequent Montenegrin, Serbian, and Greek invasion of Albania,[4] led to the proclamation of independence by Ismail Qemali in Vlora, on 28 November 1912."

So i will have to return this sentence as duly cited from Britannica. Swastika represented the god Sun according to Stipcevic and other sources, that this is religion according to most of the people of this planet and it is connected to 'Religion in Albania'. (Edvin (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC))

86.24.143.245 persistent personal link spam

The Giffgaff article regularly suffers from users who post their own giffgaff links onto the wikipedia page in the hope of getting a £5 referral fee if users sign up through their link. There is a section on the Talk page which describes the problem. The user 86.24.143.245 has been persistently posting his own links over the last couple of days. Can this IP be temporarily blocked for a while?

Note: giffgaff is a UK phone operator which allows existing members to earn money by recruiting new ones. This is why the wikipedia article suffers from this as users think it's a good way to advertise their own links. ChrisUK (talk) 12:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I've given them a 48hr rest ... but wouldn't blacklisting be more effective in the longrun? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLACKLIST says page protection is a preferable alternative; semi seems appropriate. Nobody Ent 13:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

However, I have seen some positive edits by IP's on that article - including reverting the inclusion of the spam. Semi would therefore inhibit those edits (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The current blacklist requests I'm seeing block the entire domain -- can the list to be used to block subpages (e.g. http://giffgaff.com/orders )? Nobody Ent 13:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The actual blacklist contains some subpages, e.g. x-fat.com/p90x-review and finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/Fil_Chi.  --Lambiam 22:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Off wiki harrasment

• - User_talk:Jimbo Wales#Academy of Achievement Contact Information and User:Ebikeguy

It's getting a little messy on Jimmy's talk page. A user is now posting the email one of the employers of User:WWB Too and requesting wikipedia editors to contact them and complain about them using User:WBB Too as a paid editor - I think this has clearly over stepped the mark and is encouraging off wiki WP:HARRASMENT of a wikipedia user. Paid editing is not against policy no matter how much he Ebikerguy or anyone else doesn't like it and encouraging wiki editors to contact the real life, real time, employer of one of our editors is totally out of line imo.User talk:Ebikeguy#your request for_off wiki action I have asked him to retract it but he has refused. Youreallycan (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I am putting together a schedule of visits and calls to major PR firms and to people who I can identify as paying for inappropriate behavior at Wikipedia. I think I need not be alone in this. I think members of the general public, including Wikipedians, have every right to enter the public debate by letting people who are funding the subversion of the basic principles of Wikipedia know that their actions are not appreciated and will be exposed, to their likely embarrassment. I would appreciate anyone interested in this issue helping me to identify the worst violators or potential violators so that we can begin to take more systematic action on this issue.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Jimmy... As a PR professional who has tried to discuss this issue with you via email and, this week, publicly on my blog, I'm struggling here with the nature of your approach. I understand your frustrations and certainly don't condone the bad behavior that has been well-publicized and documented. The thing is, most PR people want to do the right thing by Wikipedia. That said, they are frustrated by the fact that 1) many entries suffer from benign (and not-so-benign) neglect, 2) activism more or less gets a free pass, and 3) there's every possibility that even a minor edit by a PR person could blow up into a unnecessarily reputation-damaging kerfuffle (e.g., "ACME edited it's Wikipedia page!" even if the edit was to update the annual financials or whatever). With respect, you should take a step back and focus on working constructively with people in my line of work (and encourage others to do the same) rather than lecture to them. Here's a Facebook group of people, many quite well-known in the trade and generally in business, who are trying to help you. --Philgomes (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo, if some WTC truther published your home contact details demanding other conspiracy theorists contact you about how wikipedia is !!!!SURPRESSING THE TRUTH1! about 9/11 would you appreciate it? Of course wikipedians have every right to enter the debate on paid editing, and so do the WTC nuts have every right to enter the debate about the 9/11 article. And for that matter, wikipedia has the right to encourage this. Rights have nothing to do with it. The merits of the idea are all that matter, and such encouragement has very lmiited merit imo. Egg Centric 10:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

What do "home contact details" have to do with anything? My email address is jwales@wikia.com and I welcome emails about Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Just because home contact details aren't used in this case doesn't mean that they are different in principle. The example I gave is more extreme, but that is deliberate as it is to illustrate the principle. Egg Centric 19:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It's unlikely visits to PR firms will result in them ceasing doing what they are paid to do. Given the limited number of volunteers to scrutinize edits -- I've come across months old "sneaky vandalism" -- it's better to encourage the type of declared interest edit via talk page behavior WWB Too has demonstrated. Volunteer editors' skepticism towards paid editors will go a long way towards ensuring NPOV. Demonizing paid editing will drive it underground into a cat and mouse game; instead of merely having to scrutinize paid editing, Wikipedians will have to first expend time finding it. Nobody Ent 13:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Which is all well and good, except that "subversion of the basic principles of Wikipedia" is a very subjective matter. Some folks seem to think that paid editing is per se against our basic principles, while many others do not. I would hope that such popular uprising is targeted against those who 1) do their edits themselves, 2) fail to disclose their COI, and 3) violate NPOV, and 4) receive financial gain based those NPOV violations. I think that anyone who violates all 4 is clearly over the line... but the community is far from unanimous about lesser degrees of paid editing. Jclemens (talk) 07:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Under our current guidelines a company is allowed to advertise for someone to improve their article and to pay them for doing so. The company is doing nothing wrong by doing that. The person that improves the article for a payment is also not doing anything wrong according to our current guidelines. The issue is in the details of the "improvement" - is it NPOV and covers all points. Whats a company going to say. We looked at our article and it was rubbish and we saw people advertising to improve wikipedia articles and the guy said it's allowed and that he would follow all wikipedia guidelines. Youreallycan (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "Improvement" from a company's point of view inevitably means something different from the way improvement is understood at Wikipedia. A profit-seeking company has no interest in NPOV. We should expect that a paid editor is not interested in NPOV and that his/her edits will be problematic. That expectation is certainly borne out in the case of the editor discussed here (WWB); that Cracker Barrel article was turned into a real piece of shit. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps unsurprisingly, I disagree that the Cracker Barrel article was, following my involvement, "a real piece of shit". The article draft I contributed for review on the article's Talk page and at WikiProject Food and drink was much more complete and was far better sourced, particularly following WikiProject Companies' article composition guidelines. A simple side-by-side comparison of the version before my involvement and the version following my involvement I think shows this well. And please note, I did not move it into the mainspace myself. That said, I am respectful that other editors believe the newer version was too favorable, although I may soon comment on some changes I think are unwarranted. WWB Too (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

break

• Reply from Accused Editor - This accusation is utterly without merit. I did publish an email address for a company using paid Wikipedia editors, which I found on their website. I encouraged editors to contact the company and let the company know how they felt about paid Wikipedia editors, but I did not mention any editor by name in my note. Note that Wikipedia defines harrassment as "as a pattern of repeated offensive behavior." While I do not feel my behavior was, in any way, offensive, that is a judgment call. However, my accuser refers to one, isolated event/edit, so it would be nonsensical to associate my edit with a sustained pattern of repeated behavior. Ebikeguy (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Ebikeguy's request was to "tell them how you feel". Possibly some editors might love paid editing and be inspired to write to this organization lauding them for their efforts to pay someone to write their wikipedia page. Just sayin'. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• The section has been collapsed from view by an administrator with a notice of - "Calls for real life harrassment of a Wikipedian's employer do not belong here" - which I totally agree with and which is an acceptable administrative action to resolve this report. Youreallycan (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• No, Youreallycan, it isn't. I doubt an admin will leave him unblocked, since off-wiki harassment of this sort has a powerful chilling effect on other editors. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 20:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

As I have shown above, nothing I have done constitutes harassment in any form. If any editor, sysop or otherwise, can show me how my post violates any Wikipedia editing rule, I will gladly retract it. Also, your post seems to suggest that a sysop should use a block to punish me. Blocks are not punitive; they are a tool to stop disruptive editing. I certainly do not intend to repost this email address anywhere else, and am avoiding any potentially contentious editing until this matter is resolved, so no disruptive editing on my part is threatened. Ebikeguy (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) - @Jéské - I was just looking for the least drama. I was disappointed the user refused to just retract it. Historically in my wiki experience, such off wiki actions or encouragement to others to take such action has been looked on extremely unfavorably. I notice User:Ebikeguy isn't accepting the collapsing of his off wiki request to other editors and is objecting to the Admin - User talk:TParis#Collapsing Section on_Jimbo's Talk Page - Youreallycan (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid Ebikeguy is singling out one editor, and it's me. As far as I can tell, Ebikeguy has followed me from one article's Talk page to Jimbo's Talk page and now to another article's Talk page. I hesitate to claim I'm being wikihounded but it's certainly heading in that direction (besides his attempt to take this off-wiki). It's worth noting that I've disclosed my COI relationships on every one of these pages, that I have limited my interactions almost entirely to Talk pages, where I have sought to obtain consensus for changes based on reliable sources. What Ebikeguy calls "whitewashing" is my attempt to bring these articles closer into line with Wikipedia's guidelines. It's always my goal is to follow the rules, and it's more than a little dismaying to receive this kind of treatment. Thanks, WWB Too (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yet another accusation, this time by an editor that makes his living editing Wikipedia articles for paying clients, that is entirely without merit. Note that all the articles he lists have been wikilinked together, and several editors have gone from one to another, following the diverging threads involved in this discussion. To call my participation in these related discussions "Wikihounding" is entirely unreasonable. Ebikeguy (talk) 20:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It certainly looks like hounding to me. Stop this hounding and outing now. bobrayner (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

While I disagree with your assessment and point out that several different editors have posted at many or all of the pages WWB Too lists, above (as they followed the discussion thread in the same way I did), I have noted above that I will not be making any potentially contentious edits until this matter is resolved. So, in that sense, I am stopping the editing with which you disagree now, and I will not repeat this type of edit if it is shown to be in violation of Wikipedia rules.Ebikeguy (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Ebikeguy's effort has resulted in at least one angry letter received by the Academy today. WWB Too (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I would be interested to see what type of response my reasonable, neutrally-worded post inspired. Please feel free to post the letter here, expunging any personal information. Thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I think User:Ebikeguy as the main protagonist needs to clarify if that email was sent by him. It seems quite reasonable assumption that he would email them, considering he was the one that searched for the company email ( which was as he stated, "difficult to find contact information" ) and he was the one that posted in on wiki asking editors to post to that email address that he would post them himself. Youreallycan (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

No admin here: Just my 2 pence: I recall a while back it came to light a professor had assigned his students to purposefully insert inaccuracies (i.e. vandalize) Wikipedia. At first their was a lot of support to contact the school's administration to complain, and it seemed like the right thing to do at the time. But then it all just kind of spiraled out of control. Anyway, I know this isn't the same thing, but Ebikeguy is walking a fine line here, and I'd suggest if he has info that an outside entity was abusing Wikipedia's core mission for profit, he should have simply contacted the WM Foundation and let them handle it. Likewise, if WWB Too is violating policies, then Ebikeguy (or me or any other editor) can take action through the proper WP channels. In short, I'm sure he was well intentioned, but probably just collapsing the section and dropping the stick at this point would be the best course forward. Quinn ^➳WINDY 21:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Am I interpreting correctly, that a company's website is or was soliciting paid editing of wikipedia? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

An editor openly declared that he was paid to improve a companies article. This is the backlash of that good faith declaration. Youreallycan (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Did that editor identify which company he was editing for? If so, I'm unclear where the "outing" charge comes from. At the very least, identifiable paid edits need to be closely scrutinized. The average company isn't likely paying editors to be "objective". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

There was no outing. - Scrutiny of editors, yes, but that does not involve posting emails details on wiki and encouraging other wiki editors to write to the address you have posted to complain to their employers about it. - Youreallycan (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The user Bobrayner, above, accuses the editor in question of "outing" someone. Canvassing by posting external e-mails does not strike me as being appropriate. However, IF there is a pattern of bias in paid editing, it does strike me that that should be brought to wikipedia's attention. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

Yes, bob was mistaken in his outing comment. Youreallycan (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Roger. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Roger, Roger Rabbit - Youreallycan (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

What's your vector, Victor? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment struck through. I had thought at first glance that pushing the email address counted as outing. Obviously, wiser folk than me have disagreed, so I stand corrected. I still think the behaviour is inappropriate but I put the wrong label on it. bobrayner (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, I hesitate to comment again (I'm also upthread) because all of this has been quite unpleasant, but I'm the COI editor in question. I'm always very open about my efforts, and I look for consensus before going beyond non-controversial edits. I also understand editors' understandable skepticism, hence my cautious approach. I suppose I am not the "average" COI editor. A couple of my articles are a matter of current debate—not all of the criticisms fair in my estimation, but I don't get to make that call—and I think my work will hold up over time. Happy to discuss more. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You walk a delicate tightrope. The company I work for is not even on my watchlist. Editing with a potential conflict of interest is risky business. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

That rabbit is working for Warner Bros. Animation and you is a major contributor to the Bugs Bunny biography. - Youreallycan (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Dat's right, Doc - dey pay me in carrots. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Nah, you is stealing dem carrots from Elmer Fudd - Youreallycan (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Ebikeguy: I don't care if you retract it, but I do want you to stop doing it. This kind of activity will do nothing but encourage people with conflicts of interest to hide their affiliations rather than being open and up-front about it. 28bytes (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Understood, and considering the reaction my edit caused, I am highly inclined to agree with you at this point! Ebikeguy (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It's clear we need a better policy regarding paid editing than "This guy was a jerk, so he can't do paid editing, but these other guys are nice, so they can!" There are many bright line rules, there are other shade of grey rules, but then theres WP:COI, and that's neither. Hipocrite (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Paid editing is a threat to Wikipedia's standards. No editor who is paid to work on an article by the subject of the article can be assumed to be editing with a neutral point of view, period. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Bad policy makes questionable decision. Rather than having a knee-jerk reaction, go to the root and fix the problem so we don't have to waste so much time on debating who should be sanctioned when we should be improving Wikipedia. And for the record, I'm also against paid editing. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 23:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

There are paid editors who do edit stealthily, under the radar, with no disclosure and little accountability, and those who announce their COI and accept the scrutiny that comes with full disclosure. The stealthy ones will be with us no matter what. The only thing "cracking down" would do is encourage the "full disclosure" paid editors to stop disclosing their COI. I can't imagine we'd want that. 28bytes (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

We shouldn't pretend that it's okay in the hope that paid flacks will "do the right thing" and declare their COI. What should be happening is that paid flacks should be pursued and banned from the site. This is a fundamental threat to the content of the encyclopedia, every bit as repulsive as political staffers whitewashing their boss and throwing mud at the opposition. Paid editing should be severely dealt with. Carrite (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

And yet if you prohibit it, you will just drive it under ground. As long as people are going to edit with a conflict of interest they should be encouraged to disclose it, not punished for disclosing it. causa sui (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Precisely. For anyone who considers paid editors to be, essentially, an enemy of Wikipedia's core principles, there's an old saying worth considering. 28bytes (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

So: "if we enforce the law, nobody will admit to breaking it, so we won't enforce it?" That's not something I can get behind, no, sorry. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, the point is there is no such law that's being broken, and I think before we add more laws we'd be well-served to consider the practical effect of them. We don't need "tough on paid editors" posturing if the net effect is to make paid editing less detectable, and thus more likely to effectively degrade our content. 28bytes (talk) 05:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

You should. The rule is unenforceable, and trying to enforce it leads to Wikipedia being worse, not better. Draw parallels to the American War on Drugs if you like. You might want to ban it, but enforcement causes more harm than good, and in many cases, enforcement causes even more harm than what you're trying to ban. causa sui (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Was there something actually wrong with the paid edits? Were they factually incorrect, pov-pushing, or whatever? If so, then those edits might deserve a harsh response, just as they would with an editor who made some bad edits for some other motive. If the edits are OK, then the editor was just getting paid for what most of us do for free, and I don't think that is - or should be - punishable. We can't see who is and isn't getting paid for their edits, but we can see the content changes they make, which is just as well, since the content changes should be what we care about. bobrayner (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Talk:Cracker Barrel Old Country Store gives a good sample of views about at least one such article. 28bytes (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• Good paid editing is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, just as is all good editing. Promotional or other improper paid editing is not a positive contribution, just as is all improper non-paid editing. Like everyone here, I tend to look very carefully and the quality of declared paid editing, but no more than I am about blatantly promotional undeclared editing. I'm certainly not happy with the article in question overall, both in its state as a promotional article and in the attempt to turn it into an attack article, but I appreciate candidness. I do suggest though, that paid editors might do well to make their edits, but not too aggressively defend them against criticism, but rather see the criticism an attempt to show how to be mote effective. (Certainly they should properly and calmly defend themselves against unjustified criticism, like anyone else.) Attacking a paid editor personally on wiki is like attacking any other editor personally, and cannot be tolerated. Attacking them off-wiki or promoting such attacks is using the encyclopedia for harassment, and justifies a block to stop it. Promotion is bad enough, but harassment is much worse. DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I absolutely comdemn any harassment. But I also hold, absolutely, that a paid editor can not have a neutral point of view, full stop. They might well have the very best of intentions, but we all know the saying about good intentions. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Your position fails to take to consideration the masses of users whose upaid and undeclared POV violates beyond comparison anything that this user is claimed to have done - Youreallycan (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
      • The aim is to create NPOV articles. This does not preclude having a point of view - only editing articles to make them display it. Someone can have a COI or a POV and still edit in a way that improves the project. If they don't, the issue isn't whether or not they have a POV, but the quality of their edits. - Bilby (talk) 11:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I have not attacked, harassed, or encouraged any harassment of any editor, on or off wiki. None of my edits have violated any Wikipedia rules, in this matter or in any other matter. All of my edits in this matter have been both civil and limited, and I have encouraged other editors to express their thoughts in a civil manner as well. While I now appreciate and understand that many editors feel that publishing off-wiki contact information for companies with Wikipedia articles should be discouraged, and I have no intention of doing so again, I reiterate that I have not, to the best of my knowledge, violated any rules. Note that the contact information I posted was available on the main page of the organization's website and that the URL of the website is published in their article on Wikipedia. If someone can point to a specific rule that I demonstrably violated, I will immediately undo the edit in question and apologize to the community as a whole. Ebikeguy (talk) 02:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
• It's supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Articles are supposed to be NPOV, it doesn't mean the individuals writing them are. I owned a Morgan sailboat and created the Charley Morgan article. Does that make the article NPOV? We don't do job interviews for letting writers in, we evaluate whether their edits follow Wikipedia practice. Nobody Ent 03:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
• Anybody who believes that paid editing isn't commonplace around here -- or that Wikipedia has any control over it -- is a complete idiot. At least this fellow owned up. Just evaluate the edits on their own merits and move along. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
  • 1 user likes this. And that's only scratching the surface of people's motivations for editing here. Is a paid PR person more dangerous than an ideological fanatic? As long as WP:COI is just a feel-good but toothless guideline, this is an academic debate anyway. And there's the reverse to consider: do you really want experts to not edit topics they are somehow financially connected with? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Amen, Nobody Ent and Boris; WP:NPA: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Yopienso (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
• As I've said the many times this has come up before: there is nothing in our policy that forbids paid editing, nor should there ever be. All of us are paid editors. Some of us get money. Some of us get a weird kind of fame. Some of us get the good feeling that we're making the world a better place. Some of us just get A Clean, Well-Lighted Place to fill our spare time. People who are here to edit company (etc.) pages in a promotional way are actually pretty easy to deal with--scrub the puffery, delete the page if there's nothing left. Sometimes, not at all surprisingly, they actually provide useful information and references. There was a great post from a PR person on Jimbo's talk page who pointed out that for a good public relations person, they don't even want a puff piece--they just want something neutral to occupy one or more of the top ten slots on a Google search. I don't see any logic whatsoever to our tendency to give nationalists, supporters of extreme political or religious positions, or "super-fans" of TV shows seven hundred and a twenty-nine chances before we finally decide their NPOV behavior isn't in line with community standards, but someone whose boss tells them to add info from a valid mainstream newspaper article to their company's page is facing an instant block. As I recall, we held an RfC on this last year, and there was absolutely no consensus to strengthen WP:COI or any other policy to prohibit paid editing. If the WMF wants to override the community on this issue, they need to do so explicitly--it is their right, even though the decision would be "wrong". Qwyrxian (talk) 12:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Why do you think it's okay to smile at a cop but illegal to bribe one? There's a huge distinction between getting being paid to do someone's bidding, and doing so for social or intrinsic personal reasons. As for PR agencies funding purely neutral articles that's all lip service. A good PR agent is one who produces results for the client and is a rainmaker for the firm. I have yet to meet a PR firm or client that would write in plain English, much less present the facts fairly and neutrally. If they knew they would not be detected and suffer negative consequences for doing so they are under absolutely no professional obligation to spread information that runs counter to the purpose of boosting the client, and in fact doing so would be a disservice to their client. Have you ever seen a hard-hitting press release? That is not their purpose of being, it is not part of their ethical directive. The first rule of conflicts of interest is that if they're not prohibited, they need to be publicly disclosed. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I agree that this is the line we should be taking. The rule should be that paid editing should be disclosed but not banned. This is for The Bushranger, too: NPOV is a requirement that Wikipedia must have a neutral point of view, but not that any of its editors must. If that were the requirement, hardly anybody would be allowed to edit in their particular areas of interest. And as I argued above, banning paid editing only drives it under ground. Since we can't know for sure if someone is a paid editor, and trying to figure it out will only lead to witch hunts, we should reward people for disclosing their conflicts of interest, not punish them for it. causa sui (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Go all the way - declare that anyone with a COI needs to declare it up front and be treated under the same rules. Work for Greenpeace? Make sure you declare the COI for any page you edit that Greenpeace is protesting. Getting paid to edit a page? Declare it. Fan of a music group/actor/movie/(something)? Declare it if you want to edit the page. There are plenty of editors here that are on WP because they have a bone to pick about something or here to promote a favored cause. You cannot call them NPOV editors. They probably have more motivation than paid editors, to be honest. So make it policy that all editors with a COI must declare it and that paid editors inherently have a COI. Or isn't that about what we have now? Ravensfire (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
      • You DO realize that "being a fan" =/= "conflict of interest"?, right? You DO realize conflating "direct financial benefit" with "personal taste" is really really unhelpful? --Calton | Talk 19:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Not speaking for Ravensfire, but I understand that while our rules make it different, it's not necessarily as different as it appears. We have had "X's number one fan" before be as if not more disruptive than many company employees I encounter (the ones who insist that they know what's "really" important, that their idol should never have any negative info written about them, etc.). And if company PR were such a problem, why are the majority of our Arbcom cases about nationalist, religious, ethical, or other such problems? Yes, I'll admit that COI has been a massive problem before, as with Scientology and Tree Shaping, but that, to me, is a far smaller problem. I've had far more people threaten me or my wiki-friends with off wiki-harassment, legal threats, and even death threats in one case over Indian caste articles than over any corporate article. In any event, no matter what people say here--policy does not prevent COI editing. If you want policy to say that, start an RfC and get consensus. Or get he Foundation to make policy by fiat. But until policy changes, COI editing is allowed, including paid editing. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Calrton, I think willful ignorance of COI from personal taste is the really, really unhelpful view here. Let's see, most people are afraid that paid editors will overstate the good aspects and understate the bad aspects of something. Or the reverse if they are supposed to go against something. Hmmm, who else would do something like that... Oh, wait, that's right, (if you'll pardon the slang) fanboi's. People angry about something. True believers spreading WP:THETRUTH. And since we're in the early stages of what promises to be such a lovely campaign season, let's not forget about the supporters for politicians. But that's right .. they just have personal taste and won't cause any problems. Yeah, bullshit. A conflict of interest is just that - I don't give a damn WHERE it comes from, it's just as hard to deal with. Pull off the blinders and look around at the crap that non-paid editors with strong POV's put into articles. I don't care what motivates an editor here - if they produce helpful work, great. If it's not helpful, revert and attempt to educate. A bad paid editor will end up failing their client when all their work is removed and probably lose the contract (and not get paid). A good paid editor will put the good with the bad in proper proportion AND, most importantly, make sure their client knows that ahead of time. Ravensfire (talk) 03:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, look

Well until the Foundation comes to its senses let's not just spin our wheels here. Let's make an organized effort to look at ways we can address this. Here's a draft:

• User:Herostratus/Wikiproject Paid Editing Watch

This is a draft; I ask all like-minded editors to take a look, join up if you have the time, and let's see what can be done. Herostratus (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggest name change to Red Channels to more accurately describe potential effects on atmosphere of Wikipedia editing. →StaniStani  11:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Not a helpful remark, and an incredibly inapt (and insensitive) comparison. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Metro Walk

More Heat then light here and the protracted back and forth between the participants is clearly discouraging external input. I'm closing this because no good will come from this, but in the knowledge that this will come back to us sooner rather then later. Spartaz Humbug! 07:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Purplebackpack89 is attempting to merge this article without consensus to do so. He has himself admitted that it is notable. The article is well sources with multiple non trivial reliable sources in major media. This user has a pattern of nominating articles for deletion simply because they are related to the city of Richmond, California and nearly all of them are kept. This user claims there is a two to one consensus to do so. However the only other commenter simply stated he did not find this topic notable and did not comment on the merge. This user is also merging to a nearby subway station. However this is a neighborhood that is not part of that station, it is simply next to it. I offered examples of the San Francisco Shopping Centre being adjacent to and even connected to the Powell Street Station as being a similar illogical merge. The user ignored this and refused to dialogue on that matter. I mentioned a better target for a potential proposed merge would have been downtown Richmond, Richmond, California. However Metro Walk is in of itself notable. Notability is not shared, and you do not lose it. Therefore I ask that this user be stopped from merging without consensus as a 1-1 draw on the matter is not consensus. Also save us all from a potential edit war here please. What should we do?LuciferWildCat (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC) WP:RFC Nobody Ent 7:50 pm, Today (UTC−8) Merge the thing because it is not notable according to two of the three editors who commented. You need to remember that merging can be done BOLDly, and articles can be merged regardless of whether they are notable or not. Also, you need to stop dragging me off to AN whenever you don't like the edits I make, and stop treating marginally significant articles as sacred cows. Please, this edit is clearly CLUEless...we're past the point where he can skate by because he's new to WP. He needs to stop dragging me off to ANI every five minutes for the sole reason that he doesn't like my edits. This ain't an ANI issue. Furthermore, Lucifer clearly cannot tell the difference between a merge and a deletion...he has repeatedly tagged this article for rescue, and has also spammed edits about rescuing an article that isn't being deleted Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 04:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Comment I am sick and tired of the bickering between these two editors. This is (I think without research) the fifth or sixth time that one of them has brought a complaint about the other to administrator attention. LuciferWildcat is passionate about everything related to Richmond, California; Purplebackback89 seeks out articles about Richmond and proposes deleting or merging them; every time it escalates into World War III. I think intervention is called for, which would include: they cannot speak to each other; they cannot comment on each other's edits; Purplebackpack cannot initiate action on anything related to Richmond; and neither of them can initiate ANI complaints (if they feel there is cause they should get another editor to make the complaint). --MelanieN (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Why should I not be allowed to edit Richmond articles, just because Lucifer doesn't like the content? None of my initiations have violated any policy whatsoever. What you're saying is "Lucifer doesn't like Purplebackpack's edits, therefore Purplebackpack can't make them". That's completely unfair, especially since other editors have both repeatedly agreed that Lucifer has been out of line on numerous occasions. And for the record, I've made one ANI thread, Lucifer has three here, plus a EW thread that was almost instantaneously closed. Melanie, to equate me and Lucifer is ridiculous; Lucifer's violated many policies, I have not. Frankly, people have been indef blocked for violating fewer policies than Lucifer has Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Comment, I am sick and tired of it too. I really am trying to get along here. I am very frustrate that every article that I decide to work on, like clockwork this editor comes in basically starts ransacking, reverting, nominating, merging, removing content but never lend a hand to help improve anything and consistently makes false statements about me and makes seriously erroneous claims about policy.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Um, removing content and improving articles aren't mutually exclusive. And you continue to violate policy after policy, guideline after guideline, adding bad content on questionable articles. Those articles needed cleaning up, merging and deletion; numerous editors have taken issue with the manner in which you oppose it. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Oh, and while we're at it, could you explain your decision to canvass EVERY single editor who worked on the page? That's clearly a non-neutral group (one that would most likely favor a keepist point of view), to say nothing of the fact that you forget to sign your name and you notified people who were indef blocked. And maybe perhaps explain these edits where you lambaste an editor for new editor for making a PROD that was perfectly permissible, even though it was declined? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Also, this edit suggests that Lucifer cannot differentiate between someone who's cleaning up a bad article. He also continues to berate anyone who so much as touches any sacred cow of his (despite being warned by multiple editors), essentially claiming that removing any content violates policy. I could keep them coming. But sure, sanction ME, because I'm the only one who's been cleaning up his mess Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC) What does any of that have to do with Metro Walk? Also no one is being sanctioned I simply would like to resolve the Metro Walk issue and not have to worry about any time I edit an article or link to one such as with Shattuck Avenue you don't nominate it for deletion or some other form of destruction, simply because it is related to me in some way.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Purplebackpack's Proposal for this whole thing Interaction ban between Purplebackpack89 and Luciferwildcat Two week block for Luciferwildcat for CLUElessness/disruption since his first block, including several disruptive threads on EW and elsewhere Luciferwildcat must be forced to accept mentorship until he displays more CLUE That's what I'd do about this whole thing Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC) MelanieN's proposal Support - User:Melanie's suggestion. Youreallycan (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC) But that proposal punishes me more than Lucifer, even though Lucifer has done more things wrong. Also, why should I be banned from tagging Richmond articles if my tags haven't violated policy? That's just nonsensical Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Why don't you just stop editing Richmond articles for three months then, that would solve everything. Do you have any special interest in Richmond to be tagging it? Youreallycan (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC) That's essentially the same thing as Melanie's proposal. You still haven't explained why it's fair to ban me (who hasn't violated policy) from editing certain articles, while Lucifer (who has) isn't banned from editing anything, nor is blocked nor forced into mentorship. Your proposals are far too punitive, when I'm not the one violating the policy. And Richmond happens to be an area with a lot of poorly source articles of questionable notability. It has 30-40 articles (many of inferior quality and questionable notability) whereas most cities of its size have less than ten Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 02:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC) So you have no special interest in Richmond and your relations with Lucifer have broken down , it's a big project, there are others that can look at Richmond articles, there is an opportunity for you as the more experienced contributor to simply back off and not edit Richmond articles for a few months. It's not a judgment against you or Lucifer, it just seems to be a mature, drama reducing simple solution. Youreallycan (talk) 02:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Support Melanie's approach is pretty common sense, you and I simply cannot get along. I do keep trying but you do keep nominating articles (for slicing and dicing them or overtagging them) that I am involved with which to me is clearly just a provocation to keep arguing with me about mundane details. This would allow us to avoid each other and would make it so that you stop feeling the need to watchlist me and everything about me. We should not keep commenting back and forth so much on AfDs and this would let us both say our peace and then allow the consensus to formLuciferWildCat (talk) 02:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Melanie attempting to ban me from creating deletion discussions related to Richmond goes too far. Also, you essentially get off scot-free for multiple serious breaches of policy. Melanie's proposal is far too one-sided against me. And I don't nominate article to provoke you, I nominate them because they're crappy, and have often been crappy for years Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 02:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC) PBP, I agree a ban is extreme, maybe more extreme than what I am requesting. I would really just like to ask you to voluntarily back off. How about this: if you find an article (a) about Richmond or (b) recently worked on by Lucifer, that you feel needs to be deleted, merged, tagged for references, or otherwise objected to, would you be willing to notify a neutral third party and let them do the nomination or whatever they feel is appropriate? or to let it slide if they feel action is not necessary? I am willing to be that neutral third party, if you wish. We have participated in enough of the same discussions that I think you realize I am neither a deletionist nor an inclusionist, but simply someone who tries to follow Wikipedia policies in a professional manner. Unlike either of you, I do know the difference between a discussion and a diatribe, and I am able to make a proposal and simply let it run its course. I do not relish the idea of becoming the target for both of you to fire at, but if that would help keep you away from each others' throats I would give it a try. Or you could use any other neutral third party of your choosing. --MelanieN (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC) P.S. (second thoughts) If you both agree to this "neutral third party" idea, there would have to be some conditions. You would both need to agree to some limits on your right to argue your point with me. And if it didn't work out, I would need to have an administrator I can go to and say "I quit, this isn't working," without coming back to ANI and taking up the community's time yet again. I think the same conditions should apply to any other neutral third party willing to take on the intermediary role. --MelanieN (talk) 11:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC) A week or so ago, after a series of Richmond City Council articles that you nominated for deletion and were largely kept I edited the article for St. David School and you nominated it for deletion. A few days ago I edited the article for Metro Walk to add some references, then you initiated a serious of edits to remove the article. Today I edited La Pena Cultural Center including a link to Shattuck Avenue now that article is up for deletion. How else would you explain this pattern as anything other than following my edits and provocation? You have not nominated any Richmond related articles that I have not edited so far. You also followed me the the AfD for Ocean County Sherrif's Department. Also most of them are kept and you don't improve them in any way. So your participation just wastes time and effort. This includes yours. These constant and targetted deletions don't benefit anyone even you. Both of us should be banned from nominating articles simply based on the other's involvement and that would be quite fair. I have no serious policy violations as you claim and those false statements are a good reason we should not talk and you should not continue making any comments to or about me.LuciferWildCat (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Support for four weeks  First of all, I note that LWC was blocked, and not without cause, within the past month.  LWC has shown a corrected behavior since then.  PBP meanwhile shows no behavior change.  I brought PBP to ANI a couple of weeks ago, as PBP has been unresponsive to editorial feedback.  The admins at the time declined to issue a warning, and now we see that PBP has used the grace period to WP:HARASS LWC.  I think that MelanieN's proposal is excessive toward LWC, but given that LWC supports it, it is worth a try.  However, I don't think there is any cause for a permanent ban, so I suggest a restriction to four weeks.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC) I can see how it would be unfair toward me, but if he is not allowed to talk to me, there is no reason whatsoever I would feel compelled to post his messages in my edits. Furthermore it would force me to continue to focus on speaking about content only and would be easy to follow, and I am already attempting to follow that as my own personal rule. PBP's comments tend to be somewhat infuriating and confusing and I do feel compelled to respond for instance he recently stated Seeing as my statements are based in policy, I very much doubt that. I could point out that saying I know nothing about history, as you did above, is a personal attack., however the content present in that thread clearly shows I never stated that I said that to him and him making such a statement could bias other editors toward me thinking that I am making personal attacks. I do continue to feel in my personal opinion that his behavior is annoying and that as stated above regarding WP:HARASS, I would agree with that editor, however I have been banned from making such allegations, although I am perplexed as to why because to me, personally, as I see the policy, and compare it with my memory banks for what the words mean, cross references with PBP's edits, the glove fits the hand. In any case, I just believe a forced mutual disengagement would be very helpful and also a blocking of this user for about a month for him to cool down and let this vendetta go.LuciferWildCat (talk) 03:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC) The fact remains that you have violated policy left and right. That's why I suggested mentorship Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 03:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Proof?LuciferWildCat (talk) 04:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict)Agree with MelanieN's suggestion: No one needs to be blocked, you just need to leave each other alone. Nobody Ent 04:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC) To clarify why I am suggesting a limit (imposed or voluntary) on PurpleBackPack's activities in particular: It's not a "punishment". It is simply because battles between the two editors always begin with some action on the part of PBP. Lucifer never seeks out PBP and initiates a battle; the battles are always in response to something PBP has done. (In childish terms, "you started it!" In grown-up terms, you could stop it.) --MelanieN (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC) That's inaccurate, Melanie. I don't "start" everything...for example, I didn't start this thread. You hold a grudge against me and it is leading you to be overly punitive against the wrong editor. LWC continues to not understand policy, why is that never mentioned or resolved? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 04:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Support per Melanie's comment above this one. I have seen this action displayed by PBP on other occasions. It is an ongoing trend. -DJSasso (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Support can we please hand a WP:whale out to each of them too? --Guerillero | My Talk 04:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Sectioning Just for the record, PBP has taken to e-mailing me directly and sent me the following: "You're not supposed to be commenting on threads I started anymore. You've commented on four different ones this afternoon alone. And for the record, not all schools are notable and Shattuck Avenue DOESN'T have enough references, even though it's survived deletion" - He clearly does not understand that the proposal is that we not speak with one another or comment on one another, and secondly that it is just that a proposal that has not yet been decided. He also decided to keep bashing me with his personal POV and wont let anything go or dialogue on the appropriate talk pages.LuciferWildCat (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Emailing you?!?! That's really beyond the pale. Also, it's hard to see why he insists that you are "supposed to" be following the suggestions here, when he has argued vociferously against some of the suggestions. --MelanieN (talk) 03:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Yes, and while holding my tongue, its utter bs that he thought I was supposed to be adhering to a "proposal" when obviously he has not been topic banned nor has his "proposal" lead to me being blocked. Its too obvious. Here is a screenshot to prove it. I redacted my name because I don't want him searching for my facebook or anything else. I also did not reply to him through e-mail so he does not have my address. I warned him on his talk page not to send me any e-mail especially harassment but he just took that down..LuciferWildCat (talk) 04:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Note...he said that after I e-mailed him, and commented on my talk page when it was pretty darn clear he shouldn't, and the screenshot here is unnecessary and should be uncermoniously deleted Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 04:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC) (Yawn) Nothing to see here. Nobody cares. No violation of policy. Note that I'm the one not dialoguing, even though I gave a detailed reason as to why it needed references on the Shattuck Avenue talk page. And an interaction ban is essentially not speaking with one another or commenting on one another. I thought the thing had already gone into effect...but apparently not. Just give it a rest, both Mel and Lucifer. Oh, and e-mail's perfectly acceptable, Mel. You hold a grudge against me because you didn't like a talk page edit I made that was also perfectly acceptable. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 03:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Please just stop.LuciferWildCat (talk) 04:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC) The five pillars of Wikipedia have to be applied in a balanced way. PBP is just too agressive in interacting with LWC. Civility is a pillar, and consensus is a pillar, and every editor other than PBP -- Melanie, Youreallycan, Unscintillating and Cullen (on PBP talk page) and myself -- are telling PBP just to leave LWC and the Richmond articles alone. There is lots of unsourced bad writing and Wikipedia will be better served if PBP finds other areas to improve than continuing try to ensure LWC edit's maintain encyclopedia quality; while they undoubtedly started in good faith they've become disruptive. Nobody Ent 04:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC) ...and LWC needs to stay away from PBP on other pages he attempts to edit, his talk page in particular? Again, you're blaming me only, when LWC also had made many errors, including violating and ignoring policies. That's why LWC's edits need to be continued to monitored by you and Cullen and others. "A balanced way" doesn't mean restricting the editor who's erred less and letting the other editor slide Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 04:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC) I give up. And I withdraw my offer to be a "neutral third party" in this conflict. Somebody else - some administrator - will have to deal with Purplebackback's rudeness (for example, continuing to call me "Mel" after I have told him that is not my name), and his insistence on his absolute right to irritate Lucifer and anyone else who has asked him not to bother them (for example, e-mailing Lucifer, and posting his arguments on my talk page after I and others have told him repeatedly to restrict his comments to the public discussion where they belong), and his firm conviction that HE is always right and HIS interpretation of policy is always correct, while other people are always wrong and their interpretation of policy is in violation - I could go on. I have tried to work with him in good faith, but I've come to the conclusion that it is a lost cause. --MelanieN (talk) 04:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Melanie, you're offering too one-sided a view of this...it's always "PBP did this" or "PBP did that"...you are laying all the blame at my feet which is completely inaccurate Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 04:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Relevant diffs: [277], [278], [279] .--MelanieN (talk) 04:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC) You being incivil to me? That's what I'm seeing here Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 04:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC) It takes a lot to get me to shout. In fact, you are the only person on Wikipedia who has ever managed to push me to that extreme. But your repeated insistence on carrying your unwanted arguments to my talk page, after multiple requests from me and other people not to do that, seemed to warrant a stronger than usual reaction. Still, it had no effect; you did it again tonight. That's why I am washing my hands of you. --MelanieN (talk) 05:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Re "imposed or voluntary" restrictions: I agree readily to your interaction ban, and even to the request that I stay off Richmond articles for three months. But you gotta meet me at least a quarter of the way here. I can't be banned from nominating school-related articles in SoCal and Texas in perfect accordance with WP policy just because LWC follows me to them and repeats the same thing that several people have told him not to. He needs to be restricted from commenting on pretty much any thread whatsoever I start. And he needs to learn a little more about policy. I still maintain that restrictions for me only isn't the way to go. There are two editors here. Both need to be sanctioned in some way Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 04:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Comment - Gentlemen (PBP, LWC), I'm not an administrator and I don't play one on TV, but your bullshit is getting to be disruptive and it's not going to end well. That's not a threat, it's a prediction — and one that I would gamble on heavily. ANI doesn't want to deal with your junior high school dick-measuring one-upsmanship or they would have interaction banned you and issued appropriate warnings by now. But I tell you this in all seriousness: the block monster IS going to get both of you if this stuff doesn't stop pretty fast here. (more) 1. PBP - Do not stalk Lucifer Wildcat's actions on WP. That means DO NOT snort around his "User Contributions" log AT ALL. Stop proposing Northern California/Bay Area stuff for deletion. There's plenty of crap to eliminate, leave the NoCal stuff alone. You are proposing Bay Area stuff just to get a rise out of him at this point, quite clearly. If you do make a deletion nomination, make your case and get the hell out of the way and don't comment in that particular thread again unless someone challenges some aspect of the nomination itself. If somebody tries to improve an article that is up for deletion, do not gut out their work in an effort to "re-weaken" the piece. Stop running to mommy whenever something LWC does annoys you. Instead of deletions, try WRITING an article on something and leave the deletions alone altogether, perhaps. Do not post on LWC's talk page AT ALL. 2. LWC - Stop being contrarian to everything PBP does. If he makes a nomination, and you disagree with it, make sure you have authentic policy reasons behind your objection. Do not stalk PBP's actions on WP. That means DO NOT snort around his "User Contributions" log AT ALL. Do not try to round up a posse whenever PBP does something that annoys you. Find a topic that interests you and write an article on it, perhaps. Do not post on PBP's talk page AT ALL. This is pretty simple stuff. KEEP THE HELL AWAY FROM EACH OTHER AND STOP TRYING TO PROVOKE REACTIONS OUT OF EACH OTHER. Carrite (talk) 06:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Tangential Request for Administrative Action - Will someone please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 6#Shattuck_Avenue and re-close it coherently. Purple Backpack made a nomination, withdrew the nomination, and then wrote an incoherent and unsigned summary. I'd like it to be closed appropriately. Thanks. Carrite (talk) 07:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC) PBP has now signed his own closure of his own withdrawn nomination. Which is better than leaving it unsigned, but it is still unacceptable, in my opinion. Will an administrator please take care of this. I'd suggest wording something along these lines: "Nomination withdrawn." Carrite (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC) It does say "Withdrawn"...also you can't demand an AfD nominator change his rationale and even an admin can't refactor another user's comments. Furthermore, the rationale is acceptable Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Given the mess this has become, draconian measures may need to be brought to play. For these two headbutters to avoid being stomped on by Blockzilla, not only should the interaction ban, which Purplebackpack has already agreed to, be enacted but a topic ban for both of them from Richmond related articls and AFDs for at least 6 months. Blackmane (talk) 09:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Six months from AfD articles period for both of us? That ain't draconian, that's frankly redonkulous and overly punitive Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Not at all, in fact it's preventative. Given the amount of crap going on here, I'd say frankly that's generous. Blackmane (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC) More sectioning Comment  What PBP says: “ ...Article has no sources ATM, so notability cannot be established Purplebackpack89???? 02:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Article has no sources and won't be notable until there are some That's actually what NRVE says...Purplebackpack89???? 03:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC) ” What WP:N says “ Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article. ” What WP:NRVE says “ Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. ” What is to be done about an editor that has recently made possibly hundreds of posts in AfD discussions after which the editor is unable or unwilling to reflect the most basic understanding of our notability guideline?  Unscintillating (talk) 13:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Nothing is to be done, Unscintillating. You don't like my nominations and votes. You're entitled to you opinion; so vote against me. This is, by my count, at least the third thread you've attempted to start where you said "something should be done" (really, it's amounting to forum-shopping now). There wasn't any consensus for doing anything in the first two and there won't be in this one. So stop it Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC) (←) (edit conflict) Wikipedia is incoherent. If an editor comes across a totally unsourced (not BLP) article, especially one that has been static for a while. WP:V, WP:BURDEN section says it's up to the editor adding the material to support it. "Unsourced material may be removed." Blanking the entire page will probably the editor WP:VANDAL accusations. Taking the article to Afd gets the editor chided for not following WP:N. Merging is likely the preferable way of dealing with the issue, but there's no central merger noticeboard. Simply tagging the relevant articles with merger discussion is only likely to been seen by advocates with the page(s) watchlisted, not an unbiased cross section of the community. Of course, soliciting other editor's opinions violates WP:CANVASSING. That leaves WP:RFC, which often doesn't attract a whole lot of discussion either. That leaves going the Afd route and taking your lumps, or Playing WP:ANI roulette, which will gets the editor sufficient attention on the issue to get resolution, or the WP:PITCHFORKS for bringing a content issue here. While PBP has been engaging LWC inappropriately, they are not responsible for Wikipedia's incoherence. Nobody Ent 14:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Yeah, that. And remember the articles were nominated for deletion and merger because they were un- or undersourced and outdated (often not being significantly edited in four years), and often were declined PRODs. Tags on the articles would've been ignored; articles that already had them sure were. Sometimes the only way to get people to notice articles like that is to delete them. They weren't nominated to engage Lucifer. Saying that they were nominated to engage Lucifer is assuming bad faith. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Also, it seems pretty clear to me that had they not been nominated, they wouldn't have been fixed. So the result of my tagging of them was better content. You're complaining why? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC) As Jack McCoy would say: "Asked and answered." Because your approach to interacting with other editors is overly agressive WP:BATTLEGROUND; you appear to be using policy to avoid serious reflection on what we are trying to tell you. Nobody Ent 14:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC) It is not just WP:BATTLEGROUND, it is also WP:CONSENSUS.  A consensus-building approach to my last post would have been, "Yes, I was wrong about my reading of WP:NRVE, I won't make that mistake again.  As WP:N says, notability does not affect the content of articles."  Unscintillating (talk) 15:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Nobody, I've agreed to stay off any Richmond-related articles, regardless of whether or not Lucifer happens to be editing them. In return, I'd like any other interactions with Lucifer to be prevented by he staying off my talk page and not comment on threads I start at the 99.99% of articles that AREN'T Richmond-related. He can still edit any article he wants, provided he doesn't undo or comment on my actions. Unscintillating, drop the issue. Nobody explained where I'm coming from; you keep bringing up the issue when it's been irrelevant for ages Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 15:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Comment - Limiting PBP's restriction to 'Richmond" (part of the metro San Francisco bay area) is not broad enough. He recently threw another quart of lighter fluid on the fire nominating Shattuck Avenue, arguably the single most important street of neighboring Berkeley, CA. The idea of 6 months interaction ban should have happened the last time these two ended up at ANI. It really must happen now. Additionally, PBP should be restricted from editing, tagging, or nominating for deletion any article relating to the San Francisco bay area. It would be nice if he could step back voluntarily, but at this late date in this process I don't see that coming. What I do see coming is a very lengthy block for him. Anyway, that's the fix that should be happening — an increase of what would have needed to happen last time these two crossed swords at ANI a couple weeks ago, had you all not declined to act then. Stop letting this fester, administrators, it's screwing up the dynamics of AfD. Carrite (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Um, Shattuck had no attestation of notability when it was AfDed, and Berekley doesn't border Richmond. Your restrictions are far too punitive against me, far too lenient against Lucifer, and clouded by the fact that you and I disagree on WP:N and AfD policy (you're a keepist, I'm not). I voluntarily did what I think was necessary; no additional problems have been reported since I voluntarily stood down from Richmond and asked for an interaction ban elsewhere. A ban on anything outside of Richmond is overkill (and banning me only is one-sided; two editors were involved, so something should happen to both of them). Have you noticed that 90% of this thread is you, me, LWC, Unscintillating or Melanie? That's because there never will be a consensus from non-involved people that anything outside of Richmond is necessary Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC) RE: Shattuck Avenue: It's true that this street is not part of Richmond. But I note that it is linked from the lead paragraph of an article Lucifer recently began editing, namely La Peña Cultural Center, which is located on Shattuck. The timing: Lucifer first edited La Peña Cultural Center at 16:48 on 1/5/12; less than half an hour later (17:15 on 1/5/12) PurpleBackpack nominated the related article Shattuck Avenue for deletion. I find this impossible to accept as a coincidence. It sounds more like PBP was tracking Lucifer's edits and looking for opportunities to (as Carrite said) throw lighter fluid on the situation. I agree with Carrite that PBP should be banned from working on articles about the SF Bay Area. Since PBP (according to his userpage) lives in Southern California, it should not be burdensome to ask him to focus his energies there instead. --MelanieN (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC) And for technicalities sake, I believe Richmond and Berkeley might actually border each other in Wilcat Canyon Regional Park. Oh, and since PBP wants to see "balance", we could also ban Lucifer from editing any article about southern California. Fair enough? --MelanieN (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC) I don't think that last part is fair, perhaps I could be banned from gutting any articles in SoCal but I happen to live in Hollywood and San Francisco and am very interested in everything related to California. I honestly don't see any problem with either one of us "improving" (not deleting, merging, tagging, removing content or references from, etc) [rather adding references, text, images, formatting layout] for any region.LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC) I think a geographic region is arbitrary as well (meaning I agree with Lucifer). A better thing would be for each to not concern himself with articles the other is editing, tagging or whatever Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC) I reiterate, I will no longer comment on PBP's talk page, and will continue not returning his emails. I will delete his emails and messages. In any AfD I will only comment on content and sources as there is no need to engage another user to effectively argue a point based in policy. I would ask that the counter party do the same.LuciferWildCat (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Um, I already said I would...actually, all that stuff and more. Also, no additional e-mails have been sent. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 18:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Even more sectioning The user in question is now making comments on my threads on wiktionary, here.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Um, that diff is neither about an article you created, nor a thread you started. True, I commented on gardenburger, but I would've commented on it under any circumstances, as I have commented on dozens of other RfDs and RfVs on Wiktionary (which my Wiktionary contributions will attest to). You're still commenting on AfDs I start... Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 21:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC) I, LWC have created the entry for gardenburger on wiktionary, which PBP commented on here, although PBP can be shown expressly lying about the fact that I created it on wiktionary here. It is also very misleading that this user claims to have commented many entries for verification on wiktionary, since the last edit he made at AfD was on December 9th, 2011 which makes the timing appear to be a recalcitrant provocation as it is the only edit in nearly a month. It seems as if the user is simply attempting to skirt the advice and compromise being attempted here. =(LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Your original diff (1) isn't for gardenburger, bud. It's for something called "Unsupported titles/Left square bracket right square bracket". And what does me commenting in one of dozens of Wiktionary RfDs and RfVs I've commented on over a number of months on Wiktionary have to do with this? Nothing. And you forgot to notice that in the gardenburger diff, I completely agreed with you. Good day; stop throwing around the term "lying" and observe the interaction ban. I can't comment on threads you start in area not covered by the interaction ban, you can't comment on AfD threads I start here Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Oh, and last prior to gardenburger was Dec 22 at RfD, next one following gardenburger (square bracket) was within a few minutes of gardenburger, so your timing's off. Your not supposed to be starting new allegations against me, BTW Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC) It should be noted that users are completely aware of what edits they have made and where. That user PBP had continued to make unwanted comments on AfD or similar venues on Wikipedia or related projects and unwarranted emails. User PBP as noted above and proven with diffs made a false statement. There is also no interaction ban currently in place although I have chosen not to engage user PBP in any form of direct communication as it only snowballs into tumult to say the least. It should also be noted that all users have supported MelanieN's proposal but not any comment ban for me, just on PBP. The fact remains that User PBP's most recent RFV entry was on the 9th of December 2011 until he commented on gardenburger. He made two other minor related edits as well but the timing shows them as the most recent example of hounding. Also the remark that "[I'm] not supposed to be starting new allegations against [User PBP]" is yet another example of this user's outrageous warping of the truth, attempting to pass his own opinion as policy or consensus when it is not.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Two things if I may.... Luciferwildcat's second diff shows me and he in the same thread; the original one he posted (1) doesn't In the diff that is relevant, you'll notice that I agree 100% with what he said about gardenburger. (Apparently he hasn't) Issue? No. "unwanted comments on AfD or similar venues on Wikipedia or related projects and unwarranted emails". No. And if there's no interaction ban, there certainly isn't one on Wiktionary, and certainly not for edits where he and I are on the same page. This subthread is a waste of time Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC) evidence of distorted comments I discussed with PBP on my talk page the inappropriate use of the word "throwing" as being a figure of speech.  The use in the previous post by PBP is the third time that PBP has used the figure since my comment.  This is an example of the futility of discussing behavior change with PBP.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC) An example of distortion that can be examined with rigor is the statement, "...not comment on threads I start at the 99.99% of articles that AREN'T Richmond-related."  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Rogers (politician) documents nine AfDs for Richmond City Council councilmembers.  So let's run the numbers, (x-9)/99.99 = x/100 100x-900 = 99.99x 100x-99.99x = 900 .01x = 900 x = 90000 So PBP testifies to having edited at least 90,000 articles in the last few weeks.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC) What I meant was that 99.99% of all the articles on the Wikipedia, not all the one's I've edited Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Here is another statement, one that PBP says is "for the record", “ And for the record, I've made one ANI thread,... Purplebackpack89???? 23:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC) ” This statement can be quantified.  I found two threads specifically for Purpleback89, and three started by PBP that resulted in discussion of PBPs behavior.  Those are: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive532#User:JBSupreme.27s_continued_inappropriateness Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive589#User:Purplebackpack89 Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive606#User:Namiba Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive660#User:TeleComNasSprVen Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive733#User:Purplebackpack89 Unscintillating (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC) In reference to Lucifer...not total...geez Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC) This thread indicates that Unscintillating just won't let this go. He seems to be misinterpreting everything I say for no apparent reason. He clearly has some vendetta against me, or against what I represent. I will repeat it: stop dragging my name through the mud and let this go Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC) WP:CONSENSUS is not about letting go, it is about working together and reducing differences.  Changing the topic to talk about other editors does not show that PBP understands the pattern of the evidence.  Discussing "mud" does not explain the evidence.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Another example, "...dragging me off to ANI every five minutes...... Purplebackpack89???? 04:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)"  Unscintillating (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC) User:Unscintillating Unscintillating (talk · contribs) ...is apparantly hounding me and attempting to embarrass me here. this pretty well sums it up...after he got the opinion he wanted on the Richmond City Council articles, he started an NN thread to berate my saying that some of the references were subpar. He also started the above thread where he takes everything I say out of context, and at least one other besides (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive733#User:Luciferwildcat, collapsed because it's pointless). Would someone please tell him to drop the matter and stop creating frivolous threads that are essentially TLDR? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC) The Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard#Removal of sources on notability grounds at Mindell Penn) thread was started because PBP and Sionk insist on removing general references based on notability guidelines.  Even though WP:N says, "Notability does not directly affect the content of articles," this issue remains unresolved.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Thread's dead. No comments in over a week; safe to say no consensus. Thread was also unnecessary; any questions of sourcing could (and should) have been discussed on the article's talk page Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 04:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Strong suggestion - I'm sick of this shit. Somebody give PBP a one month vacation and let's figure this out when he gets back. Carrite (talk) 04:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

So this gets closed even though there was an ultra clear and unanimous consensus?LuciferWildCat (talk) 08:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Kolins (again)

This is the third time I've brought it here. The first two discussions - November 2011 and December 2011 - as well as a number of discussions over at WT:FOOTBALL (links can be found in previous ANIs) speak for themselves i.e. Kolins (talk · contribs) should not be removing valid nationality categories from footballer articles. The consensus on that is pretty clear to me. However, he is still up to his old tricks, and I would like some proper admin intervention this time. GiantSnowman 13:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:RFC/U? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I considered that, but given the fact that it's been here where people have said his conduct was iffy, I thought this would be the right forum. Should I take it there then? GiantSnowman 14:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a recidivism issue, complicated by the fact that the user does not appear willing to talk about the issue. The ideal solution would be to leave him a message saying "You do this again, you're blocked for a week." That being said, this discussion, linked to in one of the above threads, dosen't really establish the community authority needed to make that statement. I'm sorry Snowman, it's clear to me that this user isn't acting in a constructive manner, but unless you can point to a discussion where there's clear consensus against this, or this becomes an edit war, I don't see blocks coming into this. That being said, I'm not an admin, you might find one who thinks that three ANI discussions on the same issue is enough for a block. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really going for a block to be honest - he is, this and his unwillingness to discuss aside, a normally decent editor - I'd rather an admin (i.e. someone with authority) to issue a formal, final warning, as was suggested in December's ANI. GiantSnowman 17:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• I'm obviously not going to get any help here so will take to RFC/U instead. GiantSnowman 11:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Christopher Bryden

Resolved

 – Socks blocked. Hoaxes speedied. Discussion future contributions with temporarily-blocked sockmaster (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I don't even know whats going on here. I took a look at the new editor contribs, and I saw this user creating articles on a bunch of different user spaces. It makes my head hurt and I don't know if any of the CSD criteria really stick, so can I get someone to come take a look?

• User:Christopher Bryden
• User:McSooty Web Vids
• User:McSooty & Friends
• User:McSooty & Friends Short's
• User:McSooty & Sweep's Talk Show
• User:McSooty & Friends Cast

I don't know how many more there are. Any help is appreciated! 132.3.33.68 (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

My first thought from your words was that these would be deleteable under speedy criterion U2, but that doesn't apply because (to my surprise) all of these usernames have been registered. It's quite obvious that these usernames are all the same person. These userpages don't really appear to be appropriate uses of userspace, so they should be deleted (but through WP:MFD, since they don't fall into any specific speedy criteria), but other than that I don't see any problematic editing. I guess the best thing to do is to mark all of the McSootys as alternate accounts of Christopher, since I don't see these actions as warranting a sockpuppetry block. Nyttend (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I remember speedying them earlier today (they were in article space at the time). I think it would be appropriate to MfD them with WP:FAKEARTICLE. →Στc. 03:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

A7? Theoretically web content that is non-notable. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold here: I'm going to block the Bryden account as sockmaster for a brief time. Indef the obvious WP:DUCK accounts. Speedy the trash. Have a little discussion with Bryden. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on Europe by Andriabenia

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.

Andriabenia blocked for 1 week by DeltaQuad for edit warring on List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe

---

• Andriabenia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Satt 2
• ComtesseDeMingrelie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Polgraf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Satt 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am one of the regular watchers of Europe, an anodyne and neutral article in a stable state. The first user listed here created their account on December 20 and has already been blocked 48 hours for edit warring.[280] They have stated that they come from Mingrelia in Georgia. They have made several anti-Armenian remarks, and were given a warning of a second block on their talk page as a result.[281] They have now arrived on the Europe page and proceeded to dispute the status of transcontinental countries (Azerbaijan, Georgia) and the disputed territories South Ossetia and Abkhazia, The three accounts listed after Andriabenia are all the same user and have engaged in identical disputes. As ComtesseDeMingelie, Satt 2 (the puppetmaster) stated that they come from Mingrelia. It appears, on the basis of their edits so far particularly their tendentious editing on Talk:Europe, that Andriabenia is a sockpuppet of the same person. I have filed a checkuser request, but despite having repsonded to WilliamH's request for more information, the case has not been examined so far, while disruption continues on the articles. At present Andriabenia is just repeating what the banned user Satt 2 and his other socks argued. He is disputing the ambiguity of transcontinental countries and the statements already sourced to the CIA Factbook and United Nations, that geographically Azerbaijan and Georgia are in Western Asia, with some portions in Europe. Many other sources list one or other of the countries as politically in Europe (e.g. the BBC, European Union, etc). These statements occur in footnotes and extensive footnotes of footnotes in the article. These matters have already been discussed and resolved on multiple previous occasions, with every previous return of Satt 2 and his drawerfuls of socks. The "Definition" section of the article has been written with careful sources, most notably the book "The Myth of Continents", published by the University of California Press, which carefully explains the history of the boundaries and th inherent ambiguity. These sources are not enough for Andriabenia, who apparently wants some kind of statement that Georgia and Azerbaijan lie geographically mostly in Europe, for which there is no source. Andriabenia's edit-warring on footnotes of footnotes is identical to the nationalist POV-pushing of Satt 2 and his various reincarnations. My understanding is that, because of the anti-Armenian remarks, this user could be subject to editing sanctions under WP:ARBAA / WP:ARBAA2. Another alternative is to lock Europe until the SPI report is resolved, but that seems an extreme measure. As I have written in the SPI report, the familiarity with wikipedia processes (SPI, RPP, AN3, page moves) indicate that this is not a new user and is in all probability Satt 2. Please could an administrator help or jog the SPI report into action. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• User mathsci refuses to dignify me with a specific page in a specific book that support his assertion that certain transcontinental countries are "mostly" in Asia or Europe. He assumes that just because he is an established user he can get away with citing an entire book for an unsubstantiated claim with the hopes that we'll be simply too reluctant to verify the whole thing.

• As for this sock puppetry claims, my responses are on this page and I am puzzled as to why he feels duplicating all of this useless text on two pages at once. This must be another way of distracting from the real issue: his cited book, The Myth of Continents, does not support his insistence on saying which transcontinental country belong "mostly" where.

Lastly, if mathsci bothered reading what I write, he would know that I am not "disputing the ambiguity" of placement of transcontinental countries,as he argues here, quite the opposite. That is part of the reason why I'm against using word "mostly", because once you use that word, I no longer see any ambiguity.--Andriabenia (talk) 13:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Andrianbenia, despite their protestations, is evidently not a new user. The CIA Factbook and National geographic adopt the von Strahlenberg definitions of the boundaries of Europe, described in "The Myth of Continents". These are sources which Andriabenia is not happy with. Andriabenia seems to have no awareness that nationalist POV-pushing on a neutral and anodyne article like Europe, amongst the 200 most consulted on wikipedia, is not a very good idea. Mathsci (talk) 13:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Handpicked sources do not prove anything. Wikipedia is a combination of sources, and wikipedia does not simply count sources and annouce the winner. It must incorporate every viewpoint. Your insistence that certain countries belong "mostly" on one continent or another may well be true for one group of border definitions but not the others. You have no right to take only your definition, just as I have no right to push only mine. That is why I am against using descriptive words like "mostly", as they threaten the ambiguity wikipedia needs to maintain neutrality.--Andriabenia (talk) 14:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

These sources have been in the articles for years and each year the same user, with Georgian origins, comes back to make the same type of tendentious and completely unreasonable POV-pushing edits. I do not "insist" on anything as an individual editor. This is a much watched article. The consensus has been there for years. You are editing the article tendentiously without citing any proper WP:RS, The CIA Factbook is fine as representing one of the most widely accepted geographical points of view. Other points of view are clearly explained in the article. But it is your anti-Armenian edits which are perhaps a more serious problem. Mathsci (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Explaining other points of view in the article are not enough, the footnotes must also reflect this. And my edits against an indefinitely blocked Armenian nationalist,rast5, have nothing to do with your edits on Europe; they have been discussed extensively on this page in their own right. Again, this is a distraction from your own falsehoods and POV pushing."CIA Factbook is...one of the most widely accepted geographical points of view" is a POV.--Andriabenia (talk) 14:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

There are no sources which place Georgia and Azerbaijan geographically mostly in Europe and several reliable sources which place them geographically mostly in Asia. Things are different politically or culturally. Your aggressive conduct on Talk:Europe is indistinguishable from that of Satt 2. So far you have cited only one source which did not qualify as WP:RS. The last statement you made about the CIA Factbook again is problematic. If you wish to dispute it, you can present your case at WP:RSN. However, you are just disputing the von Stahlenberg boundary. What precisely is the interest in doing that, considering the highly nuanced text in the main body of the article? You will make no headway here describing me as a POV-pusher. Mathsci (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Mathsci, you may hide behind any kind of wikipedia acronyms you like, the bottom line is that despite your editorial experience you are nothing more than an entitled, common bully who cannot get over not having something his way on his OWN article.

Furthermore, may I inform you that the Central Intelligence Agency is not a geographic authority of any kind so I don't see why you insist on this source so much. Neither is the United Nations, statistics department of which groups countries into various regions based on "statistical convenience", not geographic definitions.

That being said, this is not a page for sockpuppet investigations and I will not let you dilute my argument by baseless accusations.--Andriabenia (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain why you pushed for a definition of a geographical boundary along the Kura and Rioni rivers in Georgia that is not widely accepted. According to this map, it places more than half of Georgia in Europe. Isn't that POV-pushing? Satt 2 has wasted huge amounts of time in the past with exactly this kind of unconstructive argument. You are dismissing standard sources by wikilawyering and casting aspersions on experienced editors, which you started doing almost as soon as you appeared on talk:Europe. Mathsci (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not pushing any single definition, based on Kura or not; I merely used it as an example of an alternative definition. All I have ever done or asked for is to ensure that unsubstantiated measurements of where a particular country "mostly" belongs be removed. The standard, deliberately-ambiguous definition used on wikipedia articles is that the countries in question can be placed in Asia, Europe, or both. Not mostly here, not mostly there, that is not up to wikipedia to decide.--Andriabenia (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that both of you stop going over the same points here as you did on the Talk:Europe until admins have reviewed this. I've collapsed the argument above as it's basically the same back-and-forth on the talk page, but i've left Adriabenia's reply to Mathsci's initial report Blackmane (talk) 09:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The above intervention was not helpful. If Blackmane has no antennas for spotting obvious sockpuppets, he shouldn't be commenting here. This is a long term issue of continued disruption which goes back several years and unfortunately Blackmane, a relatively new editor, seems to show no awareness of this. Mathsci (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC

Please limit your accusations of sockpuppetry to a page created specifically for this purpose and stop distracting from the real issue: your unwillingness to provide precise citations to support a very specific body of text.--Andriabenia (talk) 10:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Possibly after adding tags to footnotes of footnotes, you will quietly disappear for a little while. We'll just have to wait and see what happens in the future. Mathsci (talk)

You are not going to make me disappear and officially proclaim your "ownership" of the Europe page, or any other. I may some day get bored with all of this because probably unlike you, I have an actual life and I do not need to own a wikipedia article. This, however, is not happening just yet.--Andriabenia (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Ownership? All I can see is an anti-Armenian, pro-Georgian POV-pusher who in all probability is not going to last very long on wikipedia (1 week, 2 weeks, 3 weeks?) . Hyperbolic postings on Talk:Europe are rare. You have now become one of those rare people, in all probability a returning visitor to that page. Mathsci (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Your inability to provide specific sources for a specific claim has nothing to do with my or anyone else's POV. As for my "anti-Armenian" edits, I think an indefinitely blocked Armenian nationalist,rast5, is no longer needing your moral support. But of course sockpuppetry of this kind does not annoy you. You only use accusations of sockpuppetry when your infallibility is questioned.--Andriabenia (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Just as an aside, I'm a relatively newly registered user, but a long time time studier of the madness which are the various drama infested articles. I do not have antennae for sockpuppets because I refrain from descending into those realms where sockpuppets infest. Whether Andriabenia is or is not a sock puppet is not my realm of expertise. However, I 'am' able to spot when a conflict is moving around and this one certainly is. However, this will be my final comment here as I had been hoping that by hatting off the continued bitching some extra comments from admins could be added before this became yet another arena for the shitfight, which it has certainly become. As such, I will leave you two to the pleasantries of the cage. Blackmane (talk) 00:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It is disruption on various parts of wikipedia. Hence the two current reports at WP:AN3. I would not use the language that you have used. But it is clear that editing which displays a WP:BATTLEFIELD approach, without proper use of sources, even in neutral and anodyne articles, is not helpful. Mathsci (talk) 15:26, 8 January 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.

Anarchy at Kingdom of Sardinia again

Once again, large-scale edit warring has broken out between IP socks, at Kingdom of Sardinia and related pages. Semi-protection seems obvious, but in order to settle this finally (since the same thing happens every so often, with no progress) we could ideally do with an admin who's prepared to supervise the process of reaching a solution and enforcing it against the two warriors who are never going to compromise. There's a suitable proposal on the talk page at the moment.--Kotniski (talk) 13:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I've semiprotected for 0.025 decades. I can't participate in the discussion because I don't know the subject well enough. Nyttend (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

3 months=0.25 decades... Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Uhhhh, no..... 1 decade = 120 months, 3 / 120 = 0.025, 0.25 decade = 3 years --64.85.216.114 (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Studio201 issues

Resolved

Studio201 (talk · contribs) appears to be engaged in conflict of interest, legal threats, and possibly edit-warring.[282] User also edited under 76.227.149.137 (talk · contribs). Please look into this and take appropriate action. Thank you! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked indefinitely as a promotional username/role account per WP:ORGNAME (they were posting links to a site requesting donations to themselves). I'm not quite sure whether the edits violated WP:NLT as the person they were suggesting they might take legal action against was a BLP subject rather an editor, but they certainly violated WP:BLP. January (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Lanny A. Breuer

Requesting administrator help. I reverted user:Turtlewaxingmycar edits to the article which gloo marked as vandalism and automatically issued a warning as vandalism. I looked into it once out of gloo and was certainly not neutral however there is merit for being included. He posted this [283] on my talk page twice was a minor attack on me not exactly serious though. The editor is accusing wikipedia of censorship and taking about press involvement so though it best to bring here for admin review.Edinburgh Wanderer 18:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest a quick look at article talk page as well.Edinburgh Wanderer 18:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at the contributions too, most of which are personal attacks. I tried getting this user to calm down, but he refuses to. Admin action, I think, needs to be taken. Usb10 ^{plug me in} 18:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Gloo? Nyttend (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry its really Igloo but is abbreviated to Gloo User:Ale jrb/Scripts/igloo its a vandalism tool.Edinburgh Wanderer 19:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I've left a note on the article talk page guiding Turtlewaxingmycar to the notability guideline and explaining that talk page discussion is the means to their end. Tiderolls 23:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Ace Baker: disruption, points, personal attacks and accusations of bad faith

I first came across this user when he made this edit to WP:V as a WP:POINT due to a conflict regarding sourcing and notability on the article about him, Ace Baker. When I first arrived at the article it was mostly 9/11 conspiracy stuff coupled with a bunch of unsourced claims regarding this subject's accomplishments. I submitted the article for AFD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ace_Baker.

At the AFD discussion the first accusations of bad faith were that the point of the AFD was due to him having discovered the secret behind 9/11 (that the planes were photoshopped into the video) and that obviously we were trying to censor him (easy to find in the AFD so not providing a diff).

This conversation diverged into a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS scenario regarding Gary Richrath, the guitarist for REO Speedwagon. Baker subsequently made the following WP:POINTY edits:

1. Large section blanking on Avant Garde Jazz - I doubt he took the time to check whether the information in the article was present in the reference given.
2. Blanking the lede of a Baylor University basketball scandal page
3. Removing obviously verifiable content from the aforementioned Gary Richrath page such as the REO speedwagon discography.

I warned him about making pointy edits on his user talk, afterwhich he made this edit. Technically that one was probably fine, but the point of course, was to make a point.

Since that last edit was mild I figured he was just trying to get the last word, but it didn't hurt the project so I had planned to drop it with hopes that not instigating him would lead to the conflict ending, but he then made personal attacks in this edit to the AFD, where we are called "filthy, provable liars."

I do not think this user is here to work on the encyclopedia, I think he is here to maintain the page about him, which looks like a snow delete. I don't think a topic ban relating to his article will work as he has shown that he has no problem throwing a tantrum and making pointy edits, thus I recommend an indef block. N^oformation ^Talk 22:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I've also come to the conclusion that the only reason this user has come to WP is to promote himself and his theories, and that, when his article was put up for AfD, his behavior has been childish and vindictive. I can't see this person ever contributing anything useful to the project. In fact, he seems intent on disrupting the project in revenge. I also consider an indefinite block the best solution for the good of the project. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The real issue here is vandalism of my biography Ace Baker. The first problem was that User Natty10000 was insistent on putting false, unsourced material into the article. I kept trying to take it out, this was deemed an "edit war", I was warned to stop it, I was blocked from editing the article, while nothing was done to Natty10000. I persisted, and it became obvious that I was right, thus escalating the situation to problem 2. Ace Baker (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Problem 2 was that User CindaMuse put self-publishing tags on my article. It's true that some of the sources were self-published, but were clearly within Wiki guidelines, which allow for self-published material to be used as sources "on themselves". CindaMuse falsely claimed that this rule only applied to inanimate things like books, movies, etc. When I corrected Cindamuse, pointing out that the rules make reference to "activities" and "experts", and that obviously inanimate objects cannot have activities nor be experts, it became quite provable that, once again, I was correct, and my attackers were wrong. This led to problem 3. Ace Baker (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Problem 3 was a strategy to delete my article altogether, on the grounds of notability. First, however, the article had to be hacked to pieces, removing my notable accomplishments in music, such as my writing of the song "I'm On My Way", which was the end title song to "Barbie as Princess and the Pauper", my having composed the music for feature films starring academy award winning James Coburn, and my having been awarded a gold-record for work on Ice-T's "Freedom of Speech". YouTube IS a reliable source when its authenticity is not in question, the Barbie movie is on YouTube, my name is clearly in the credits, and this alone makes me notable, according to Wikipedia guidelines. Ace Baker (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

So, yes, bad faith is the only POSSIBLE explanation for this clear effort to cleanse Wikipedia of my information. The real issue, from Wikipedia's perspective, is that I have dared to create a 9/11 film, entitled "9/11 - The Great American Psy-Opera" that provides compelling evidence of the 9/11 conspiracy, including a $100,000 offer for original 9/11 airplane videos. Ace Baker (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked this user. I see:

• several instances of disrupting Wikipedia to try to make a point
• serious competency concerns regarding core content policies
• personal attacks
• soapboxing

All of this - combined with the proliferation of fringe theories - gives me no reason whatsoever to think that this user's contributions are advantageous to Wikipedia; the opposite is probably true. Review/endorsement of this block welcome. WilliamH (talk) 01:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

More Douglas Youvan

Douglas Youvan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Previous ANI disscussion

BLPN discussion

Drawit4u (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

I have been only tangentially involved in the issues associated with the Youvan article. However, after Drawit4u added some book refs back into the article, I removed them, mainly based on the BLPN discussion and the subsequent block of Noncanonical. Then Drawit4u added this section to my Talk page]. Frankly, I don't know what to make any of this, so I thought I'd bring it to the attention of others here. In particular, I am troubled by this sentence: "So, I ask you to turn back the article to my most recent edit before your revert, protect the article, and let's save the foundation a lot of time and money. This is going to get ugly." It doesn't appear to rise to the level of a legal threat, but it's disturbing. I don't know whether he means the Youvan Foundation or WMF. He also accuses Crowsnest of a financial conflict.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Surprisingly, my financial conflicts and association with MIT were already discovered before: here, here :-) Coincidentally, Noncanonical is blocked, and directly User:Drawit4u shows up, trying to port problems of Douglas Youvan on Commons here (while at the same time commons:User:Doug youvan transfers his problems here to Commons: File:Secular Fascism.png). -- Crowsnest (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

To my mind, this[284] qualifies as a legal threat. Basically trying to intimidate. Must be blocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

And this edit includes "consider the Foundation and stop it!" in the edit summary. That is a very clear legal threat when read in conjunction with the link provided above by Baseball Bugs (that diff shows a comment including "...let's save the foundation a lot of time and money. This is going to get ugly." Johnuniq (talk)

iBetuBet.com - Apostando apenas na Vitórias!