Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive790

Talk page interaction ban

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

---

I would like to propose a 6 month interaction ban between myself and User:Adjwilley on article talk pages. Although our dialogues are not uncivil, there is currently a repetitive pattern where we repeat the same arguments over various talk pages on religion and its getting tiring. An interaction ban would be perfect. The first one was on Talk:God last year and the latest has been on Talk:Joseph (son of Jacob). Can i get a few supports to end this time-wasting please? Thank you. Pass a Method talk 13:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support To save everyones time as on Talk:Afterlife, Talk:David (disambiguation), etc.. Pass a Method talk 13:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment What duration are you proposing? Also, if your dialogues are civil, I'm not seeing the reason for this - if you don't like them, then go and edit some different articles. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• comment 6 months. Also i prefer incivility over time-consuming talk-page discussions. Editing different articles is difficult since we have similar interests. Since i met him i spend half of my time on wikipedia speaking to him on article talk pages, which i would prefer to spend on AfD's or logs or something. Pass a Method talk 13:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: It is true that Pass a Method and I have had a fairly long disagreement, but in my opinion cutting off talk page communication is not going to help resolve it. If anything, better communication is needed, since we still seem to misunderstand one another. I would prefer time-consuming discussions to incivility, as long as the discussions stay focused on the problem at hand.

  Also, I don't really understand why this is coming now, since there is currently an RfC running at WT:WikiProject Religion that, if resolved, could solve our problem. (If anybody wants to comment, by the way, any and all views are welcome!) ~Adjwilley (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• reply Almost all discussions boil down to "those religions are not as notable as Christianity" from my viewpoint. I have even seen such comments indirectly made against Islam and Sikhism. Thats not a discussion but a WP:CHRISTIANPOV. Pass a Method talk 14:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Sometimes Christianity is more notable, sometimes it's not. It depends on the topic of the article. In the Joseph (son of Jacob) article you referenced above, it's Judaism that's most notable. In the God article, Christianity and Islam should receive equal weight (but still not very much IMO, and less than is currently in the article). Trust me, I'm all for eliminating Christian POV from articles, but going around linkspamming articles with links to Raelism, Eckankar, and Druidism isn't the way to do it. Anyway, this isn't the venue for discussions like this, so I suggest that we close this thread and focus future discussion at the RfC mentioned above. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

What you said in the above comment and what i see on actualy alk pages are two different things. Pass a Method talk 15:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Extremely strong oppose A ban on positive discussion that can help lead to consensus? No. Not today; not tomorrow; not someday next week. Maybe topic-ban the both of you so that you can only use the talkpages across a wide swath of articles, and ban you from each other's talkpages, but no way is there any need to ban you from article talkpages as of this point as it will achieve nothing (literally and figuratively) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

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

User talk:Til Eulenspiegel

User:Til Eulenspiegel is using his talk page to advocate a boycott of Wikipedia and to attack editors User:Dougweller and user:Dbachmann. Til has a long history of making hyperbolic accusations of racism and of plots to conceal The Truth by defenders of "male white" conceptions of mainstream history. I think the time has come to discuss sanctions given the frequently threatening and abusive approach he adopts. Paul B (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I frankly don't care too much about his sign-off on his talk page, as long as he doesn't come back. This excruciatingly wrong-headed FT/N thread was about to drive me, if nobody else, to call for action against him (synopsis for the TL;DR crowd: he's demanding inclusion of claims by Ward Churchill, who was fired from his university post when it was found that the very claims in question were based on fraudulent "research"). And practically everything that comes up there these days attracted nuisance claims about our bias. Mangoe (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that Til (and his previous incarnation User:Codex Sinaiticus) has stormed out vowing never to return several times already. He always manages to return. The departures are often linked to debates in which he paints himself into a corner, but then cannot admit to having made a mistake. His solution is to throw around accusations and then leave for a bit. Paul B (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a pretty clear violation of WP:POLEMIC and WP:NPA. I've had a couple of unpleasant encounters with Til Eulenspiegel, but this is shockingly inappropriate. - MrX 19:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the names of two people from his statement. Calling for a boycott and criticizing Wikipedia's coverage is Ok, calling specific people racists is not. As long as he doesn't edit war to keep the names there I don't see any need for immediate admin action. Perhaps a topic ban could be explored if there's a specific topic area where there are conduct issues or maybe an WP:RFC/U, I haven't looked through his contribs in much detail though. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm in a bad mood due to the other editor who is trying to word-bludgeon me into submission, so I'll be quite happy to start the RFC/U assuming that it isn't simply going to be dismissed because he goes underground for a while. Mangoe (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Would a topic ban on Native American articles make sense here? Mark Arsten (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it has to be a ban on all articles about race, broadly construed. He has shown a lot of interest in articles related to Judaism, and not in a good way. ---Guy Macon (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Too small in scope. Really pretty much anything with the possibility of fringe material is a problem: the last few rounds before this that I recall involved the Bat Creek inscription, the Stone of the Pregnant Woman, various Iolo Morganwg-related texts, and I see a new problem with a Korean text. And I see that this other account that Paul B mentions is in fact still somewhat active, and all the ares it's active in are ones where I would be dubious about his contributions. Any time we come to an issue of rejecting questionable scholarship, he puts us through this whole "you're trying to suppress the TRUTH in favor of orthodoxy" attack. I sort of get Guy's boundaries, but I'm not utterly sure that his fringe-loving is constrained within them. Mangoe (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

No comment on whether a topic ban is warranted, but posts such as this at a pseudoarcheology article, in addition to the incident above, suggests that Til Eulenspiegel may have a long running issue with Doug Weller. That it manifests in personal attacks is obviously undesirable. - MrX 20:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Someone want to propose a community ban or a topic ban on fringe issues broadly construed at WP:AN perhaps? Accusing all admins of being "RACIST BIGOTED ADMINS WHO THINK THEIR RACIST BIGOTED OPINION IS MADE OUT OF GOLD" is a bit much. If I recall correctly I frequently saw the now indefed Paul Bedson and Til involved in pushing the same fringe work (though it's possible I'm misremembering separate incidents, the interaction tool isn't working correctly for me at the moment). IRWolfie- (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Did he delete the ANI notification? Ditch ∝ 21:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I just added one. He's presumably called him a racist because I called him out for personal attacks at FTN[1] although I haven't partaken in that conversation. The main difference between Til and me on American Indians is that he thinks that a lot of non-Native Americans visited America before the Vikings, presumably influencing Native Americans, and I don't. Ironic eh? As for Codex Sinaiticus, that account isn't a former incarnation, it's just an earlier account of Til's and is still actively editing which I guess makes Til the sock. I agree that some sort of ban is in order. Dougweller (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

How do you know the two accounts are related? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Til makes no secret of it. He has stated it's him on several occasions. I'm afraid I don't know how to find those. One was in an edit summary. Til/Codex is a Biblical literalist with a special interest in Ethiopian Coptic Christianity. He appears to believe in some sort of narrative involving ancient Hebrew peoples colonising the world. Opponents of this view are routinely labelled "racist" for reasons that are often very unclear, though he does appear to believe that these people were 'non-white' or 'black' (his edits on Curse of Ham are often related to this). These beliefs mean that there is a wide range to his activity in articles about ancient history and human migration. Paul B (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I think this is the dif you are looking for. Yes? Stalwart111 23:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Cheers, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Does one of those accounts fit as a sock and need blocking, or is this a WP:SOCK#LEGIT case? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I had a look at that while going through his contributions for that dif. My impression was that the original was a normal editing account, abandoned in favour of the later account. But the original account was subsequently "revived" for use as a interwiki-link-adding account. At one point he tried to use it to run an interwiki-adding bot but it was shut down because the bot function had not been approved. I think it was a fairly good-faith attempt at a legit alternate account. I couldn't see any evidence of GH/BH or vote-stacking, but then I didn't look that hard. Stalwart111 10:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Alrighty then, thanks for looking that up. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Only crossed paths once with this user that I recall, at Talk:Islamophobia. After coming out on the short end of a proposed rename, this user had a bit of a temper tantrum. It would not be a great loss to the project if this guy exited, stage left. Tarc (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• For the record, I strongly disagree with the community over using cool-down blocks. This situation is a perfect example of when cool-down blocks should be used to protect the encyclopedia and the user. The batshit crazy message should have been removed in its entirety and the user should have been blocked for a week with talk page access removed. This would have given the user time to think about his temper tantrum and it would have prevented any further discussions about indefinitely blocking someone while they are angry, only serving to make them more angry as they are backed into a corner. I don't expect anyone to agree with me, but that's how I see it. Viriditas (talk) 23:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Update: Til Eulenspiegel has removed the outburst from his user page.[2] I would ask at this time that we consider closing this report and allow him to calm down. I think the removal of this statement on his talk page shows good faith and a desire to improve his behavior in the future. Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the above. There are very few situations where going to indef instead of applying longer and longer blocks makes sense, and the escalating blocks are far less likely to result in unblocks. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Guy here, but I'm not as optimistic as Viriditas. My experience is that he's ignored the warnings I've given him = sure, he doesn't like me, but that doesn't excuse his ignoring warnings about personal attacks. He's one of those aggressive angry editors that makes (some) others just want to avoid whatever he's being angry about. Dougweller (talk) 05:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I know that Wikipedia isn't therapy, but it sounds like he's having personal problems that are interfering with his ability to edit. Perhaps he is in need of some kind of structured ultimatum and final warning indicating that if he crosses the line one more time, he can be blocked by any uninvolved admin, etc. Viriditas (talk) 06:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The one immediately apparent personal problem I am seeing is simply that he has come into conflict over several of his hobbyhorse issues here at once, so that he is getting a lot of pushback at once as well. In the case of the FT/N thread he was in essence insisting on the use of a notoriously discredited activist source which people could see was faulty from many different directions, including one person who knew the whole story from beginning to end. His ability to bring himself to edit is simply a question of calming down enough to regret stomping off, but he's not going to change the way he edits, because (like Paul Bedson below) he is never going to abandon his defective way of looking at his subjects of interest. His crusade is going to bring him back, the various fringe-watchers will eventually notice, and we'll go through one of these fights again. Mangoe (talk) 11:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Boston College

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.

---

Requesting a 24 1 hour block for users rapidly creating articles about Boston College students and services. It appears to be a class assignment to create a Wikipedia article about yourself. In the last 30 minutes I have seen about a dozen articles created by Boston College students about themselves and student services. I have posted on each talk page to please put me in touch with their instructor but the accounts are still rapidly creating articles. Please see the following users and their deleted contributions:

• Ianwhite1662 (talk · contribs)
• MLILSTARS (talk · contribs)
• Taniquab2014 (talk · contribs)
• Cweekes (talk · contribs)
• JohnEppelWeb2.0 (talk · contribs)
• Emilyanne89 (talk · contribs)
• MauriceJackson24 (talk · contribs) - Apparently a "Adjunct Faculty member in the English Department atBoston College."

Thanks, Mkdw^talk 00:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

It would probably be unwise to block them, university and school classes frequently use editing Wikipedia as part of their assignments, and 99 times out of 100, the professor in charge knows what he's doing, though sometimes the students are a bit clueless. The best way to handle this is to contact the professor, treat him or her with courtesy and make sure they are staying on top of their students, direct the professor to Wikipedia:Ambassadors or Wikipedia:School and university projects to make sure they have the proper support, and also ask the professor and students to use the WP:AFC process or user sandboxes to keep the chaff out of the mainspace. As long as you do that, there's no need to block anyone. Indeed, there's still no need to block anyone, per WP:BITE. Feel free to edit, eviscerate, or nominate for deletion any of the substandard articles which have been so far created, but we should work to educate these new users, not block them and ask them to leave. --Jayron32 00:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I have made every effort to contact them prior to your recommendation with out any success. I'm aware of the Ambassadors and WikiProject program having both been in and used them while in university. No one has suggested asking them to leave, and the block is merely preventative to allow discussion to continue with out a disruption to Wikipedia. Even a 30 minute one so they can respond to my talk page inquiries would be better than then wasting their class time editing articles that will be deleted -- as well as the time of the patrollers. Often professors know what they're doing, but in the case of MauriceJackson24 who may be their professor, has written several "how to" articles as well such as the one about How to perm which seems to suggest the other wise. Mkdw^talk 00:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Some of the articles:

• John Andrew Eppel
• Taniqua king-brown
• Boston College Dining Services
• Amy lacombe
• John_W_Wetzel
• Ann_Burgess
• Boston_College_Black_Student_Forum

to name a few.

Mkdw theorized it was a college professor's assignment. I think it may all be one vandal. If it continues, I'll request a checkuser. Revolution1221 (talk) 00:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why Ann Burgess was tagged as there was an assertion of notability as a "pioneering expert". Also found this within seconds: "Dr. Ann Wolbert Burgess is an internationally recognized pioneer in the assessment and treatment of victims of trauma and abuse."[3] That one, at least, didn't appear to be vandalism. Location (talk) 00:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

This seems like a dead point now since the activity has subsided. It was more pressing when 16 of the last 20 pages were all articles about Boston College students and were being continuously re-created. Mkdw^talk 01:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your vigilance on this, Mkdw. Situations like this can be difficult - although the creators were probably just following instructions and meant no harm, almost all of the articles were clearly inappropriate and it can be a challenge to offer meaningful guidance to several accounts all at once. You done good. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I am a Campus Ambassador for another Boston College class (Education Program:Boston College/History of the American West (2013 Q1)). Is there something I can do to help? GabrielF (talk) 02:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

If you can figure out who the professor is who is running this class, and contact them directly (especially if you have access to BC phone directories) and maybe figure out if he needs help, that would be most awesome. --Jayron32 04:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

This appears to be the place to start: http://www.bc.edu/schools/cas/english/faculty/full-adj-fac/George_O_Har.html as displayed on User:MauriceJackson24's userpage. Mkdw^talk 20:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Ongoing battle over Derwick Associates

Background

The page in question is Derwick Associates. According to multiple reliable sources, it is effectively a money laundering organization for the Chavez government. I do not say that lightly. Please look at the sources in this[4] version of the page for confirmation, and see this [5] and this [6] for a discussion of the reliability of the sources involved.

This page has been actively edited by sockpuppets[7] who were eventually blocked.

The page has been nominated for deletion twice[8] [9] and failed both times. During the course of the second nomination, a number of additional sockpuppets appeared and were blocked.

Do you have an RS that says it's effectively a money-laundering organization, or is that OR? --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 01:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Sources

After it became apparent that FinanceReferee was being operated by the lawyers of Derwick Associates (see the bottom of [10]), and after Philippe Beaudette contacted me on my talk page[11] informing me via email that Derwick Associates is suing me, I decided to take a step back and bring the content to RfC[12]. The result of the RfC was that the sources present in the page were legitimate, however, none of the users commenting appeared to have a great deal of knowledge on the subject of Venezuelan media.

I think it is worth mentioning at this point that many (if not most) dictatorship-backed companies like Derwick Associates will use the legal system to silence those who speak out against them—usually including journalists. In fact, the $300 million defamation lawsuit [13] they filed was for exactly this purpose.

After questions were raised about the sources in the page, I posted a message on the Reliable Sources noticeboard[14]. Unfortunately, I did not receive any responses. I assumed this was because most people on English Wikipedia either do not speak Spanish or do not know very much about the Venezuelan media.

To resolve this, I sent a message to every member of Wikiproject Venezuela with the hopes of shedding some light on this issue.[15][16][17][18][19][20][21]

I received only a few responses, the most helpful of which was from SandyGeorgia, where she re-posted my RSN posting and responded to it here[22]. She then removed all of the material on the page that was not in a reliable source.[23][24][25][26][27][28]

A detailed explanation of the sources involved can be found here.[29]

This page has been reviewed and edited by a number of highly-credible users, including:

• Collect[30], *SandyGeorgia[31],
• Rich Farmbrough[32]

all of whom went through and fixed reliable sourcing issues.

That statement is, at best, disingenious. What SandyGeorgia actually said is that they don't have time to even begin fixing the substantial issues with the original version of the article, so it doesn't seem that they in fact approve of the version you're trying to preserve. --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 01:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem

Approximately one week after the sockpuppets mentioned earlier were blocked, a different user by the name of FergusM1970 came through and removed all of the same material that the sockpuppets were attempting to remove[33] (and the following 20-or-so edits), effectively removing every piece of controversy.

I reverted these edits to the version that was agreed on from the RfC mentioned earlier. FergusM1970 then re-reverted me with the edit summary: "Alek, I spent a lot of time cleaning up this article and removing the attack sections. Please discuss before reverting again." [34] Not only had this material been discussed on the talk page, but FergusM1970 is attempting to out me as "Alek Boyd", the blogger he referred to in a number of other edits. [35] [36][37][38]

His edits all refer to "dubious sources" or lack of "reliable sources", yet he has never once engaged in a discussion on the sources involved.

Questionable edits

Recently, and the reason why I am bringing this issue to AN/I, FergusM1970 removed all negative information added a great deal of hyper-positive information, including a number of foundations that Derwick Associates supports [39] None of this information was sourced, and he even tagged it with "Citation needed". The only place this information exists (as far as I can tell) is on Derwick Associates website [40], which is obviously self-published and not to be used on the page. He also added the following text:

Neither Derwick nor Bariven have released any information regarding the contracts. The companies are bound by confidentiality agreements and Venezuelan laws that prohibit any of the companies from releasing information.

Again, he did not include a source. I asked him on his talk page where he found all of this information and he responded with a thoroughly unsatisfactory response about how I am "paranoid".[41] His tone in his response was uncharacteristically civil, as you might notice by the numerous blocks, sockpuppet investigations, and warnings on his talk page for "incivility".[42]

After going back and forth with FergusM1970 for nearly a month and a half, I have decided that my only option is to bring this issue to AN/I.Justiciero1811 (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Your "going back and forth" has consisted of restoring your original (massively POV) version of the page twice then asking me what position I hold at Derwick Associates. It hasn't exactly been a deep discussion, has it? --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Let me put a word in with a bit of advice for both of you. First of all, for FergusM1970... As both an administrator and as an editor, I've had many dealings with editors who hold conflicts of interest (either disclosed or undisclosed) and sockpuppets. I've been the target of a good number of angry sockpuppets over the years. I once wasted literally months in a mediation case where ultimately one of the people involved was a sockpuppet who was affiliated with, advocate for, and actually posting from the headquarters of the article subject we were trying to be in mediation for. One thing I've learned is that sometimes on Wikipedia, you're not paranoid enough. :(

For Justiciero1811... I have a lot of experience with sockpuppets and conflict of interest accounts (as I said before). Looking over FergusM1970's prior contributions and apparent topics of interest, I have a lot of trouble believing that they are affiliated with Derwick Associates, or a sockpuppet of someone else previously involved with the article. I find it far more likely that this is simply an editor who honestly disagrees with you. I suggest that as you continue to work on this article, and as you discuss matters with FergusM1970, that you approach your interactions from that perspective. -- Atama頭 05:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Atama, thanks for the speedy response. I stumbled across the article in question by accident and was quite impressed at how evil the company was. When I started to dig a little, though, it turned out that more or less the entire article was based on editorials by a single journalist who, to put it mildly, seems to have a bee in his bonnet. Justiciero1811 seems quite determined to keep it in that form, but it really was outrageously POV. --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 11:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately the attempts I've made to outline the content piece piece-by-piece have been completely ignored. In addition, a section that I had added to the Talk page to open up a discussion with full transparency is repeatedly removed by FergusM1970.[43] It was a good faith add to discuss content and there was discussion below it with a former sock (apparently a Derwick lawyer[44][45]) who was obsessed with striking it from the record. We have since moved on, but it seems wrong to entirely delete someone's edits repeatedly and to push so hard to strike it from the record like FergusM1970 is doing, continuing the work of the FinanceReferee username. As for the other pieces, I'll be adding each point I am talking about separately so we can have a thorough, open discussion. I hope others can join in as well. Justiciero1811 (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

AIV backlog

There seems to be an outage of the HBC AIV Helperbots that usually clean up the list at WP:AIV once a user or IP has been blocked. Currently this function is no longer available for whatever reason, so entries may be piling up over there although they have already been dealt with by an administrator. I have checked the AIV page and the bot code and as far as I can see there are no recent changes that would affect the bots' functionality. De728631 (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

As of right now, this is pretty much handled. I'm not sure what's going on with the Helperbots - they have been intermittently disappearing from AIV over the past few weeks, but they appear to be functioning normally at UAA. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I believe I saw them disappear at UAA as well the other day/week. Odd, since they're run by different ops. Someone want to ping WP:BOWN? — PublicAmpers&^{(main account • talk • block)} 22:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a good idea - I knew there was someplace where the bot people hang out, but I wasn't sure where. I've left a message there and notified the operator of one of the bots. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Ajativada - User:174.1.118.185 is User:Aoclery

User:Aoclery, who's been blocked, is using User:174.1.118.185 to edit again at Ajativada diff. 174.1.118.185 has been blocked before at the Dutch Wikipedia after personal attacks diff one day block. please block. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The appropriate noticeboards here would be administrator intervention against vandalism and sockpuppet investigations. TBrandley 19:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

IP blocked 3 days. If it returns, report at AIV with a link to the SPI. JohnCD (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

A user named Ratemonth is vandalizing the article "Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution."

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

---

We had written an additional entry based on the Classical Liberal view on the Ninth Amendment of the Constitution.

First he deleted our article for no real reason, then he deleted it again accusing a collection of works by Law professors a "bunch of Jibberish."

Then he went through the sources and said that the "content was not present" in our sources, but that's because he's obviously NOT a Libertarian (Classical Liberal) and has absolutely no idea of how to read those sources, or disagrees with them fundamentally (one of his edit reasons was "biased source).

Of course the source is biased towards Libertarianism, because WE ARE EXPLAINING THE LIBERTARIAN INTERPRETATION (BIAS).

I request the attention of a superior Wikiepdia officer to deal with this offense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NinthAmendment (talk • contribs) 05:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

There are no "superior Wikipedia officers". The best course of action is to follow the directions at WP:DISPUTE. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

NinthAmendment's writing is not encyclopedic. Most of it is not based on any sources. Some is based on unreliable sources. I was able to salvage one sentence, and have put it in an appropriate section of the article. Ratemonth (talk) 05:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Regardless, this is not the place for disputes. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Request for guidance

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

---

There are or were edit wars at the following articles: Microsoft Office 365, Product activation, Microsoft Office 2013, and Windows 8. In each case, other users (than myself) have done one or more of the following:

• Edit warring without any discussion at the talk page
• Edit warring while ignoring discussion at the page (by at least one user not edit warring in this case)
• Edit warring after some discussion at the talk page but no consensus reached

For some reason, though, I am the only one who has ended up blocked because of any of this. (I obviously consider this administrator abuse, but the report I filed here was basically laughed at by the community, since it is apparently acceptable for administrators to ignore policies such as WP:EDITWAR: "Where multiple editors edit war or breach 3RR, administrators should consider all sides, since perceived unfairness can fuel issues.")

Anyways, to resolve these issues, I have tried one or more of the following in each case:

• Simply reverting the edits that were made without consensus - I ended up blocked
• Reverting the edits that were made without consensus but directing the users in question to talk pages - I ended up blocked
• Reporting another user for edit-warring - my report was closed (without even citing policy) and I was threatened with a block

Leaving the pages in their current states is simply not an option I am willing to consider as there is no consensus for this, so my question now is: what exactly do these very administrators who block me, and others who agree with them, expect me to do in this situation? (Note that WP:DRN - and probably any other such venue - isn't particularly useful in general, as I have discovered, and is even less so when at least one user refuses to cooperate, as is clearly the case here.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 08:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• AN/EW link - AN/I archive - tp history — Ched :  ?  08:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

You're expected to drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass. Whatever your understanding of consensus is (and frankly I don't think you're on as solid footing there as you think you are), you're not supposed to keep hitting the undo button every few hours while carrying on the dicussion. Raising things on talk is supposed to be the process by which disputes are worked out, and not just something on a checklist that allows you another revert. That option that you're not willing to consider is very soon going to be a coded editing restriction if this carries on. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Since you apparently haven't realized this, I'll spell it out for you: I have dropped the stick in terms of reverting by coming here.

Content issues, on the other hand, are quite a different matter, and your response is not even remotely helpful in this regard. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 09:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

You're still insisting that you're right and everyone else is wrong, that you've been wrongly blocked by abusive administrators, and that you want your way on the articles in question. You need to stop all of that. Your decision to stop directly edit warring has merely prevented your being re-blocked. Go and edit articles on a subject other than Microsoft and DRM for a while. Stop talking down to everyone you disagree with. And if, after calming down and getting a bit more of a feel for how collaborative editing is supposed to work on here, you feel that there are specific issues on your target pages that remain unresolved (to the community's satisfaction and not just your own), start an RfC and don't touch the article at all until it's completed. And if that doesn't result in you getting your way, accept that as the will of the community. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm insisting that I'm right and everyone else involved in this is wrong - about not establishing consensus and simply edit warring instead, not about the content issues. That's Wikipedia policy, and you, as an administrator, should know this better than myself.

I would add something here about the mention of administrator abuse, but given that you seem to be so dismissive of a policy as fundamental as WP:CON I doubt that there is much point in discussing other policies with you.

As a final note, I would ask that you not project any of your own actions onto me ("Stop talking down"). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 09:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I keep seeing you pointing a finger at everyone else including the other editors you got into an edit war with, the admin who blocked you, the admins who rejected your unblock requests, and I predict that you will soon make some sort of accusation against me as well for writing this. What I don't see is you taking personal responsibility for your behavior or making a commitment to following community standards of behavior.

Dropping the stick does not mean bringing it up in place after place hoping that this time you will get the answer you want. Dropping the stick is not badmouthing everyone who disagrees with you. Free clue: if you have problems with everyone you interact with, maybe you are the problem.

Here is some guidance: spend six months without any of the behavior that your talk page is full of warnings about. Everybody else seems to be able to follow the rules, so why can't you? --Guy Macon (talk) 09:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Can we stop discussing my conduct and start discussing how to obtain consensus to resolve the content issues - which is what this case is really supposed to be about? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

No. Start following the rules, then we can talk about your content issues. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I have already been blocked - twice - for the conduct issues, so I feel that that has been addressed at this point. Even so, if these blocks had been administered fairly, perhaps I could take personal responsibility for my actions, but with multiple administrators directly violating policy - see the quote above from WP:EDITWAR - doing so would likely serve to embolden the other users involved in this.

Note that I did not particularly want to discuss this given the community's response to the previous case I brought up here, but I felt it was necessary given that you repeatedly made comments directed against me. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

First, AN/I is not for discussing content issues. Secondly, by posting here, your own actions are very much up for scruitiny - and, if I may be very frank, I don't like what I see now, or before, which is best defined by a battleground mentality, a refusal to drop the stick, and a serious case of not listening because you are, after all, right. We don't want to block or ban people, we want productive and collaborative contributors. But that goes both ways - you have to be willing to compromise and follow policy if you're here to help build the encyclopedia. What I'd suggest would be to step back, take a deep breath, and stop editing the article in question - all of them - for, say, a week. Find another subjet that interests you, and work on that for awhile, and see how you feel afterwards - I suspect you'll find that much of what you thought were problems and doubts are, in fact, very small things after all. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to get other users to follow WP:CON. What, exactly, do the links you provided - except the one to WP:CON itself, of course (which is mislabelled - it is not the same thing as "compromise") - have to do with that? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

It has everything to do with the fact that WP:CON does not say what you think it says. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

We cannot stop discussing behaviour, because ANI is about behaviour. It is not about content. The dispute resolution processes involve not only the noticeboard, but third opinion and request for community comment. Dogmatic, if your behaviour right here is indicative of how you approach conflict, I can understand why you're having trouble. You're new to the project - as much as longtime, respected editors have worked their asses off to show you the ropes, you decline to listen. How about remembering something: this is a private website, and you agreed to a set of rules. If you choose not to listen to those rules, and insist that your personal interpretation is correct, then you will not likely be permitted to remain on this private website. Arguing against the people who know is like peeing yourself in a dark suit: only you notice, and it shortly becomes rather uncomfortable. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Does this "set of rules" you are talking about not include the quote from WP:EDITWAR above? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 11:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

You keep citing that sentence from WP:EDITWAR, yet you haven't provided any evidence that the admin(s) in question didn't "consider all sides". Has it occurred to you that they may well have given consideration to your position, and, in doing so, decided you were wrong? I count four experienced administrators (make it five; I endorse their advice) suggesting that you back off and consider the possibility that your interpretation of the rules is not in line with the community's, and your responses seem to me to boil down to a repeated and unsupported assertion that you are right - that's not how to reach consensus here. Once more for those at the back; drop the issue for a while, come back when you feel more level headed and less persecuted, and then pursue your changes through the appropriate channels - and be prepared for possibility that the community will decide not to implement your changes. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

If this is the case, then I would ask that an administrator explain why my actions were considered block-worthy while the actions of the other users involved were not. Even a brief explanation would be better than complete silence on this matter.

In fact, it is quite likely that knowing this would help me adjust my conduct. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 11:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Looking at this. The impression I'm left with is that you were edit waring with at least 3 other people (Viper, Coin, and GB Fan) to get your own preferred version forced through. That is considered disruptive. Does that help? Because quite frankly, I think you're getting dangerously close to a WP:BOOMERANG with much continuation of this line of discussion. — Ched :  ?  11:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear it is only two editors, Coin Operation was a declared alternate account of mine and I mistakenly posted from my main account also. I have abandoned the account because I was confusing myself and it will no longer be used. GB fan 11:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I would like to point out that this is the very user who reported me (using the "alternate account") - and it now turns out that this user was using two accounts to edit this article, quite possibly confusing the blocking administrator. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 12:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Multiple other users expressed concerns about removing the material from the article at the talk page. These users, however, chose to ignore those concerns. What would a preferable method of addressing this issue have been?

Additionally, I would like to request a similar explanation for my previous block, which I find more puzzling given the extent of edit warring by other users in that case. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 12:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's the easiest explanation: if YOU want something in, and you're the only CURRENT editor who wants it in, and 2 (or more) editors say "NO", that means your edit does not hold consensus, period. Don't ever re-add it until you have new consensus, if ever. By re-adding and insisting that they tell you why it should not be included is edit-warring to your preferred version. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

In this case, the information in question was not added by me - I was simply restoring it - so, if anything, your advice should have been followed by the other users, not me. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 12:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

So the question is why exactly were you restoring material that was removed because it was completely unsourced and in some cases out of date? Black Kite (talk) 13:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The preferred method of addressing the issue is bold, revert discuss. You have never discussed why you feel the information belongs. You only point to a couple of editors that 5 years ago expressed that they thought the information belonged. One only saying it was "convienent" Why do you believe the information belongs. GB fan 12:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

That article is basically at your preferred version and you still have not explained on the talk page why you believe the lists belong in the article. You just point to a couple of editors from 5 years ago that thought it belonged, one whose reasoning is that it is "convienent". GB fan 12:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

To respond to both of you: as stated above, "AN/I is not for discussing content issues." This kind of question should have been discussed at the talk page instead of simply filing an edit warring report.

In any case, I have still not received a response regarding my question about my previous block, nor very much guidance as to what I should do next to resolve the content disputes. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Raise and RFC, go to WP:DRN, ask for a third opinion, the associated Wikiproject which is listed in the talk page. Usual sorts of things for content disputes. You really should just drop the stick. Move on, find something else to do. Nagging people about it is just going to earn you another one for being disruptive. Blackmane (talk) 13:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Dogmaticeclectic, you've received a lot of advice from a number of different editors and it's been remarkably consistent in its tone! I think the problem is that the advice you're getting is not what you had been hoping for, so you're reluctant to recognise it for what it is. I don't think for a moment that you are going to get any contradictory advice by keeping this open. I'd strongly suggest that you ask for this thread to be closed, then read it carefully and try (even if you disagree) to follow the advice you've been given. If you need further guidance, then rather than raising an AN/I I suggest picking an editor whose manner and style you respect, and asking them if they'd be willing to mentor you, either officially or unofficially. They don't have to be someone who agrees with you - just someone who you feel you can do business with. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• This is very true: it is apparently acceptable for administrators to ignore policies such as WP:EDITWAR: "Where multiple editors edit war or breach 3RR, administrators should consider all sides, since perceived unfairness can fuel issues."
• If somebody came here who was right, while many others were wrong, she or he would be roundly criticized for insisting that that truth was true.
• Consensus is a popularity contest, regardless of the self-flattering story the community tells itself to the contrary. What percentage matters deemed to have a clear consensus are not also a supermajority? !%? Humanpublic (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

This type of comment is exactly the reason why I chose not to request that this case be closed. I am aware that there is a simmering cauldron of discontent with Wikipedia administrators in general and therefore considered it not unlikely that someone would make such a comment in this case. Of course, it is unlikely that administrators will pay much heed to this, but every attempt to get a message of this type across counts.

I would like to note, however, that - contrary to one administrator's implicit assertion above - WP:THETRUTH has nothing whatsoever to do with this case. In fact, this case stems from these issues not even being allowed to develop to that point (assessing whether reliable sources exist on each side of the disputes) due to my blocks. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 01:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

As an additional note, it's not even a popularity contest in at least one case: at Microsoft Office 365, one editor is fighting the consensus of two and currently winning due to what I, for one, consider administrator abuse - semi-protection and blocking, both of which in this case violate direct quotations (!) from the respective policies (WP:EDITWAR in the latter case). Also note that both of the reports against the latter two editors were filed by the former one. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 02:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

ViperSnake 151 is not an admin, so I don't understand how there could be admin abuse. I've also notified both ViperSnake 151 and Bbb23, who placed the semiprotection you refer to, of this discussion, which is required when you refer to another editor at AN/I - while you did not name them explicitly, the intention is clear. Also, I repeat my advice: stop beating the dead horse. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

You clearly misunderstood - I was referring to User:Mark Arsten blocking me. Out of fairness, I have decided to inform this user of this discussion as well - although I am not necessarily in agreement regarding notifying any of these users about this discussion given that none of them are actually "the subject of a discussion", in my opinion at least. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 12:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

When the first sentence of your original posting contains "other users (than myself) have done one or more of the following", you are attempting to make them the subject of a discussion and therefore yes, you are required to notify those users. Black Kite (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems interesting to me how you sound so sure of this now, and yet you have previously posted in this case without mentioning this. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Because I wasn't aware that you hadn't notified them. I don't tend to go round checking avery notice, since the guidance at the top of the page is pretty clear. Black Kite (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• is there a good reason this timesink continues? The title is "request for guidance " and I see about a dozen admins, numerous editors all providing identical guidance, yet the OP refuses to follow or even accept it. At what point does WP:CIR kick in? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Given that an administrator has now threatened me with a block in connection with this case - an indefinite one, no less, and at another page, too - I now request that this case be closed. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

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

"The ed17" and civility

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

---

Editor User:The ed17 has been unhappy with several of my content edits. In my view, before the content discussion could be joined for a constructive discussion on improving the encyclopedia, The ed17 initiated the discussion on my Talk page with an uncivil comment about me, and what I consider a personal attack. Difficult to work on improving articles under this cloud.

• Here is The ed17's comment on my Talk page: diff
• Here is my request to The ed17, on his Talk page, requesting that he simply retract and remove the uncivil comments so we could get on with discussing improving the encyclopedia rather than editor behavior. diff
• Here is The ed17's reply on my Talk page diff.
• Here is my reply to The ed17 on my Talk page stating that I won't discuss the content changes on the related articles until he ceases the uncivil personal attacks, and requesting again that he remove/retract/try-to-clean-up his uncivil personal attacks. diff
• If he were to do that, then we could put away discussing editors and get back to discussing improving articles and relevant article standards per current Wikipedia policy.

I am requesting Administrator review of The ed17's behavior against me, as a fellow editor endeavoring to improve the encyclopedia. Thanks for your time on this issue! N2e (talk) 04:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm shocked that this has come to ANI, as I don't think that my comments were in any way uncivil. My comment was meant at editor behavior in this instance, as I don't believe his practice of systemically gutting articles over several years through wholesale removals of uncontroversial information (e.g. Precooled jet engine or Legends of Shannara, where apparently book titles in a trilogy need citations) benefits the encyclopedia. The applicable policy in this is WP:PRESERVE, though I now know that this interpretation is disputed from a discussion I started on WT:V. Having said all that, while I don't feel that my comments on N2e's talk page were uncivil, I'm willing to accept that they were if outside editors here agree. Regards, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I consider ed's comments to be blunt but not uncivil. N2e is free to blank comments from his talk page that he does not like, and/or request that ed cease posting to his talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• I think the OP needs to read WP:V again, especially WP:When to cite. Unreferenced, non-controversial, non-advertorial content is completely fine in most non-BLP articles ... if you want to help, find references or use citation needed tags. Blanking just makes the article less useful for readers. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you referring to the WP:V policy that explicitly says "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed" ? ElKevbo (talk) 05:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

May be. That doesn't mean that you should. See WP:PRESERVE. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Not to mention WP:BRD; if other editors feel the content is fine as is, continuously removing it is tendencious editing. As long as it's not a BLP or non-neutral, of course. See WP:BLUE — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• This diff ed presented above is very troubling. The editor removed content which was cited - to the books. Don't believe the books have that as their plot? Read 'em. Easy. Just like how featured film and book articles don't have the plot section cited, these short blurbs shouldn't need it either. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I would like to note that I've gone over this before with N2e at Talk:The Sword of Shannara#Sources for claims in the plot summaries. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
• Nothing to see here, to be honest. Ed was civil and policy driven. NativeForeigner ^Talk 06:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

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

User:O9837tr7xs and Master–slave morality

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.

---

O9837tr7xs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can I ask an admin to look at this? This user seems determined to stuff the article full of original research and dubious "Jewish master race" conspiracy theories, such that the article more closely resembles a neo-nazi tract than a serious encyclopedia article. Example additions: "This implies that there are two psychosomatically immature slave races—the unconscious Mongoloid "embryos"/"sheep" do tedious manufacturing work for the semiconscious Aryan "children"/"sheepdogs", who are mind-controlled by the fully conscious Jewish "adults"/"shepherds"" ....."The Aryan race commands the Mongoloids but obeys the Jews. This combination of commanding and obeying abilities is symbolized by the German sheepdog. The domestication finished in 1945 AD, when the last pack of Aryan "noble wolves" was tamed into sheepdogs."...."The Jewish master race is symbolized by a hook-nosed eagle and a wise serpent:" etc etc

The user received the full series of warnings on their talk page about violating WP:OR and WP:NPOV, they brushed off those warnings, declaring that "avoiding OR is a slavish trait" and continued to edit war to readd the material until they were blocked. They have now returned from that block to add exactly the same material on the article. I'm bringing this here as attempts at discussion with the user have proved futile. Valenciano (talk) 08:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I have temporarily protected this article to put a stop to the edit warring. I have chosen not to block O9837tr7xs for edit warring because I do want to give them an opportunity to give us their side of this story (AGF and all that). However, if another admin feels that a block is necessary given the previous lack of a constructive response from this editor, so be it. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, however, the user's response to this thread doesn't inspire confidence that this is an editor who will heed the advice of several editors to stop using the article as a WP:COATRACK. I expect I'll be offline most of the weekend so I would appreciate it if other editors could keep an eye on that situation. Valenciano (talk) 08:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

And an edit summary that says "Avoiding OR is a slavish trait" not only doesn't inspire confidence but makes me wonder if this editor is likely to ever be a positive contributor here. Dougweller (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Checking the contribution history, I have my doubts on that as well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 10:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I so look forward to some form of explanation (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I wish that O9837tr7xs's reply in this thread wasn't removed. It didn't rise above the level of being "mildly uncivil" and it would help demonstrate their behavior. My personal belief is that the editor is doing this as a joke, this is so over-the-top I have trouble believing that they're sincere. I wouldn't expect any kind of legitimate explanation, or even an attempt at one. -- Atama頭 19:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Poe's law in action? Writ Keeper (t + c) 19:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

A quick look at the contribs indicates that this user appears to be WP:NOTHERE at best. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Trolls gonna troll. Indef and ignore. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Indefed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Merge tag removed by article creator

On 9 March User:Kauffner created a new article Han-Nom. On the same day User:BabelStone proposed a merge by tagging the article. A merge discussion is in progress. However, User:Kauffner has removed the tag, twice now, and despite my trying to engage him on his talk page. This all follows a move discussion on a related article, where I tried to start a discussion about how many articles were needed, which he did not engage in. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

You may want to check his use page.... it just might violate Polemic as he's using it to call a wikipedia user "this thing" "wiki stalker " and "it". He has at least one link where he shows this individual's wikipedia account.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  16:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• I nominated it for MfD, due to its clear attack nature. Hopefully that wasn't an entirely stupid/incorrect thing to do! Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kauffner is where it is. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I deleted the personal attack paragraph from the page, that's just not on. No comment on the other matter. Canterbury Tail talk 18:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Also can you make sure you inform the subject about this thread on his talk page. Canterbury Tail talk 18:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm just raising the question of the removal of the merge tag. I think the person that Kauffner regards as his stalker is aware of the user page comments. I did tell Kauffner that I was raising this at ANI and he said he was looking forward to me defending the tag. Tags, because there was another one that I don't currently have a view on although I did revert Kauffner's removal of it (haven't reverted his restoration). Itsmejudith (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I would be grateful for a response to the merge tag removal question. As I understand it, when someone has started a merge discussion that should be allowed to run its course. Assuming good faith, removing a merge tag is mistaken, and the editor who does it should have the position explained. I have tried to do this, but my explanation has not been accepted. As further background, the editor who started the article has put it forward for DYK, so I can understand that they would be disappointed at seeing a merge tag. But the solution is not to remove that tag, is it? Itsmejudith (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

User:SocialRanger -- newly registered user engaged in hoax article creation

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

---

This is a new problem to me, so I am requesting appropriate admin action here regarding this user. SocialRanger is a newly registered user (March 17, 2013), whose first Wikipedia edit was to intentionally create an admittedly hoax article, Ehsan Malik. Apparently a new page patrol editor discovered the hoax, and an AfD is now pending at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ehsan Malik. User admits that the article is a hoax, and appears to be an account engaged primarily in hoaxes and other disruptive behavior. Comments and behavior demonstrate a knowledge of Wikipedia procedures and policies, and I suspect we may be dealing with a sock puppet. Request immediate block for intentionally disruptive editing per WP:DISRUPT. Frankly, if I had more evidence than just my gut feeling, I would also initiate a sock puppet investigation. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Obvious sock but whose sock is it? - Who is John Galt? ✉ 18:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Dogmaticeclectic - time for a ban?

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

---

Dogmaticeclectic (talk · contribs) is an unrepentant edit-warrior and policy wonk whose behavior has twice gotten them blocked (and during his last block, he promised to continue edit-warring, viewing WP:3RR as the relevant policy as opposed to WP:EW). Shortly after he came off this latest block, he inserted a warning box on his talk page threatening to report anyone who tried to stop him from edit-warring here, presumably to be sanctioned. I removed it, citing WP:POINT and WP:IDHT, only for him to remove it and demand I cite a policy "with quotes" supporting its removal. I've removed it again (citing WP:POINT yet again) and he's once more restored it.

Given his words in his unblock requests, his belligerence, and vast selective reading skills (coupled with the aforementioned policy wonkery) I am proposing an indefinite ban on Dogmaticeclectic. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

That box is allowed per WP:USERPAGES: "The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants." Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, applying it consistently. [...] Such tactics are highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban. You've been sanctioned twice for edit-warring and have been insanely combative towards administrators. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support *something*. I'm not sure if a full on ban is right, but a long long block is needed. This person is WP:POINTy, and is only here for WP:BATTLEGROUND and thinks policy doesn't apply to him. Generally tolerant applies, and hell I've seen a lot of crap on userpages, but when it's WP:POINT then it is not tolerant. gwickwire^talk_editing 20:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:POINT can be used against virtually anything. Any blocks and/or bans based on it are completely ridiculous. (Also note that there is no specific mention at WP:USERPAGES of anything even only similar to the message in the box not being allowed.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

That is only true in your warped weltanschauung. In practice, POINT is only invoked when someone's deliberately skewing a rule to its breaking point, such as you are with WP:USERPAGE. Which confirms my assessment of you as a policy wonk. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

By the way, the reporting user is quite wrong about what the message in the box actually is. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose ban We're not going to ban anyone on the basis of two edit-warring blocks, though if the edit warring continues he'll likely be given a lengthy time away. As for the box, I don't really think its that big of a deal. I'd suggest ignoring it and growing a thicker skin. AniMate 20:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)x 2No For all their failings, blocking (much less banning) Dogmaticeclectic over a userbox like that is beyond silly. Let them have the box; it's doing no harm. Just because someone's criticizing an admin admins doesn't mean they're being abusive. Unless their other, actually problematic behaviors are being continued, I don't see any action that needs to be taken, and an outright ban is way premature. IMO. Writ Keeper (t + c) 20:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd like to note that I'm not even criticizing any particular administrator (an action which could actually possibly violate WP:USERPAGES), but merely attempting to offer guidance to administrators who deal with any potential future issue(s). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Noted; I didn't say what I meant in that respect. Reworded. Writ Keeper (t + c) 21:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose While the box is a little pointy, it does not raise to the level needing to be removed. Their actions to this point are not sever enough to justify a ban. GB fan 21:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose ban. We need something more than a userbox, even with the history here, to justify a ban. Bringing this editor up again here less than a day after the last discussion was closed seems counterproductive to me, I suggest a small trout to Jéské. (PS to Dogmatic - I suggest you leave it to others to oppose - your contributions are effectively making the case for the prosecution!) Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - I couldn't care less about the template or some of the drama explicitly stated here, what concerns me is that the user was unblocked for just 1 day before being reblocked for the same offence. They've also been highly abusive to admins, making frivolous allegations in their unblock requests. Equally concerning is their clear intent to carry on edit warring, and to just "cherry pick" certain guidelines to follow, whilst ignoring others they disagree with. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The fact is, however, that since my second block I have not done anything that could even be construed as edit warring. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - This user has been blocked for edit warring twice now, and doesn't believe he was wrong either time. He uses policy left and right throwing different ones out to try to get himself unblocked, while saying explicitly he will continue to edit war, just not hit 3RR. He now says to any admin who blocks him that they are required to block someone else or they will be reported here. That's WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality at it's finest. gwickwire^talk_editing 21:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • You're twisting my words from the box, just like the reporting user did. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
    • "Any appearance of a breach of this statement against this user will almost certainly result in a report at WP:ANI." - That's a threat to report any admin who doesn't "consider all sides, since perceived unfairness can fuel issues", and considering your blocks and unblock requests, you mean by this that unless someone else is not blocked too then you weren't wrong and don't deserve a block. You're wrong, you've been wrong, you're still wrong. Either drop it and move on, or continue to dig your hole deeper. To others, the behavior the user is displaying here (replies to everything, comments unrelated to others "I have not done anything...", etc.) are very WP:BATTLEGROUNDy . gwickwire^talk_editing 21:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with Dogmaticeclectic. The box does not say that any admin blocking them for editwarring is "required" to block "someone" else or they will report them here. They say that if they feel that there wasn't equal treatment they will most likely report the blocking admin here. GB fan 21:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Look over their block log and their talkpage history (mainly unblock requests, etc.). It's clear this user meant to say that if an admin didn't block someone else too he'd report. He didn't say that, because he knew he'd get reported for that, but he's just wikilawyering around the policy to WP:POINT and everyone looks to be falling for it. gwickwire^talk_editing 21:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Any blocks and/or bans based on what one user thought another user "meant to say" are at least as ridiculous as any based on WP:POINT (the latter being such per my reasoning above). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
• Note: Multiple edit conflicts here have already caused at least one user's opinion to be removed, and although it was already restored, this could easily happen again. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose That silly message won't deter me in the slightest as an admin from hitting the block button. If it makes him feel better under some false umbrella of protections against admins, let him have it. I'll be sure to read it twice and ignore it if he edit wars again. Administrators are always available to be labelled as abusive at anyone's leisure, this userbox doesn't make us anymore vulnerable.--v/r - TP 21:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think it's a dumb thing to put on one's talk page, but it doesn't justify even lesser sanctions, let alone a ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose ban. I see no edit-warring since the last block, and that message box is nothing to kick up drama about. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - That box isn't worth a block (and any admin worth his salt should be thick skinned enough to take no notice). There are conduct issues which might result in further sanctions if they go unchecked, but I'd rather we try to deal with those less heavy-handedly. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Proposal. While this is not quite a WP:SNOW close, this is never going to fly. May I suggest a withdrawal by the OP or an early close by an uninvolved reader, to save us further dramah? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Axlerun is Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/JarlaxleArtemis

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.

---

Axlerun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) He removed the SockPuppet tag from his user page and has started vandalizing other articles. Special:Contributions/AxlerunCarolMooreDC🗽 00:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's another: Sandeeprao1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). TippyGoomba (talk) 02:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The users are both blocked, their damage reverted. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

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

User:KLBot2

Does this bot need new approval for wikidata migration or does the existing approval cover that? Werieth (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Probably not covered, but I'd say IAR here, since it's closely related and not hurting anything. Nyttend (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Constant article vandalism by User:NotHelpingMatters in Futanari

NotHelpingMatters is once again vandalising the Futanari page and has broken the three revert rule. So have I in reverting his vandalism. Please either warn him or protect the page from him. Thanks 86.164.67.30 (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that this user is either a sockpuppet or an accomplice of user Niabot, who has consistently attempted to rewrite the page in question to both have bias towards greater acceptance and prominence of the subject than actually exists, and to include a piece of art that he created which is needlessly pornographic in nature and poorly drawn. My main concern is that the image in question be removed permanently. Even if no other changes are made, the exclusion of the image in question would be enough to end my changes to the page. NotHelpingMatters (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

NotHelpingMatters, it would seem that your only edits to Wikipedia have been to censor Futanari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Why is this?—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

This is false. I have also rewritten the text of the page for clarity, removed pre-existing grammatical errors, and generally worked to bring the page up to the impartial and scholarly standards of the site. I have been removing the image because it is needlessly profane, adds little or no value to the page, and has been added back despite the protests of previous users by Niabot. The image is Niabot's pet project and is harmful to Wikipedia as a whole. NotHelpingMatters (talk) 01:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

It would seem that the editors of the article disagree with your changes to its prose. Additionally, Wikipedia is not censored. Just because the drawing is pornographic in nature does not mean Wikipedia should not include it.—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

After looking through NotHelpingMatters' contribution history and tone of edits, I have applied an indefinite block. Assuming good faith, the editor has a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's policies and purpose; alternatively they are either trolling or are editing in a fashion indistinguishable from trolling. Either way, going to 12RR with comments like "I have nothing to do today" [46] and the personal attack "Read any good books lately?" [47] is inexcusable. The user is, indeed, not helping matters by editing here; the image might or might not be suitable, but that's what discussion is for, not a "cease uploading" note [48]. Also, the IP OP has been hit by a WP:3RR boomerang for also going to 12RR. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems that there were other editors in the past who raised issues with the drawing provided by Niabot. Perhaps there's some sockpuppetry going about?—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

70.112.2.185 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is absolutely NHM's previous editing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but no checkuser (should we go for one) is going to say anything on that quacky correlation.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any others that jump out at me as deafening quacking. There's one or two that might be, but if I was a CU it wouldn't be enough to make me run a check. Although it'd probably be a good idea to look out for possible socking in future. And I'm off for coffee as my typos are piling up... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Eldumpo violating several policies in regards to WP:NOBLANKING

Eldumpo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user initially caught my attention when i reverted his edit (he spuriously removed content) on the Landlocked countries article (at first i assumed good faith and justified my action appropriately in the edit summary). he then came back About a month later and once again deleted the exact same content - a different user again reverted his edit a few hours later. So i noticed this and decided to have a look at Special:Contributions/Eldumpo...and found him practicing much of the same behavior on the majority of his edits as well.

The most blatant example of this user`s WP:DISRUPTIVE/WP:VANDAL editing is the West Country derby article, where after several smaller removals he went ahead and in a -single- edit removed 16,261 byte`s worth of information. The article was 21,963 bytes before he started and by the time he was done, he had shrunk it down to 1,302 bytes...and while at it removing referenced content as well as 31 references.

This is not confined to just 1, 2 or 3 edits either. It's rather prolific. In a single swipe he also removed 7,215 bytes from the Friuli-Venezia Giulia, 4,741 bytes from the Dárvin Chávez, 4,465 bytes from the Joe Harvey, 4,893 bytes from the Iran Pro League articles....and i could go on and on listing several more easily identifiable WP:DISRUPTIVE and borderline WP:VANDALISM edits from this user.

I'm just a passing ip but i seriously doubt this user's "contributions" to wikipedia are constructive.

i would go ahead and try to revert his damage but admins are probably better equipped than me to do that. so i thought that since i couldnt find a more appropriate place to put this i'd put it here to (hopefully) get the attention of an admin.

diffs (before and after his edits): [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.13.94.226 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 21 March 2013‎

1. You didn't sign your comment. For shame
2. You didn't notify the user of this discussion per the rules of the page and the big orange notice block. For shame
3. There hasn't been any recent discussion with the user about this.
4. You're an IP user and yet seem very familiar with the lingo and proceses for Wikipedia dispute resolution. So much so that I question if you're evading scrutiny by being logged out.
5. The diffs you present are over 2 months old. How is this an "Immediate action requested" instead of a longer term and lower level of dispute resolution?

There might be a coaching opportunity for this user to use inline maintanance templates as opposed to outright deletions (give intrested editors an opportunity to fix issues prior to deletion). At this point (in my mind) there's enough procedural flaws in your request that I think it would probably do with being dismissed for the time being. Hasteur (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• 1) Why would i sign my comment when i know a bot will conveniently come along and do it for me ? 2, 3 & 4) wikipedia is a full fledged lumbering bureaucracy, some people being specially anal about this. i am fully aware of that, but i could not care less (see WP:IAR, WP:PRAC, WP:ENC, WP:BLOAT, this, and this, among several others for my reasoning.)...i want to get in, read about whatever i want to read, make any valid eventual contributions i think i should make and get out...not get embroiled with endless entanglements of bs wikidrama...this also happens to be one the reasons i have never registered for an account and should wikipedia tomorrow disable edits by ip users i would simply stop editing. 5) these edits (the derby edits being the most blatant of them) are not constructive towards building a better encyclopedia...i wanted to get -someone- to look into it and this is the means i deemed appropriate to do just that.

I dispute the accusations of vandalism and disruption. Yes, I have at times deleted sections of unreferenced material, often when it is poorly written and/or debatable/POV, or when the section just may not be notable, but have added references and cites to a large number of articles. Eldumpo (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Hasteur, your comments about the IP's familiarity with the guidelines are inappropriate: I'm not pro-IP myself, but that sort of speculation doesn't help anyone, and immediately shoots yourself in the foot. These diffs are old, but I think some of them are a bit dodgy. The West Country derby edit is bad, it removes WAY too much content, and the top few paragraphs need to be there, as at the moment, it's literally only about the one matchup, whereas before it spoke about all of them. I agree it needed improving, and some of it needed nuking... but you've over-nuked. The Iran Pro League edit is bad, as that information was perfectly valid. The Joe Harvey edit is mostly good, although it does leave some promotional-ish fluff in there, and removed a valid table (the latter seems to be a theme with your edits). Darvin Chavez is bad - you've removed a table completely, it was a valid table. The Friuli-Venezia Giulia is an excellent edit, removing lots of unsourced fluff. Basically, Eldumpo, you're clearly acting in good faith, but I think you need to be a little more careful. You've blanket removed tables as being unsourced, when finding a source for them would really not be that hard, with a little effort. Some of your edits are bad, others are very good. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I will aim to take points made on board. Regarding West Country derby, there were no citations confirming the football derbies, and I added a specific reference for a particular derby. A lot of the deleted refs simply listed matches between teams (for uncited derbies). I don't think there should be too much focus just on how much is deleted, it's about the content, and some of the above was very poor. Eldumpo (talk) 23:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Also, the consensus at WP:Footy is that tables of intl' appearances are regarded as overkill. Eldumpo (talk) 23:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• For appearances other than for the full international side, I would be inclined to agree with you: 6 full international appearances in a collapsed table isn't that much of a problem though. A quick search would turn up the following for the West Country derby: [54][55][56][57][58] Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• All your refs above are for rugby; I only changed the football part of the article. Re intl' apps it is football consensus to not have them. I'm not saying that ends the discussion but there's also the issue of WP:NOTSTATS, especially as many players have a lot more intl' caps than Chavez. Eldumpo (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm well aware they were all for rugby, however, finding references for the football derby is just as easy: [59][60][61][62][63]. Fair enough on the international appearances front. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why you chose to show rugby references when the edits in question were related to football, but anyway, it's interesting that 4 of the 5 football refs you added are for Bristol Rovers v Torquay, which is the very 'derby' I added a cite for (although one of your refs is the same source, and another two appear to be the same text/report but badged on different sites). The 5th ref is for Swindon v Yeovil, although technically it doesn't use the derby term and it's not a source I've come across. However, I think all the sources are fairly weak, only a fleeting comment. Also, I would point out that at the time of my edits the article had been tagged for 2.5 years as possibly containing OR. Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• I showed them just as how easy it is to find reliable-ish sources referring to this derby, with some actual effort to find searches (I found those in just two vague sources) you could easily rebuild the article rather than purely nuking it. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

sock alert. block or change policy to allow socks

To gives me no pleasure to report a sockpuppet and troublemaker, Randykitty. This user is clearly a sockpuppet. The sock registered an account 4 months ago and immediately got Twinkle use and has all the signs of an experienced user. In addition, this user is up to no good. The user is very hostile. The user makes no useful edits as far as adding facts and re-writing articles. In short, that editor should be blocked.

It does not need any type of sockpuppet investigation because the user is clearly the same as a sock, acts like a sock, and is up to no good. Just randomly look at this person's edit history.Editing WP is not a U.S. constitutional right. It is a privilege granted by a private website.

I see only one of two fair outcomes:1. Block Randykitty.2. Change WP to allow sockpuppets. As long as a sock is editing to constructively add and fix WP, then sockpuppetry is allowed. In turn, when considering others' opinions, there will be NO weight given to opinions mentioned by several editors but weight given to the substance of the opinion. In other words, 100 people could be saying "the Pope is Muslim" and this would carry no more weight than if one person said it. Rather, only logic, truth, and citations would be a consideration.

I kid you not. Trying to be a professional writer and considering what a good writer would write should be the criteria for edits, not more people writing support or oppose. Mere counting of votes is childish and shows stupidity. If we do this, there would be no need to have rules about sockpuppetry.

I urge

you to do 1 or 2. Since I think 2 would be too much of a revolution, I urge you to block Randykitty permanently or at least the user tells us his other user names. He clearly is a sock. An innocent person would simply say "I have no other usernames" plain and simple. Bamler2 (talk) 03:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

He is disruptive but you could argue not theed most disruptive in history. Ok, if you allow him then you should be quoted that socks are allowed. Thank you. Please don't block Bamler3 if I decide that I am being stalked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamler2 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

So if you'll read the sockpuppetry policy, you'll see the having more than one account is not expressly forbidden (see Wikipedia:SOCK#Inappropriate_uses_of_alternative_accounts). So unless you plan to demonstrate that Randykitty is violating one of those rules (which would be done at WP:SPI), he is not going to blocked for socking. If Randykitty is being otherwise disruptive, you can make that case and provide diffs to support it. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Please Bamler2, who am I socking for? I'm dying to find out whose sock I am! And given that I'm spending way too much time on WP, perhaps it would not be a bad thing if you could give some diffs showing my disruptive behavior and get me blocked. The weather is starting to get nice and the garden needs some attention... But if you cannot present any evidence (or even show us some edits that would raise suspicion), then please read WP:AGF and leave me alone. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 09:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I see nothing in the OP's comments that provide a link to any of the supposed infractions. If Bamler is 90% certain that Randy is using the same accounts to vote and edit (thus a violation of WP:SOCK, they they need to submit an WP:SPI report that clearly delineates why he is so certain. SPI is not a fishing trip - and sadly, neither is ANI. If however he's merely disagreeing with someone's !votes, well, that's not something for this board (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I already directed Bamler2 to SPI on my talk page, but they elected to come here instead. --Randykitty (talk) 09:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• WP:BOOMERANG for raising frivolous accusations without the slightest shred of evidence maybe? Also, why are you complaining about a 4 month old account, when yours is 2 months old today? I also see frivolous accusations about stalking aimed at another user: [64]. Now, let's look at your contributions, Bamler2 (is there a Bamler/Bamler1? Is that you?): [65][66] - incorrect removal of an image without a valid rationale - how the hell is Obama being foreign relevant? Also, what the hell is going on here: [67][68][69]? Wiki-gestapo, "removing comments..you are all powerful, can make life hell, even drive one to suicide. I support anything the AC wants. AC is perfect.Sorry.Sorry"? I'm not sure Bamler2 is here to improve the Wiki, but I do think they're here to troll - definitely requiring a block. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The "I know how Wikipedia should work better than Wikipedia does" tone of the comments is somewhat troubling, as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
• [70] is another thing I've found in relation to this frivolous socking allegation. I think Bamler2 should be indeffed under WP:NOTHERE as a pure troll (both their actions towards users, and their dodgy edits). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Also, accusations of racism: [71]. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Bamler2 has removed[72] the picture of Prince Albert and President Obama for the third time. Stating 'removed undue weight and trivial part of his reign)'. I have to agree with Lukeno. A case of WP:NOTHERE....William 10:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Randykitty is plain rude and sarcastic. He doesn't deny being a sock. He is a sock. Duck, I don't care too much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamler2 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Bamler2, there are a lot of things that I don't deny: I don't deny being President Obama, nor do I deny being responsible for World War 2, for example. Yes, I'm sarcastic, you find that strange? You come to my talk page out of the blue and ask me point blank to list all of my alternative accounts. When I asked whether you were accusing me of socking you specifically said that you alleged no wrongdoing (obviously not a completely truthful answer). When I said that if you had no reason to ask that question, I had no reason to answer it, you simply assumed that I am a sock. Do you really think that if I were a sock that a "no answer" would have been truthful? Or that a lack of an answer constitutes proof that I am a sock? As several people here have pointed out, you have presented not a shred of evidence. As for my being proficient shortly after I established an account, perhaps I had an account in the past and abandoned it when I left WP after having been hounded by some troll and couldn't remember the password when I got back 4 months ago. Or perhaps I had edited WP for years as an IP and decided to finally establish a named account. Or any other of many different possible legitimate things. Socking is using an alternative account abusively, such as vote-stacking in an AfD or to circumvent a block. Up till now, you have not presented any indication that I have done any of these things (not surprisingly because, and this is the only time I'm going to answer to your ridiculous accusation, I never engaged in any such activity). Now lets talk about you: you come to me with ridiculous unfounded accusations. You file this report here and assert, again without any foundation, that I am "up to no good", "very hostile", and make "no useful edits". Now that is disruptive behavior in my book. --Randykitty (talk) 09:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

You still have yet to prove that Randy's a sock, and in particular, of who. We just don't throw accusations around without proof. You know what they say, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Take it to WP:SPI to make your case. Also, you still have yet to address the comments raised above. ZappaOMati 05:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Based on your continued frivolous allegations, and the diffs provided here, Bamler2, do you really expect anyone to support your "cause", so to speak? There's no evidence Randykitty is a sock - a lack of a denial doesn't mean anything, especially in the lack of any evidence that they are a sock, and you appear to be hounding Randykitty - and lets not forget, part of your case is that Randykitty's account is 4 months old... and yours is just over 2 months old. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Boomage

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.

---

Dear AN/I. I come to you today to raise my concerns about User:Boomage who has been attacking myself, other users and generally being uncivil across different pages. Also seems to be canvassing for a so called petition. I would like to see administrator intervention on this matter.
Examples:
User talk: methecooldude -- Many uncivil and attacking comments.
User talk: Cobi -- As above
User talk:Crispy1989 -- As above
User talk: Yngvadottir -- As above
User talk: ClueBot Commons -- General uncivilly
The Anti-ClueBot NG Movement and relative talk page -- Attack page
Special:Contributions/Boomage -- "I WANT TO BE ABLE TO UPLOAD IMAGES AND HELP YOU LOT OUT BUT YOU LOT ARE HAVING NONE OF IT!!!"

Many thanks

Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail 14:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest Boomage is really struggling to understand how things work here, and a strongly worded final warning from an uninvolved administrator might help them see sense. Then again, it might not. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I agree this looks like someone who simply doesn't understand the way things work - give me a short time and I'll try to explain things. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks - Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail 14:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I've had a word - feel free to drop me a line on my talk page if the disruptive behaviour continues. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Boing, that looks perfect. Incidentally, the use of the word "git" as a (mild?) insult suggests that the editor may be British, so I would hope that we extend the same forbearance that is traditional for British editors who make personal attacks. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, he's definitely a fellow Brit, and yes it is quite mild. But it's more the attitude than the word itself - in my view, for example, it's entirely possible to say "fuck" in a way that is not a personal attack, but "git" in a way that is, and it is the attack rather than the word that is not acceptable. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Quite - there seems to be a lot of confusion over this, in both directions. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed - I understand what you're saying. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh what fun :-) Thanks, Boing! said Zebedee. I had earlier tried to give him some unsolicited advice and he had indeed not realised he needed references. I've now seconded what you said and pointed to the welcome template with which Bwilkins started his talkpage; I closed the box around it for clarity. For what it's worth, a couple of his edits that triggered Cluebot were false positives ("He is known as a hard worker" or something like that), but he hasn't taken my advice to simply report that and I'm aware of the limits of advice. At least the deleted page shows he is willing to do research. I concur about "git" - hardly worth getting in a tizzy about, but he got himself in a bit of a rut here. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your additional comments too - I hadn't realised that ClueBot revert had been labeled "vandalism" (though I thought all the reverts were appropriate, for various reasons). I'm hoping that a reading of the riot act might get through - and hopefully help turn Boomage into a productive editor. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

ClueBot actually says "possible" vandalism, so as to assume good faith. Bots jobs are very thankless :). --Malerooster (talk) 18:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, both Boing! and Demiurge, for your assistance in this matter - Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail 19:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi all,

Firstly, I would like to accept full responsibility for my use of language and the tone in which I used the word 'git', and I offer my sincere apologies. Although I will add that 'Methecooldude' is not the saint he makes himself out to be, as I was called 'sad' by him, in an equally as offensive tone. Please don't think I'm being rude - indeed, I am going to take all your advice on board with regards to my future edits, but just bear in mind that 'Methecooldude' was not exactly what one would call 'polite' either.

My second point relates to my campaign against ClueBot NG, a bot I am quite frankly all too familiar with now. I am well within my rights to continue with my petition against ClueBot NG, standing up for what I (and many others) believe in. To block me solely for my Anti-ClueBot NG beliefs would be grossly violating my human rights, and I will be pursuing the campaign. Additionally, I feel I am well within my rights to have documented my petition against ClueBot NG in an objective and factual manner, which I feel I achieved in my Wikipedia page entitled 'The Anti-ClueBot NG Movement', complete with references, as I see user Yngvadottir so observantly notes above. In light of this, I have requested full feedback from user JohnCD, who outright rejected my contest to Speedy Deletion, with no explanation whatsoever, leaving me feeling confused and quite frankly oppressed by the system itself.

Many thanks, Boomage (talk) 22:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)Boomage

Hey, Boomage, I think you have a few misunderstandings on a few points. First, you don't have any rights on Wikipedia; it is a website that is privately-owned (by a non-profit, but privately-owned nonetheless), and as such, you have only the rights that are allowed to you but the owners. So, it's better not to talk about things like human rights being violated; it carries no weight, and may in fact be offensive to those people in the world whose real human rights have been, or are being, violated.

JohnCD was correct to delete your page, as it was an article on a non-notable subject. See the notability page, and some others, for more information on this. In a nutshell, though, your "Anti-ClueBot" crusade would need to have been specifically reported on in multiple, independent, reliable sources for it to have a Wikipedia article. Though you cite sources in your article, none talk about your movement, and in fact were all published long before your movement was started. So they don't help to establish notability. You should really drop this issue altogether, as you will get exactly nowhere with it, but if you really want to, it would be acceptable for you to create a page compiling evidence for your complaints within your userspace, like your sandbox, for example. Don't make it in the regular article space. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Good afternoon Boomage

Just a few comments from a passing admin who reviews ClueBot NG's interface.

Firstly, I have reviewed the edits that the bot warned you for and yes, in a couple of instances the edits were genuine. However, if an edit you feel was not vandalism, then all you need to do is report it here, one of ClueBot NG's reviewers will then review the edit, if it shouldn't have been reverted by the bot we will then train the bot on that edit and hopefully a case like that won't happen again. However we cannot train the bot if you don't report the edit.

Secondly, you were not blocked previously because you don't believe in ClueBot NG, you were blocked because your edits were deemed to be vandalism.

Finally, I would echo what Writ Keeper has said that you should drop this issue with ClueBot because you really won't get anywhere with it. The encyclopedia needs an anti-vandal bot and an anti-vandal bot is always going to be an on-going project because vandalism can happen in so many ways and change so many times. Without ClueBot NG there would be edits like this one (and much worse) happening all the time. Guess who reverted this edit? Yup, you got it--5 albert square (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello albert square

Firstly, thank you for taking the time to reply. Secondly, if you think that I'm not going to get anywhere with my campaign against ClueBot NG then you are wrong because I have got a really strong backing from lots of people and I will keep campaigning. I do not want you to train the bot, I want you to get rid of it. If there were moderators blocking edits it would be much more efficient than this calamity 'bot'. All these legitimate edits are being blocked by ClueBot NG and the complaints will keep mounting up (probably why I have such a strong backing in my campaign to get rid of ClueBot NG).

Finally, I would just like to thank you for the polite way you spoke to me and I have sincere respect for you albert square because methecooldude has spoken to me in a very rude and unprofessional manner and Writ Keeper was also a bit was a bit full-on, so I would like to thank you for the way you have welcomed me, and spoken to me. Thanks again. Boomage (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Boomage — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomage (talk • contribs) 23:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Clue Bot is one of the best and most helpful bots we have: I very rarely see a false positive. "Campaigning" against it is not a wise thing to do, and a total waste of your time, as it will inevitably come to nothing. You're better off doing something productive. (Besides, if you get too enthusiastic in your "campaign", it's likely that an admin is going to find it disruptive and block you.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'd just like to add that if you wish to request the stopping of ClueBot and you go via appropriate channels, then you are welcome to try - someone suggested the Village pump, and that sounds like a good place. You would need to get a consensus of Wikipedia editors in support. However, an off-wiki "petition" will not be taken into consideration, and the opinions of individuals canvassed on an external site will carry very little weight. To succeed, you are going to need the support of existing, experienced, Wikipedia editors - and as a number of people are trying to tell you, you are not going to get that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello again Boomage

Us administrators/moderators do block vandalism however we cannot be online 24/7 (much as we'd like to be!)

ClueBot NG makes thousands upon thousands of edits a day, of which a very small percentage are false positives. On top of deleting vandalism the bots also do a lot of behind the scenes work to keep the encyclopedia functioning as it should.

I'm sorry but any idea that you have of admins taking over what ClueBot NG does is not going to work. The editor burnout rate would be much, much higher. You may even find that there is more vandalism on Wikipedia and that more genuine edits are reverted accidentally.

I suggest that you read this article that the BBC did on ClueBot as it may help you to understand ClueBot NG and what it does a little more.--5 albert square (talk) 12:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Boomage.
Please tell me where I have been so called "rude" and "unprofessional" in my exchanges with you and also where I make out to be a saint, then I may apologise to you. Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail 18:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we can assume that you haven't in fact been rude or unprofessional, and that we can move on. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I hear that, I'm sure nobody will mind me closing this :) - Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail 15:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Pulled back 23/03/13 - It seems they are still not finished with this debate with the recent post on my talk page - Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail 00:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Let it go. Seriously. --Onorem♠Dil 02:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I am quite happy to let it go... it seems that Boomage is not - Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail 02:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Let it go. Seriously. After this long, you bring all this nonsense back to the board. Just ignore him. Let it go. Seriously. --Onorem♠Dil 02:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

In my experience, the best way to stop talking about something is to stop talking about it. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Z554

I've just responded to this report of Z554 at the EWN from CarolMooreDC. I've blocked Z554 for edit warring, but Carol suggested that this may be a sockpuppet of JarlaxleArtemis. I'm not so experienced in this area and don't have all the background info; could someone who knows this case a little better investigate please? Thanks. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, my brain is too fried from all the nonsense lately to figure out how to do a proper WP:sock puppet investigation, or check user, besides just tagging User pages or coming here. CarolMooreDC🗽 15:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide some evidence in support of your claim, Carol?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The reasoning is that one of the accounts mentioned above #User:Axlerun is Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/JarlaxleArtemis posted information to Z's talk page. While there is also other commonality between the three accounts, and possibly an SPI would be warranted they look like good faith (albeit partisan) accounts, more likely to be simply socks of each other than of JarlaxleArtemis, if anything. But I am not an expert in Grawpisms, so comment by a regular Grawp hunter would be useful. Rich Farmbrough, 19:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC).

(edit conflict) I don't know if this is remotely useful coming from me, and with such a statistically insignificant sample, but Z554's edits to Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism (diff, diff, diff, diff), though mistaken and wrong, nonetheless do not seem to fit the behavior described in the sockmaster dossier there. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 19:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

My hunch is "not Grawp", but I guess we'd need a checkuser to say for sure. Not sure if that would be merited here though, to be honest. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Given all the abuse I've taken from Grawp/JarlaxleArtemis the last month or so (and months previously) I'm not the best judge myself, even if had energy to figure out the process. Three reversions in less than 24 hours plus rather threatening sounding statements on his talk page just seemed like par for the course so I assumed the worse. I erred another time but the editor was much nicer about it, had rational denials and did not continue the behavior complained about, so it did not end up here. CarolMooreDC🗽 21:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Should the latest block be logged at ARBPIA? Some of the edits were clearly violations of 1RR per that case. This editor seems to be having a hard time understanding the requirements for editing in the I/P area, and I think a proper record of activities will be useful. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Z554's comments from talk page

• 1. Carolmooredc acted in retaliation by leveling an unfounded assertion that I am a sock puppet for some other user. This is misuse of process. She must be sanctioned for this.
• 2. Because Carolmooredc is the other party in the edit war, she too must be blocked from editing for an amount of time equal to my block.
• 3. The administrator who blocked me, ItsZippy, did so without warning and without any due process. This must be investigated.
• 4. Since I actually have a life, I'll let it go and wait for the block to expire.Z554 (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

While Z554's response calling for action against everyone involved is rather hasty and unlikely to gain any traction, it does seem that the actual content dispute at the root of this is not a one-sided affair, and at first blush the sock accusation seems unlikely to be correct. I would hope (against experience) that when Z554 returns constructive progress can be made on the disputed pages, by taking things very slowly and calmly. Rich Farmbrough, 19:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC).

FYI, I only reverted Z554 once in what is a pretty obvious POV edit; two other editors also reverted him once on that same edit. See Mondoweiss March 21-22 history. The last editor wrote "Rv NPOV violation, unsourced attack" on his revert. Z554 labeled our reversions vandalism.

User:z554 ran into me during a week when I have had to deal with probably more than a hundred incidents of reverting of my material or personal attacks in edit summary, talk pages, etc. from Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/JarlaxleArtemis and have had to tag maybe a dozen of his sock user pages. (See Special:Contributions/Carolmooredc.) If you look at Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/JarlaxleArtemis you will see that one of his modus operandi - as it stuck in my head anyway - was "he has created one or more non-attack sockpuppet accounts". So when I ran into User: z554 doing the same kind of what looked like vandalism on an article that had been protected before because of JarlaxleArtemis vandalism (which vulgarities evidently have been removed by admins), I thought he's back! An easy error to make given the circumstances. CarolMooreDC🗽 20:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

two user accounts for one editor

Strongly suspect User:Sanoop_robert and User:Rrrobert88 are the same person. Both only edit User:Sanoop_robert which itself is a problem (self-promotion, looks like an article). I left a note on his talk page suggesting he make changes to the user page, but it's such a blatant bit of self-promotion, and the accounts are just used for that purpose, that a speedy delete might be appropriate. – JBarta (talk) 09:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Bwilkins deleted the user page, G11. I didn't peek at it, but I trust his judgement. As for the two people the same person, it is kind of hard to do much at this stage, and more of an WP:SPI issue. To be socking, you have to show abuse. They could just be friends or know each other, we really don't know at this point. Since they aren't using the accounts to abuse or manipulate the system, blocking isn't warranted. Yet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate conduct by bureaucrat/admins, resulting in myself being caught between a rock and a hard place.

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

---

I am bringing this to ANI because an unsatisfactory situation has been reached between myself, a bureaucrat and an admin, and I wish for uninvolved eyes to have a look.
On March 12th I was observing a discussion at Talk:M4 motorway. There were 5 editors involved: User:The Rambling Man, User:Our other kid, User:Martinvl, User:Martinevans123 and User:Gareth Griffith-Jones. There was disagreement regarding the introduction of a new graphic; the first two editors were against the introduction, the last three were in favour. I then noticed that User:Our other kid was a new account which had only been set up that evening, and was only being used to edit that article and talk page, and their very first edit was this. I concluded therefore that this account was not a new user, but a sock of an experienced editor, because only an experienced editor would know of the existence of such a template (or indeed any template). I aired my concern here, in the hope that the sock account would withdraw, however instead User:Our other kid feigned innocence (e.g. here). In response to this continuation of maintaining a deceit, I made a more concrete assertion here, in which I named User:The Rambling Man as the suspected sock owner. I named this user because at the time he was the only logical suspect, as both User:Our other kid and User:The Rambling Man were united against the other 3 editors in their opposition to the new graphic. I point out that at this point I had no idea that such a naming could be a "bannable offense", as I have subsequently been told.
The next time I logged in I discovered User:The Rambling Man had opened a new thread on my talk page and posted 3 messages, all of which - to me - had a slight air of aggression or even menace, and seemed to be simultaneously saying that, on the one hand, I'd better request the checkuser because obviously he's been here so long he must be innocent (see here), but on the other hand also advising against requesting a checkuser because then I'll make matters worse for myself and I will look like "an asshat" (see here). He also alerted me (see here) to the existence of a separate sock investigation which had been opened against User:Our other kid by User:Martinvl (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto/Archive#13 March 2013).
My reaction to these postings was that I couldn't work out if User:The Rambling Man was trying to intimidate me out of requesting a checkuser, whilst at the same time trying to give the appearance that he wanted me to request one. It also struck me as curious that he should be so aware of a separate accusation of puppetry against User:Our other kid. I had a look at this separate SPI investigation, and noted 2 things: first, it added to my belief that User:Our other kid could not be a new editor, because they had found the SPI investigation into them even though they weren't told about it, and second I was struck by the change in the tone of voice from when they were interacting on the M4 motorway page. In particular, they used a tone of address that was reminiscent of phrases used by User:The Rambling Man, for example at the SPI into them User:Our other kid says "The timeline is crap - end of", in comparison to User:The Rambling Man's comment of "This timeline is crap and explains nothing to anyone" on the M4 motorway talk page (see here). User:Our other kid also highlighted text in bold, something User:The Rambling Man is inclined to do.
As a result, on my talk page I replied to User:The Rambling Man and explained that I couldn't be 100% sure of his innocence and therefore would have to proceed with a checkuser. I tried to phrase my suspicion as politely and indeed apologetically as I could, whilst still being honest (see here). Subsequent to this, User:The Rambling Man expressed impatience that the checkuser request should proceed quickly, claiming that he was looking forward to the result as it would result in "the subsequent humiliation of a number of editors" (see here). He also brought in 2 more accounts for consideration, claiming that they too were like User:Our other kid in that they were following User:Martinvl around (see here and here).
In response to this I was becoming very wary and indeed suspicious, particularly because by this time I had become aware that User:The Rambling Man is an admin and bureaucrat. I thought, why is he so keen for the checkuser request to be made, and why does he keep bringing in possible socks who are following User:Martinvl? Indeed, why is he so aware of all these potential socks? Although it is undoubtedly cynical on my part, I wondered if User:The Rambling Man, as the holder of a position of power within Wikipedia, had some kind of prior knowledge of a possible checkuser request. Hence I made this statement, in which I acknowledged various possible outcomes of the affair, none of which appeared to be good ones as far as I was concerned. User:The Rambling Man took this as an outright accusatory statement, even though I was only trying to acknowledge various possibilities. Then a short while later an admin (User:Rschen7754) suddenly appeared on my talk page and stated that a checkuser would be declined and deleted, and that if I didn't shut up I'd be frogmarched to ANI (see here). After that I have not only felt completely caught between a rock and a hard place (because one admin has told me to shut up while a bureaucrat is continuing to express outrage that I'm remaining silent), but I no longer have any trust in the whole business. Why did User:Rschen7754 suddenly appear from nowhere? I very much doubt they were already watching the quiet backwater of my talk page, and can only assume they were responding to this, which was posted by User:The Rambling Man on his userpage just 7 minutes previously. If that's the case, is it really proper for an admin to pre-judge a potential SPI just minutes after having been introduced to the topic by a rather emotional plea from an involved user who just so happens to occupy a higher position within the Wikipedia hierarchy?
This report is already overly long. I suggest that admins read the whole thread on my talk page starting here, as there the whole unfolding can be read sequentially (including the most recent postings occurring after User:The Rambling Man contacted an SPI clerk and the Wikipedia SPI talk page).
The summary of my position is as follows:

• 1) I am convinced some fairly sophisticated socking is being carried out, part of which involves User:Our other kid.
• 2) I never imagined trying to get to the bottom of all this would result in such outrage.
• 3) I do not want to be wrongly accusing anyone of anything, yet neither do I want to be the cause of several editors being "humiliated" by someone who holds a position of power within Wikipedia.
• 4) Because of the actions of both User:The Rambling Man and User:Rschen7754, who are both in positions of power whereas I am not, I no longer trust the impartiality of the SPI process.
• 5) I do not particularly wish to be blocked, but I would rather be blocked than lie. I'm hoping that by bringing this to ANI it can be resolved without either. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:TLDR. GiantSnowman 14:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a conspiracy, I tell ya! The bottom line is that I've been accused of being a sock puppeteer but nobody has got round to actually filing the SPI. I want the accusation to be retracted or proved. That's it. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I thought a SPI was opened? Wait it out then demand satisfaction. Otherwise, we the community, expect admins and beuracrats to have thicker skins.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I was never investigated and the SPI has been closed. Please get your facts straight before offering me your pearls of wisdom on allowing editors to post in multiple locations that they suspect me of sock puppetry despite offering no evidence. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The TL;DR version: PCW thought a new user might be a sock of TRM, based upon !vote and language usage. PWC feels intimidated because he is either being goaded into filing a SPI, or feels like he might receive a blowback if he does. It appears that no SPI for this incident has been filed. My apologies to TRM.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

My perspective on the matter is:

• In the last two weeks I have requested SPIs against User:Our other kid and User:Cap-Saint-Martin, both of whom I suspected off being sockpupperts of User:DeFacto. DeFacto was banned about a year ago. Since then he has launched many sockpuppet attacks against me. My SPI against User:Cap-Saint-Martin succeeded, but the action against User:Our other kid was dismissed as being inconclusive. In appears therefore that two editors independently of each other identified User:Our other kid as being a possible sockpuppet, but they differed as to the identity of the sockmaster.
• User:The Rambling Man has been an active editor on Wikipedia since 2005, unless he has "lost his marbles" I believe that he is unlikely to launch such sockpuppet attacks.
• There has been tension between User:The Rambling Man and myself in respect of Road Junction Lists - I created a set of templates to satisfy the the design at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Road junction lists#M5 motorway. A row that has been simmering between UK and US editors for a number of years errupted (IMHO the US editors have been pushing the US line rather too hard). User:The Rambling Man, took the "no consensus has been reached" line and undid a number of changes that I had made using those templates and is so doing undermined my opportunity to try and get consensus. In the circumstances I would have expected him to try and broker a consensus rather than take one side so strongly. As it is, I have proposed taking this to DRN.

In short then, I still believe that User:Our other kid is a sockpuppet - at this stage I am not prepared to identify a sockmaster, but I do not believe it to be User:The Rambling Man. On the other hand, I believe that User:The Rambling Man made a number of errors of judgement in his handling of the RJL issues. I trust that these errors of judgement (if indeed they are errors of judgement) will be resolved in the DRN. Martinvl (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I removed templates you had unilaterally decided to use despite there being no consensus at the project. That's all. But thanks for your assessment of the likelihood (or otherwise) of me being a sock puppet master. Sometimes I do lose my marbles, but it still wouldn't make me suddenly create nefarious accounts just to argue the toss over the use of a timeline or a template on the M4 article. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• I read most of the wall of text, then got fed up. Being serious, I do understand why you created that sock link, PaleCloudedWhite. That said, DeFacto is a notorious sockpuppeter, and this is well within his standard procedure. Just because the user you accused of socking was aware of a SPI against the suspected sock is not a reason to be suspicious. You've also made several allegations about The Rambling Man, with either non-existent or flimsy evidence. Not that the SPI that was actually raised against Our other kid was much stronger. PaleCloudedWhite, I urge you to drop the stick - you've been very WP:POINTy in your request here (comments about the whole SPI process being flawed due to two users, for example), you've got very little evidence as to anything other than a good-faith mistake, and The Rambling Man has been around for far too long for him to suddenly need to start socking (at least, I'd hope so...) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Wasn't there an ArbCom candidate just a couple years ago where, during the election, it was discovered had over a dozen socks? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Maybe, I don't know, but what I do know is that I've actually asked for this check to be performed. I've got nothing to hide. I just need the instigator of both this report and the initial accusations to provide the evidence required to lodge an SPI... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Boris Berezovsky (businessman)

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

---

This is an article about a prominent Russian businessman who has died unexpectedly. There has been a large number of edits in the past few minutes. In order to prevent further speculation about the causes of death, could I ask that it be semi-protected? --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 17:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protection is not appropriate since there were constructive IP edits as well; however, since indeed it was BLP vandalism from more than one IP, I configured pending changes for three days. I added the article to my watchlist and will make sure the edits go live as soon as possible.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 19:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

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

DylanGLC2011

I didn't know if this was an issue for WP:COIN or WP:NPOVN, because its a mix of both, with a bit of long term abuse too. If this is the wrong venue, feel free to let me know.

DylanGLC2011 (talk · contribs) came back under a new account last April after the goodwill for their previous account DylansTVChannel (talk · contribs) had disappeared after several inappropriate articles involving the television network Nickelodeon (UK & Ireland) were created by them featuring only promotional content. I had attempted to ask for a block as a sock, but since the original account had never been blocked, was unsuccessful.

Since then, I have spent months upon months trying to guide the user in our policies. The editor owns the site NickUKHub and has attempted to use it as a source in the past for programming on Nick UK/I. After they self-confessed in the past on my talk page after a warning they owned it, I asked them to cease their links to it immediately due to WP:COI. However in this edit to a Nick series finale article, they used a source from their own site again. After none of the issues with using our site as an advertising service for their favorite network or using network sites and PR as actual sources have been fixed despite many warnings in the past, I issued a final warning to them asking the user to adhere to our policies. The warning was blanked, and this afternoon the user sourced the premiere of a network series to the network's website, one that was incorrect and unable to actually be found in the network's listings, along with still being a month in the future; WP:TV guidance in the past has been to source premieres to reliable neutral media and usually only two weeks before.

I have been more than patient with this user, who has continued to insist on adding advertorial content to List of programmes broadcast by Nickelodeon (UK & Ireland) despite two successful AfDs (1 & 2) against having that promotional content in our articles in any form. The editor's insistence on not using neutral stories, insisting expirable television listings are acceptable sources, along with promotional 'here's whats on Sky' content on sources, suggest this user is not here at all to build an encyclopedia, but to solely build a resume to work in the promo department of their favorite cable network against our guidelines. I didn't want to raise my voice about this because I thought guiding this user by pointing out our policies would eventually make them a worthwhile editor, but at this point, I cannot see them being reformed, especially with the name jump a year back. Nate • (chatter) 21:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

List of Adventure Time characters edits

321Wikiman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Recently, I've been reverting an edit made to this article concerning the addition of the one-note character Goliad to the "Minor characters" subsections. In order to maintain order on this page and make sure it doesn't spiral into fancruft, I've tried to limit the character additions to individuals who have contributed to the show and/or have appeared in more than just one episode (ie, recurring. No background characters, etc). User:321Wikiman, however, keeps adding this character (who appeared in only one episode) to the recurring characters subsection. Furthermore, the editor includes information concerning the characters "return", when if you read the link cited, it says no such thing at all. I have discussed the edits, kindly, with the editor on their talk page, and myself on the history page, but they seem to either not understand the issues or are trying to disrupt the page (for instance, when I explained myself on the talk page, their rationale for adding the info was: "But Goliad is way better than Princess Bubblegum snd both Goliad and Stormo need to be seen again and Princess Bubblegum needs to die."). This has just recently started up again; originally, the characters were a part of the main page, and the editor did it there too (here and here are just a few examples). To make matters worse, almost all of Wikiman's edits to the AT pages have been reverted, if not by me, then by others (often unrelated to the project at hand). I'm at a loss at what to do. I don't think the editor is trying to be disruptive, but everything I've told them has apparently gone in one ear and out the other.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Goliad makes a cameo in the Princess Cookie episode, mean she appeared in Adventure Time more than once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 321Wikiman (talk • contribs) 19:56, 21 March 2013

• If it's a minor cameo, I don't think it really counts. Personally, I think truly minor characters shouldn't been in the article (or any article), but I know that would meet short shrift with many. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

If and when Goliad appears in another episode, in more than a minor role, then will be the time to add her.--Auric talk 10:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

And the disruptive editing continues...--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

AFC reviews carried out by Ckenn18

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

---

I'm very concerned about the appropriateness of a very large number of reviews carried out recently by user User:Ckenn18. I think this strongly merits a look over, as personally I think they need to be undone en masse.

Examples:

• this article was reviewed in apparently about 20 seconds diff

I'm happy to add more examples if necessary. --_nonsense ferret 15:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Think you provided the wrong diff there. No way is that 20 seconds... The submission decline date on it is very odd though. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually I was probably being generous with the 20 seconds - he did 4 such reviews in the space of a minute while doing that one - see list of contributions - his goal seems to have been to review and approve an article that he had tried several times unsuccessfully to get kept in mainspace, and that looks to me like a whole lot of collateral damage --_nonsense ferret 16:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think an en masse revert would be appropriate, because some of those are valid declines. I did revert his decline of Chris Dolan, though, because that appeared to properly establish notability.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

A correct decline for the 'wrong reason' is as unhelpful if not more so than an incorrect decision - he has used 'NOT' reason many times, and that will be very discouraging to people who submitted articles and were perhaps only a citation or two away from being accepted. I think you are proposing that someone should manually look through them all and check them - is that realistic? --_nonsense ferret 16:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Ah, I see what you mean nonsenseferret about the timeframe - I thought you meant 20 seconds after the AfC was started. That AfC isn't ready for mainspace yet (it's a bit too promotional for my liking), but it's certainly not ready to be declined either. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

It might be worth checking that Arlene Zelina, which Ckenn18 created at AfC and then moved into article space today (without waiting for a review) is substantially different from the one deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arlene Zelina. The current version seems largely referenced to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and blogs. Voceditenore (talk) 16:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems he just removed the submission template in some of the submissions: [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78]. Nimuaq (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I saw this so have started foing through them all. Not only are a lot of the declines wrong, he's removing the 'submitted' templates instead of declining, and is copying a decline template which is then messing up the template coding (timestamps). - Happysailor ^(Talk) 17:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

thanks for doing that - he also failed to notify any of the submitters either --_nonsense ferret 17:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I've just deleted Arlene Zelina as was a duplicate of a version of the article deleted at AfD. Dougweller (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Likely using sockpuppets too - see [79] which shows removing warnings from the first user's page and contributing to the original deletion discussion --_nonsense ferret 17:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm going to his talkpage and making a (in)formal request he either slow down or ask for help if he doesn't understand. If he doesn't heed that, he needs a topic ban from AfC reviews. gwickwire^talk_editing 17:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hell, I'd missed the fact that he's the one that created Arlene Zelina in the first place. Looking at his rapid-fire declines for lack of notability, I'd say at best he's trying to make a point, but it looks to me more like payback. He needs a block, not a warning to slow down. Dougweller (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The further i'm getting through these reviews, i'd probably have to agree with you - Happysailor ^(Talk) 17:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

...and looking at the first few he did, it definately looks like revenge - Happysailor ^(Talk) 18:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• If there's any left, I suggest they get mass undone (regardless of whether they were good or not, per WP:DENY), and then indef this user under WP:NOTHERE - which, at the moment, appears to apply very well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
  • My AGF is out the window. We're either being trolled, or being pissed on by someone who wasn't happy with his decline. Block now somebody. gwickwire^talk_editing 18:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Also, as long as nobody doesn't want me to, I'm about to just go smashing the rollback button on this guy's declines. They *are* pure vandalism clearly. gwickwire^talk_editing 18:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Mash away. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
      • I've given this editor an indefinite block. My view on such blocks is that they are what they say they are, indefinite, and that editors with an indefinite block can be unblocked at anytime if an Admin feels confident that the actions the editor was blocked for won't be repeated. I added "indefinite - until editor recognises the reasons he/she was blocked and agrees to refrain from such action in the future and stay away from AFC". I don't know what set this editor off and the rapidity of their actions worries me, but I don't need to be consulted if anyone wants to unblock (if the conditions are met of course). Dougweller (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
        • Thanks,  Doing... on the mass rollbacks. gwickwire^talk_editing 19:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
        • All of his declines have been reverted (if they were the most recent contribution), and the removals of tags too. I think this can be marked as resolved now, unless we're going to discuss something else :) gwickwire^talk_editing 19:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Is this revdel-worthy?

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

---

I don't know if this[80] bad enough to need a revision deletion, but a case could certainly be made that it is grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive, not to mention purely disruptive, so I thought I'd bring it here just in case. Apologies if I'm overreacting here. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Meets WP:CRD #2, so I revdel'ed it. I don't think it is required, but I think it doesn't benefit us to have it in the history. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• And the IP has been blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Inadvertent outing

Nothing to see here, move along —Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This edit summary includes a link to a forum thread which outs a number of Wikipedians. The edit summary should therefore be redacted post haste. Rich Farmbrough, 02:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC). Outing. Heavy traffic board. Perfect. --Onorem♠Dil 02:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Why wasn't I notified? Wanna reopen this one, RichyRich from IRC? Carrite (talk) 05:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Since this is going to be archived with my user name attached to an (erroneous) allegation of "inadvertent outing," which will be hidden behind revision deletion, I wish to place into the permanent record the exact text of the deleted post to which my edit summary linked: "Blanking plot summary as copyvio, per Wikipediocracy post: < url >" with the URL a permalink to this specific Wikipediocracy post:

By "Moonage Daydream"

(quote) ". . .Not just image copyright violations. Here is Bill william Compton's plot summary of Love and Mary (T-H-L):

Quote:

Mary Wilson was born and raised in Texas, but by the time she became an adult she'd grown tired of her off-the-wall family and moved Los Angeles to build a career for herself. Mary is an expert chef who has opened an upscale bakeshop, but some bad press and a severe rent increase could put her out of business. Desperate to keep the store afloat, Mary decides to bite the bullet and go back to Texas for a visit; her plan is to bring along her fiancé Brent, introduce him to her folks, and hope their engagement gifts will bring enough cash to pay off her creditors. However, a severe allergic reaction prevents Brent from going; Mary can't afford to postpone the trip, so she brings along Brent's twin brother Jake, an irresponsible jailbird, to impersonate as her fiancé. Jake wins heart of Mary's family, and they both develop feelings for each other. Lucy, Mary's childhood friend tries to seduce Jack, as she knows about the whole reality. But Jake gave up his heart for Marry, in the meantime Brent pick her up back to LA. But soon he also realizes that they both are not made for each other, they cancelled the wedding, at last Marry confesses her love to Jack, and they both get marry.

Here is the New York Times capsule review:

Quote:

A woman pulling a minor scam to keep her dream business alive digs herself in deeper when she becomes involved with a goofy ex-con in this independent comedy from first-time director Elizabeth Harrison. Mary Wilson (Lauren German) was born and raised in Texas, but by the time she became an adult she'd grown tired of her off-the-wall family and moved East to build a career for herself. Mary is an expert chef who has opened an upscale bakeshop, but some bad press and a severe rent increase could put her out of business. Desperate to keep the store afloat, Mary decides to bite the bullet and go back to Texas for a visit; her plan is to bring along her fiancé Brent (Gabriel Mann), introduce him to her folks, and hope their engagement gifts will bring enough cash to pay off her creditors. However, a severe allergic reaction prevents Brent from going; Mary can't afford to postpone the trip, so she brings along Brent's twin brother Jake (also played by Mann), an irresponsible jailbird, to impersonate her intended as she pumps her family for money. Love and Mary received its world premiere at the 2007 South by Southwest Film Festival. ~ Mark Deming, Rovi (endquote)

I sought to give credit where due for initial identification of the Wikipedia copyviolation by User:Bill william compton, and permalinked to that post only. I will now notify BWC of the existence of this thread, a courtesy which was not extended to me, contrary to policy. Carrite (talk) 06:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Carrite, why are you also apparently seeking to connect here an IRC username with a Wikipedia username, when (as far as I can tell) the Wikipedia editor does not mention that connection on-wiki? Particularly when I really don't see what any of the above has to do with IRC at all. I think you should be a little more careful about such things. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll also say that it's pretty obvious the site in question has outing on it, and per the recent events, we just don't link to it at all right now. Screenshot it if you must. Copy it. Do something that doesn't link to the site that definitely has outing on it. gwickwire^talk_editing 17:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

So, if the New York Times outed someone, would that mean we had to remove all our links to that site? I think not. A link to a particular forum thread that does not involve outing (it doesn't, right?) should not be problematic. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

An oversighter has confirmed that it was the page that Carrite linked to that contained private information, not just the site itself. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Sorry for spouting off while only half-informed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't link to a page, I linked to a post. The oversighter is in error, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you should re-look at the link if you have it. That linked to a page, and an inadvertent scrolling would've produced visions of outing. gwickwire^talk_editing 19:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I do have the link, gwickwire and the oversighter are correct, Carrite is not correct. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Is IRC part of Wikipedia or is it not? Is canvassing for action there under one name and opening up another thread here with another name the abuse of multiple accounts or is it not? Is it an example of forum shopping or is it not? Is attempting to connect one Wikipedia account with another "outing" or is it not? These are big issues, maybe ArbCom should rule on this. Feel free to file a case if this thread does not close to your liking. Carrite (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

You can read more about the relationship of IRC channels with Wikipedia at WP:IRC. I don't see that accounts on Freenode's IRC servers are "Wikipedia accounts" in any meaningful sense, whether they use a WMF-related cloak or not; it certainly does not fall under WP:SOCKPUPPET which is what you appear to be suggesting. If you were attempting to make an accusation of a violation of WP:CANVASS, you have made a right mess of it. (Incidentally, Wikipedia:Requests for oversight specifically says "Anyone, at any time, may report issues potentially needing suppression in whichever ways are fastest and easiest", and then specifically goes on to mention IRC as one of those ways; and that's what happened.)

The suggestion of my opening an arbcom case is very interesting. However interesting such things may be, I feel that your repeatedly treading close to the edge of acceptable behaviour regarding privacy is unwise. Specifically I'm thinking of the concern I raised about the connection you made in this thread, your actions in a related user talk page discussion, and also the edit summary you made that had to be revdel'd for privacy reasons. We might hope the last of these three items was indeed inadvertent. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

There was no outing here (or there, or there), inadvertent or otherwise. The edit summary, as far as I can tell, just linked to a post on Wikipediocracy that showed that the alleged (purported? supposed? possible? - no one's sure) winner of the Gibraltarpedia contest had committed COPYVIOs. What we have here is a cheap strategic tactic aimed at diverting attention from the copyright problems to something else. And it was done via canvassing on IRC.Volunteer Marek 18:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

How would asking on IRC for someone to revdel an edit summary, "divert attention from the copyright problems"?

On your other assertion, I'm quite happy to take Fred's word for it that the page linked to contained private information. You may not agree, that's up to you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

We differ, I'm not reposting any links to be a smart ass about it. Carrite (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

How would asking on IRC for someone to revdel an edit summary, "divert attention from the copyright problems"? - that wouldn't, but bringing this stuff up on this board (!) would.Volunteer Marek 19:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Using this board as a place to request revdel or suppression is indeed a silly thing to do. One can understand why the OP ran out of patience, but it's still a silly thing to do. Either way, the appropriate administrative action regarding the link has now been taken, Carrite has been given my advice (which he may or may not choose to heed), so there is nothing else for administrators to do here as far as I can see. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• @VM. I don't think this is an intentional diversion about the copyright violation issue. The violator may well have figured out the right and wrong of copyright law between the relatively early extremely problematic edits and later editing associated with some contest. That may well be the case, but scrutiny in the matter would not be out of line. This is just another chapter in the attempt to BADSITES away each and every link to The Criticism Site Which Can Not Be Named. In this case, invalidly, in my view. Carrite (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Fortunately Carrite cannot "out" me as RichyRich on IRC since I have said on IRC a number of times that it is me, if Carrite didn't know this they should not have said it anyway. This posting did not mention their name, and made it clear that no blame attached, so their outrage is somewhat misplaced, re-introducing the copyvio^{[above RF]} doubly so. Demiurge1000 is of course correct that using this board is not generally wise, however since the edit had been mentioned on IRC a speedy action was needed, and was in fact achieved, for which thanks. The only unresolved question here is why attempts to get a response from Oversight failed. Rich Farmbrough, 04:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC).

As far as I know the copyvio section that I blanked was re-written in a manner which alleviated the Very Close Paraphrase problem that it had. In this matter I shall take the Bart Simpson Defense: "I didn't do it." As for the need for oversight, we differ. As for the permissibility of using IRC as a legitimate channel for an oversighter, I learn something every day and stand corrected. As for you starting this thread without notifying me, that was an obvious error on your part. As a general statement, I think that IRC stinks and that WMF should abolish it, but that's neither here nor there. Over and out. Carrite (talk) 05:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is more disruptive than helpful today because of User:JomboWales

Troll food. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Per WP:ASUSUAL and WP:WIKIPROJECT:WHY? I have become increasingly aware of several moments when this user tried to the system and erratically attack other users with WP:PERSONALSLURS. I am logging my IP address here in fair compliance with Wikipedia's non-free content, which is why I've posted here. Please advise on proper response to situation. 64.7.84.134 (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC) I'm unclear as to what you mean by this. There's no user account User:JomboWales, and the two Wikipedia pages you link to above, do not exist, either. Can you explain what you are referring to in more detail, please? -- The Anome (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC) The proper response to the situation is a Nice Cup of Tea and a Sit Down. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC) There looks to be no issue here, just a mumbling of different things: two redlink "policies", "the system" with no explanation, and another redlink policy. Then they try to log their IP in compliance with NFCC? This may be an instance where my WP:AGF meter is not working right, but just saying. gwickwiretalkediting 19:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Yeah, this is a little fishy, to say the least. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 19:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Neither of the first two links exist, nor does anything that is even remotely close, nor any user with that name, which would have been blocked on site for username violation to start with. I'm wondering if we are being trolled. Note that this is a corporate static IP from WebPerception, LLC. Peeking around ports did find PCoIP open, which I'm guessing is a VPN thing, ie proxying but maybe closed. And all this is public info, not outing, btw. I will let others draw their own conclusions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Note that the IP address had not be used to edit since July of 2011. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 19:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC) my conclusion-dennis outed someone, block him now indef w/o talkpage In all seriousness, WP:CIR applies at the least. Someone action this in some way (if only hatting) gwickwiretalkediting 19:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC) I left a note on the IP's talk page. I would at least give them a change to clarify before taking further action. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 20:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC) What a load of old WP:BOLLOCKS. I suspect this is an attempt (and admittedly quite a good one) at trolling.--Launchballer 21:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Thoughtful response: Let me step in here, if I may, to point out that MOST of the relevant Wikipedia policy pages have already been provided, which I might add is previous to our discussion on WP:DISCUSSION, and I think it seems to have strayed from normal protocol and a focus on content. The editor in questions has presented bad faith contributions directed toward the community as a whole and, in line with holes, we need to take into consideration the fact that "it is just better to shut up and take your lumps than to prove to everyone that you are even more wrong than they already thought." If this editing continues in the personally aggravated nature that it has, we'll have a problem. 64.7.84.134 (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Yes, but the editor in question does not exist and neither do some of the policies you have linked. Those minor details are causing a bit of a problem as well. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 23:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC) This is a mock-report & should be closed. GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Assistance requested...

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

---

There's a little bit of silly business going on at this talk page. Perhaps someone could have a look. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 00:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Very bizarre. I believe that active block notices are not supposed to be removed. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 00:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:REMOVED, editors should not remove declined unblock requests or sockpuppetry notices, but this editor removed both of them. I have protected the talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I would say, however, that perhaps the IP carried that too far as well when getting assistance would have been better (and if the IP knew about WP:REMOVED, s/he probably also knew about ANI). AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 00:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to assume what was known, but I agree that the edit-warring was a bad thing. The IP should be warned not to do that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry notices may not be removed (and that was happening), but as far as block notices, WP:REMOVED prohibits the removal only of current block notices; expired notices, like this one, may be removed freely. Nyttend (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Cross wiki harrasssment

I removed some ramblings made by Profoundpaul (talk · contribs) as per WP:FORUM and issued a standard warning. This caused the editor in question to visit my talk page on the Danish Wikipedia and make 14 disruptive edits. What is the policy for such cross-wiki harassment? --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure we can do anything here. Technically, what happens on another language Wiki doesn't carry over here unless they are doing the same thing on multiple wikis, and need a globally locking. Even then, only a WP:Steward can do that. I think you need to contact admin on the Danish Wikipedia for action there. There are users who are blocked here on the English Wikipedia, yet contribute on other wikis like Commons, as the policies for each are different. If they do something out of policy here, then we can take action, but we literally have no ability to take action nor authority on the Danish Wikipedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

  I agree with Dennis. However, we can do something about the editor's behavior here, which has been a problem. Almost all of their edits have been to article talk pages adding personal theses about the subject matter. They have made a handful of article edits, most of which have also been inappropriate and have been reverted. I have left a warning on their talk page about their behavior. Hopefully, they'll stop.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Bbb23 added a helpful note on their talk page, and I reminded them of some obvious facts as well. Maybe that will help. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
• Noting that the editor was blocked for 2 days on dawiki. --Rschen7754 23:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I wasn't asking for sanctions of this editor on the da-wiki, but for their actions here on en-wiki. As can be seen from the contents the disruptive edits on my Danish talk page was very obviously a direct response to my actions here on en-wiki, so this is entirely an en-wiki matter, and I can't see why they should be treated any differently than if the disruptive edits was carried out on my talk page here on en-wiki. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou spam

Jax 0677 (talk · contribs) has taken to spamming XFD debates with pointless "thank you" posts when other editors post comments he agrees with. (e.g. [81], [82]). These comments consist solely of "Reply. Thank you username".

This sort of fluff adds nothing to a debate, and simply clutter the page, so I deleted them. Jax reverted that deletion, so (probably wrongly), I deleted them again, and they were reverted again.

Is this sort of thankyouspam acceptable per WP:TPG? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

At least, they are highly annoying as you think to see a proper reply on one of the - already excessive number of - XFD-discussions. The Banner talk 00:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• It is annoying, but I think you need to have a discussion with them on their talk page and try to convince them that this isn't helpful before ANI. Not sure of the exact policy this violates, but common sense says it is at least annoying and potentially disruptive if it were taken to an extreme, thus should be discouraged. Kind of falls under WP:BLUDGEONing, as we don't need to reply to every comment in a delete discussion, good or bad. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

EllieBywater and serial copyright problems

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.

---

• EllieBywater (talk · contribs)
• Cambridge University Museum of Zoology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [83]
• History Workshop Journal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [84]
• Constantine Walter Benson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [85]
• William John Swainson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [86]
• Leonard Blomefield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [87], [88], [89]
• Alfred Newton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [90]
• Clive Forster Cooper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [91]
• Robert MacAndrew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [92], [93]

I'd first noticed problem edits here [94] and initiated discussion at the user's talk page [95], and followed up at Chiswick Chap's talkpage [96]; he appears to be mentoring Ellie. I subsequently found a history of copyright violations and close paraphrasing at numerous articles. Overall the account appears to have good intentions, and has made substantial contributions, but the history is problematic, weaving scholarship with passages of copy-pasted text, and will entail a lot of mopping up. COI is certainly a motivation, as most of the edits in question derive from Cambridge University's website, where the account works [97]. Rather than list the many diffs, I've provide links to the articles above, accompanied by links to some of the copied text (by no means a complete listing). A Google search of the larger passages added by AllieBywater will reveal the original sources. 99.136.255.134 (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do would be to file this at Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations. It meets the criteria (at least five clear examples), and the editors there (read:Moonriddengirl) have the right set of skills to take the next steps. I've only glanced at the details, but it doesn't look malicious, so I am hopeful that a bit of mentoring, and a useful editor can be put back on track. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. I've copied the report there. 99.136.255.134 (talk) 13:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing

A Turkish user is currently engaged in extensive edit warring on a number of pages, using several different IPs, to further a Turkish POV. At least 78.160.194.131, 78.160.123.145 78.160.83.240 83.66.212.59 78.160.6.86, 78.160.201.182 are obviously all the same user.Jeppiz (talk) 13:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Because they are hopping IPs and that is too large a range to block as a whole, I semi-protected a couple of pages for a month. I suggest WP:RFPP for protection. It isn't a perfect solution, but it is one that is more likely to actually work, since blocking is off the table. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!Jeppiz (talk) 14:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Those IPs are involved on the other articles (same edits, same POV), so please protect them if necessary. List:

• Timurid dynasty, Khilji dynasty, Tughlaq dynasty, Mamluk Sultanate (Delhi), Kara-Khanid Khanate, Great Seljuq Empire.

Thanks. Zheek (talk) 15:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• I went and protected most of those. To protect, it needs to show 2 or more times with different IPs making the same edit to war, thus justifying semi-protecting from all IPs for a temporary period. Hopefully, I got that right, Twinkle won't work on protection for some reason, having to do those manually. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

You can see their edits, edit summaries, and comments on this template and template talk page: Template:History of the Turks pre-14th century. Template is full protected until 31 March because of same edit wars, POV-pushing, and fringe edits. Read written comments on the talk page, specially the consensus section (and if you write your comment, it will be helpful). Another instance is Great Seljuq Empire. They are same person who uses dynamic/shared IP addresses. So it's better that admins watch the articles which are edited by those IP hoppers (or users with similar activity/edits like those IPs). Zheek (talk) 16:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Subtropics article

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

---

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

Each time I try making an improvement to the article, it is being reverted, with the "article's owner" saying to discuss all changes on the talk page. One look at the article will tell you why this article is in need of improvement. So far, we seem to be talking past each other. So far, I haven't delved into an edit war despite all the reverts. But it is tempting. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

User Thegreatdr remove pictures and tables from the article without discussion and consensus, overuse of templates and also, his edits have signs of trolling. Edits by user Thegreatdr is very controversial, I asked him several times to discuss first, before changes. Subtropical-man (talk) 14:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Subtropical-man believes the changes to be controversial...but so far it's only him since only he has seen it. And when I do try to discuss it, I get told the exact same thing, over and over again. No discussion seems possible. Thegreatdr (talk)

I do not know what you're writing? Barely after one-hours-discussion, you write in ANI. Subtropical-man (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

You're not stating WHY the changes are controversial, in your viewpoint...just that they are. How were the removed tables and images tied in the article? If they are simply examples, you only need one per type. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Subtropical-man does indeed seem to claim to WP:OWN the article. What is more, the above accusation that Thegreatdr is "trolling" is a breach of WP:NPA. Thegreatdr have close to 40.000 edits, so the accusation is outright ridiculous. What is more, the talk page history shows quite clearly that Thegreatdr has discussed quite extensively, so the claim that Thegreatdr isn't discussing is also false.Jeppiz (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• • I wrote "signs of trolling", numbers of editions? - it does not matter in this case. Returning to the topic, in such a situation, methods are used: Wikipedia:CYCLE (edit -> revert = discussion). Also, Thegreatdr, please wait for the opinion of others users in the discussion of article. Subtropical-man (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• • • In addition to all of the above, I see that Subtropical-man has also been removing templates, another breach of policy. Quite frankly, the PA above, the repeated edit-warring, the false accusations and the removal of templates all raise concerns over Subtropical-man behavior. Perhaps he should take a break from the article.Jeppiz (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
      • We can not delete templates, even if they are abused? Ok, tommorow introduce dozen templates to four articles :) False accusations? Where? Subtropical-man (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Have you heard about WP:POINT? And the "abuse"-accusation again vergers on breaking WP:NPA, something the trolling accusation definitely did. And claiming that a user with more than ten talk page comments today is editing "without discussion" is a false accusation.Jeppiz (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Subtropical-man, looking at the talk page of the article, it appears that Thegreatdr has tried to engage you on the talk page of the article, but you have just said "it is controversial" and have refused to actually engage. While this is primarily a content dispute, refusing to discuss after you have reverted is considered disruptive and is not a sign of good faith. Throwing around the "troll" label is also incivil. You need to go a bit more out of your way to explain why you reverted (politely), not just stand your ground and make a broad claim of it being controversial. If you can't work it out, then WP:DRN is the place to go, but you need to either engage in genuine discussion, or disengage from reverting. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• This is much too ripe for ANI. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Well played. Took me a moment to get it. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 17:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I tried to explain what is wrong in edits by Thegreatdr. After analysis, I regret to say: each edition by Thegreatdr in this article is controversial or/and wrong, also his latest edition, Taipei has a subtropical climate according to the most sources and whole Taiwan is only partly as tropical. So, I have a question: how long the article will be changed in this way (controversial or/and wrong)? In this situation, first should be a discussion, later: edits. Subtropical-man (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Then by all means, continue this content discussion on the actual article talk page so we can close this. We don't want to decide content at ANI, just behavior and methods, keeping in mind that in accordance with WP:BRD, if you have reverted AND someone is asking why, you are obligated to make a good faith attempt to discuss the matter with them on that talk page if you are going to insist on excluding the material. It is a two way street. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

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

AN/TPS-43

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

---

For about six years, the article AN/TPS-43 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an its talk page Talk:AN/TPS-43 (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs) have been vandalized by the same person with nonsense "I hate this article, "it is a copyvio" and other stupidity. User:Alexf knows him/her more than me. According to him, if the article and talk page are protected, s/he will move to another page, which is true. All IPs come from Colombia, I don't know if all of them are from Bogotá. Alexf told me he prefers to block them instead of protect the article(s), but blocking them for one year, when they are not static, is not a good move, especially for newbies. I believe that it's enough with this person. Six years doing the same as if this were a play area denotes a more than immature and childish attitude. Is it possible to block the range (I know it is large), or start protecting the articles and talk pages? And officially ban this person from Wikipedia? Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there any name by which this person is known? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 20:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe this nut hails from the Medellin area. He has been vandalizing that article adding pictures at random, sometimes nudes or other NSFW for almost 7 years (first vandalism in July 2006). I do not know how a ban would work as he can easily come with other socks or whatever. I now block him on sight. Started at the usual 24/31 hours and so on. He only uses IPs in Colombia, from home (cable modem), then he tried his school IPs, and now he is now using mobile phone IPs when he finds one that is unblocked. When the article was semi-protected, he started doing the same to the article's talk page. I've no idea what his problem is. Whatever the community decides is fine with me. Frankly I'm getting a little tired of having this article in my watchlist seeing nothing constructive in almost 7 years. As for the name, it is not known. Always IPs, same MO. -- Alexf^(talk) 20:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The first account s/he used, as far as I found, is Macallla (talk · contribs) (edits no visible because the account's name was removed from the page, but s/he has no name, all accounts are in red and without a SPI (as basically unneded): [98], [99] [100] [101]. Perhaps "AN/TPS vandal" is the proper way to refer to him. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Site ban for editor known as Macalla, or "AN/TPS vandal"

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.

---

Per the discussion above, this is to determine if the editor in question has earned a full community ban. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 20:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support - A classic wasp in the park. Macella has failed to behave in a collegiate manner and his vandalism is incredibly destructive. Enough, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
• Site ban for editor, 1-year semi-protect for page. This maximizes the chances that he will give up in frustration -- some of his IPs won't work anywhere, all of his IPs won't work on his favorite target. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support 6 years of trolling suggests something not quite right with this editor. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support just to be clear where I stand. Agree with a year of semi protection as well. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 21:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support More than enough. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support Rich Farmbrough, 05:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC).
• Support The editor has been performing disruptive editing for a while now. TBrandley 05:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Question: How does blocking the original editor resolve this problem? RNealK (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Because their long-term disruptiveness indicates they are not here to improve the encyclopedia, only vandalise and troll, and a community ban allows for the application of revert, block, ignore to their edits. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support A year at least, but probably not enough. We'll revisit afterwards. -- Alexf^(talk) 01:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

I need help from more experienced editors and admins, regarding article Legendary creature

Here is the issue to the best of my knowledge:

The article Legendary creature has a sentence that is under dispute and there has been serious edit-warring on this issue. Check out all the random IPs that are doing nothing more than just edit-warring back and forth. I've tried to resolve the dispute by providing references and sources for the sentence, and I've already reverted twice (and been reverted far more times than that) and opened up a talk page discussion to try to resolve the issue. Even so, there is still edit-warring going on at this moment. Can some experienced editors and admins help out? Let me know if I've done anything wrong or what more I need to do at this point to help resolve the dispute. Does this article need semi-protection? Where do I go from here? Also, should I notify all the random IPs of this too, or just the actual users (referring to the "{{subst:ANI-notice}}" thing)? Thanks. I'm going to go ahead and notify the users involved, but if I need to notify the IPs too I can do that.--JasonMacker (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Just a note, you probably *should* notify the IPs.. But to the actioning administrator, please for the love of all that is Jimbo do not put PC on this page :) gwickwire^talk_editing 23:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Alright, going to go ahead and notify them all. Thanks.--JasonMacker (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and the article itself is linked indirectly from here. That's where a lot of these random IPs seem to be coming from.--JasonMacker (talk) 23:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I've added a request for semi-protection. --JasonMacker (talk) 00:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately the problem here is that JM is defending a decidedly tendentious version of the article; it's not surprising that its attracting outside attention. Yes, they shouldn't edit-war, but neither should he. Mangoe (talk) 03:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not "defending" anything. I'm trying to contribute to the article by providing sources and references to the article's information. Unfortunately, the article is being repeatedly vandalized by IP users who are ignoring the fact that the text they are removing is indirectly from the sources provided. This has been going on for hours and I've done my best to resolve the conflict via the talk page, bringing up the issue here, trying to get the attention of the mythology wikiproject, request semiprotection, and so on. The objections to the referenced material range from saying that it's offensive to saying that they don't agree with the references provided. Those aren't good enough reasons to remove sourced information from Wikipedia.--JasonMacker (talk) 03:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this belongs here, at least not yet. It's an NPOV issue in that JM and at least one other editor want to include deities (including ones believed in now such as God and Allah as well as older ones such as Zeus), while others don't because they find it offensive. This has led to WP:POINTedits such as removing unicorns from the article. That's not acceptable but I think the issue needs to be resolved at NOVN first. I'll raise it there. Dougweller (talk) 06:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not an appropriate addition by JM, for any number of reasons, not the least of which is they will be unable to find any citation that passes muster. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Except for the part where I give three references for the sentence, one of which directly mentions gods as being mythological. In any case, I'm not here on WP:ANI to discuss content, but rather to get assistance from more experienced editors and admins in dealing with all these random IP editors that are removing sourced content over and over again.--JasonMacker (talk) 09:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I've started looking at those references, and so far I find that they do not make the point you are trying to have them make. But that's a content dispute and ought not be discussed here. The only behavioral issues are in the edit war between the IP editors and you, and the protection you've invoked to tilt the playing field in your favor. I'm just as happy to work this out without having to deal with a POINT-y battle between IPs, in any case. Mangoe (talk) 11:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not a battle that tilts in one side's favor. Wikipedia is not a battlefield. The problem with the IPs is that there are over 20 of them, all reverting sourced information without contributing to the discussion on the talk page. How am I supposed to collaborate with nameless IPs that don't give any justification for what they are doing?--JasonMacker (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I quite agree about locking them out. Mangoe (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Legendary creature

There is a request in at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection‎, but in the meantime Legendary creature is being hammered on because of this Reddit thread. 108 edits in the last 2 days, 103 in the previous year. Could we have an emergency short-term semi-protection please? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Not sure you would have seen it but there is a thread on the same topic about 8 above this one - here. For the record, agree temp-semi would be a good idea. Stalwart111 08:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

And there are actually two requests at WP:RFPP related to Legendary creature. Seems plenty of people have noticed the vandalism. Stalwart111 08:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah. Missed that. Looks like we have a legitimate content dispute among the IP edit warring. Hmmm. Do we try to sort out the IPs that are disruptive and block just them? Or is it OK to require the good IPs to register? They are coming from Reddit, and Reddit makes you register a username (no email confirmation needed) before you can post, so that would be a familiar concept to them. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Pending changes protected (level 1)-'d. I'm still just an admin hatchling, more that happy if this is challenged and/or changed in any way.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Good call I reckon. Might want to note it at RFPP. Stalwart111 09:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Guy, I don't think we can start requiring that IPs register an account. Pending changes seems to be the best solution, wish I'd thought of that. Dougweller (talk) 10:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it is a good solution.

So, if I look tomorrow and see a bunch of edit warring by IPs, do I report the IPs or do I report the users with reviewer rights who approved the edits? I can well imagine two reviewers who are in a content dispute each approving IP edits that they agree with. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Which is why I took it to NPOVN. I guess an RfC is another option. I can't see this being settled on the talk page so full protection just postpones the dispute. Dougweller (talk) 10:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I revised the article lead. "Legends" require stories about a life, and stories about God are not really directed towards a life. Creatures for the most part are nonhuman animals. When "creature" is applied to a human, it often is "used as a term of scorn, pity, or endearment,"[102] which is somewhat conflicting with the use of "legendary". I explained the new lead sentence on the article talk page. TheRedPenOfDoom also use that red pen to remove excess material from the article. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Legendary creature

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

---

There is a request in at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection‎, but in the meantime Legendary creature is being hammered on because of this Reddit thread. 108 edits in the last 2 days, 103 in the previous year. Could we have an emergency short-term semi-protection please? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Merged into the original discussion above.

Not sure you would have seen it but there is a thread on the same topic about 8 above this one - here. For the record, agree temp-semi would be a good idea. Stalwart111 08:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC) And there are actually two requests at WP:RFPP related to Legendary creature. Seems plenty of people have noticed the vandalism. Stalwart111 08:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Ah. Missed that. Looks like we have a legitimate content dispute among the IP edit warring. Hmmm. Do we try to sort out the IPs that are disruptive and block just them? Or is it OK to require the good IPs to register? They are coming from Reddit, and Reddit makes you register a username (no email confirmation needed) before you can post, so that would be a familiar concept to them. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Pending changes protected (level 1)-'d. I'm still just an admin hatchling, more that happy if this is challenged and/or changed in any way.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Good call I reckon. Might want to note it at RFPP. Stalwart111 09:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Guy, I don't think we can start requiring that IPs register an account. Pending changes seems to be the best solution, wish I'd thought of that. Dougweller (talk) 10:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC) I agree that it is a good solution. So, if I look tomorrow and see a bunch of edit warring by IPs, do I report the IPs or do I report the users with reviewer rights who approved the edits? I can well imagine two reviewers who are in a content dispute each approving IP edits that they agree with. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Which is why I took it to NPOVN. I guess an RfC is another option. I can't see this being settled on the talk page so full protection just postpones the dispute. Dougweller (talk) 10:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC) I revised the article lead. "Legends" require stories about a life, and stories about God are not really directed towards a life. Creatures for the most part are nonhuman animals. When "creature" is applied to a human, it often is "used as a term of scorn, pity, or endearment,"[103] which is somewhat conflicting with the use of "legendary". I explained the new lead sentence on the article talk page. TheRedPenOfDoom also use that red pen to remove excess material from the article. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Incivility, personal attacks and edit-warring by User:Cavann

Cavann (talk · contribs) has been pushing a primordialist POV in Turkey and engaging in incivil behavior and edit-warring. He has told me to learn to read, called me an idiot, called me a POV-pusher. After I warned him to stop making personal attacks [104], he told me to learn what Neolithic means. He is also edit-warring [105] [106]. Can an admin please warn this individual to to knock it off with the personal attacks and start behaving politely? Any help would be greatly appreciated. It is very difficult to continue discussing faced with such behavior. Athenean (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I must admit I have been discouraged and frustrated after the behaviour of Athenean et al. After easily accepting the consensus of Talk:Turkey#RfC which was about mentioning descent of inhabitants of Turkey in the lead, I made another non-descent related change which was quickly reverted, as explained in the 2nd Talk:Turkey#RfC2.

Also note that the other user who reverted me [107] followed me to another article to revert the entire article to another page [108] (I am not sure if this is Wikihounding yet), and that User:Athenean seems to have a nationalistic (Hellenistic) POV that seems to override WP:NPOV in various Turkey related articles. For example, in this recent edit [109], he lowered the upper boundary to 75% even though the original information was correct, with the 2nd source (p. 264) [110] indicating 90% (and even supplying the page number in ref text!). I know we are supposed to have good faith, but given this minor change was reverted [111], I am struggling with it. Cavann (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Athenean also seems to be projecting his petty nationalistic POV to me [112], whereas I try to be more accurate [113] Cavann (talk) 00:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The only one pushing an agenda here is you, with your primordialist "We-Turks-have-been-living-in-Anatolia-since-the-beginning-of-time".< That and Your continuing incivility are reasons you should be sanctioned. Athenean (talk) 00:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I have answered that here [114] and here [115]. I am aware you are interested in historical tragic issues [116], but keep me out of this nationalistic BS you seem to be pursuing. Cavann (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Admin attention please: User:Athenean is now deleting reliable sources [117] Cavann (talk) 00:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• @Cavann. My revert was in accordance with the consensus of the TP of Turkey where Athenean and I have agreed to support CMD's wording. Above all, please don't accuse me of "Wikihounding" when the Ancient Anatolians link was provided by yourself on the TP of Turkey. I merely just viewed the article and discredited its self-sufficiency due to lack of sources since 2010. If you want to go ahead and add sources that's fine with me. After all, the article looks better now. Proudbolsahye (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Your source is not reliable. It is a bunch of Turkish nationalists claiming that Kurds only make up 6.76% of Turkey's ppoulation, which is clearly ridiculous and clashes with every other known estimate for this population (15-25%, per the sources given in Kurdish people). Who is pushing a petty nationalistic agenda now? Athenean (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I did not add that source. I just follow WP:Reliable sources. Jeez. This is getting ridiculous. Cavann (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Block both editors for repeated personal attacks here at ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

He is continuing with the edit-warring [118] [119]. Can someone please block this guy, he clearly shows no sign of stopping. Athenean (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I haven't made any personal attacks, here or anywhere, unlike Cavann. I have retracted the one statement of mine that could be construed as such. Athenean (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Your open comment in this section accuses him of "pushing a primordialist POV". That phrasing is a personal attack. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Viriditas

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.

---

Viriditas made a factually incorrect and uncivil comment about me:

"Memills has been warned about 1) adding reliable sources and 2) attacking other editors literally a hundred times by now. Viriditas" diff

I replied:

"Viriditas, "literally a hundred times" is false. I consider that an uncivil personal attack. Please retract it immediately. Memills" diff

She did not, so I asked her again: " Again, please stop attacking me with falsehoods, and retract your previous statement. If you do not retract it, I will initiate a formal complaint. Memills" diff

Instead of dealing with this issue informally, her response was:

"Please file your formal complaint immediately." diff"

I request that Viriditas be given a warning to engage fellow WP editors to resolve disputes more civilly and to retract patently false statements made about other editors. Memills (talk) 03:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• As much as it might make us cringe at the horrific mangling of the meaning of the word, the use of "literally" when "virtually" (or something similar) is meant isn't a personal attack. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• • OTH, the word "literally" literally means, er... literally. Especially once it is pointed out. It would have been easy for Viriditas to literally back off a bit... even figuratively. The refusal to do so is where the incivility becomes apparent. Memills (talk) 03:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• No. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Not necessary. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• <edit conflict>Note: Men's rights movement is on article probation. Memills (talk · contribs) is aware of that, he was warned multiple times and sanctioned twice for violating the terms of the probation, see the log of sanctions. Despite this Memills continues to call other editors "anti-MRM patrol duty contingent" and use the article talk page for unhelpful and unspecific commentary, see Talk:Men's rights movement#Ideological meddling as the most recent example. Viriditas may have been wrong to suggest that it has been "literally a hundred times" but it certainly feels like a lot. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 04:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
  • "anti-MRM patrol duty contingent" wasn't meant to be taken literally. Nor is the above relevant to the issue here which is about Viriditas' literalness (or lack thereof). Memills (talk) 04:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Griping about the fanciful use of "literally" is silly. Just give him the old adage, "I've told you a million times to stop exaggerating!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
      • A google search of the word shows this; "2.Used to acknowledge that something is not literally true but is used for emphasis or to express strong feeling." I think this is a tad bit of an over reaction and does not appear to be an uncivil action or act. I am curious why the OP would not think that editors would now want to look into why the statement was made to begin with.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
        • I 200% support what Baseball Bugs and Amadscientist said. Memills, you are literally clutching at straws. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Generally speaking the behaviour of any editors involved will be scrutinised when a dispute comes up, particularly the behavior of those bringing the complaint. If you don't like this don't bring complaints or better yet, don't show behaviour which you don't want to be scrutinised. Definitely, just saying your behaviour isn't relevant is rarely effective, as the large number of boomerangs attest. Nil Einne (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
• Viriditas requested a formal complaint be filed, diff.  A reasonable response is for an administrator to issue a warning to Viriditas.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I also requested a personal spaceship from Santa Claus. Is it reasonable to expect a response from the North Pole? Sounds like you took this a bit too literally. Viriditas (talk) 02:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• What we know is that you are not worried about being warned, which is why you baited the OP.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Someone have a trout? Rich Farmbrough, 04:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC).

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

More trouble than worth?

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

---

Could anyone please explain to me the edits here? At times they seem just fine, but at other times they contain obvious nonsense ([120]). Is this a case of a shared IP? Toccata quarta (talk) 03:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it is a shared IP after all. According to this, the IP appears to be from Bratislava, Slovakia. Not to mention he once added this nonsensical edit to the Krzysztof Penderecki article back in February. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe this discussion needs to be closed as moot. TBrandley 04:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Zhaoweixiong

I have just blocked this user for 24 hours while we try to clean up after him. He is creating dozens of articles on Chinese topics, some of which are promotional, using what appears to be machine-translated text, and has ignored messages on his talk page asking him to take a break. My suspicion is that he is connected in some way with User:Jaguar. I hope no one thinks I've been too precipitate.Deb (talk) 09:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I went and nuked the rest of his contributions as just generally terrible - probably machine translated, barely comprehensible at best, no sources, etc. He has an account and a block log on the Chinese Wikipedia, but I can't read it. Perhaps that will be enlightening. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

And then I went and rescued another that you had saved, Deb - sorry about that. I have asked a Chinese speaker, and apparently Zhao was blocked on the Chinese Wikipedia for uploading copyright violations, which makes his contributions here even more suspect. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there a case for a permanent block, do we think? Deb (talk) 10:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Permanent, no. Indefinite, yes. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 04:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I have revert 2 many times

Feeding time is over Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
oops, i reverted too many times on WP:rd/m but i can't be bothered to make a report because i don't want to be blocked but i admit i did it. sorry.--There goes the internet (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC) awesome. I was just about to go here and bring up this guy's edits... but now the trolls are reporting themselves... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC) rude.--There goes the internet (talk) 04:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Just truthful. I suggest you stop with that bullshit. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Your suggestions are deeply valued.--There goes the internet (talk) 04:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Thank you. Now — what's the purpose of this report? Are you asking for a block for yourself? Or would you rather start a discussion on your permanent site ban? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC) {{trout}} to all involved. User whose name I can't ever pronounce or spell (no offense), WP:AGF. This person came here saying they passed 3RR, they're sorry, they won't continue, and they understand they were wrong. The other user (TGTI), just watch your reverts a little more closely next time. No reason to yell at each other. gwickwiretalkediting 04:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Do your research before you speak. This guy is WP:NOTHERE. (And who is yelling?) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Then say that, and provide diffs. Don't just say "trolls" and other things without proof. That's really mean of you, in all honesty. If you have a problem with his revert war, say so. If you have a problem with his overall behavior, provide diffs and explain it. Don't tell us to "do [our] research", the page specifically says you must provide the research. gwickwiretalkediting 04:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC) The person was obviously trolling here and in their questions at the reference desks. Your intervention here was clueless. You didn't recognize a regular. Mathsci (talk) 04:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC) I wasnt trolling, i Just didnt wanted to be block, so i reported myself so admins coudl see i was sorry.--There goes the internet (talk) 04:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC) What he was really trying to say was that he was a block-evading sock that no one had caught onto yet. That problem is now fixed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Requesting block of User talk:82.227.98.3

I am requesting a block of User talk:82.227.98.3. They have repeated the exact same disproven, unreferenced edits time and again for the Sonny Bill Williams article as shown in their contributions. I have repeatedly warned them and provided evidence against their edits, in a calm manner, yet they seem intent on not discussing and continuing upon their path.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 05:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Since you didn't notify the user of this discussion, I'll do so for you.

Also, the user does reply here; granted, that was a week ago. I'll issue a final warning. m.o.p 05:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello m.o.p. Actually i did notify the user with the relevant ANI-notice. So i am not sure why you say i didn't. Also, the user gave only 1 reply in the numerous times i contacted them. Even then their reply made no use of references and was full of opinionated ramblings.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 06:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

User:81.149.185.174, 213.120.148.60 and others

I wish to report issues with an individual who posts from a number of IP addresses, including...

• 81.149.185.174: already warned once about civility on User talk:81.149.185.174 on 4 Mar 13.
• 213.120.148.60: warned about a disruptive edit [121] on User talk:213.120.148.60 on 5 Mar 13.
• 217.41.32.3: warned twice about defamatory content on User talk:217.41.32.3 on 22 Jan 13.
• 81.133.12.45: warned twice about defamatory content on User talk:81.133.12.45 on 10 and 22 Jan 13.
• 86.181.25.153
• 86.161.219.51
• 130.88.114.111
• 87.112.181.7 (unclear whether this is the same person)

If you look at the revision history for Talk:United Kingdom local elections, 2013, you can see how most of these are clearly the same person. Other revision histories fill in the other addresses.

Said user is focused on UK political articles and the UK Independence Party (UKIP). S/he generally favours more coverage and more positive coverage of UKIP and is often involved in disputed edits and in long discussions over disputed edits. There are possible issues here with respect to WP:BIAS, WP:RS and WP:OR. (One of the shorter examples would be at Mid Ulster by-election, 2013: take a look at edits from 23-5 February 2013 and Talk:Mid_Ulster_by-election,_2013#UKIP_Press_Release. Long, long examples are at Talk:United Kingdom local elections, 2013, Talk:Next United Kingdom general election, Talk:Eastleigh by-election, 2013, Talk:Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election (archive) and Talk:UK Independence Party.) I and other editors have sought to work through these, and some of this individual's edits are constructive and are kept.

Most concerning are the repeated violations of WP:AGF. Some recent examples: [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133]

Again, I and other editors have sought to tackle this through dialogue, but it keeps happening again and again. I have also suggested at Talk:United_Kingdom_local_elections,_2013#Semi-protection that semi-protection may be appropriate for that article.

Said user has been active here on this noticeboard twice before: most recently at [134] and there was an earlier case that I can't find right now.

Several weeks back, an editor with a similar modus operandi and topic interest was banned for sockpuppetry: see User:Nick Dancer/User:Sheffno1gunner and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sheffno1gunner/Archive. I am uncertain whether this anonymous editor is connected or not. Bondegezou (talk) 10:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

There was also this from some months back: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive776#Possible_legal_threats_on_Talk:_Rotherham_by-election.2C_2012. Bondegezou (talk) 10:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Bondegezou I have engaged in constructive discussions. I have argued my case to those that don't flatly refuse to engage in dialogue, to your credit you are one of those people. However there are editors who simply choose to edit war and say No No No, instead of giving an explanation as to why, they also will not listen to a well reasoned argument!

I have been an IP editor on Wikipedia that has realised that there is a need to try and redress the balance here! I am not the only one Bondegezou has mentioned others. A number of us have been incredibly concerned at how sources have been used selectively to put across a particular narrative (for whatever reason)! This can be seen in earlier versions of articles such as UK Independence Party, many people agreed that this was not a neutrally written article. Subsequently the entire policy section has had to be removed because neutral and reliable 3rd party sources were not available, this lead to editors putting across a certain narrative. All many of us want is Wikipedia to be neutral and to reflect reality. In many cases it hasn't in the past but it has improved thanks to pressure through constructive discussions from myself and others.

It is no secret that a number of regular editors to the politics section are of a Liberal Democrat persuasion (and that's fine but it does sometimes skew the narrative of articles and judgements of editors). Some examples of this are doktorbuk who admits that they are a "card carrying member" of the Liberal Democrats on their user page, he's even used phrases like "we must defeat the UKIP IPs" and "But we need to close the UKIP loophole". Bondegezou admits an interest in "politics, particularly in the UK and issues concerning the Liberal Democrats". Emeraude lists one of his interests as "Politics - particularly anti-fascism, elections", for some unknown reason Emeraude seems to have the impression that there are elements of fascism in UKIP, given his narrative (This type of victimization and slurs by the way is one reason why a number of us don't have logons and want a bit more anonymity). Now I have absolutely no problem what so ever with the personal views of these 3 editors, that's non of my business but they do spend a lot of time editing this section and it does seem that they are in charge of the final outcomes of almost all discussions. It also seems that the Wikipedia politics section is at least a good year behind reflecting reality based on evidence.

It is important to note that when I have raised a discussion and the issue has been properly debated, I have accepted the outcome! For this reason I have created no need for protection of any Wikipedia articles! All I (and others) are trying to do is address the balance here! Until that balance is struck, more editors other than myself will come along. I really don't see what is wrong with my argument on United Kingdom local elections, 2013! Perhaps that's why Bondegezou has pointed readers of this discussion in the direction of shorter conversations where there is less detail discussed!

I want to get on with other editors but many of us feel like there is a constant battle on Wikipedia to try and redress the balance. We are categorically not trying to promote UKIP! We just want a greater reflection of reality, not to have the party talked up or down! 213.120.148.60 (talk) 11:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC) (and 1 or 2 other IPs - not all of the above)

I have informed doktorbuk and Emeraude of this discussion at their Talk pages.

213.120.148.60, could you clarify which IPs you are and are not. All those listed above appeared to me to be you. Bondegezou (talk) 11:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I see I am being misrepresented again! At various times I have been accused by these IPs (or this one person - who knows) of a wide range of things - bias, beign a card-carrying Lib Dem, selective citing etc etc. Some of these accusations have gone beyond the bounds of regular protocol well into the area of personal attack. Each time I have asked for an indication of where I have been biased, or selective, or whatever, but never receive an answer, because there isn't one quite frankly. Now, out of the blue, we read that "Emeraude lists one of his interests as "Politics - particularly anti-fascism, elections", for some unknown reason Emeraude seems to have the impression that there are elements of fascism in UKIP, given his narrative (This type of victimization and slurs....." Now, I don't have to explain to anyone why I am interested in things (I also list on my user page Aviation, Education and Law) but seeing as it's been raised it stems from having a degree in political science and having done postgrad work on hwo minor parties, particularly of the right, perform in elections. Nothing sinister at all. And I would like to know how this anon IP is able to state that I "have the impression that there are elements of fascism in UKIP, given his narrative"? What narrative? (And, as it happens, BNP members/supporters did attempt to use UKIP in the past, which is precisely why UKIP now specifically bans them from membership.) (S)he then accuses me of "victimization and slurs", but will not say when I have victimised anyone or made any slurs. But what do you expect from people who vandalise my user page to say that I am "engaging in bigotry"?!

The sad fact is that this person or these people have come to Wikipedia with the express purpose of using it as a publicity vehicle for UKIP. I've no objection to UKIP members/supporters editing UKIP related articles on Wikipedia, but their edits must be like everyone else's: relevant, encyclopaedic, verifiable, sourced etc. I've not seen such timewasting behaviour and personal attacks on the integrity of editors since we got shot of Lucy-marie for very similar behaviour. Come to think of it, wasn't she a UKIP supporter too? Emeraude (talk) 13:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

If I may, the case of vandalism to which Emeraude is referring is this: [135] by 81.149.185.174, which is exactly the sort of problem that led me to bring this case here. Bondegezou (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a serious problem with UK politics articles and the IP editors attracted to them. Inevitably supporters of political parties want to ramp up coverage of their own party, though as a card-carrying member of a party myself I know better than to try! The current spate of UKIP supporters show little or no attempt to disguise their bias, often changing articles without any regard to building consensus (for example, adding Nigel Farage to a page and THEN going to the talk page to retroactively ask for a discussion). The spate of IP editors from UKIP tend to die down after polling day, as it did last November, so I think semi-locks and temp-bans until June should help reduce the spate of problems we have. doktorb _words^deeds 09:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. As it the way, there are several interrelated issues here. Some of them are about content (what is the appropriate way to cover UKIP, a minor party but one with increasing support?). Some of them are about election articles that are prone to vandalism/unhelpful editing from multiple sources in the run-up to elections (should United Kingdom local elections, 2013 be semi-protected for a few months?). I'm uncertain where those issues should be discussed (beyond Talk pages), but would dearly welcome some administrator input.

However, my initial reason to bring this to ANI was about conduct. 81.149.185.174/213.120.148.60/217.41.32.3/81.133.12.45 has been warned 6 times about conduct. There are multiple subsequent AGF violations. Several editors have already tried to tackle this with the IP editor. Is some sort of administrator action now appropriate? Bondegezou (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

For quite some time I've encountered various UKIP supporters who have clearly been trying to push an agenda, ever since UKIP's popularity has begun to increase. The most glaring example has been on Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election. Bondegezou has also expressed concern about the UKIP bias there, and I have agreed with him. Between Sheffno1, 08aviee, and others, it's difficult to tell who is doing what in these articles. Indeed, it seems as if there is a serious lack of WP:AGF going on, as there are many accusations of those who do not agree with them being members of the Lib Dems, while at the same time they attempt to push a pro-UKIP agenda. I've tried to start a few discussions on the UK Politics Wikiproject, but there hasn't been much of a consensus drawn to the above question that Bondegezou presented: what is the appropriate way to cover UKIP, a minor party but one with increasing support?. It seems there is now a disagreement between the opinion polling page (which lists UKIP) and the main election page (which doesn't list UKIP). Of course, I realise this isn't the venue to discuss this issue, but I felt that it's apt to bring it up: if there is no consensus about how UKIP should be represented, it is inevitable that different editors with different views will edit war. – Richard BB 10:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, what I think Richard BB is pointing out is that Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election has a set of tables reporting opinion polling that now include columns for the Conservatives, Labour, LibDems and UKIP. Meanwhile, Next United Kingdom general election and United Kingdom local elections, 2013 have infoboxes that include Conservatives, Labour and the LibDems, but not UKIP. However, I don't actually see that as an inconsistency: what should be in a table reporting opinion polls and what should be in an infobox for a forthcoming election are different questions. You see a mismatch like this for many countries, e.g. what parties are listed in the tables at Opinion polling for the next German federal election and what parties are in the infobox at German federal election, 2013. I actually feel the current balance is right.

That said, I agree with Richard BB's broader point of an unresolved question over how to cover UKIP, and that resolving that question is made more difficult by a history of sockpuppets and lack of WP:AGF. Here is the right venue to discuss the latter issue, of editor conduct. Would it be possible to have some administrator action or advice on how to proceed? Bondegezou (talk) 12:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah right, thanks for clarifying — you're right. – Richard BB 12:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

You probably don't want my input given the past but here is is anyhow: My position is as it was before, in that this election is one of a number of tests in that UKIP have not made that electoral breakthrough at Westminster or council level. I still agree with the decision that was made several months ago in that it is not possible to consider adding UKIP to any non-EU election boxes until after this election! Depending on what the result is, we then consider looking at the 2014 local elections info box. That said, the IPs argument is sound (just not sufficient). In my view we ought to consider mentioning UKIP in the article somehow if they do exceed 2,000 candidates or match/exceed the number of Lib Dem candidates! The problem is how etc, in my view the article is best left as it is until we know the results. If you want to semi-protect the article, I guess I have no objections but the restriction should be lifted on election day at 10:00pm i.e. when voting has ended. Sheffno1gunner (talk) 12:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the same person or not, but the problems go on: [136]. Bondegezou (talk) 08:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted that as blatant trolling. Blackmane (talk) 09:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Never mind trolling - it is an attack on an editor. I've added the IP to the list at the top of this discussion. Emeraude (talk) 10:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Blackmane. While it's useful to revert individual instances, they keep happening with such regularity that some further action (be that blocking certain IP addresses or semi-protection) seems in order to me.

Thanks, Emeraude. I've appended a note given some uncertainty as to whether this is the same individual or not. Bondegezou (talk) 11:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

While I would definitely support semi-protection of the articles (perhaps not the Opinion polling one, as the troubles there are mostly resolved and we regularly get helpful IPs updating it) I think it's against policy to semi-protect a talk page like this, as good faith IPs who wish to suggest genuine changes to the article wouldn't be able to. – Richard BB 11:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, I believe that admins are very loth to protect or semi protect talk pages, especially if the article page is protected as the talk page will then be the only place that helpful anon editors can contribute. As far as can be done, attacks by the various IPs can only be dealt with a liberal application of WP:RBI reserved for trolls. Blackmane (talk) 14:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I didn't mean to imply that any Talk pages should be semi-protected, just certain articles (and then just for limited times, say until after the May local elections). Blocking of some IP addresses seems entirely appropriate.

We keep saying we're all in agreement with each other. How do we move from here to administrator action? Bondegezou (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

87.112.181.7 has now reverted Blackmane's reversion. I have removed the material again. 87.112.181.7 is also removing LGBT references from Prahran, Victoria and Talk:Prahran, Victoria, with something of an edit war developing subsequently. I'm not convinced that 87.112.181.7 is the same IP editor as in the initial complaint, but certainly these actions demonstrate the problem with a number of anonymous editors on articles pertaining to UKIP. Bondegezou (talk) 09:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not a number of the IPs above, I can say categorically that I am not 87.112.181.7 and 130.88.114.111! I can also say that I only appear as 2 of the above IPs! I am not going to tell you which because you are threatening to block! I hope your not proposing to block all the IPs above without knowing who they are whilst accusing them of being the same person! I am also not sheffno1 for the record! Although I have spoken with this editor on another site before, he uses the same logon on other popular site that has a private messaging service.

I notice that Emeraude and the usual suspects have launched a counter attack by sabotaging UKIP's page by adding the following to UKIPs policy section:

In 2011, the British academics Matthew Goodwin, Robert Ford and David Cutts published a study suggesting that xenophobia and dissatisfaction with mainstream parties are important drivers of support for UKIP, along with Euroscepticism. They concluded that "UKIP is well positioned to recruit a broader and more enduring base of support than the BNP and become a significant vehicle of xenophobia and, more specifically, Islamophobia in modern Britain.

It is blindingly clear that this paragraph has nothing to do with UKIP policy! May I suggest that this kind of behavior is taken into account! As I have already highlighted, Emeraude has a thing for anti-facism and this is an example of Emeraude trying to make UKIP appear as fascist by branding them racist and xenophobic and making inferences about their supporters. In this case he has used a "study". This type of behavior is even more deplorable than anything I or any of these other editors have done. I and others have merely tried to seek increased inclusion and coverage of UKIP to catch up with reality (I now accept that certain tests need to be passed before that can happen - we've had that debate, outcome accepted). Whereas Emeraude and others have actively politicized the narrative of articles by picking and choosing their sources! Above is just one of a number of examples! I and others have not changed any narrative or tried to paint UKIP or any other party as something it's not. But It seems some other people are trying to have things both ways! 213.120.148.60 (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• It may have been misplaced. However, your allegations of Emeraude's actions are inappropriate and also incorrect - there's no mention of fascism in there at all. The study seems perfectly valid to me, I can't tell whether it's reliable or not as it's not my area of expertise, but it seems fairly OK. Picking and choosing sources? Probably to only use those that satisfy WP:RS. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Lukeno94 but the above text is not appropriate for a POLICY section since it neither lists or elaborates upon any of the party's policies. You clearly have not been to Talk:UK_Independence_Party#Policies and are not aware of Emeraude's edit history. You also seem to be unaware that Xenophobia and Islamophobia are topics that would be of particular interest to someone who states "anti-fascism" as an area of interest. In the UK at least they are often mentioned in the same breath, so this point can not be dismissed in this way. There are 2sides to this issue: This is not merely a case of IP editors wanting to (rightly or wrongly) increase UKIP's coverage but there is a deliberate attempt to sabotage the party and compromise Wikipedia's neutrality! There is a big difference between changing the amount of coverage a party gets on Wikipedia and politicising the narrative of Wikipedia's articles. To my mind it is clear which is the more serious of the 2! 213.120.148.60 (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Um... I thought I agreed that it was in the wrong place? Also, aren't you doing the latter of those two "sins" you list? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, I apologize for missing that your acknowledgment of the info being in the wrong place. Non the less it is not relevant, we do not seek to site studies about voters from other parties do we? I don't see any other articles with studies as to how many Labour voters live in council houses for example, or how many green party voters are vegetarian, how many Lib Dems supported CND, I could go on. The point is that is not the normal sort of thing to put on a political parties page, especially one that is now widely considered a mainstream party! This is just one example of the unbalanced/non-neutral things that have been written on the page. I have not done anything to sway the narrative to a pro-UKIP stance, so no I haven't committed that said "sin"! All I've sought is to examine the way the party is covered and to argue the case of inclusion to the info box. We have since had a debate and I've accepted the outcome. Non the less despite me having accepted that UKIP will not be added to any info boxes until (at the earliest) we know the results of the May elections! That is a fair and reasonable position to take as 2nd May will be UKIPs 1st national test. Non the less Bondegezou will repeatedly talk down the party on the talk page, hence I (and others) will naturally seek to address that balance by pointing out other facts. Bondegezou seems to take this as if I am not accepting the decision which has already been made! I am accepting and not disputing the decision! So lets just be clear about what I am and what I am not saying and doing! 81.149.185.174 (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a perfectly appropriate place for a peer-reviewed article. It concerns how UKIP policy is seen by supporters. What these IPs want to dois to completely remove something they see as critical of UKIP, their raison d'être throughout.

However, this is all too sily. This discussion was set up (not by me) to look at the appalling behaviour of these anonymous IPs, though it could all be one person. For some reson that I cannot understand (because they refuse to give reason) they have decided to attack me with innuendo, misinformation and lies. All of their efforts amount to personal attacks and failure to assume good faith. We see more examples in the previous comments. They have even sugested - a blatant misrepresentation - that this discussion was set up to examine my actions (Talk:UK Independence Party#Policies on the UKIP talk page: "This issue has now been added to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents .... as it helps to give a sense a sense of balance to that discussion. It serves as an example of how editors such as Emeraude have deliberately politicised the narrative of articles...") I have asked perhaps a dozen times for examples of where I have been less than correct as a Wikipedia editor - answer comes there none. I no longer expect such (and, indeed, it would be impossible for them to provide one). Emeraude (talk) 11:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

If I could just wade in on this, it does seem to me to be completely the wrong section for something like this (whether its relevant or not). It does not explain or elaborate on party policy, it merely gives insights into who might be voting for the party or who is "likely" or "more likely" to vote for the party! That's not policy, its even a big stretch to call it perception of policy! other editors such as Blue Square Thing have previously proposed a section on "perceptions of the party" or something along those lines. That is the only place that something like this could be appropriately included! I'm not wholeheartedly against it's inclusion but as things stand there is not an appropriate section for this to go in. If Emeraude wants to create one, we can't stop him as it is a peer based review (a somewhat questionable one but wiki policy says its not our place to make those judgements). What we can and must do is prevent the narrative being distorted by having something like this in a policy section, when it has absolutely no place in this section! As for further criticisms about this section, e.g. tax it only seems to state the least attractive elements to someone of a left-wing orientation. It ignores the parts of policy that would appeal to someone who might describe themselves as "left-wing", such as a high tax threshold of £13,000, zero tax(inc NI) on those earning the minimum wage. This is another example of how the narrative has been effected, picking and choosing, being selective about what gets included and what doesn't affects the narrative! That you can not deny! In light of this it seems that the IPs criticisms are justified to at least some degree! Sheffno1gunner (talk) 12:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

ANI is not the place to resolve this additional content dispute. I opened this discussion because of repeated failures of good faith by at least one IP editor. More and more examples have followed. Sheffno, you have only recently returned from a ban because of your own edits. We can better resolve content disputes if we're all following basic Wikipedia policies in the first place, like assume good faith, use reliable sources, do not use original research, avoid bias. Bondegezou (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't dismiss this outright it does have relevance to the discussion, as it has been said above there are 2 sides to this story. That said, while it should be considered, it should be discussed and resolved on the appropriate talk page, this is what I have sought to do. I believe that the creation of a new section is a sensible compromise considering that it was wholly inappropriately placed as even Lukeno94 agreed along with the other IPs and sheffno1. As for sheffno1's conduct, he has served his ban and should be treated as any other editor! Besides the fact that is not the matter up for discussion here! 130.88.115.61 (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've blocked Sheffno1gunner for two months for sockpuppetry. The IPs have each been given shorter blocks. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 21:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. For clarification, the sockpuppetry investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sheffno1gunner/Archive#06_March_2013 has concluded that Sheffno1gunner is 213.120.148.60, 81.149.185.174 and others. I opened this discussion suggesting a ban on the grounds of incivility and disruptive editing should be considered. However, a ban on the basis of sockpuppetry has much the same effect. I don't personally see the need for any further action now; we'll see if there is any need to re-visit this issue in the future. Bondegezou (talk) 10:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

31.87.25.120

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

---

The IP in the heading has been repeatedly following User:Dougweller around and reverting him with insulting edit summaries. See the contributions (linked in the heading for what I mean). ^King Jakob _C2 22:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've temporarily blocked the IP as a sock. If reports need to be logged for archival reasons or the block needs to be altered, let me know. Tiderolls 23:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

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

This was a Paul Bedson sock - not the only one

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paul Bedson/Archive and [137]. Also 213.205.233.213 (talk · contribs) Dougweller (talk) 06:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Blocked 72h, same as the above (note, not indef unlike the closing statement, as these appear to be dynamic IPs) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

hoax, slander or what?

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

---

The current content of userpage User:VictoriaSecretJ of this 1-edit-user seems to be inappropriate and surely out of scope. Over at Commons the (likely) same user uploaded image File:Victorian Model Michelle"Carrolline" Hernandez.jpg, which also contains in its description a lot of questionable legal information about an real (or fictious) identified person. --Túrelio (talk) 06:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks like Someguy1221 deleted the userpage and the file. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

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

RFPP

There is currently a two day backlog, any administrators willing to help would be appreciated. Crazynas ^t 09:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Headstrong4ever

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.

---

• Headstrong4ever (talk · contribs) Bit of an odd one this. I came across this user originally on the I Knew You Were Trouble article, where they made a change to the music genre - a change that wasn't completely incorrect, but was unnecessary (basically, Popstep, the current genre, is basically the combinations of his genre changes), and although it was sourced, the source was less reliable than the original one. At that point, I assumed he was acting in good faith, as my edit summary shows:[138] I went to his talk page today, just intrigued to see what their contributions were like, and was confronted with a literal wall of warnings about making unsourced genre changes to music articles, dating back to July 2012, and they're now on their second block for this kind of thing. Sure enough, when you look through their contributions, although there are some good edits mixed in there (or ones that are close enough), there are plenty of unsourced things going in (I'm going to present the diffs of the reversions, rather than the additions, just to show how many notifications there are) [139][140][141][142] just as a random sample of the recent ones. Now, I'm not sure what needs to be done - they're constantly making edits against consensus, and they've been warned many, many times (in edit summaries and on their talk page), so usually I'd suggest an admin has a word with them, but they've clearly not replied to any warnings, and, in fact, there's no evidence they've acknowledged them, so I'm wondering if, perhaps, the 36 hour block they're on should be extended? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit patterns may indicate someone who can't communicate in English as opposed to someone obstinately refusing to communicate and ignore warning and coaching messages. I would suggest an indef block with a message stating that an unblock would be considered if he acknowledges he understands why what he is doing is disruptive and gives some indication he will changes the behavior that led to the block in the first place. Absent that, what will likely happen is a continuing series of increasing length blocks as it is unlikely he will change his behavior with respect to his changing genres to match his personal evaluations. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• I wasn't going to propose an indef right off the bat, but I'm certainly not going to object to it, and it was what I was originally thinking. I'm not interested in their motives, but regardless, at least 75% of their edits are problematic - those 5 diffs were just ones I looked at randomly from the last couple of months. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Block per WP:CIR. Short blocks do not help at all in these cases, it just makes a page of warnings which lose any impact because it looks like template spam (which it is), ie [143]. If they'd been indef blocked around August, after a final warning, it'd have saved a lot of wasted time. (And they could possibly have demonstrated understanding and then been unblocked). 88.104.27.2 (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S. It would also help if an admin blocked (indef), removed all the useless crap from their talk (which clearly isn't helping), and wrote something simple to understand - like, "You've been blocked because of <this>, if you can explain you understand why, I can unblock you". Pro tip: if the first dozen template-warnings didn't help, the second dozen are unlikely to work any better. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Uh, your edit to their talkpage, by hatting things, wasn't exactly appropriate, all of the warnings were valid, and there's no reason to remove them. Not really sure what your point was, after the first bit? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The above is in reference to [144], undone [145].

Luke, do you really think that those 18 template-warnings are helping the situation, considering that the user has nor responded to any of them? 88.104.27.2 (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• It's irrelevant whether they're helping the situation or not. Fact is, as I said, you're neither an admin nor that user: it's inappropriate to collapse them off your own bat. That's why I undid the collapsing - if an admin decides to go and collapse, hat, delete or incinerate it, I don't care - but it's not for you or I to do. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Simple question for you, Luke: Which of these pages is likely to help the situation more, (A) or (B) ? If your answer is (A), and you still object, I suggest you (re)read WP:BOLD and remember why we're all here. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Better to keep context IMO then just leave a pointer to this discussion. That is part of the WP:CIR test as well. Inability to scroll to the bottom of the page and read the last message. The welcome message is valuable. As a user talk page he does have the right to delete whatever he finds annoying on his page. The fact he hasn't done so does indicate he likely doesn't look at them anyway and I agree they are not really serving their purpose now. An attempt to edit while blocked should focus his attention if it matters to him. Some of the messages are procedural, admins don't seem to like to block unless there is a reasonable progression of warnings particularly, like this case, when it is not vandalism. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm getting very confused by the tangent this ANI is taking (and the fact I got told off for not leaving a notice, when I did, but that's beside the point). WP:BOLD has absolutely nothing to do with a user's talk page, it also says that you shouldn't get upset when a bold edit is undone... Geraldo Perez is right, basically. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Being able to scroll through and comprehend of 18 (now 19) template warnings written in gobbledegook is not the level of competence that is required.

Being able to understand that there is a problem with their edits, and giving them a chance to respond, is a better way forward. Point of order, I did not remove anything at all; I just collapsed it, so it was reasonably clear instead of 10k of wiki-speak obscuring the actual purpose of communication.

BOLD has everything to do with everything. And I'm not upset; I'm just dismayed that you've undone a productive edit just because it wasn't made by an admin. That's the sad state of this project. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

This is getting a bit away from the issue of what to do with this editor. The standard warning messages were designed to be understandable and instructive and I do think they serve that purpose, if they are actually read, that is. Adding another attempt at saying the same thing is probably not going to be helpful either in this case. Still waiting for an admin response to all this and should probably hold off doing anything to the user talk page until an admin decides what is the most effective thing to do. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Headstrong4ever is just another one of the Brazilian schoolchildren that edit articles related to the music scene, with the typical Disney emphasis ("Headstrong" is an Ashley Tisdale album). I've been aware of him for a long time. English comprehension tends to be a problem with these editors, and he isn't an exception. It's probably getting to the time to decide that he isn't ever going to make the transition to being a productive editor.

As for the template issue, I hate them, and don't use them except for block notices. I think they accomplish exactly the opposite of their goal: by being so bright, garish, and overloaded with polite-sounding-but-meaningless text, they make it harder for newcomers to get any understanding of what's going on and what's wrong with their edits.—Kww(talk) 22:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

KWW, I agree that the user is probably challenged by English comprehension, and likely won't be a productive editor. My point about my edit (and its reversal) was, that if there is any chance of getting the editor on-track, it's by making things more clear.

I also supported an indef block, until they can (we hope) demonstrate competence.

The 'aside' is, that I believe my edit to their talk was a good one. Per BRD I was bold, it was undone, so we're discussing it. Hopefully. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 22:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The standard warning messages, do suffer from being "standard", I applaud anyone who leaves carefully crafted custom messages, and support IP's collapsing of stale messages here (they could reasonably have been archived). I am aware there are long standing issues with "genre" editors, maybe the simple injunction not to mess with genres would cover the case? In any event it might be worth someone leaving a note in his native language or even the template pointing to his native language wiki? Rich Farmbrough, 01:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC).

The user has made edits like [146] and [147] [148] . Not perfect, but surely not "just another one of the Brazilian schoolchildren" that can't be productive editors? Hey, they used references (even if they were bad ones) - that's 1000% better than most new articles. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC) I've added this at the IP's request, since ANI is currently semiprotected. Nyttend (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth. We have a lot of Brazilian schoolchildren editing in the pop music area. I recognize them from the sites they tend to use for sources and the release dates they tend to add. Many of them are productive. They do struggle at first, though, and many of them never become productive. My use of the word "just" was not to dismiss the editor, it was to indicate that his difficulties are fairly typical.—Kww(talk) 02:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm glad the IP didn't try to edit-war that collapsing back in. I'm still sticking to my point: it's for admins to decide whether the warnings should be collapsed, deleted, nuked, or put in a car compactor, not for an IP or for a non-admin like me (so it should be left uncollapsed). Anyway, back to the actual ANI concern, and I'm still refraining on speculating why their edits are so bad, because I really don't care (unless they were going to explain themselves; this is evidently not gonna happen), so the indef is probably the way to go, until we can decide they're competent/understand rules etc. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Technically, administrators aren't given any more leeway in such matters than any other user. We have to abide by the same policies as everyone else. WP:NOBAN suggests you don't edit other users' talk pages "other than where it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful". I'd suggest that removing notices from another editor's talk page is very unhelpful unless they've asked you to do it. And again, this applies to administrators too, I refrain from removing info (especially notifications) at another editor's talk page unless there's something there that's objectionable (per policy) or if they've asked me to do it. -- Atama頭 19:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

As previously noted, I didn't remove anything; just collapsed old notices. I also said, which of these pages is likely to help the situation more, (A) or (B) ? I think consensus would be (A), so it was a 'good edit' and shouldn't have been reverted. I don't think it breached NOBAN, which is vague - "In general, it is usual to avoid substantially editing..." - lots of scope for interpretation. I claim that the core policy applies - "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." WP:IAR 88.104.27.2 (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is that {B} is more helpful. If those notices weren't helpful they wouldn't have been issued in the first place, and we wouldn't use them routinely. I'd suggest that if you want to draw more attention to Luke's notice, put it in its own header separate from the ones before it, or add a more natural, explanatory bit of dialog after his notice explaining what the issue is (I do that now and then for editors who may not understand our templates). But if the editor is ignoring prior notices (whether due to negligence, a lack of English skills, or not knowing where or what their user talk page is) they're not going to respond to Luke's notice no matter how you clean up their user talk page. I understand what you're trying to do and I think it's commendable, but I don't think it's the correct thing to do (either here, or on editors' talk pages in general). -- Atama頭 20:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that collapsing the block notices was a little overdoing it, but as for the rest, I think it was an improvement. We've had WP:DTTR for a while. I'm more a believer in WP:DTA.—Kww(talk) 20:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• User has come back, and immediately is warned for making poorly sourced BLP changes: [149]. Not quite the music genre issue, but... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't help but think that someone who is likely not English-first-language might be struggling here to notice the detailed nuance of the 20th template message. It's a pity, and I imagine it'll lead to a block; I wish we could've tried harder to get 'em on track. Sure, 99% of the time it's a waste of effort, but the 1% is gold. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Resumed doing same today, see edit history. I reported to AIV as resumption of actions that led to last block. I assume escalating block durations that will probably eventually lead to an indef appears to be the default method of handling this. As I suggested earlier, an indef now, to get his attention, with a well crafted message explaining why what he is doing is wrong and that the block will be rescinded if he indicated understanding would likely be more productive. --Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I think he has discovered his talk page and is open to some coaching. See messages on my page here. He is also asking for help on his page here. Looks like a serious attempt to become a better editor. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm still concerned about unref'd edits to BLPs. I appreciate they might be trying, but I don't think they're getting it. If it wasn't BLPs, I wouldn't be so bothered. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you're right but I personally think it is worth it to try for now and cut him a bit of slack. If it doesn't look like he is serious, further action can be taken then. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

01:07, 25 March 2013 Toddst1 blocked Headstrong4ever (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Disruptive editing: Continued music genre changing - now under false pretense of references) [150] Good or bad, it's happened. so I think we're done here. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 02:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Discussion regarding User:Will Beback

Have started a sort of RfC regarding Arbcom's recent denial to grant Will Beback a return to editing here. I have a number of concerns regarding this decision. One being that it was made without community input and in secrecy and two the evidence to support the original indefinite ban is so weak. Note that I was involved and did see the private evidence in question. It however is interesting to look at the public evidence as quoted by arbcom. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

You're... holding a "sort of RfC" on the user page of one user, with the intention of overturning an arbcom decision about a different user? Certainly unusual. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, an Rfc seems like a waste of time. I'm not sure there's anything the community can do at this point--I really don't think that we can overrule Arbcom by a Rfc vote. I certainly would not want to be the admin to undo the Arbcom block! Mark Arsten (talk) 01:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it's good to gauge where the community stands. It is something arbcom can take into account, and perhaps influence the internal discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 03:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

We can't? What does the WMF say about the scope of Arbcom's authority?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• WP:BASC — Ched :  ?  04:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

If the community takes one stance and arbcom takes another yes we will have an interesting situation. Arbcom did overturn User:Jimmy Wales in this case. IMO the community holds the authority. The main thing is that we have a very small group of editors making decisions that affect all of us behind closed doors. For an so called open movement I see this as strange.

The decision they made in this case has had a negative effect on 1) people willingness to be critical of arbcom 2) peoples willingness to speak out about concerns they see regarding COI. It also deals directly with the policy of WP:OUTING. Does sending an email to arbcom and a couple of other admins mentioning concerns of COI count as outing? And who gets to decide if it does or not arbcom or the community? In this case of course that email was counted as outing and an indef ban was handed out. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think an email to ArbCom can count as outing someone. Binksternet (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, ArbCom rejected the appeal in secret deliberations. We don't know why or what was said, or who thought what. If we find out what the community thinks, maybe ArbCom might just take that on board. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The basic idea of giving the community a way to advise arbcom is a good one, and the RfC format is perfect for that. Having the RfC on some obscure talk page seems like it would result in a biased sample of users, but is some central place better? A practical problem is that those users who get to arbcom tend to be the most tendentious, and I predict that a lot of them would start such RfCs hoping that the community will Rise Up And Smite Those Who Have Been So Very Very Unfair To Them even though they have no case. In the usual case -- a user who is a real problem -- there is a lot to be said for arbcom being the end of the road. On the other hand, in some cases there will be a large number of people who disagree with an arbcom decision, and in those cases there is a lot to be said for arbcom not being the end of the road. It's an interesting and recursive "who watches the watchers" problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you think I should move the page somewhere else? I am happy to. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussions of this type usually take place at WP:AN. -- Dianna (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

As it stands currently, there is no consensus among the community to overturn ArbCom, so this is kind of a moot discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Need help dealing with User:Masterzora

After repeatedly imploring that a user please stop accusing me of having an "agenda" and instead help to contribute to the article, I'm still met with accusations of bad faith.

Please see Talk:Legendary creature where I have told User:Masterzora that I'm only interested in discussing the article, multiple times, yet this user refuses to "drop it" so to speak and continues to accuse me of acting in bad faith, of trying to "game" Wikipedia, and so on. I've said numerous times that Talk:Legendary Creature is not the appropriate place to discuss my perceived misconduct, but it keeps being brought up over and over again. In fact, if you look at User:Masterzora's contributions you'll see that the ONLY contributions to that article and its talk page are personal attacks on me, rather than aiming to help improve the article. After about two years of being inactive, suddenly this user pops up out of nowhere and begins nothing but personally attacking me and accusing me of having an "agenda".

I would like some help with how to move forward on this issue, because I'm not interested in discussing these bizarre accusations of me pushing an agenda, along with insinuating that because I am "an active user of multiple atheist subreddits" (in reference to reddit's subforums which are called subreddits) that this somehow makes me it okay to assume that I'm here to push some sort of "agenda".

If I have done anything wrong thus far I would like help from more experienced editors and admins in letting me know what I've done wrong and how I can fix it. Thanks. --JasonMacker (talk) 07:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Masterzora is a pretty old account that suddenly reawakened specifically to make these accusations. I'm not sure whether it's compromised or what. That said, once again this comes across as not entirely innocent. JasonMacker's participation in the Reddit thread evinces a certain position/bias which is reflected in the direction he is trying to take the article, and which has been manifested most recently in an attempt to move the article to a different title where he thinks his position may be more readily defended. This also is meeting with a great deal of resistance. Masterzora needs to be reined in if he continues, as his battle with JasonMacker is proving to be nuisance and distraction; but the latter needs to consider how consensus is running pretty strongly against him in the article and perhaps back off from what is coming across as something of a POV crusade. Mangoe (talk) 11:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, it is a bit inaccurate to say I reawakened specifically to make these accusations. My first two comments (and the only two before the move proposal) were both directed at content, with only a sentence each directed at the Reddit invasion itself. It was only when the tactic was changed to the move that the content of my comments became one of accusations. And this does pertain to the fact that I am an old account being reawakened: despite once being a fairly frequent contributor I let the account wither because I was becoming increasingly frustrated with editors who seemed more concerned with maintaining a position than with increasing the quality of the wiki. I revived the account because I was specifically seeking to stop an external invasion of people who fit that very description from succeeding at making their vandalism stick. And once I'm sure they won't succeed, this account will wither away once again, probably until I am linked to another invasion.

And so this brings us to the proposal to move. I, and other editors, have pointed out content-based reasons to oppose the move. In a perfect world, that should be it. However, I also believe it foolish to believe that the move is strictly about improving content and future commentors and any potential closing admin need to be aware of the other factors involved before weighing in or moving the article. Perhaps I am unsupported by policy, but I firmly believe that any change put forth by a POV invasion that helps further the cause of said invasion requires greater scrutiny and a higher standard to actually put in effect. In order to actually make people aware, the comments have to be somewhere they'll see them, hence putting them in the proposal to move. Further, poking through his history, JasonMacker seems to have been a useful contributor before this incident so I did not want to seek any action against him and hence me not opening an ANI as he has done.

I will admit that, especially with Wikipedia's rudimentary "threading", my comments seem to be rather distracting in their current location. As such, while I will firmly stand by their content and current inclusion, I will refrain from adding onto them. However, if he continues the crusade of his invasion, and especially if he continues trying to hide behind policies that don't even support him, I will look to reverse my current position and actually take action against him. -- Masterzora (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Bedson again - this time randomly reverting me

213.205.235.142 (talk · contribs) - blocked IP for 24 hours and reverted. This time he's just reverting me at various articles he's never edited. Dougweller (talk) 10:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

He's a banned user - simply revert, block & tag. Then wait for the next sock... GiantSnowman 11:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Bamler2's removal of photograph at Albert II, Prince of Monaco

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

---

This editor keeps removing a photograph of the Prince with President Obama. Here[151], here[152], here[153], here[154], here[155], and here[156]. Three editors have disagreed with these removals and reverted. It was talked about here[157] on Prince Albert talk page, nobody supports his removal of the photographs.

Bamler2 also made this deliberately wrong edit to the article here[158]. Note he puts a CN tag on an edit he created.

He's accused one of the reverting editors(me) of stalking him in this Prince Albert edit summary[159]. Bamler2 also made the same accusation[160] at my talk page.

As for the rest of his behavior, he's accused[161] another editor of sockpuppetry without proof. Sorry but that ANI thread wasn't archived. li Note- The ANI thread hasn't been properly archived, so I linked to its last version on the home page. All but one of the Prince Albert edits took place before the ANI thread started.

He's accused an editor of racism[162]. There are these posts, here[163] and here[164]. In the latter he wrote in the summary- 'removing comments..you are all powerful, can make life hell, even drive one to suicide. I support anything the AC wants. AC is perfect.Sorry.Sorry'

This editor is clearly WP:NOTHERE, refuses to abide with consensus, and makes untrue accusations. Some type of block is needed, if not a total site ban....William 12:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

the complainer, William, just vandalized WP. See this http://www.palais.mc/monaco/palais-princier/english/h.s.h.-prince-albert-ii/news/2009/january/hsh-prince-albert-ii-of-monaco-reached-the.1385.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamler2 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

sour grapes, lies, and personal attacks. I improve wikipedia. Prince Albert's article has been improved by me adding a more relevant photo of his reign,not an undue weight of Mr. Obama, where the pic is merely a museum reception, nothing major about his reign or Obama's policies. I correctly add that Albert has walked to the south pole...look it up. William should be blocked for falsely claiming this is wrong info that I put in.....as far as accusing editor William of stalking, look he stalks me again..

WP:BURDEN clearly states 'The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material'. Which you didn't do till now. Where was the source when you made the edit?

Furthering my case for some sort of action against this editor is his 1- Repeated failure to sign his posts. 2- His c unwarranted accusation of me being a stalker and 3- His attempts to disrupt this thread by improperly place his responses.(I've taken the liberty of moving them to beneath my complaint since they are a response to it. Bamler2 knows how to respond on a talk page or ANI thread. He just constantly refuses to do so....William 14:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

using William's logic, if you edit and do not put a citation, you should be blocked. I knew for a fact that Prince Albert went tI the south pole. However, I later thought that great editors put a citation to all work so I put a citation needed tag so I or someone else could fix it tomorrow. William, the complainer, rejects AGF, thinks the worse, removed the fact, and falsely accused me.

as for his complaint about signing, he advocates you break the law. The ADA law is for handicapped people, such as me. wikipedia is great in that it Autosigns. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamler2 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

as far as stalking, the complainer, William, never edited the Albert article until he started.to hate me then followed me there. Stalking is a blockage offence. I am willing to let bygones be bygones and continue putting great facts into WP if we drop this matter and block william — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamler2 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Subthread since this has become such a mess to follow

First, the edit warring by Bamler2 has to stop. S/he has now been warned about that. Continued efforts in that direction will result in Bamler2 being blocked. Second, talk page discussion formatting is here for a reason. Continued unconventional threading discussions like this is evidence of tendentious editing. The editor needs to follow the convention set forth by consensus. Information to that effect has been left on that user's talk page. Third, yes, the user needs to sign their posts. Fourth, I see no evidence that WilliamJE has vandalized. I suspect Balmer2 has good intent but has a lot of learning to do about how to communicate and edit effectively here. Toddst1 (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Look closer. He removed a good fact and falsely accused me of vandalism. Of the billions of people in the world, I am the only to add that Albert went to the south pole to someone doesn't edit that he went to the north. William then falsely accused me of vandalism even though my edit is true, unless you call the Monaco government press office a liar Bamler2 (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

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

123.224.94.138

123.224.94.138 (talk · contribs)

Well, I was fine when an IP editor started an edit war in the article, and I tried to mediate something. They even complained at my talk page that I warned them for edit warring. They still disagreed with everybody, reverting the edits on Joseph van Wissem every time they showed up in Wikipedia. That was still fine with me, and I filed a DRN request which is still pending. But today they reverted my edits calling it vandalism, which I am afraid goes over the top. Could somebody please have a look (the page history and tha talk page should be sufficient) and see whether a block would be in order here, or may be I misunderstand something.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

For the record, it is a WP:COI issue concerning 24.42.67.83 (talk · contribs) aka Jozefboys (talk · contribs) aka Jozefvanwissem (talk · contribs) who edits the Jozef van Wissem page claiming to be the subject of the article. See also WP:COIN#Jozef van Wissem. I think the editor's narrow self-interested or promotional activity in article writing clearly indicates that he is not here to build an encyclopedia. Meanwhile, Ymblanter has repeatedly reverted only my edits without explaining why at the talk page. I just called his revert "vandalism" because I feel like being hounded by him/her. 123.224.94.138 (talk) 13:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, consensus was reached at the talk page concerning one of the versions. You were repeatedly told by at least three users to stop reverting but you did not.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, consesnsus was not reached yet. Additionally, the quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. See WP:TALKDONTREVERT. 123.224.94.138 (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I think we need some help here. The unregistered editor from Tokyo changes IPs frequently, so we probably need WP:SEMI on the BLP to stop his edit warring rather than blocks.

This trumped-up "COI" was the subject trying to get errors out of his article. The IP spent the first half this dispute insisting that the article say that the subject is still collaborating with people he hasn't worked with for several years (including, by the way, two musicians from Tokyo ...just sayin').

Now he's insisting that since the subject made slightly more non-solo albums than solo albums means that the exact name of one of the defunct collaborations must be mentioned in the lead, plus that his most widespread work (the musical score for a popular video game) much be removed, and again that all of his (many) past collaborators should be mentioned in the same list as his (two) current ones. Furthermore, he expects detailed refutations to an endless series of similarly trivial "reasons" why he's right and all six of the registered editors on that talk page are wrong.

I don't think we're going to get anywhere with the IP. We've either got someone trying to boost his own career in this article, or we've got someone who is obsessed with one of those past collaborators. We need help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

One or more users in this case have fit behavioral patterns in a potential SPI case - I would recommend opening an SPI of the individuals identified in this Editor Interaction Analyzer to clear things up :EIC SPI Candidates — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriot1010 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything there that would interest SPI. It's hardly surprising that three editors, each of whom have tens of thousands of edits, and who were brought into this dispute on the basis of noticeboard requests for help, have previously interacted with each other on various pages. The other items amount to saying the current disputants are in a dispute that has spread across multiple pages in an effort to attract help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Headstrong4ever

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.

---

• Headstrong4ever (talk · contribs) Bit of an odd one this. I came across this user originally on the I Knew You Were Trouble article, where they made a change to the music genre - a change that wasn't completely incorrect, but was unnecessary (basically, Popstep, the current genre, is basically the combinations of his genre changes), and although it was sourced, the source was less reliable than the original one. At that point, I assumed he was acting in good faith, as my edit summary shows:[165] I went to his talk page today, just intrigued to see what their contributions were like, and was confronted with a literal wall of warnings about making unsourced genre changes to music articles, dating back to July 2012, and they're now on their second block for this kind of thing. Sure enough, when you look through their contributions, although there are some good edits mixed in there (or ones that are close enough), there are plenty of unsourced things going in (I'm going to present the diffs of the reversions, rather than the additions, just to show how many notifications there are) [166][167][168][169] just as a random sample of the recent ones. Now, I'm not sure what needs to be done - they're constantly making edits against consensus, and they've been warned many, many times (in edit summaries and on their talk page), so usually I'd suggest an admin has a word with them, but they've clearly not replied to any warnings, and, in fact, there's no evidence they've acknowledged them, so I'm wondering if, perhaps, the 36 hour block they're on should be extended? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit patterns may indicate someone who can't communicate in English as opposed to someone obstinately refusing to communicate and ignore warning and coaching messages. I would suggest an indef block with a message stating that an unblock would be considered if he acknowledges he understands why what he is doing is disruptive and gives some indication he will changes the behavior that led to the block in the first place. Absent that, what will likely happen is a continuing series of increasing length blocks as it is unlikely he will change his behavior with respect to his changing genres to match his personal evaluations. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• I wasn't going to propose an indef right off the bat, but I'm certainly not going to object to it, and it was what I was originally thinking. I'm not interested in their motives, but regardless, at least 75% of their edits are problematic - those 5 diffs were just ones I looked at randomly from the last couple of months. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Block per WP:CIR. Short blocks do not help at all in these cases, it just makes a page of warnings which lose any impact because it looks like template spam (which it is), ie [170]. If they'd been indef blocked around August, after a final warning, it'd have saved a lot of wasted time. (And they could possibly have demonstrated understanding and then been unblocked). 88.104.27.2 (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S. It would also help if an admin blocked (indef), removed all the useless crap from their talk (which clearly isn't helping), and wrote something simple to understand - like, "You've been blocked because of <this>, if you can explain you understand why, I can unblock you". Pro tip: if the first dozen template-warnings didn't help, the second dozen are unlikely to work any better. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Uh, your edit to their talkpage, by hatting things, wasn't exactly appropriate, all of the warnings were valid, and there's no reason to remove them. Not really sure what your point was, after the first bit? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The above is in reference to [171], undone [172].

Luke, do you really think that those 18 template-warnings are helping the situation, considering that the user has nor responded to any of them? 88.104.27.2 (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• It's irrelevant whether they're helping the situation or not. Fact is, as I said, you're neither an admin nor that user: it's inappropriate to collapse them off your own bat. That's why I undid the collapsing - if an admin decides to go and collapse, hat, delete or incinerate it, I don't care - but it's not for you or I to do. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Simple question for you, Luke: Which of these pages is likely to help the situation more, (A) or (B) ? If your answer is (A), and you still object, I suggest you (re)read WP:BOLD and remember why we're all here. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Better to keep context IMO then just leave a pointer to this discussion. That is part of the WP:CIR test as well. Inability to scroll to the bottom of the page and read the last message. The welcome message is valuable. As a user talk page he does have the right to delete whatever he finds annoying on his page. The fact he hasn't done so does indicate he likely doesn't look at them anyway and I agree they are not really serving their purpose now. An attempt to edit while blocked should focus his attention if it matters to him. Some of the messages are procedural, admins don't seem to like to block unless there is a reasonable progression of warnings particularly, like this case, when it is not vandalism. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm getting very confused by the tangent this ANI is taking (and the fact I got told off for not leaving a notice, when I did, but that's beside the point). WP:BOLD has absolutely nothing to do with a user's talk page, it also says that you shouldn't get upset when a bold edit is undone... Geraldo Perez is right, basically. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Being able to scroll through and comprehend of 18 (now 19) template warnings written in gobbledegook is not the level of competence that is required.

Being able to understand that there is a problem with their edits, and giving them a chance to respond, is a better way forward. Point of order, I did not remove anything at all; I just collapsed it, so it was reasonably clear instead of 10k of wiki-speak obscuring the actual purpose of communication.

BOLD has everything to do with everything. And I'm not upset; I'm just dismayed that you've undone a productive edit just because it wasn't made by an admin. That's the sad state of this project. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

This is getting a bit away from the issue of what to do with this editor. The standard warning messages were designed to be understandable and instructive and I do think they serve that purpose, if they are actually read, that is. Adding another attempt at saying the same thing is probably not going to be helpful either in this case. Still waiting for an admin response to all this and should probably hold off doing anything to the user talk page until an admin decides what is the most effective thing to do. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Headstrong4ever is just another one of the Brazilian schoolchildren that edit articles related to the music scene, with the typical Disney emphasis ("Headstrong" is an Ashley Tisdale album). I've been aware of him for a long time. English comprehension tends to be a problem with these editors, and he isn't an exception. It's probably getting to the time to decide that he isn't ever going to make the transition to being a productive editor.

As for the template issue, I hate them, and don't use them except for block notices. I think they accomplish exactly the opposite of their goal: by being so bright, garish, and overloaded with polite-sounding-but-meaningless text, they make it harder for newcomers to get any understanding of what's going on and what's wrong with their edits.—Kww(talk) 22:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

KWW, I agree that the user is probably challenged by English comprehension, and likely won't be a productive editor. My point about my edit (and its reversal) was, that if there is any chance of getting the editor on-track, it's by making things more clear.

I also supported an indef block, until they can (we hope) demonstrate competence.

The 'aside' is, that I believe my edit to their talk was a good one. Per BRD I was bold, it was undone, so we're discussing it. Hopefully. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 22:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The standard warning messages, do suffer from being "standard", I applaud anyone who leaves carefully crafted custom messages, and support IP's collapsing of stale messages here (they could reasonably have been archived). I am aware there are long standing issues with "genre" editors, maybe the simple injunction not to mess with genres would cover the case? In any event it might be worth someone leaving a note in his native language or even the template pointing to his native language wiki? Rich Farmbrough, 01:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC).

The user has made edits like [173] and [174] [175] . Not perfect, but surely not "just another one of the Brazilian schoolchildren" that can't be productive editors? Hey, they used references (even if they were bad ones) - that's 1000% better than most new articles. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC) I've added this at the IP's request, since ANI is currently semiprotected. Nyttend (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth. We have a lot of Brazilian schoolchildren editing in the pop music area. I recognize them from the sites they tend to use for sources and the release dates they tend to add. Many of them are productive. They do struggle at first, though, and many of them never become productive. My use of the word "just" was not to dismiss the editor, it was to indicate that his difficulties are fairly typical.—Kww(talk) 02:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm glad the IP didn't try to edit-war that collapsing back in. I'm still sticking to my point: it's for admins to decide whether the warnings should be collapsed, deleted, nuked, or put in a car compactor, not for an IP or for a non-admin like me (so it should be left uncollapsed). Anyway, back to the actual ANI concern, and I'm still refraining on speculating why their edits are so bad, because I really don't care (unless they were going to explain themselves; this is evidently not gonna happen), so the indef is probably the way to go, until we can decide they're competent/understand rules etc. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Technically, administrators aren't given any more leeway in such matters than any other user. We have to abide by the same policies as everyone else. WP:NOBAN suggests you don't edit other users' talk pages "other than where it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful". I'd suggest that removing notices from another editor's talk page is very unhelpful unless they've asked you to do it. And again, this applies to administrators too, I refrain from removing info (especially notifications) at another editor's talk page unless there's something there that's objectionable (per policy) or if they've asked me to do it. -- Atama頭 19:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

As previously noted, I didn't remove anything; just collapsed old notices. I also said, which of these pages is likely to help the situation more, (A) or (B) ? I think consensus would be (A), so it was a 'good edit' and shouldn't have been reverted. I don't think it breached NOBAN, which is vague - "In general, it is usual to avoid substantially editing..." - lots of scope for interpretation. I claim that the core policy applies - "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." WP:IAR 88.104.27.2 (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is that {B} is more helpful. If those notices weren't helpful they wouldn't have been issued in the first place, and we wouldn't use them routinely. I'd suggest that if you want to draw more attention to Luke's notice, put it in its own header separate from the ones before it, or add a more natural, explanatory bit of dialog after his notice explaining what the issue is (I do that now and then for editors who may not understand our templates). But if the editor is ignoring prior notices (whether due to negligence, a lack of English skills, or not knowing where or what their user talk page is) they're not going to respond to Luke's notice no matter how you clean up their user talk page. I understand what you're trying to do and I think it's commendable, but I don't think it's the correct thing to do (either here, or on editors' talk pages in general). -- Atama頭 20:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that collapsing the block notices was a little overdoing it, but as for the rest, I think it was an improvement. We've had WP:DTTR for a while. I'm more a believer in WP:DTA.—Kww(talk) 20:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• User has come back, and immediately is warned for making poorly sourced BLP changes: [176]. Not quite the music genre issue, but... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't help but think that someone who is likely not English-first-language might be struggling here to notice the detailed nuance of the 20th template message. It's a pity, and I imagine it'll lead to a block; I wish we could've tried harder to get 'em on track. Sure, 99% of the time it's a waste of effort, but the 1% is gold. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Resumed doing same today, see edit history. I reported to AIV as resumption of actions that led to last block. I assume escalating block durations that will probably eventually lead to an indef appears to be the default method of handling this. As I suggested earlier, an indef now, to get his attention, with a well crafted message explaining why what he is doing is wrong and that the block will be rescinded if he indicated understanding would likely be more productive. --Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I think he has discovered his talk page and is open to some coaching. See messages on my page here. He is also asking for help on his page here. Looks like a serious attempt to become a better editor. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm still concerned about unref'd edits to BLPs. I appreciate they might be trying, but I don't think they're getting it. If it wasn't BLPs, I wouldn't be so bothered. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you're right but I personally think it is worth it to try for now and cut him a bit of slack. If it doesn't look like he is serious, further action can be taken then. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

01:07, 25 March 2013 Toddst1 blocked Headstrong4ever (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Disruptive editing: Continued music genre changing - now under false pretense of references) [177] Good or bad, it's happened. so I think we're done here. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 02:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Discussion regarding User:Will Beback

Have started a sort of RfC regarding Arbcom's recent denial to grant Will Beback a return to editing here. I have a number of concerns regarding this decision. One being that it was made without community input and in secrecy and two the evidence to support the original indefinite ban is so weak. Note that I was involved and did see the private evidence in question. It however is interesting to look at the public evidence as quoted by arbcom. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

You're... holding a "sort of RfC" on the user page of one user, with the intention of overturning an arbcom decision about a different user? Certainly unusual. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, an Rfc seems like a waste of time. I'm not sure there's anything the community can do at this point--I really don't think that we can overrule Arbcom by a Rfc vote. I certainly would not want to be the admin to undo the Arbcom block! Mark Arsten (talk) 01:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it's good to gauge where the community stands. It is something arbcom can take into account, and perhaps influence the internal discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 03:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

We can't? What does the WMF say about the scope of Arbcom's authority?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• WP:BASC — Ched :  ?  04:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

If the community takes one stance and arbcom takes another yes we will have an interesting situation. Arbcom did overturn User:Jimmy Wales in this case. IMO the community holds the authority. The main thing is that we have a very small group of editors making decisions that affect all of us behind closed doors. For an so called open movement I see this as strange.

The decision they made in this case has had a negative effect on 1) people willingness to be critical of arbcom 2) peoples willingness to speak out about concerns they see regarding COI. It also deals directly with the policy of WP:OUTING. Does sending an email to arbcom and a couple of other admins mentioning concerns of COI count as outing? And who gets to decide if it does or not arbcom or the community? In this case of course that email was counted as outing and an indef ban was handed out. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think an email to ArbCom can count as outing someone. Binksternet (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, ArbCom rejected the appeal in secret deliberations. We don't know why or what was said, or who thought what. If we find out what the community thinks, maybe ArbCom might just take that on board. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The basic idea of giving the community a way to advise arbcom is a good one, and the RfC format is perfect for that. Having the RfC on some obscure talk page seems like it would result in a biased sample of users, but is some central place better? A practical problem is that those users who get to arbcom tend to be the most tendentious, and I predict that a lot of them would start such RfCs hoping that the community will Rise Up And Smite Those Who Have Been So Very Very Unfair To Them even though they have no case. In the usual case -- a user who is a real problem -- there is a lot to be said for arbcom being the end of the road. On the other hand, in some cases there will be a large number of people who disagree with an arbcom decision, and in those cases there is a lot to be said for arbcom not being the end of the road. It's an interesting and recursive "who watches the watchers" problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you think I should move the page somewhere else? I am happy to. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussions of this type usually take place at WP:AN. -- Dianna (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

As it stands currently, there is no consensus among the community to overturn ArbCom, so this is kind of a moot discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Need help dealing with User:Masterzora

After repeatedly imploring that a user please stop accusing me of having an "agenda" and instead help to contribute to the article, I'm still met with accusations of bad faith.

Please see Talk:Legendary creature where I have told User:Masterzora that I'm only interested in discussing the article, multiple times, yet this user refuses to "drop it" so to speak and continues to accuse me of acting in bad faith, of trying to "game" Wikipedia, and so on. I've said numerous times that Talk:Legendary Creature is not the appropriate place to discuss my perceived misconduct, but it keeps being brought up over and over again. In fact, if you look at User:Masterzora's contributions you'll see that the ONLY contributions to that article and its talk page are personal attacks on me, rather than aiming to help improve the article. After about two years of being inactive, suddenly this user pops up out of nowhere and begins nothing but personally attacking me and accusing me of having an "agenda".

I would like some help with how to move forward on this issue, because I'm not interested in discussing these bizarre accusations of me pushing an agenda, along with insinuating that because I am "an active user of multiple atheist subreddits" (in reference to reddit's subforums which are called subreddits) that this somehow makes me it okay to assume that I'm here to push some sort of "agenda".

If I have done anything wrong thus far I would like help from more experienced editors and admins in letting me know what I've done wrong and how I can fix it. Thanks. --JasonMacker (talk) 07:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Masterzora is a pretty old account that suddenly reawakened specifically to make these accusations. I'm not sure whether it's compromised or what. That said, once again this comes across as not entirely innocent. JasonMacker's participation in the Reddit thread evinces a certain position/bias which is reflected in the direction he is trying to take the article, and which has been manifested most recently in an attempt to move the article to a different title where he thinks his position may be more readily defended. This also is meeting with a great deal of resistance. Masterzora needs to be reined in if he continues, as his battle with JasonMacker is proving to be nuisance and distraction; but the latter needs to consider how consensus is running pretty strongly against him in the article and perhaps back off from what is coming across as something of a POV crusade. Mangoe (talk) 11:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, it is a bit inaccurate to say I reawakened specifically to make these accusations. My first two comments (and the only two before the move proposal) were both directed at content, with only a sentence each directed at the Reddit invasion itself. It was only when the tactic was changed to the move that the content of my comments became one of accusations. And this does pertain to the fact that I am an old account being reawakened: despite once being a fairly frequent contributor I let the account wither because I was becoming increasingly frustrated with editors who seemed more concerned with maintaining a position than with increasing the quality of the wiki. I revived the account because I was specifically seeking to stop an external invasion of people who fit that very description from succeeding at making their vandalism stick. And once I'm sure they won't succeed, this account will wither away once again, probably until I am linked to another invasion.

And so this brings us to the proposal to move. I, and other editors, have pointed out content-based reasons to oppose the move. In a perfect world, that should be it. However, I also believe it foolish to believe that the move is strictly about improving content and future commentors and any potential closing admin need to be aware of the other factors involved before weighing in or moving the article. Perhaps I am unsupported by policy, but I firmly believe that any change put forth by a POV invasion that helps further the cause of said invasion requires greater scrutiny and a higher standard to actually put in effect. In order to actually make people aware, the comments have to be somewhere they'll see them, hence putting them in the proposal to move. Further, poking through his history, JasonMacker seems to have been a useful contributor before this incident so I did not want to seek any action against him and hence me not opening an ANI as he has done.

I will admit that, especially with Wikipedia's rudimentary "threading", my comments seem to be rather distracting in their current location. As such, while I will firmly stand by their content and current inclusion, I will refrain from adding onto them. However, if he continues the crusade of his invasion, and especially if he continues trying to hide behind policies that don't even support him, I will look to reverse my current position and actually take action against him. -- Masterzora (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Bedson again - this time randomly reverting me

213.205.235.142 (talk · contribs) - blocked IP for 24 hours and reverted. This time he's just reverting me at various articles he's never edited. Dougweller (talk) 10:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

He's a banned user - simply revert, block & tag. Then wait for the next sock... GiantSnowman 11:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Bamler2's removal of photograph at Albert II, Prince of Monaco

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

---

This editor keeps removing a photograph of the Prince with President Obama. Here[178], here[179], here[180], here[181], here[182], and here[183]. Three editors have disagreed with these removals and reverted. It was talked about here[184] on Prince Albert talk page, nobody supports his removal of the photographs.

Bamler2 also made this deliberately wrong edit to the article here[185]. Note he puts a CN tag on an edit he created.

He's accused one of the reverting editors(me) of stalking him in this Prince Albert edit summary[186]. Bamler2 also made the same accusation[187] at my talk page.

As for the rest of his behavior, he's accused[188] another editor of sockpuppetry without proof. Sorry but that ANI thread wasn't archived. li Note- The ANI thread hasn't been properly archived, so I linked to its last version on the home page. All but one of the Prince Albert edits took place before the ANI thread started.

He's accused an editor of racism[189]. There are these posts, here[190] and here[191]. In the latter he wrote in the summary- 'removing comments..you are all powerful, can make life hell, even drive one to suicide. I support anything the AC wants. AC is perfect.Sorry.Sorry'

This editor is clearly WP:NOTHERE, refuses to abide with consensus, and makes untrue accusations. Some type of block is needed, if not a total site ban....William 12:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

the complainer, William, just vandalized WP. See this http://www.palais.mc/monaco/palais-princier/english/h.s.h.-prince-albert-ii/news/2009/january/hsh-prince-albert-ii-of-monaco-reached-the.1385.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamler2 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

sour grapes, lies, and personal attacks. I improve wikipedia. Prince Albert's article has been improved by me adding a more relevant photo of his reign,not an undue weight of Mr. Obama, where the pic is merely a museum reception, nothing major about his reign or Obama's policies. I correctly add that Albert has walked to the south pole...look it up. William should be blocked for falsely claiming this is wrong info that I put in.....as far as accusing editor William of stalking, look he stalks me again..

WP:BURDEN clearly states 'The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material'. Which you didn't do till now. Where was the source when you made the edit?

Furthering my case for some sort of action against this editor is his 1- Repeated failure to sign his posts. 2- His c unwarranted accusation of me being a stalker and 3- His attempts to disrupt this thread by improperly place his responses.(I've taken the liberty of moving them to beneath my complaint since they are a response to it. Bamler2 knows how to respond on a talk page or ANI thread. He just constantly refuses to do so....William 14:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

using William's logic, if you edit and do not put a citation, you should be blocked. I knew for a fact that Prince Albert went tI the south pole. However, I later thought that great editors put a citation to all work so I put a citation needed tag so I or someone else could fix it tomorrow. William, the complainer, rejects AGF, thinks the worse, removed the fact, and falsely accused me.

as for his complaint about signing, he advocates you break the law. The ADA law is for handicapped people, such as me. wikipedia is great in that it Autosigns. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamler2 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

as far as stalking, the complainer, William, never edited the Albert article until he started.to hate me then followed me there. Stalking is a blockage offence. I am willing to let bygones be bygones and continue putting great facts into WP if we drop this matter and block william — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamler2 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Subthread since this has become such a mess to follow

First, the edit warring by Bamler2 has to stop. S/he has now been warned about that. Continued efforts in that direction will result in Bamler2 being blocked. Second, talk page discussion formatting is here for a reason. Continued unconventional threading discussions like this is evidence of tendentious editing. The editor needs to follow the convention set forth by consensus. Information to that effect has been left on that user's talk page. Third, yes, the user needs to sign their posts. Fourth, I see no evidence that WilliamJE has vandalized. I suspect Balmer2 has good intent but has a lot of learning to do about how to communicate and edit effectively here. Toddst1 (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Look closer. He removed a good fact and falsely accused me of vandalism. Of the billions of people in the world, I am the only to add that Albert went to the south pole to someone doesn't edit that he went to the north. William then falsely accused me of vandalism even though my edit is true, unless you call the Monaco government press office a liar Bamler2 (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

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

123.224.94.138

123.224.94.138 (talk · contribs)

Well, I was fine when an IP editor started an edit war in the article, and I tried to mediate something. They even complained at my talk page that I warned them for edit warring. They still disagreed with everybody, reverting the edits on Joseph van Wissem every time they showed up in Wikipedia. That was still fine with me, and I filed a DRN request which is still pending. But today they reverted my edits calling it vandalism, which I am afraid goes over the top. Could somebody please have a look (the page history and tha talk page should be sufficient) and see whether a block would be in order here, or may be I misunderstand something.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

For the record, it is a WP:COI issue concerning 24.42.67.83 (talk · contribs) aka Jozefboys (talk · contribs) aka Jozefvanwissem (talk · contribs) who edits the Jozef van Wissem page claiming to be the subject of the article. See also WP:COIN#Jozef van Wissem. I think the editor's narrow self-interested or promotional activity in article writing clearly indicates that he is not here to build an encyclopedia. Meanwhile, Ymblanter has repeatedly reverted only my edits without explaining why at the talk page. I just called his revert "vandalism" because I feel like being hounded by him/her. 123.224.94.138 (talk) 13:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, consensus was reached at the talk page concerning one of the versions. You were repeatedly told by at least three users to stop reverting but you did not.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, consesnsus was not reached yet. Additionally, the quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. See WP:TALKDONTREVERT. 123.224.94.138 (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I think we need some help here. The unregistered editor from Tokyo changes IPs frequently, so we probably need WP:SEMI on the BLP to stop his edit warring rather than blocks.

This trumped-up "COI" was the subject trying to get errors out of his article. The IP spent the first half this dispute insisting that the article say that the subject is still collaborating with people he hasn't worked with for several years (including, by the way, two musicians from Tokyo ...just sayin').

Now he's insisting that since the subject made slightly more non-solo albums than solo albums means that the exact name of one of the defunct collaborations must be mentioned in the lead, plus that his most widespread work (the musical score for a popular video game) much be removed, and again that all of his (many) past collaborators should be mentioned in the same list as his (two) current ones. Furthermore, he expects detailed refutations to an endless series of similarly trivial "reasons" why he's right and all six of the registered editors on that talk page are wrong.

I don't think we're going to get anywhere with the IP. We've either got someone trying to boost his own career in this article, or we've got someone who is obsessed with one of those past collaborators. We need help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

One or more users in this case have fit behavioral patterns in a potential SPI case - I would recommend opening an SPI of the individuals identified in this Editor Interaction Analyzer to clear things up :EIC SPI Candidates — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriot1010 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything there that would interest SPI. It's hardly surprising that three editors, each of whom have tens of thousands of edits, and who were brought into this dispute on the basis of noticeboard requests for help, have previously interacted with each other on various pages. The other items amount to saying the current disputants are in a dispute that has spread across multiple pages in an effort to attract help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the vandalism of my talk page by Deven94 whilst logged out

Hi,

Further to my recent report, User:Deven94 has attacked my talk page directly by page blanking it using User talk:149.254.182.207.

It's a bit difficult for me to link each instance individually, but this link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Usual_people_in_life&action=history

Provides a summary of the edits (which I have now reverted).

Please could someone now consider a block on his account and access because this in my opinion is a direct attack against me, and I am tired of having to revert his edits.

He has also blanked his own talk page on his account, possibly to cover his tracks.

Dev has also been given a personalised warning by WP admin.

Is it time for a block on his access?

If you do block him, could you IPBE (IP Block Exempt) me please, so that I don't get affected.

Thanks, Usual people in life (talk) 13:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• You likely need to talk to a Checkuser. Look at the bottom of the page WP:SPI or find one active on the WP:Functionaries page. This is the kind of IPBE that admin aren't going to even consider without a CU being involved. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that you and Deven94 are on the same IP network ? —Soap— 16:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the quick response.

Soap: The answer to your question is yes and no (it depends on where I am). As can be seen from my account data, I created my account around 2 or 3 years ago at home to edit more effectively. Deven94 only created his at his home around January this year (to my knowledge) simply to vandalize the site as account creation is blocked at college. Most of my edits at college are attempts to revert his vandalism whilst trying to avoid 3RR, (I reverted a batch of them against my user page around 2PM GMT). Unfortunately, me reverting his damage appears to have led to him starting to vandalize my user space and seeming to try to attack my on-line accounts. I don't think college is prepared to contribute to the WP X-Forwarded For (XFF) project that is hosted to identify who is doing what. I can assure you though that the activity that deven94 is generating IS being logged by college servers against his college account - I've reported directly to IT support that he is abusing his WP access.

It appears the same, which may be because I often use a college VPN to access my college files, the result of which is that as a side effect I 'appear' to be on the same network as Deven94 but I'm actually elsewhere (see the logs for this edit to determine my true IP location as I'm currently disconnected from the VPN and I don't use proxies - I suspect Deven94 does use them) I logged in at college a few times to feedback to WP admins that I had notified college admin of the IP edit abuse occurring at college and also to (try to) revert his vandalism.

It's an unfortunate side effect of having such a large college network - everything appears to be from one person when it is actually from over 1000 people at the college.

Is there anything that can be done to prevent deven from blanking my talk page again? I say this because he also blanked his talk page which wiped out the warning Dennis Brown left there. (I feel that if I revert the blanking I will be subjected to more vandalism from him so I'm not prepared to even attempt it, I'd rather leave that to WP admin)

Feel free to contact me at my e-mail address if you need to - I have a feeling that deven will be watching this page waiting to blank it.

In the meantime, would it be best for me to avoid logging in at college or when using the college VPN?

Thanks Usual people in life (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Personal attack by MathSci

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

---

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

---

Can someone please instruct MathSci to refrain from personal attacks at User:Jmh649/Will Beback?[192] I don't know what MathSci's beef is, but they should address the comments, not the contributor. I attempted in good faith to work this out with MathSci on their talkpage[193] but MathSci apparently refused to respond in good faith.[194] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

What was the personal attack? Malleus Fatuorum 23:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

What was the personal attack? Mathsci (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The OP should be warned or blocked for removing other people's comments. I will not revert again, but the OP keeps calling this a personal attack which is in its self a personal attack. --Malerooster (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@MathSci: This has already been explained to you.[195] Please, address the contribution, not the contributor. I hoped to avoid ANI, but when I tried talking to you on your talkpage, you responded by deleting my kind request.[196] Please, if you want to disagree with what I said, go ahead and do so. But there's no need to make personal attacks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

So what was the personal attack? Malleus Fatuorum 00:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear AQFK, saying that you are "adding to the drama" is a personal attack? --Malerooster (talk) 00:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. Yes, saying that, "I was not surprised to see that you added to the drama by creating your very own section." is clearly a personal attack. It says nothing about the substance of what I said, but only addresses me as a contributor. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

ok, I would let somebody else remove or RPA or whathaveyou to that comment, if they agree, thats all. --Malerooster (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

If that's your idea of a personal attack, you have led a very sheltered WP life, A Quest For Knowledge. Bielle (talk) 00:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

You just don't seem to get it AQFK. By accusing Mathsci of making personal attacks you are making one yourself. It's really not hard once you realise that Wikipedia's "personal attack" policy is a complete load of codswallop mainly employed by the feckless and disingenuous. Malleus Fatuorum

I have it on reliable authority that Wikepedia's personal attack policy is in tears at being called "a load of codswallop" and has posted a "Retired" template on its page and flounced off. Yet again Malleus Fatuorum's namecalling has driven a hardworking and respected policy off the project! Oh where will it end! Bishonen | talk 00:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC).

(edit conflict)@Malerooster: Will you please remove the offending part for me? I have no problem with someone disagreeing with me. It's not the first time and it's not the last. But they need to address are argument, not the contributor. A Quest For Knowledge (talk)

Your still not getting it, but here's a clue for you. Mathsci was commenting on what you'd done, not on you. Malleus Fatuorum 00:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

@MF: Pray tell, what have I done? I've been extremely consistent that all editors - no matter who they are - should address one another with respect and adherence to WP:PA and WP:CIVIL. If you can find a genuine instance of me failing to abide by these principles, I'll donate a $100 in cancer research (or whichever charity you want). Does that sound fair? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

BTW, this propensity to prematurely close down discussions before reaching consensus is a major problem with AN/I. I've mentioned this before and I'll mention it again. FWIW, I was not asking for a site-ban or even a topic-ban to the offending editor. I just want them to not make personal attacks. Is that really so much to ask? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

BTW, this discussion was closed down by the personal attacker themselves.[197] Does anyone actually disagree with all the diffs I've provided? Can we have an independent admin examine the diffs and proceed accordingly? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

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

No, I would like someone to answer why it's OK to make personal attacks against me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I haven't done anything wrong and nor has there been a single diff presented against me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

"not surprised to see that you added to the drama" is a comment about the person. "Your comment added to the drama" would have been a comment about what the person had done. It's often better to let these discussions run their course than to try closing them quickly. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

No, "you are a drama-monger" would be a comment about a person. A comment about an action in the active voice rather than the passive voice is still a comment about an action. I closed this discussion in an attempt to avoid another pointless, drawn-out thread that achieves nothing. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 01:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Harassment

In Bodu Bala Sena page I added Fascism tag due to this organization using nationalism and religious fervor in attacking minorities. The user 115.67.197.210 [198] accused me of Hate speech. I wanted the admins to clarify this incident.

• [199]
• [200]

Delljvc (talk) 20:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• You need to first take this to the article talk page. I have to admit, I'm stymied as to how an article on Buddhism meets the criteria to have the Fascism template on it, but I'm not editing there. He reverted it out, now it is upon you to leave it out and build a consensus to include it. Adding it back in will likely be seen as edit warring, and open yourself up for sanctions. If you can't build a consensus that Buddhism is Fascism (??), then you leave it out, or take it to WP:DRN if you have a split consensus. This isn't a matter for ANI at this point. As for "hate speech", the IP gave a reasoned argument on your talk page, he didn't go into some hateful rant, so I don't find anything uncivil about it. There is no admin action warranted right now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Let me quote my earlier post "In Bodu Bala Sena page I added Fascism tag" and not in the Buddhism template. I don't know how to edit templates and if I did it was a mistake. My edit was for Bodu Bala Sena page only. Delljvc (talk) 12:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• I forgot to add, you didn't notify the user that you brought them here. The notice at the top of this page gives you the template and tells us that it is mandatory. I'm assuming it was a simple oversight, and as such, I've notified them myself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. This week has seen an increase in Buddhist/Muslim tensions. In sections of Myanmar, for example, there have been riots and deaths. Later in the week, Islamic groups plan a rally in Sri Lanka --the home of the organization in this article. This article has seen a huge amount of vandalism this week from IPs in Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Singapore, and Qatar, to mention only a few.

The wikipedia needs to be especially careful of what is says is true. Statements need to have reliable sources. The sources should be checked for neutral point of view, and not merely repeat what someone's enemies are saying about them.115.67.39.165 (talk) 03:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikihounding by Purplebackpack89

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.

---

Purplebackpack89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Purplebackpack89 is checking my contributions and following me to places he wouldn't find otherwise, just to delete anything I try to save it seems.

I previously complained about his actions, explaining WP:HOUNDING to him, he just erasing my message without responding there. [201]

He then later makes a comment about it on talk page at User_talk:Dream_Focus#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FDreamship where he says "Let that be a lesson to you: if you weren't so busy trying to start shit with me, that article might still be around". He has previously complained about me and the Wikipedia I'm an active part of, the Article Rescue Squadron, dragging those debates all over the place.

After commenting in an AFD I was in, he then goes to deletion review I started where he says nothing other than say "endorse", to endorse the deletion. I ask him about that on his talk page, he claiming he has the right to follow my contributions. [202] He then deletes that discussion instead of responding again. Can someone explain to him that he is not allowed to follow someone's contributions around just to argue with them like he keeps doing? Dream Focus 19:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Speedy close with a TROUT-slap and a boomerang: First off, DreamFocus has yet to produce diffs that show me directly responding to something he said on Dreamship or any other page. So we both commented on the same page? Not seeing the problem; DreamFocus and I are both active participants in AfDs and DRVs. If you looked at the last 100 pages DreamFocus has edited; you'd see that I haven't edited 80-90 of them, so I think the HOUNDing accusation is totally baseless. And, yes, DreamFocus should be admonished for his actions regarding Dreamship; when I tagged it, the first thing he did was accuse me of HOUNDing. Meanwhile, he didn't even bother to improve the article or even participate in the AfD discussion. You're darn right that I have deleted messages DreamFocus has posted on my talk page in the past. I consider them to be disruptive; after all, this is an editor who's been in and out of ANI dozens of times and been blocked thrice. Not sure what DreamFocus' comment about the ARS has to do with Wikihounding, either. Also, DreamFocus is being horrendously hypocritical; just the other day, he followed me to a discussion I was having with User:Colonel Warden here pbp 19:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

  I have Warden's talk page on my watchlist. I have posted there before, and we are both active members of the same Wikiproject. I did not follow you. Dream Focus 19:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

  OK, so lemme get this straight...it's OK for you to follow Warden (and me when I post to his talkpage)? Why isn't that HOUNDing? pbp 20:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

  Noticing a talk page on your watchlist and responding is fine. Going to someone's contributions just to follow them around however is not. I did NOT follow you at anytime. Dream Focus 20:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Someone please read the links I provided. Don't let him distort things. Don't his comments look like he was mad at me and that's why he went to someplace I had worked on something? No other way he could've found that. Dream Focus 19:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I was under the impression it took a lot more instances of interaction before its really considered hounding. It's hard to see much of a trend with so few difs. Certainly doesn't seem like anything actionable beyond a "Hey guys, calm down before this escalates into something more-actionable" type advice. Just my two cents. Sergecross73 msg me 20:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
    • He's done it more, just now and again. Here is one [203]. I thought those two recent ones though proved it was happening. Can someone just confirm he is not allowed to follow my contributions like he has clearly done? Dream Focus 20:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
      • It's not clear that I do that from the information given. Also, looking at another editor's contributions from time to time is perfectly acceptable, so nobody is going to tell me not to do it. Finally, "now and again" doesn't make it HOUNDing; for it to be HOUNDing, it'd have to happen way more often than it does. As I said above, I have never edited most of the last 100 pages you've edited. Also, what I'm seeing from your last diff is more a disruptive editor making an unfounded accusation of HOUDing, not actual HOUNDing pbp 20:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is a list of the pages both of you have edited. Clicking on the "timeline" link gives you details about the interactions on each page. It would be interesting if one of you did a count of how many times something from Dream Focus was followed by a reply by Purplebackpack89 vs. how many times something from Purplebackpack89 was followed by a reply by Dream Focus. If the posing is random, the two numbers should be somewhat close. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Whether or not Purblebackpack is following Dream Focus' edits is irrelevant. If an editor is worried about the quality of another editor's article work or arguments, following their edits is a good way to correct errors. Wikihounding only occurs if the purpose of following the editor is to harass them. I'm not seeing sufficient evidence of that. Ryan Vesey 20:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Having an argument with someone, then checking their edits to find something you can go to which they are trying to safe and state you believe it should be deleted, is hounding. Dream Focus 20:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Guy Macon, That list is mostly just AFDs which were tagged on the Rescue Wikiproject, so it doesn't really tell anything. Dream Focus 20:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I strongly agree with Dream Focus, and I highly doubt that pbp's intentions for edit stalking them are valid. Pbp has a history of first declaring someone disruptive, then using that defamation as an excuse to hound them. I've asked him 9 times to stay off my talk, and still he refuses to respect that request. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• For a brief history of pbp's propensity for hounding, look here, here, and here. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

To Dream Focus; You can tell the tool to only look at articles, only look at article talk pages, only look at user talk pages, etc. As for the claim "it doesn't really tell anything" I contend that it is two or three cherry-picked examples that do not really tell us anything. You need to establish that it is not just random chance that two editors with lots of edits and similar interest keep hitting the same pages. I have not done a count myself, so I have no idea whether your claim is accurate. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• He did admit it already didn't he? He is following my contributions in violation in the hounding rule. Every time someone gets mad at you for daring to disagree with them on something, they shouldn't be able to check your contributions, and follow you somewhere they wouldn't have ever found otherwise, just to irritate you. Dream Focus 21:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Per WP:HOUND: "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight." That last part sure sounds like pbp to me. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Seems pretty clear to me, from looking at the editor interaction analyzer results noted above, that no actual hounding has occurred. Most of the instances seemed to show Dream popping up after pbp, but since Dream frequents AfD and a large amount of those discussions noted were listed at the ARS, it seems highly unlikely that this is anything more than both of them getting to the same place on their own.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

User:GabeMc: personal attacks, deadhorse

GabeMc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) GabeMc seems to have found this discussion, most likely via the same edit-searching method DreamFocus is critical of above. He brings up Danjel drama that is old news and ended with Danjel retiring in disgrace, in part for (surprise, surprise!) HOUNDing Epeefleche and me. But, in response to why did I post to GabeMc's talkpage? Personal attacks GabeMc levied against me like this might have something to do with it. Bringing up Harry Potter over and over again in WP:VA/E-relating discussion after three different threads resulted in keeping him on the list might have something to do with it. Could I get a "stop the personal attacks, and stop bringing up Harry Potter over and over again", please? pbp 21:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• FWIW, I have ANI watchlisted, so no, I didn't find this thread via searching your contribs pbp, always remember to assume good-faith. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Kinda hard to AGF to somebody who called me a "Type-A control freak" pbp 23:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Pbp, yes, I regrettably made that snarky comment once, but I struck-out the comment within minutes of making it. You on the other hand, have repeated the phrase at least 10–15 times since. So, if you need an apology to drop this, then fine, I'm really sorry. I should not have made that comment nor will I again. Can we please move on now? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Shameless VA/E plug

While we're here, everybody should participate in the numerous discussions going on at WP:VA/E and WP:VA pbp 21:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Calm down

At least it's all in one place, but you guys seem to have all just moved your individual feuds to ANI. I don't really think there's any admin action needed, but rather you all should try to just relax. Maybe stay away from confronting each other for a little (that goes for everyone accusing and being accused in this discussion). You don't have to go out of your way to avoid eachother, but maybe just trying not to antagonize for a little couldn't hurt. I'd close this discussion, but I'm not an administrator and perhaps someone else will see a solution to this problem. But a highly doubt one will form that will require administrative action and have a consensus. So just take it easy. Make your arguments, hold your discussions, but keep it to the content, not to the editors.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Yaksar, do you deny following my edits for a year?  Do you deny following RANs edits?  Unscintillating (talk) 01:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

A review of PBP's talk page seems to show a long history of complaints and possible abuse of the rules here. I suggest we block him.Bipalabras (talk) 04:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Disruption and personal attacks by Colleabois on Talk:Germans

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

The first account is a recently registered account of the IP editor. He has linked the IP's user page and user talk page to the registered account. Since registering the account he has started editing Germans by tag bombing it and thratening to remove content unless it was sourced. In tag bombing he left hidden messages in the text which other editors were expected to be able to decipher. He inserted the tags four times and was reverted by three editors. I then reported him for edit warring at WP:AN3 and he received a warning for disruptive editing from user:ItsZippy. He has threatened to blank content that he does not agree with. That is an unnuanced and unconstructive way of editing. This is an article that I watch but have not edited. After the WP:EW report, I took one fairly neutral phrase summarising the history of Germany as an example and asked him to explain what his objections were. Instead of using a history book ot books he referred to an atlas, using WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Eventually I located three sources and produced a short two sentence rewrite, which is now in the article.

Originally part of the Holy Roman Empire, around 300 independent German states emerged during its decline after the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 ending the Thirty Years War. These states would eventually form into modern Germany in the nineteenth century.

References
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ozment, Steven (2005), A Mighty Fortress: A New History of the German People, Harper Collins, pp. 120–121, 161, 212, ISBN 0060934832 Segarra, Eda (1977), A Social History of Germany, 1648-1914, Taylor & Francis, p. 5, 15, 183, ISBN 0416776205 Whaley, Joachim (2011), Germany and the Holy Roman Empire: Volume II: The Peace of Westphalia to the Dissolution of the Reich, 1648-1806, Oxford History of Early Modern Europe, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0199693072

Colleabois has responded that there is "not a grain of truth" in what I wrote and that he will remove it. He has further suggested that I have not looked at the sources. After his warning about edit warring, he is back disputing content that is already in the article in another place in greater detail; it can also be found in numerous other articles on wikipedia. The content is in the sources on the pages mentioned. Even when subsequently pointed to google books to verify the sources, he has said that he cannot and that I must provide the full passages on wikipedia. But obviously I cannot, because it would be a copyvio; and I will not, because his request is time-wasting, disruptive and essentially trolling.

My question is "Why is an editor disputing well-known content and making such absurd suggestions of bad faith?" I have a long record as a content creator in arious subjects and know exactly how to locate and use sources. Why suggest otherwise when the page numbers are given? That is a misuse of wikipedia and a waste of other people's time. His tagging was bad enough (it earned him a warning), but now his discussion of sneutral and well-known facts is being turned into a kind of playground tantrum. I am used to things like that on Europe from editors with a nationalist point of view. I suspect that this editor, with an IP in Nijmegen, might not be approaching this article with a neutral point of view. It is classic tendentious editing.

Even after being given links to the sources, with the actual pages, Coilleabois refuses to look up the sources and is stamping his little foot refusing to accept these commonplace facts about German history available in multiple sources as well as on wikipedia. These facts are uncontroversial and already in the article later on . His performance on the talk page is therefore just childish trolling.

Similarly elsewhere on wikipedia he has claimed that Moules-frites is a national Dutch dish. Like the statements on German history, it is well known (and easily sourced!) that it is a Belgian national dish, originating in Brussels. He has since claimed to be Belgian on Talk:European cuisine and has supported his insertion of "Dutch" before "Belgian" by referring to the Belgian constitution. But his edits are unsourced and unsourceable. Just mindless trolling. He is misleading the reader.

He has also been involved in disputes with other users on Pennsylvania Dutch and elsewhere.

There seems to be far too much tendentious editing, with no attempt to use sources and general trollishness on talk pages. Mathsci (talk) 11:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

1. I have never threatened to blank the article. This is the third time that Mathsci claims this in what can be considered as nothing else than an attempt to incite against me. What I've said is the following: "Below are the issues found with the current article. One week is given to provide sources for the claims, if they have not been provided after that time I will remove them from the article to which they should only then be placed back until proper sources and references for them have been provided." The issues consist of 10 single phrases.

2. This user stalks my edits (as can be seen here in a clear example of WP:POINT in which he attempts to harass me and has removed sourced statements.

3. This uses repeatedly makes blatant lies about my edits in order to manipulate opinion. For example: in the article on European cuisine I made this edit, in which I state that Moules Frites is ALSO a Dutch dish. After a WP:POINT revert by Mathsci, he then goes on talk to say what he has since repeated here too: It is not a Dutch dish. Dutch cuisine by comparison is less developed (...) It's pointless attempting to claim this dish as a classic dish originating in the Netherlands. In other words, he makes it seem as if I claimed it originated in the Netherlands while also attempting to insult me (by assuming I'm Dutch, I'm Belgian) by insulting Dutch cuisine. When I proceeded to add sourced material to back my claim up; he simple attempted to remove it.

4. This user, continually acts hostile and attempts to incite others against me (principally administrators like yourselves) by reporting me for his imagined conspiracy. He claimed I broke the 3RR, which I did not and in this particular case he claims I have made personal attacks. Which he fails to produce evidence for. All this noise he produces makes my talk page look like that of a vandal, which I am not. It is an unhealty situation when other wikipedians advise you to re-register to have a different name so that Mathsci will stop his harassment.

5. Everyone can visit the talk page of Germans and see for themselves that I am only interested in sourced content. I have never been insulting to anyone. Quite the opposite of Mathsci as one can see here.

In short, it is Mathsci himself who is being disruptive and could do very well with a warning. Greetings, Colleabois (talk) 15:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Uninvolved (up until now) observer on the sidelines. This is not a simple content dispute and, in my brief encounter with Colleabois, I am inclined to side with Mathsci, as this user displays very tendentious, pointy editing, marching right up to the 3RR line on both of the articles where the deuh-rama is happening,[204] [205] (yes I know, my last revert at European cuisine puts me at 3 changes to the article for the day, collateral damage).

At Germans, three editors had to undo the massive pointy tagging of, apparently, well-established, referenced, stable information. Maybe the editor is well-intentioned but has a very brash, "I'm right so listen to me", martial attitude to their editing and also flings accusations around (per point 4 above), when, in fact, they leave tp messages that say "Do not remove sources from the article, that is vandalism", which, as I point out further down on the page, is a) incorrect, b) the sources are incorrectly presented, formatted, the author's name is wrong, there is no page number for the first ref etc. and c) wrongly accusing others of vandalism to back up one's own interpretation of correct editing can be considered a personal attack. That's all from me. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

If you bother to look on the talk page of Germans, you'll find that two editors fully agreed with my content concerns. That the information questioned was not at all referenced (and much of it still isn't - having no references at all) and that only now (and certainly not thanks to Mathsci) progress is being made with the adding of sourced material. Colleabois (talk) 12:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Colleabois is now arguing on Talk:European cuisine that Wiener Schnitzel is not a national dish of Austria.Mathsci (talk) 22:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Question to administrators: What are generally the consequences if a user repeatedly and willfully misquotes or misstates another users position? My exact words: The problem is, that iconic dishes associated with a certain nation might not be restricted to the nation with which they are most closely associated. Even something like a Wiener Schnitzel, which even has the nations capital in its name (!) will still be identical to a Cotoletta alla milanese and therefore also common throughout northern Italy. I actually stress the fact that it is an iconic Austrian dish. This is not the first time that Mathsci has done this and I suspect it will not be the last time unless something is or can be done. Colleabois (talk) 12:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

All this about a picture caption for Wiener Schnitzel, having nothing to do with me? I'm sure dozens of administrators are waiting with baited breath for your informed commentaries on the captions for Kaiserschmarren, Schwarzwälder Kirschtorte, Quetschentaart and Rösti. Why not post them on a blog? Somebody out there might be interested. Mathsci (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

A general warning explaining concerning the galleries that though popularly associated with a particular country, some foods are also a tradition of other countries/regions or within the country itself might be considered regional cuisine. You again attempt to distort statements made. Colleabois (talk) 13:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Please stop shouting on this noticeboard. Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The day you stop misquoting me is the day I stop bolding my defence of it. Thanks in advance, Colleabois (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Please see Captain Screebo'sresponse below. Yatter, yatter, yatter ......... Mathsci (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

You shouldn't get so worked up Mathsci, you might give yourself an heart attack. Colleabois (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear Lord! How about horsemeatballs all round? Surely this is undeniably pan-European cuisine! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Your above statement stands proof of your level of commitment to discussion, polite discourse, "un-involvement" and producing sentences like Great, so now you're taking the line of someone you were reverting on the Germans article? only add to the image of a person who's prejudiced at best. Colleabois (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Yatter, yatter, yatter, you are becoming un pot de colle, go pick a fight elsewhere, I am not interested, neither by your pretentious rhetoric nor your singular obsessional nitpicking, it was an attempt at humour, to lighten the mood concerning a subject that has gotten way out of hand due to your insistence that all typical national European dishes should be labelled "WARNING! You may also be served this food in Austria/Germany/Spain/Hungary" etc. You might notice that the admins are just letting this rather belligerent content dispute play out, which I am minded to do also. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

In the future I suggest you try and make yourself the butt of the joke instead of others. Especially if they're here for serious matters such as accusations of personal attacks. If you want to be a comedian go to open mic night at your local comedy club.Colleabois (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

What! Are you telling me that I am a butt, excuse me but this charming expression also means arsehole where I come from, now it is you, dear sir, that are engaging in personal attacks and (sorry just trying out material for the open-mic night at the ANI comedy club, oh it's that-a-way, on my way). CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps new additions to your life; such as an interesting hobby, project or friends will help you in spending your free time in France. This clearly isn't working out for you. Colleabois (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh how thoughtful! May I suggest, reciprocally, that a sense of humour, some Preparation H and a Pet Rock might assuage your pained existence. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Could an uninvolved administrator weigh in on this or close this. This discussion has turned into a good example of WP:SARC --Kyohyi (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

No thank you. You have made very few edits and they are almost exclusively to Men's rights movement, a problematic article under probation (it has been on my watchlist for a while). You have intervened to encourage Colleabois.[206] Captain Screebo, Illraute, Dusty relic, myself and others have some experience editing, so please let this play out. Colleabois has not proposed any relevant content yet, but has wasted large amounts of other editors' time with frivolous and constantly shifting complaints. Your analysis does not seem accurate. Mathsci (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Given your recent contributions; you should not accuse others of WP:SPA as the past few days you've done nothing but to try and insult or harass me; fixating yourself on two articles and this page. Talking about this page, when will you be providing diffs of those personal attacks I've made? Colleabois (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Mathsci please comment on my statements not on who I am. Just because I haven't a large number of edits doesn't mean I can't spot bad behavior. My comment on Colleabois talk page said that he should bring any changes he wants in the article to the talk page first so that he doesn't get accused of being Pointy. And to be honest you could have at least did a diff to Colleabois talk page, and not a mathematical theorem. All in all I would still appreciate it if an uninvolved administrator would weigh in on this dispute. The Sarcasm and Snark being displayed is unbecoming of a project that is supposed to be a collaboration. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• My recent content edits are here.[207] I've also recently participated at WP:AE in a complex request. As an aside, I've edited Men's rights movement 8 times and its talk page 31 times. I have also reverted edits from The Bulldog of multiple socks of Echigo mole. All somewhat unrelated to the problems of Colleabois's tendentious editing on Talk:Germans or his insistence on European cuisine that it might be misleading to describe Wiener Schnitzel as an Austrian dish. Nothing constructive or collegial there, just as Captain Screebo has said. Mathsci (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Since I have been mentioned by name I will weigh in now. I have been watching this play out across our encyclopedia and have this to offer:

• 1. Colleabois did engage in disruptive editing on the Pennsylvania Dutch page. The behavior went on for several days during which he made repeated reversions that never exceeded the three revert rule but often skimmed it. (This in itself is a violation of WP:3RR in my opinion.) His edits were clumsy, incorrectly cited, and demonstrated a definite although fuzzy point of view. He ignored some valid criticisms while making superficial attempts to address other criticisms and the comments that accompanied his edits were often inflammatory.

Replying here so it makes sense, Dusty if you check WP:EW it does state The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. and in my limited experience with this editor, they robustly revert 3 times within the 24 hour limit, bluster in ES and do not engage on TPs, so I concur with your opinion that this is a breach of 3RR/EW. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

2. That behavior has since stopped. Although Colleabois still shows a certain amount of obstinacy he seems to have confined that behavior to talk pages and forums such as this which I consider to be a vast improvement over his earlier behaviors (which have included among other things peppering an article's source with contentious HTML tags).

3. Colleabois has been difficult to deal with but is has also shown that he is not incapable of making positive contributions to our encyclopedia. In formulating our response to his negative behaviors we should take care not to chase him away.

Thank you for listening, Dusty|💬|You can help! 15:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I think WP:POINTY doesn't says what you think it says. Are you sure you meant to link that, rather than WP:NPOV? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Martijn. I've updated my comments to correct the error. Dusty|💬|You can help! 16:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

RolandR SPI closed and archived without critical private (off wiki) information and evidence considered, and never sent to the Functionaries mailing list.

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.

---

• RolandR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Patriot1010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Hello,

The evidence that was critical to this SPI: http://www.qudswiki.org/?query=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/RolandR/Archive

Was denied by two members of the functionary team without seeing this information. Clerk: (Someguy1221) The information was sent to the functionaries-en-bounces AT lists.wikimedia.org email, and my last notice was that it was waiting for "Moderator approval"

However the case has already been archived by http://www.qudswiki.org/?query=User:DoRD who admitted there was no email sent to the functionaries either, but decided to not even look at it and archive the case.

This is highly unusual, considering this is a very complex case. To simply archive it without looking at the information and NOT notifying the entire functionaries team is a violation of the SPI process, as this information could be considered private: "If your evidence includes emails or any other information not on Wikipedia's public pages, or is 'sensitive', if privacy is needed, or if you suspect sock puppetry by an administrator, you must e-mail the CheckUser team or the Arbitration Committee, and ask what to do. Private information, emails, logs, etc. must not be posted on Wikipedia."

I have been informed by another member of the functionary team and that user confirmed this information was not sent to the functionary email list, and that the information is still being held awaiting moderation.

Since the evidence has not been considered, I request that the case be held open, until the SPI is considered from ALL the information. Obviously, there is only a limited part of the entire SPI located publically. I also request locking of this ANI until this issue is resolved. Patriot1010 (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd wager that RolandR is probably one the most harassed and hounded non-admins in the project. This simply appears to be yet another in a long line of spurious attacks tossed his way over the years; whatever "evidence" you think you have compiled about illegitimate socking is likely bullshit. Tarc (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, this is a fairly straighforward investigation with hard data. If the IPs and ISPs don't match up, including my special intructions, then I will be the first to apologize. Let's not bring in anything but facts here.Patriot1010 (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Second the bs claim. Patriot you have this misinformation that stats on pageviews can determine sockpuppetry. Under this, Tarc is my sockpuppet because we're both viewing this page. You also have a horrid understanding of the Checkuser tool, and when you were explained these two things, you didn't listen. Either start listening, or expect a boomerang for your failure to see when it's time to drop the stick and back away from the carcass (I think that's the saying). gwickwire^talk_editing 16:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I would like to clarify the pageview claim is merely an indicator - however I have used this indicator to confirm the ISP IP in several cases. Patriot1010 (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec x 2) Granted, I have not seen your email, but given the flaws with the existing case, I don't think that it will help much. However, if the information in the email does add something useful to the case, I will restore it. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Why have I not been notified of this discussion? It is a requirement: "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion".

This sockpuppet case was dismissed by oversighter Someguy1221 as " a load of horseshit".[208] But this editor is continuing to pursue it, and appears to have written privately to several admins with spurious "evidence".[209] I regard this as harassment (though, as Tarc notes above, not as egregious as much I have faced), and I request that he is advised to drop this and stop digging him/herself into a hole. RolandR (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

You aren't the subject of this ANI, The clerk and administrator who closed MY SPI CASE prematurely without the off-wiki data related to the case to the functionary group are the subjects. Notification is not required of the SPI case.Patriot1010 (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I have attempted to make some sense of this post. It seems to boil down to "Keep my SPI case open". In short, no. Someguy1221 was rather harsh, but what he has said is correct. When we receive this other evidence, we can always reopen the case. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

No not at all, all this is, is to follow SPI procedure, specifically when it involves off-wiki data as provided by WP:SPI protocols. Is that too much to ask for? Patriot1010 (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The SPI "procedure" is to decline baseless reports; as best I can tell, that procedure was followed here. At the top of the WP:SPI page says: "An investigation can only be opened if your evidence clearly shows, from suspicious Wikipedia edits, that two or more users (or different IP editors) seem likely to have the same operator and to be breaching our sock-puppetry policy." (emphasis in the original). Note the "from suspicious Wikipedia edits" part; not only is there no provision for special handling of private evidence, there is an explicit requirement for public evidence to provide sufficient cause for a checkuser request. I'd recommend someone close this section; nothing good will come of it. Writ Keeper (t + c) 16:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, thank you for supporting my case, since the evidence of "that two or more users (or different IP editors) seem likely to have the same operator and to be breaching our sock-puppetry policy." is contained in the private, off wiki information - thus closing this would violate what you just said, and then we would have a prematurely closed SPI case, and a prematurely closed ANI case. Patriot1010 (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Then you've totally ignored what I said. In order to open an SPI, there must be public evidence pointing to the likelihood that sockpuppetry is happening. The page says that, if you have private evidence, you need to email it to the Checkusers and wait for further instructions, not open a lengthy SPI replete with vague references to private information and then complain that it was closed for lack of actual evidence. Writ Keeper (t + c) 17:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Procedure says that we don't reopen investigations that have been denied because of impossibility. Nyttend (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, one cannot check impossibility until the IPs and ISP IPs are checked, as well as the other information. Patriot1010 (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Friendly advice from a fellow editor. I'm not an admin, but I try to behave as one. Patrior1010, I'd like to suggest that you immediately drop the WP:STICK and back away. Looking at your contributions (starting around March 14th) I see a pattern of behavior where you lash out at anybody who is offering you advice. This pattern has been played out many times as Suicide by Admin and is a poor way to end your wiki-editing career. You've had multiple highly trusted and vetted editors look at your complaints, look at your edits, and look at your evidence and only a "No, that's not puppetry". What you appear to be doing is conducting a campaign of harassment against RolandR. So before you respond further please read the pages regarding sock pupptetry, signs of sockpuppetry, and Wikipedia:CheckUser before you make any further accusations as I see a very short wiki-future for you if you do not immediately desist from these accusations and make a very significant and comprehensive apology to RolandR, the Checkuser team, and this board for wasting our time. Hasteur (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Patriot1010's stated reason for editing Wikipedia is to pursue "disputes against those of liberal bias, as well as pursuing liberal sockpuppets, meatpuppets, and countering liberal 'senior editor' vandalism, harrassment, and NPOV via WP:GAME." If that's not an explicit declaration of intent to use Wikipedia as an ideological battleground, I'm not sure what is. His decision to treat a garden-variety content dispute as a massive sockpuppet conspiracy perhaps makes more sense in this context. MastCell ^Talk 17:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

This comment may be of interest. Patriot1010 is picking up some bad habits. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

A comment here; as Hasteur points out Patriot1010's behaviour seems to have changed recently. This wild connecting of dots and conspiracy theories is, as far as I can see, out of keeping with past contributions and approaches. I've seen this sort of thing before in the real world, and so wonder if we might actually need to show some compassion for somebody who may not currently be quite himself. Slp1 (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I didn't say that. I simply picked a date in their recent history when they became active again. Wikipedia is not therapy. I'm only showing a trend in the recent time frame that is significantly below the standards expected. Hasteur (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I would like to remind some of WP:SPI: "All users are expected to focus only on evidence of sock policy breach and its analysis. Disruptive conduct may lead to removal from the case pages." Patriot1010 (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

This isn't SPI, this is ANI, so I'm not sure how that's relevant to anything at all. Seriously, can someone close this? Writ Keeper (t + c) 17:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Let's play a little game. Take a look at MastCell's link above. Substitute every "conservative" in Patriot's comment for "Christian" and every "liberal" for atheist. Then ask yourself how many minutes it would take such an editor to get blocked for soapboxing. Editor is clearly here to pursue his own political agenda and not to build an encyclopaedia. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Romantic Realist

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.

---

Romantic Realist (talk · contribs) is one of the many SPAs that the Ping Fu/Bend, Not Break articles has attracted, and is one of the most persistent. They are very clearly violating critical principles, such as WP:NPOV, and have been reverted and told this so many times it's untrue. Some of their edit summaries show how clearly that they're WP:NOTHERE to do anything other than disparage Ping Fu.

• [210] - edit summary that is clearly a personal attack on Fu, as is the edit. Was a reinstatement of [211].
• [212][213] - inappropriately placed links that have nothing to do with the article (I haven't evaluated any of the links, but that's because they're irrelevant to the article at present)
• [214] - using article space as a talk page, with a personal attack against Fu again
• [215][216] - adding hate site link in (plus inappropriate comment for an article in the latter)
• [217] - the original "expansion" of the Bend, Not Break article - one big attack page.

One look at this user's contributions shows one sole edit outside the talk or article space of these two: and that edit was solely about Bend, Not Break on a user's talk page. This user needs indeffing under WP:NOTHERE, and the nature of the anti-Fu brigade means it may be worth running a CheckUser as well (although a lot of accounts may be stale by now). I'm sick to death of having to police this article against the constant weasel words and WP:NPOV-violating edits by the anti-Fu brigade. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Unsurprisingly, they've yet again tried to push that comment [218] - this time accusing me of a COI! The sooner we're rid of this user the better, I think. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• I just sent a request for suppression to Oversight. I also included a link to this ANI. Fearofreprisal (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• They've also used their IP at times to circumvent suspicion: [219] is IDENTICAL to the COI accusation/personal attack I just removed from the talk of Bend, Don't Break: [220]. So they're clearly socking as well (that IP has been used previously by them). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Reversion of my removal of their attack: [221]. Can someone block them soon? This is getting very frustrating! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Disruption and personal attacks by Colleabois on Talk:Germans

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

The first account is a recently registered account of the IP editor. He has linked the IP's user page and user talk page to the registered account. Since registering the account he has started editing Germans by tag bombing it and thratening to remove content unless it was sourced. In tag bombing he left hidden messages in the text which other editors were expected to be able to decipher. He inserted the tags four times and was reverted by three editors. I then reported him for edit warring at WP:AN3 and he received a warning for disruptive editing from user:ItsZippy. He has threatened to blank content that he does not agree with. That is an unnuanced and unconstructive way of editing. This is an article that I watch but have not edited. After the WP:EW report, I took one fairly neutral phrase summarising the history of Germany as an example and asked him to explain what his objections were. Instead of using a history book ot books he referred to an atlas, using WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Eventually I located three sources and produced a short two sentence rewrite, which is now in the article.

Originally part of the Holy Roman Empire, around 300 independent German states emerged during its decline after the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 ending the Thirty Years War. These states would eventually form into modern Germany in the nineteenth century.

References
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ozment, Steven (2005), A Mighty Fortress: A New History of the German People, Harper Collins, pp. 120–121, 161, 212, ISBN 0060934832 Segarra, Eda (1977), A Social History of Germany, 1648-1914, Taylor & Francis, p. 5, 15, 183, ISBN 0416776205 Whaley, Joachim (2011), Germany and the Holy Roman Empire: Volume II: The Peace of Westphalia to the Dissolution of the Reich, 1648-1806, Oxford History of Early Modern Europe, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0199693072

Colleabois has responded that there is "not a grain of truth" in what I wrote and that he will remove it. He has further suggested that I have not looked at the sources. After his warning about edit warring, he is back disputing content that is already in the article in another place in greater detail; it can also be found in numerous other articles on wikipedia. The content is in the sources on the pages mentioned. Even when subsequently pointed to google books to verify the sources, he has said that he cannot and that I must provide the full passages on wikipedia. But obviously I cannot, because it would be a copyvio; and I will not, because his request is time-wasting, disruptive and essentially trolling.

My question is "Why is an editor disputing well-known content and making such absurd suggestions of bad faith?" I have a long record as a content creator in arious subjects and know exactly how to locate and use sources. Why suggest otherwise when the page numbers are given? That is a misuse of wikipedia and a waste of other people's time. His tagging was bad enough (it earned him a warning), but now his discussion of sneutral and well-known facts is being turned into a kind of playground tantrum. I am used to things like that on Europe from editors with a nationalist point of view. I suspect that this editor, with an IP in Nijmegen, might not be approaching this article with a neutral point of view. It is classic tendentious editing.

Even after being given links to the sources, with the actual pages, Coilleabois refuses to look up the sources and is stamping his little foot refusing to accept these commonplace facts about German history available in multiple sources as well as on wikipedia. These facts are uncontroversial and already in the article later on . His performance on the talk page is therefore just childish trolling.

Similarly elsewhere on wikipedia he has claimed that Moules-frites is a national Dutch dish. Like the statements on German history, it is well known (and easily sourced!) that it is a Belgian national dish, originating in Brussels. He has since claimed to be Belgian on Talk:European cuisine and has supported his insertion of "Dutch" before "Belgian" by referring to the Belgian constitution. But his edits are unsourced and unsourceable. Just mindless trolling. He is misleading the reader.

He has also been involved in disputes with other users on Pennsylvania Dutch and elsewhere.

There seems to be far too much tendentious editing, with no attempt to use sources and general trollishness on talk pages. Mathsci (talk) 11:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

1. I have never threatened to blank the article. This is the third time that Mathsci claims this in what can be considered as nothing else than an attempt to incite against me. What I've said is the following: "Below are the issues found with the current article. One week is given to provide sources for the claims, if they have not been provided after that time I will remove them from the article to which they should only then be placed back until proper sources and references for them have been provided." The issues consist of 10 single phrases.

2. This user stalks my edits (as can be seen here in a clear example of WP:POINT in which he attempts to harass me and has removed sourced statements.

3. This uses repeatedly makes blatant lies about my edits in order to manipulate opinion. For example: in the article on European cuisine I made this edit, in which I state that Moules Frites is ALSO a Dutch dish. After a WP:POINT revert by Mathsci, he then goes on talk to say what he has since repeated here too: It is not a Dutch dish. Dutch cuisine by comparison is less developed (...) It's pointless attempting to claim this dish as a classic dish originating in the Netherlands. In other words, he makes it seem as if I claimed it originated in the Netherlands while also attempting to insult me (by assuming I'm Dutch, I'm Belgian) by insulting Dutch cuisine. When I proceeded to add sourced material to back my claim up; he simple attempted to remove it.

4. This user, continually acts hostile and attempts to incite others against me (principally administrators like yourselves) by reporting me for his imagined conspiracy. He claimed I broke the 3RR, which I did not and in this particular case he claims I have made personal attacks. Which he fails to produce evidence for. All this noise he produces makes my talk page look like that of a vandal, which I am not. It is an unhealty situation when other wikipedians advise you to re-register to have a different name so that Mathsci will stop his harassment.

5. Everyone can visit the talk page of Germans and see for themselves that I am only interested in sourced content. I have never been insulting to anyone. Quite the opposite of Mathsci as one can see here.

In short, it is Mathsci himself who is being disruptive and could do very well with a warning. Greetings, Colleabois (talk) 15:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Uninvolved (up until now) observer on the sidelines. This is not a simple content dispute and, in my brief encounter with Colleabois, I am inclined to side with Mathsci, as this user displays very tendentious, pointy editing, marching right up to the 3RR line on both of the articles where the deuh-rama is happening,[222] [223] (yes I know, my last revert at European cuisine puts me at 3 changes to the article for the day, collateral damage).

At Germans, three editors had to undo the massive pointy tagging of, apparently, well-established, referenced, stable information. Maybe the editor is well-intentioned but has a very brash, "I'm right so listen to me", martial attitude to their editing and also flings accusations around (per point 4 above), when, in fact, they leave tp messages that say "Do not remove sources from the article, that is vandalism", which, as I point out further down on the page, is a) incorrect, b) the sources are incorrectly presented, formatted, the author's name is wrong, there is no page number for the first ref etc. and c) wrongly accusing others of vandalism to back up one's own interpretation of correct editing can be considered a personal attack. That's all from me. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

If you bother to look on the talk page of Germans, you'll find that two editors fully agreed with my content concerns. That the information questioned was not at all referenced (and much of it still isn't - having no references at all) and that only now (and certainly not thanks to Mathsci) progress is being made with the adding of sourced material. Colleabois (talk) 12:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Colleabois is now arguing on Talk:European cuisine that Wiener Schnitzel is not a national dish of Austria.Mathsci (talk) 22:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Question to administrators: What are generally the consequences if a user repeatedly and willfully misquotes or misstates another users position? My exact words: The problem is, that iconic dishes associated with a certain nation might not be restricted to the nation with which they are most closely associated. Even something like a Wiener Schnitzel, which even has the nations capital in its name (!) will still be identical to a Cotoletta alla milanese and therefore also common throughout northern Italy. I actually stress the fact that it is an iconic Austrian dish. This is not the first time that Mathsci has done this and I suspect it will not be the last time unless something is or can be done. Colleabois (talk) 12:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

All this about a picture caption for Wiener Schnitzel, having nothing to do with me? I'm sure dozens of administrators are waiting with baited breath for your informed commentaries on the captions for Kaiserschmarren, Schwarzwälder Kirschtorte, Quetschentaart and Rösti. Why not post them on a blog? Somebody out there might be interested. Mathsci (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

A general warning explaining concerning the galleries that though popularly associated with a particular country, some foods are also a tradition of other countries/regions or within the country itself might be considered regional cuisine. You again attempt to distort statements made. Colleabois (talk) 13:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Please stop shouting on this noticeboard. Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The day you stop misquoting me is the day I stop bolding my defence of it. Thanks in advance, Colleabois (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Please see Captain Screebo'sresponse below. Yatter, yatter, yatter ......... Mathsci (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

You shouldn't get so worked up Mathsci, you might give yourself an heart attack. Colleabois (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear Lord! How about horsemeatballs all round? Surely this is undeniably pan-European cuisine! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Your above statement stands proof of your level of commitment to discussion, polite discourse, "un-involvement" and producing sentences like Great, so now you're taking the line of someone you were reverting on the Germans article? only add to the image of a person who's prejudiced at best. Colleabois (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Yatter, yatter, yatter, you are becoming un pot de colle, go pick a fight elsewhere, I am not interested, neither by your pretentious rhetoric nor your singular obsessional nitpicking, it was an attempt at humour, to lighten the mood concerning a subject that has gotten way out of hand due to your insistence that all typical national European dishes should be labelled "WARNING! You may also be served this food in Austria/Germany/Spain/Hungary" etc. You might notice that the admins are just letting this rather belligerent content dispute play out, which I am minded to do also. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

In the future I suggest you try and make yourself the butt of the joke instead of others. Especially if they're here for serious matters such as accusations of personal attacks. If you want to be a comedian go to open mic night at your local comedy club.Colleabois (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

What! Are you telling me that I am a butt, excuse me but this charming expression also means arsehole where I come from, now it is you, dear sir, that are engaging in personal attacks and (sorry just trying out material for the open-mic night at the ANI comedy club, oh it's that-a-way, on my way). CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps new additions to your life; such as an interesting hobby, project or friends will help you in spending your free time in France. This clearly isn't working out for you. Colleabois (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh how thoughtful! May I suggest, reciprocally, that a sense of humour, some Preparation H and a Pet Rock might assuage your pained existence. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Could an uninvolved administrator weigh in on this or close this. This discussion has turned into a good example of WP:SARC --Kyohyi (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

No thank you. You have made very few edits and they are almost exclusively to Men's rights movement, a problematic article under probation (it has been on my watchlist for a while). You have intervened to encourage Colleabois.[224] Captain Screebo, Illraute, Dusty relic, myself and others have some experience editing, so please let this play out. Colleabois has not proposed any relevant content yet, but has wasted large amounts of other editors' time with frivolous and constantly shifting complaints. Your analysis does not seem accurate. Mathsci (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Given your recent contributions; you should not accuse others of WP:SPA as the past few days you've done nothing but to try and insult or harass me; fixating yourself on two articles and this page. Talking about this page, when will you be providing diffs of those personal attacks I've made? Colleabois (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Mathsci please comment on my statements not on who I am. Just because I haven't a large number of edits doesn't mean I can't spot bad behavior. My comment on Colleabois talk page said that he should bring any changes he wants in the article to the talk page first so that he doesn't get accused of being Pointy. And to be honest you could have at least did a diff to Colleabois talk page, and not a mathematical theorem. All in all I would still appreciate it if an uninvolved administrator would weigh in on this dispute. The Sarcasm and Snark being displayed is unbecoming of a project that is supposed to be a collaboration. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• My recent content edits are here.[225] I've also recently participated at WP:AE in a complex request. As an aside, I've edited Men's rights movement 8 times and its talk page 31 times. I have also reverted edits from The Bulldog of multiple socks of Echigo mole. All somewhat unrelated to the problems of Colleabois's tendentious editing on Talk:Germans or his insistence on European cuisine that it might be misleading to describe Wiener Schnitzel as an Austrian dish. Nothing constructive or collegial there, just as Captain Screebo has said. Mathsci (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Since I have been mentioned by name I will weigh in now. I have been watching this play out across our encyclopedia and have this to offer:

• 1. Colleabois did engage in disruptive editing on the Pennsylvania Dutch page. The behavior went on for several days during which he made repeated reversions that never exceeded the three revert rule but often skimmed it. (This in itself is a violation of WP:3RR in my opinion.) His edits were clumsy, incorrectly cited, and demonstrated a definite although fuzzy point of view. He ignored some valid criticisms while making superficial attempts to address other criticisms and the comments that accompanied his edits were often inflammatory.

Replying here so it makes sense, Dusty if you check WP:EW it does state The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. and in my limited experience with this editor, they robustly revert 3 times within the 24 hour limit, bluster in ES and do not engage on TPs, so I concur with your opinion that this is a breach of 3RR/EW. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

2. That behavior has since stopped. Although Colleabois still shows a certain amount of obstinacy he seems to have confined that behavior to talk pages and forums such as this which I consider to be a vast improvement over his earlier behaviors (which have included among other things peppering an article's source with contentious HTML tags).

3. Colleabois has been difficult to deal with but is has also shown that he is not incapable of making positive contributions to our encyclopedia. In formulating our response to his negative behaviors we should take care not to chase him away.

Thank you for listening, Dusty|💬|You can help! 15:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I think WP:POINTY doesn't says what you think it says. Are you sure you meant to link that, rather than WP:NPOV? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Martijn. I've updated my comments to correct the error. Dusty|💬|You can help! 16:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

RolandR SPI closed and archived without critical private (off wiki) information and evidence considered, and never sent to the Functionaries mailing list.

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.

---

• RolandR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Patriot1010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Hello,

The evidence that was critical to this SPI: http://www.qudswiki.org/?query=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/RolandR/Archive

Was denied by two members of the functionary team without seeing this information. Clerk: (Someguy1221) The information was sent to the functionaries-en-bounces AT lists.wikimedia.org email, and my last notice was that it was waiting for "Moderator approval"

However the case has already been archived by http://www.qudswiki.org/?query=User:DoRD who admitted there was no email sent to the functionaries either, but decided to not even look at it and archive the case.

This is highly unusual, considering this is a very complex case. To simply archive it without looking at the information and NOT notifying the entire functionaries team is a violation of the SPI process, as this information could be considered private: "If your evidence includes emails or any other information not on Wikipedia's public pages, or is 'sensitive', if privacy is needed, or if you suspect sock puppetry by an administrator, you must e-mail the CheckUser team or the Arbitration Committee, and ask what to do. Private information, emails, logs, etc. must not be posted on Wikipedia."

I have been informed by another member of the functionary team and that user confirmed this information was not sent to the functionary email list, and that the information is still being held awaiting moderation.

Since the evidence has not been considered, I request that the case be held open, until the SPI is considered from ALL the information. Obviously, there is only a limited part of the entire SPI located publically. I also request locking of this ANI until this issue is resolved. Patriot1010 (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd wager that RolandR is probably one the most harassed and hounded non-admins in the project. This simply appears to be yet another in a long line of spurious attacks tossed his way over the years; whatever "evidence" you think you have compiled about illegitimate socking is likely bullshit. Tarc (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, this is a fairly straighforward investigation with hard data. If the IPs and ISPs don't match up, including my special intructions, then I will be the first to apologize. Let's not bring in anything but facts here.Patriot1010 (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Second the bs claim. Patriot you have this misinformation that stats on pageviews can determine sockpuppetry. Under this, Tarc is my sockpuppet because we're both viewing this page. You also have a horrid understanding of the Checkuser tool, and when you were explained these two things, you didn't listen. Either start listening, or expect a boomerang for your failure to see when it's time to drop the stick and back away from the carcass (I think that's the saying). gwickwire^talk_editing 16:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I would like to clarify the pageview claim is merely an indicator - however I have used this indicator to confirm the ISP IP in several cases. Patriot1010 (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec x 2) Granted, I have not seen your email, but given the flaws with the existing case, I don't think that it will help much. However, if the information in the email does add something useful to the case, I will restore it. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Why have I not been notified of this discussion? It is a requirement: "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion".

This sockpuppet case was dismissed by oversighter Someguy1221 as " a load of horseshit".[226] But this editor is continuing to pursue it, and appears to have written privately to several admins with spurious "evidence".[227] I regard this as harassment (though, as Tarc notes above, not as egregious as much I have faced), and I request that he is advised to drop this and stop digging him/herself into a hole. RolandR (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

You aren't the subject of this ANI, The clerk and administrator who closed MY SPI CASE prematurely without the off-wiki data related to the case to the functionary group are the subjects. Notification is not required of the SPI case.Patriot1010 (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I have attempted to make some sense of this post. It seems to boil down to "Keep my SPI case open". In short, no. Someguy1221 was rather harsh, but what he has said is correct. When we receive this other evidence, we can always reopen the case. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

No not at all, all this is, is to follow SPI procedure, specifically when it involves off-wiki data as provided by WP:SPI protocols. Is that too much to ask for? Patriot1010 (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The SPI "procedure" is to decline baseless reports; as best I can tell, that procedure was followed here. At the top of the WP:SPI page says: "An investigation can only be opened if your evidence clearly shows, from suspicious Wikipedia edits, that two or more users (or different IP editors) seem likely to have the same operator and to be breaching our sock-puppetry policy." (emphasis in the original). Note the "from suspicious Wikipedia edits" part; not only is there no provision for special handling of private evidence, there is an explicit requirement for public evidence to provide sufficient cause for a checkuser request. I'd recommend someone close this section; nothing good will come of it. Writ Keeper (t + c) 16:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, thank you for supporting my case, since the evidence of "that two or more users (or different IP editors) seem likely to have the same operator and to be breaching our sock-puppetry policy." is contained in the private, off wiki information - thus closing this would violate what you just said, and then we would have a prematurely closed SPI case, and a prematurely closed ANI case. Patriot1010 (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Then you've totally ignored what I said. In order to open an SPI, there must be public evidence pointing to the likelihood that sockpuppetry is happening. The page says that, if you have private evidence, you need to email it to the Checkusers and wait for further instructions, not open a lengthy SPI replete with vague references to private information and then complain that it was closed for lack of actual evidence. Writ Keeper (t + c) 17:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Procedure says that we don't reopen investigations that have been denied because of impossibility. Nyttend (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, one cannot check impossibility until the IPs and ISP IPs are checked, as well as the other information. Patriot1010 (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Friendly advice from a fellow editor. I'm not an admin, but I try to behave as one. Patrior1010, I'd like to suggest that you immediately drop the WP:STICK and back away. Looking at your contributions (starting around March 14th) I see a pattern of behavior where you lash out at anybody who is offering you advice. This pattern has been played out many times as Suicide by Admin and is a poor way to end your wiki-editing career. You've had multiple highly trusted and vetted editors look at your complaints, look at your edits, and look at your evidence and only a "No, that's not puppetry". What you appear to be doing is conducting a campaign of harassment against RolandR. So before you respond further please read the pages regarding sock pupptetry, signs of sockpuppetry, and Wikipedia:CheckUser before you make any further accusations as I see a very short wiki-future for you if you do not immediately desist from these accusations and make a very significant and comprehensive apology to RolandR, the Checkuser team, and this board for wasting our time. Hasteur (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Patriot1010's stated reason for editing Wikipedia is to pursue "disputes against those of liberal bias, as well as pursuing liberal sockpuppets, meatpuppets, and countering liberal 'senior editor' vandalism, harrassment, and NPOV via WP:GAME." If that's not an explicit declaration of intent to use Wikipedia as an ideological battleground, I'm not sure what is. His decision to treat a garden-variety content dispute as a massive sockpuppet conspiracy perhaps makes more sense in this context. MastCell ^Talk 17:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

This comment may be of interest. Patriot1010 is picking up some bad habits. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

A comment here; as Hasteur points out Patriot1010's behaviour seems to have changed recently. This wild connecting of dots and conspiracy theories is, as far as I can see, out of keeping with past contributions and approaches. I've seen this sort of thing before in the real world, and so wonder if we might actually need to show some compassion for somebody who may not currently be quite himself. Slp1 (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I didn't say that. I simply picked a date in their recent history when they became active again. Wikipedia is not therapy. I'm only showing a trend in the recent time frame that is significantly below the standards expected. Hasteur (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I would like to remind some of WP:SPI: "All users are expected to focus only on evidence of sock policy breach and its analysis. Disruptive conduct may lead to removal from the case pages." Patriot1010 (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

This isn't SPI, this is ANI, so I'm not sure how that's relevant to anything at all. Seriously, can someone close this? Writ Keeper (t + c) 17:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Let's play a little game. Take a look at MastCell's link above. Substitute every "conservative" in Patriot's comment for "Christian" and every "liberal" for atheist. Then ask yourself how many minutes it would take such an editor to get blocked for soapboxing. Editor is clearly here to pursue his own political agenda and not to build an encyclopaedia. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Romantic Realist

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.

---

Romantic Realist (talk · contribs) is one of the many SPAs that the Ping Fu/Bend, Not Break articles has attracted, and is one of the most persistent. They are very clearly violating critical principles, such as WP:NPOV, and have been reverted and told this so many times it's untrue. Some of their edit summaries show how clearly that they're WP:NOTHERE to do anything other than disparage Ping Fu.

• [228] - edit summary that is clearly a personal attack on Fu, as is the edit. Was a reinstatement of [229].
• [230][231] - inappropriately placed links that have nothing to do with the article (I haven't evaluated any of the links, but that's because they're irrelevant to the article at present)
• [232] - using article space as a talk page, with a personal attack against Fu again
• [233][234] - adding hate site link in (plus inappropriate comment for an article in the latter)
• [235] - the original "expansion" of the Bend, Not Break article - one big attack page.

One look at this user's contributions shows one sole edit outside the talk or article space of these two: and that edit was solely about Bend, Not Break on a user's talk page. This user needs indeffing under WP:NOTHERE, and the nature of the anti-Fu brigade means it may be worth running a CheckUser as well (although a lot of accounts may be stale by now). I'm sick to death of having to police this article against the constant weasel words and WP:NPOV-violating edits by the anti-Fu brigade. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Unsurprisingly, they've yet again tried to push that comment [236] - this time accusing me of a COI! The sooner we're rid of this user the better, I think. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• I just sent a request for suppression to Oversight. I also included a link to this ANI. Fearofreprisal (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• They've also used their IP at times to circumvent suspicion: [237] is IDENTICAL to the COI accusation/personal attack I just removed from the talk of Bend, Don't Break: [238]. So they're clearly socking as well (that IP has been used previously by them). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Reversion of my removal of their attack: [239]. Can someone block them soon? This is getting very frustrating! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Questionable edits and legal threats at Illegal immigration to the United States

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

---

I have indefinitely blocked User:Nanoatzin for making legal threats in connection with the article on Illegal immigration to the United States. This editor claimed the article was grossly biased in ways that violated the WMF's status as a tax-exempt charitable organization; he made a huge set of questionable changes to the article; and he stated that he would notify the IRS and US government officials if his changes were reverted.

I notified Nanoatzin that his comments were in violation of WP:NLT and told him he must agree to withdraw his threatening remarks before he can be unblocked. I also reverted the article to the condition it was in prior to Nanoatzin's lengthy round of changes. I am reporting my actions here at WP:ANI so that other admins can keep an eye on this situation, and also to give others a chance to reverse what I did in the (hopefully unlikely) event that they believe I overreacted. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Good block. A totally in-your-face legal threat. The guy's been here a couple of years, and should know better. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Yep, good block. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
• The diff for Nanoatzin's inform government officials statement (beginning with "I WILL inform ...") is diff. Meets WP:NLT. -- Jreferee (talk) 11:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
• Bad block. How is "I WILL inform senators, representative, IRS, and DoE if an administrator removes any of my contributions when the edit may support a political agenda on this topic" a legal threat? User was being a dick, but then block for that. User did not threaten litigation. There was no legal threat here. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

An attempt to intimidate editors by employing threats of action by agents of the government. Good block. Tiderolls 14:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Everyone please note that I have sent a "heads-up" e-mail to legal (at) wikimedia.org about this issue. And while I'm not that terribly concerned about someone threatening to write their Senators and Congressperson about allegedly biased writing on Wikipedia, a threat to challenge the WMF's tax-exempt status by "notifying" the IRS of actions supposedly in violation of the rules for charitable organizations is most definitely a "legal" threat IMO. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Can't get my head around this "threat". The main point seems to be "As an administrator, Wikipedia and you have entered into a fiduciary agreement that means anything that you do on behalf of the organization WILL compromise US charity status for the entire organization." Apparently Nanoatzin has the idea that admins are paid by the WMF and this is somehow against US law. Sounds like an accusation of WP:PAID to me. I don't think that admins are paid, but aren't charities allowed to pay their employees? Everything else is legalese / gibberish.--Auric talk 20:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

He was alleging that the content of the article (before he "corrected" it) constituted biased partisan political advocacy — something which tax-exempt charitable organizations are not allowed to engage in under US tax law. His "fiduciary agreement" verbiage meant that since admins are (supposedly) acting on behalf of the WMF, our actions in supporting this (in his view) objectionable content in Wikipedia articles reflect negatively on the WMF and jeopardize its tax-exempt status. And, as I said earlier, he vowed to inform the IRS (and other federal government people, but the IRS is what matters most here) of these supposed violations. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Malleus_Fatuorum has a vendetta against editors who use tags

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

---

Can someone please reaffirm that tagging is a legitimate way of bringing attention to a problem that you are unable or uncomfortable fixing yourself? A thread at the village pump has devolved (on his side) to a series of personal attacks, that really crosses the line IMO. After a certain point, nearly every message from Malleus includes a personal attack or some form of hostility. Here they are in order:

• [240]: Editors who use tags are lazy and incompetent
• [241]: Edit summary calls tags "defacement", and taggers are lazy
• [242]: Calling me incompetent some inspired condescension: "Your suggested approach is rather like scribbling on the pages of a textbook you can't understand, rather asking the author (or your teacher) to explain."
• [243]: Using tags is "spray tagging grafifit"
• [244]: Calling me "inexperienced" (My first edit was 5 years ago)
• [245]: Tagging is "complaining" and I haven't learned anything in 3 years.
• [246]: Accusing me of sock puppetry
• [247]: Dismissing contributions by "taggers"

I feel like I'm being flamed in a halo forum or something. I think he needs to understand that this sort of behavior is not acceptable. PraetorianFury (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

User notified here. PraetorianFury (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Really? Not seeing much of what I'd consider personal attacks there. I do see some other interesting behavior there, but nothing that I'd consider an actual personal attack. More like two people with strong points of view. Intothatdarkness 17:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

A Village Pump thread that was more heat than light begets an ANI thread that will be more heat than light. And so the cycle continues. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

These are more "impersonal attacks" than anything. They're certainly even less useful than Malleus claims the tags themselves are. Malleus also ought to know better, and as honorary holder of the Peter Damian chair of Wisest Person on WP, I wish he'd use some of that infamous wisdom a bit more positively. Don't take it personally (Malleus is an equal opportunity critic), but nothing is going to come of this on either side. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Why is this being brought up here? Just stop creating tags and instead voice your concern in a talk page; that's what they're for! Problem solved, can we close this one now? Dusty|💬|You can help! 18:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Disagree on your first point. Tags are perfectly legitimate tools in article maintenance, and none of the diffs provided in the OP contains any reasonable objection against them. Still, I don't see what the purpose of this ANI thread is for either. One editor is against tags. So what? That is his problem, and any actions taken in the future based on that personal opinion against Wikipedia policy surely will result in approbriate sanctions. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You need to read more closely. I'm objecting specifically to PraetorianFury's proposal to move the {{deadlink}} template into the body of the text, as opposed to where it is now, next to the citation. Malleus Fatuorum 18:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I want to establish that comments that, for example, call users a transexual teenager in Sudan are completely inappropriate. So I guess a comment from an admin on his talk page with the hope of improving his future behavior. Wikipedia sanctions are preventative after all. But it seems the community's sanity is overwhelmed by their outrage at having a few inline citations in their articles. PraetorianFury (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

You don't even seem to understand what an inline citation actually is. Malleus Fatuorum 19:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

And let's be very clear about this. I haven't called anyone a "transexual teenager from Sudan", and neither has anyone else. Malleus Fatuorum 19:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I stated that it's better to just state a problem at ANI, and let somebody else propose to give an ultimatum to Malleus or call for blocking him. I apologize for my having suggested that an editor wanting to cause trouble for MF create another (even more sympathetic) sock account..., but since it has been referred to I cannot remove it.... Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

"Cause trouble for MF" ? Is he your boss or something? Are you allies, promising to attack eachother's enemies? Have we devolved on Wikipedia to the point of tribalism? PraetorianFury (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Have I stumbled on some grand conspiracy in Wikipedia? So now we're going to say that calling users incompetent and lazy is not a personal attack? Am I the last sane person alive here? Suddenly the well precedented practice of tagging problems that cannot be immediately fixed is some grave insult against the page's "owner" ? No, I'm not going to take issues to the talk page where they can be ignored, while our readers continue to be misled. Problems should be identified immediately and publicly so that users are appropriately skeptical of information. Why am I the only person who values honesty? Why is everyone more concerned with looking right than being right? I can't believe this. I thought Wikipedia editors were better than this. It seems that misinformation we spread is not due to unintentional neglect but deliberate obfuscation. PraetorianFury (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Two things here: the linked comment (regarding the teenager in Sudan) was not made by Malleus Fatuorum. Number two - so if we don't agree with your position we're members of a grand conspiracy? Fascinating. Intothatdarkness 19:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

If you're so determined to discourage the use of tags that you'll take the ludicrous position that calling users incompetent is not a personal attack, there must be some ulterior motive. PraetorianFury (talk) 19:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

No ulterior motive, actually. Just saying that I saw nothing in that linked thread that was more personal or incendiary than any normal research faculty meeting. In fact, it was far more civil than some of those meetings can be. People not agreeing with you (here I mean your statement that there were personal attacks in that linked discussion) does not automatically make them part of a conspiracy. In fact, some might consider your accusations of conspiracy and ludicrous positions to be personal attacks. I'm not one of them, but am simply pointing out a flaw in your position. Intothatdarkness 19:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

You're trolling so hard it would be funny if you weren't harming the encyclopedia in the process. I think 4chan or reddit would be a more appropriate forum for your hobby. I won't be responding to your messages anymore until I see one that isn't clearly a joke. PraetorianFury (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Now that's just funny. And I think it puts a nice closing point on the value of this complaint. Intothatdarkness 19:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

PraetorianFury has been editing since January, but is the latest in a long line of sophisticated ingénues. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Such a thorough investigation that ignores editing by IP and under another account. PraetorianFury (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Re "Am I the last sane person alive here?": no. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The way to actually address a problem with an article is to edit the article, not to put a random tag on it. In practice, almost all maintenance tags are ignored. Moreover, the large number of tags placed for trivial issues obscures the smaller number of serious issues that ought to be brought to editors' attention. Because maintenance tags are of such extremely limited practical value, it is unfortunate that we encourage well-meaning editors to go through adding them to articles. The more clearly that message can be passed along, the better. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

There are two purposes to a tag, the first is to elicit a fix from editors watching the article. The second is the reason the tags are public, and that is to warn users to be more suspicious and skeptical of the tagged material. In low traffic articles, no one is watching. We can expect that problems mentioned on the talk page will never be addressed. Editors responsible for their creation might no longer be editing. Tags are an invitation for browsers, particularly experts who stumble upon them, to fix them. I'm not saying tags are the first or best option. My problem solving starts with a good faith attempt to fix the problem. But there are times when I want to preserve content, but do not believe it should be consumed by our readers without skepticism. If I can't fix it myself, I tag it, for our readers and for the next editor months or years in the future. It's great that you think every article has an army of editors waiting to pounce on every problem that might be mentioned, but this is not the case. There are millions of articles and only a few thousand editors, maybe less if you only consider "very active" editors. Low traffic articles are read but not maintained or supervised. More people read the article than the talk page. A problem that is identified publicly is more likely to be fixed.

Additionally, I'm not talking about putting a driveby NPOV tag on an entire section. Specifically, contentious material sourced to dead links, or controversial subjects far low down in the "tree" on a particular subject. These will often be edited by one editor, and with no oversight, they are free to insert their POV as strongly as they desire. Similarly, browsers like me who choose to edit it, will have no resistance but also no help. I do read things on which I am not an expert, for fun. I can't tell you why Pope Martin IV excommunicated Michael VIII in the 13th century, but that doesn't mean that I can't identify poorly phrased/ambiguous sentences, or see when an IP has insert their own original research. I fix it when I can, but when I'm unsure, I tag it for the next browser, and for our users. Does this make me a villain? Acknowledging the limitations of our thinly stretched userbase? There is a purpose to tags, as contentious as the battles as you've had must have been. On the fringes of Wikipedia, it's the only protection users have against potentially misleading information. You do not get to close this issue with a recommendation to deny that to them. PraetorianFury (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

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

I request that I be blocked.

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

---

I refuse to be treated like crap. Can someone please block me? I do not wish to participate in this project any more. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Then don't participate, you don't need to be blocked for that. Malleus Fatuorum 18:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

If you're serious about wanting to be blocked, you need to apply to an administrator willing to consider placing self-requested blocks. Bishonen | talk 18:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC).

Strong oppose per WP:HORSE. Partial funding for this event has been provided by the WikiMedia Foundation. Please send all additional donations to the Arbitration Committee. Vegan foie gras and sashimi gratefully accepted. No flowers by request. Mathsci (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer. Ryan Vesey 18:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose, as retirement is the best route for that. There's no drama to it. GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Opposed. I don't think we should block an editor except when a) there's due cause, or b) we've completed the encyclopedia.Dusty|💬|You can help! 18:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The spirit is willing, but the bit is weak. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Have a break, come back in a few hours/days - or not at all if that is how you feel. No need to block just because a thread you began didn't go your way. GiantSnowman 19:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
• Treated like crap? And to think somebody accused you earlier of creating drama. Take some time off, think about what others have said to you and then come back if you want to and can act in a more mature manner. Good luck. --Malerooster (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Editor deserves a barnstar for standing up for himself, not a block. Viriditas (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

  "To be a man means sticking up for yourself". "No child, being a man means doing what is right." Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Just stop coming to Wikipedia if you don't wish to participate anymore. --Jayron32 20:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing continues on List of Adventure Time characters

I brought this up last week, but it seems to have gotten swept under the rug. In short, User 321Wikiman keeps adding information to the article with a bogus source. Talking/leaving a message on his page has done no good, and he continues to do it. Please help.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, 321Wikiman shouldn't be edit warning and almost violating the three-revert rule for starters. In fact, the bold, revert, discuss essay should probably be followed here. TBrandley 20:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I've notified the editor in question again. TBrandley 20:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Delivered a {{uw-vand4}} notice to the user and made it explicitly clear what the next step will be if the user doesn't conform to BRD. Hasteur (talk) 21:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive activity from IP range at Vevo article

An editor active over the 208.54 IP range, mainly 208.54.36, has been repeatedly edit-warring in this tendentious unsourced change. The IP has said this is being done for the purpose of using Wikipedia as a soapbox against Vevo and attacked one of the editors removing it during the talk page discussion while refusing to back up the material with reliable sources. Article was already semi-protected for three days and IP has been warned about the edit-warring, yet continues to revert. Given that the disruptive activity from the IP-hopping editor extends to the talk page I think semi-protection and an anon-only range block are necessary.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The main IPs at issue are 208.54.36.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 208.54.36.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (the 151 IP having already been blocked for 31 hours due to repeated blanking of an editor's user page), but the disruptive editing appears to have also originated from 208.54.32.229, 208.54.32.189, 208.54.36.183, and 208.54.36.150.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article for one week. You can also request protection at WP:RFPP in the future. Normally talk pages are not protected except in extreme cases, which this is not. -- Dianna (talk) 00:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Protection is one thing, but the editor on this IP range is another part of the problem. This individual is just taking the issue to another article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I will see if a range block is possible and will get back to you shortly. -- Dianna (talk) 03:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The edits are coming from a tight range but there's other people doing good edits from the range. It's mostly vandalism though, so I will do a 3-day range block on 208.54.36.128/26. -- Dianna (talk) 03:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

User:142.179.233.65 persistant vandalism

User keeps vandalizing articles by the insertion of factual errors and persists despite warnings.

Deliberate insertion of factual errors at Lac La Biche, Alberta:

• 1 by 172.219.165.61, sock of 142.179.233.65
• 2 by 108.181.44.47, suspected sock of 142.179.233.65
• 3 by same IP above
• 4 by 142.179.233.65
• 5 by 142.179.233.65
• 6 by 142.179.233.65
• 7 by 142.179.233.65 (third in 24 hours, I've withheld reverting per WP:3RR)

Warning diffs re: vandalism at Lac La Biche, Alberta:

• after #1 above level 1 with sock, Feb-3/13
• after #4 above level 2, Feb-23/13
• after #5 above level 3, Mar-26/13
• after #6 above level 4, Mar-26/13

Three warnings from others re: other articles between level 2 and level 3 warnings above:

• [248]

Contribution comparisons of subject editor and other IPs:

• 142.179.233.65
• 172.219.165.61
• 108.181.44.47

Bottom line is user has been unresponsive to warnings placed on talk page in terms of actions or discussion. Hwy43 (talk) 02:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I reopened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/142.179.233.65.--Scaldjosh (talk) 02:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

One IP geolocates to Edm, and one to Ft Mc Murray. It could be the same guy, someone who works in the oilpatch and commutes. A sockpuppet report will not tell us any more than we already know. The best way to stop the problem is with some page protection. I will protect the article for a week to start and will watch-list the article. -- Dianna (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I have decided to block 142.179.233.65 as well, because they were introducing factual errors into other articles as well, such as Mötley Crüe. The other two IPs do not have any recent edits. -- Dianna (talk) 03:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Premature Closure????

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

---

A moment ago, I was admonished for prematurely closing AFDs.

I just happened to come across these:

http://www.qudswiki.org/?query=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CLA_Building

http://www.qudswiki.org/?query=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neutra_VDL_Studio_and_Residences

http://www.qudswiki.org/?query=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Desert_Studies_Center

http://www.qudswiki.org/?query=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Southern_California_Marine_Institute

http://www.qudswiki.org/?query=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/W._K._Kellogg_Arabian_Horse_Center

http://www.qudswiki.org/?query=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bronco_Student_Center

http://www.qudswiki.org/?query=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cal_Poly_Pomona_Broncos_men%27s_basketball

--Scaldjosh (talk) 09:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

And those were nominated by a block-evading sockpuppet account; as bad-faith nominations, those were speedy closed, by an admin under WP:SK2. Your closures ([249], [250], [251]) were inappropriate non-admin closures of disccusions that were not clearly bad-faith, and in one case you attempted to undo the reversion of your inappropriate close ([252]). My advice (given that you just came off an unrelated block) would be to take a deep breath, and simply edit for awhile, instead of doing things like this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, I've notified the admin who closed those of this discussion, which you failed to do. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not blaming anyone. I don't think that these were sour grapes because:

1. These were nominated for deletion with valid reasons (Some are only one-line atricles while others don't 've any references)

2. The articles were not vandalised or nominated for speedy deletion. The nominations were closed within 30 minutes and the result was based on one or two votes.

3. Since the nominations did not get reverted, I believe that other Wikipedians should 've a chance to voice their opinions before a judgement is passed. Wikipedia is a democratic encyclopedia--Scaldjosh (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

A saying, the criminal always returns to the scene of the crime Scaldjosh blocked as a sockpuppet of Mangoeater1000. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Enbionycaar

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.

---

‎Enbionycaar (talk · contribs)

Obviously the same guy who edit-warred as an IP over Germanic peoples so that it finally had to be indef-protected. Though he was advised by an uninvolved editor to seek consensus and discuss the issue, said user now created a fork and wants to war a link to his fork into the article. Maybe just clueless, but definitely disruptive, esp. since he refuses to participate in ongoing discussions. The main goal seems to be to avoid them. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

why are you always lying about me not posting on the talkpages if you look at them am involved in all of them and that germanic peoples modern article was not a fork since most of the text is not included in the original article and it was requested by another user at the germanic peoples talkpage Enbionycaar (talk) 09:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I ask uninvolved editors to examine the talkpage and the level of "involvement" and actual conversation by/with this editor. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• This issue appears to be about the time scope of the Germanic peoples article. One side wants to limit the time scope of the article so that the term "Germanic peoples" is limited to when certain people were organized by tribes - a time before when nation states such as German, Norway, Sweden, etc. existed and not "to any group after the Germanic polities had evolved into mediaeval states by the end of the 1st millennium AD," so that term "Germanic peoples" is not normally applied to anything later than the Early Middle Ages. The other side wants to extend time scope the Germanic peoples article to cover "modern nation states with Germanic languages." Enbionycaar recently created Germanic peoples (modern) (now at AfD). I edited the AfD to remove a bad faith accusation[253] and posted a note on Seb_az86556's talk page.[254] Looking at the Germanic peoples talk page and its archives, this appears to be a long term dispute in which editors have not been able to resolve and move on. As a formal discussion, the AfD might bring closure to this issue so editors can move on. -- Jreferee (talk) 11:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

AGF is not a suicide pact. The point is that people would welcome participation in said discussion, and have asked for input numerous times; one editor, Enbionycaar, flat-out refuses to participate. How do you deal with someone who will simply not engage in conversation? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

See? Now what? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

i simply reverted your unconstructive edits Enbionycaar (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

My point exactly. "I simply revert" is all you ever do. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

you are not following good faith policies and you lie alot Enbionycaar (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you strike that (use <s></s>). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

If it's worth noting, it's clear that Ebionycaar made a series of 10 edits to his user page to bypass the semiprotection on Germanic peoples (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

What is wrong with that? i just wanted to edit so i did so per wp:policies of waiting 4 days and making 10 edits Enbionycaar (talk) 18:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Seb_az86556

(was separate section opened by Enbionycaar. Consolidated)

this user stalks me on a all my edits and makes lies about "how i NEVER discuss my edits" he is edit warring himself by the way without following basic wikipedia guidelines like good faith and wp:civil and wp:3rr so can someone look on his non constructive editing Enbionycaar (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

[255] Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

[256] Enbionycaar (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

What's your point posting that link? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

What is yours Enbionycaar (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Read it. It shows your use of talkpages. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As far as I'm concerned, Enbionycaar, your the one who is being disruptive here. Seb's edits are clearly constructive to the article and you are being unreasonable. In any case, you should both see the bold, revert, discuss essay who has some helpful tips and do not edit war. Use Wikipedia's talk pages and discuss, that's the general convention. How is Seb stalking here anyways? TBrandley 18:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

what do you mean? he repeatedly revering all my edits so he is also obviosly edit warring Enbionycaar (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm on fire today. Another sockpuppet blocked. That's Chaosname (talk · contribs) if anybody's wondering. Elockid ^(Talk) 18:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

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

New User:Unotretre sock?

Socks gonna sock. - The Bushranger One ping only 12:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A new account has appeared at Freeboard (skateboard) and is already at 3RR trying to spam the company Gravitis into the article again (again!). Anyone who remembers the case will know the company name in question and the extensive history. For a start, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Unotretre/Archive. I'll start another SPI but Gravitis-related socks have a long history at the article. Can we either block the new sock for socking, EW or NOTHERE or protect the article, please? He's already accusing me of vandalism for reverting his obviously unsourced promo. Stalwart111 11:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC) As written in my user discussion page, I had seen this, but I know also they are in faith and all was born because Freebord considers 'freeboard' a mispelling of their company name, but here and in Italy the inventor of freeboard as a sport is considered dr Aldo Grippaldi. I give reason to Gravitis, you can see the patent US Patent, google 6,419,249 B1 after that of Steen Strand here and the real 'freeboard' in Italian Government database. Gravitis and Aldo Grippaldi are in total faith, his company is respectable and you have edited this without checking what Broox of Grippaldi Aldo says from a long time. Hard to be one against all, but they are in right, Europeans know it. I ACCUSED YOU OF VANDALISM AS YOU CANCELED MY REAL INFORMATIONS ABUOT THE PATENS HISTORY, WITH DOCUMENTED DATES, PLEASE DO NOT CANCEL MY REAL DATA. I simply briefed what it's evident to all us, and Gravitis was forced to be considered in faul by many here, but if they showed their patent from the beginning they would not be wrongly in blacklist as you write, absolutely. The 'freeboard' patents is done by Aldo grippaldi, as that Patent by Steen Strand was bypassed by the other US patent by Chen. The inventor of the 'freeboard' term and the sport of freeboard is Aldo Grippaldi with his all-in-trucks-design patent. This was obstaculated in every way here. But the real thing is there, written in clear dates of their patents. --Firmone (talk) 11:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Yes, you want to remove reliably sourced and verifiable history and replace it with WP:OR-based spam in exactly the same manner as previous Unotretre socks whose only purpose here was to promote Gravitis. This has all been explained. Stalwart111 11:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC) I do not know who you are and why you have done so many revisions in favour of Freebord, I'll stay at facts are: you can not say the US Government Patent search is not verificable, this is false, google that or search the Government websites. The italian one in Italian Goverment as well. To me and to European riders, Gravitis or Aldo has not destroied any reputation, because they tried to revert an unjustice, and defamation here, you should remove Gravitis from the black list, and regarding the fact Aldo Grippaldi was not sourced and the magazines he listed were not sourced to you, just see what legenday men he is and still represent for the WR skateboarding, scrollo down the right column dates http://www.facebook.com/RollerCoasterLuge Being said, please RETRIEVE YOUR REQUEST TO BLOCK MY ACCOUNT as I only reported what is known. --Firmone (talk) 11:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. The editor is back inside 24 hours with a new account - User:Fb rider (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - again at Freeboard (skateboard). Obvious evasion is obvious. Stalwart111 21:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Oh, and between the two accounts he is now at 8RR or something, trying to spam yet more promotion of Gravitis into the article. Stalwart111 21:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP Complaint

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

---

I spotted newbie/IP Complaining about dead links. Can we get‎ Sandstein to block him? Tommy Pinball (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Lack of AGF makes me wonder why this is even here. Also, you didn't even notify the editor. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 23:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Pgg804

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

---

I am concerned at this account, which appears to be used mainly for posting antisemitic smears and personal attacks. I first came across him/her with this edit on Talk:Noam Chomsky, where he claims that antisemitic attacks by Germans on Jews were actually evidence of "Jewish anti-German hatred". I removed this soapboxing, to be met with this response, in which s/he repeats the original claim, throws in a gratuitous and irrelevant about Israeli brutality in Gaza, and then talks about "people of your sort". Looking at this editor's other edits, I found this edit claiming that concentration camp deaths were the result of allied bombing of pharmaceutical factories; this edit claiming Jews "ratcheted up hatred" of Nazi Germany, and drawing a parallel with Shylock; this edit claiming that Wikipedia is "run by Christian hating Jews."; this edit clainming that "Wikipedia is a Jewish Website. It's owned and run by Jews. In regards to WW II history its primary goal, like that of powerful Jewish organizations, is to focus on Jewish suffering, attack anyone who questions their version of what happened and minimize the suffering of everyone else by simply ignoring it"; this edit claiming that the US government "is run by a Jewish elite to advance the interests of Israel and Jews" and many similar charming remarks. Since our first encounter, Pgg has continued to make antisemitic edits.[257][258] The most recent edit was this one yesterday, stating that "The Anti-Defamation league is a racist organization dedicated to promoting the advancement of Jews over others. They promote anti-Arab, anti-German, anti-European, anti-Islamic and anti-Christian attitudes. They do not believe in freedom of speech and use hate speech towards those whose opinions they don't like. Along with AIPAC, they are a key driving force behind the wars, propaganda and hatred towards Muslim countries and the murders that take place in countries like Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Palestine, etc. They believe Jews are the "chosen people" and the country they are loyal to is Israel."

The more I look into this user's edits, the more antisemitic remarks I find.[259][260][261][262][263] and many more. In fact, just take any edit at random. In short, I do not believe that Pgg804 is here to improve this encyclopaedia, but rather to use it as a platform for spreading antisemitic lies and propaganda, holocaust denial and apologia for Nazi Germany. Could an admin please look at this and take appropriate action. RolandR (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

While editors can choose to edit on any subject of their choosing, this is uncivil POV pushing. I'd support a block, all of their edits appear to be soapboxing, not an effort to create a neutral encyclopedia. James086^Talk 18:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• These are clear examples of WP:NOTHERE and WP:NPA. This style of interaction and tendentious editing is unacceptable. - MrX 18:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

User(s) blocked.. indefinitely. I don't see any need to discuss this at all, it is glaringly obvious what they are here to do, it isn't anything good. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Disruptive edits, incivility and racist remarks by Ozan192

Ozan192 is stating racist remarks and spreading disruptive activity throughout Turkey/Kurdish/Armenian related articles which is fueled by a severe case of battlefield mentality.

• He has said, "Armenian users should not be allowed to edit pages on Turkey. Armenian sources should not be used on pages to do with Turkey. Both are bound to be biased and most likely works of fiction"
• He has said, Any source on Turkey written by an Armenian cannot be used on pages related to Turkey.
• He has implied that Kurds and Armenians are vandals by stating I'm not going to allow Kurds and Armenians to vandalize pages to do with Turkey.
• He has violated WP:NCGN by removing Armenian and Kurdish native names of various cities in Turkey regardless of whether they are sourced or not: [264][265][266][267] and dozens more (please see contributions for the entire list)
• He has said that all sources of certain Kurdish related articles are unreliable and that Kurdish and Armenian sources shouldn't be allowed on Wikipedia.
• He has repeatedly called me and others Kurdish irredentist nationalists in his edit-summaries after I and others have reverted his disruptive edits: [268][269][270][271][272]
• All his edits are unsigned.
• After I politely warned him, he responded by saying "was that a joke?" It is impossible to work with such an editor. Proudbolsahye (talk) 01:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• That's Ozan192 (talk · contribs), and I have to agree with Proudbolsahye. Ozan obviously does not assume good faith, routinely labels people whose opinions he dislikes "irredentist nationalists", claims sources such as the BBC, Encyclopedia Britannica, the British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, and a book published by Oxford University Press "dead and unreliable", and generally has a battleground mentality. Even when he has a point, such as with the removal of unsourced Kurdish place names, his attitude makes it very hard to work constructively with him, and since he simply labels sources that may be present as "biased", I don't think the lack of sources is really what his campaign is about. Huon (talk) 02:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I have blocked the user indefinitely. The personal attacks and the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality are extreme. One cannot simply dismiss all sources from a certain country/ethnicity as inherently biased. While the person can appeal the block, they'll need to show a 100% change in their attitude to begin editing again. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Moving user talk to article talk page

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

---

User:Candicell moved his/her talk page to the talk page for an article in the main space Talk:Dr. Adil Ramzan. The article was also created by user and has subsequently been deleted. How do you revert this type of move? I'm also unable to warn the editor as the talk page no longer exists since the redirect talk page has been deleted. Further instructions or action appreciated. EagerToddler39 (talk) 03:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, since it was deleted, you need an admin to undelete the deleted talk page, and then it can be moved back to User talk:Candicell just like any other page. I've done this; the talk page should be in its right spot now. Writ Keeper (t + c) 03:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Legal threat

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

---

In the edit summary[273], "Reverting sabotaged page. We have logged the computer IP numbers and reported to police."

User seems to be a single purpose account showing serious ownership tendencies at Rebound therapy. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Blocked and explained the policy to User:Paul V Kaye. The thought of police action over this is laughable, but that's not the point. James086^Talk 15:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The editor User:Paul V Kaye has been using wikipedia as a host for advertising literature for some time. Dusty|💬|You can help! 16:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Apparently I'm marked by 2channel. Being wiki-stalked, character assassination, wholesale reverts

In regards to User:Moscowconnection. It all started here(I know it's a long read but please look over it). Since then he proceeds to revert my edits outside of the current discussion [274], [275] with zero rationale given. Right now he has hijacked the proposal discussion into some sort of defamation campaign. It's nothing but trying to find dirt on me at this point. He himself admitted that I'm being watched by 2channel [276] link to site [277], and someone over there was requesting an English speaker to help them take care of me or something. Says that I'm " Korean :D"(?) and that I "do evil things in wikipedia :D". Accused me of bullying and that my edits are "tendencious". Constant ad-hominem attacks like this that just come from left-feild. This is just malicious at this point. I swear this guy has some weird vendetta against me. There's obvious POV pushing, that and 2channel has been linked with disruptive canvassing against Korean articles [278] [279] [280]. I'm trying not to reply to this guy at this point. Stateofyolandia (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Extended content

I reverted your edits in which you removed reliably sourced information. I didn't hijack the discussion, I just happen to be here cause I have the talk page in my watchlist. Someone has to defend the K-pop article. There are several other users who expressed their opinions, and the opinions were not favorable of Stateofyolandia's proposal to remove the criticism section and links to C-pop (Chinese pop music) and J-pop (Japanese pop music) from the article. "Admit"? What did I admit? What do I have to do with a post on 2channel that I found in Google in 1 minute when searched for the user name "Stateofyolandia"? I never said you were "Korean :D", did "evil things in wikipedia :D", I said it was said on 2channel about you. It was intended to emphasise that some Japanese people think that everyone removing "bad things" :D about Korea from Wikipedia is Korean. I don't have any idea whether Stateofyolandia is Korean, Japanese, Chinese, American, British whatsoever. The user resorted to defamation and to outright untruthful statements towards the end of the discussion. Yes, I started to think something was not right and started suspecting Stateofyolandia wasn't such a random Wikipedia user as he/she claimed to be, so I looked into his/her edits a little bit more and searched the Internet for the user name. The result was terrifying, I didn't expect such a reaction from someone seemingly new on Wikipedia. I also don't have any interest in talking to the user, following him/her, whatever. I just think it's time for him/her to stop attempting to trick people into removing reliably sourced info from the K-pop article, even if it says something unfavorable (from his/her point of view) of the music genre. From my point of view, every article should have a criticism section. An article without criticism is not an article. :D Yes, the admins should look at the thread to see tt. I think I'm facing someone very skillful here. The user doesn't have many edits and said he/she hadn't edited since 2011, but the way he/she knows all the rules is strange a little bit. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC) By the way, I don't really want to continue the discussion with the user. I planned to do other things, but I have to talk and talk and talk to someone who continues trying to delete something, just something from the K-pop article. I changed my attitude to a more strong opposition towards the end of the discussion at "Talk:K-pop#Some proposals" simply because I thought that if other editors would start to be afraid to improve the controversies section because of Stateofyolandia's proposal, it won't be good for the article. I decided that the best solution would be if the proposal would just be considered failed and everyone would feel absolutely free to improve the article again, whether with favorable or unfavorable to K-pop statements. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Stateofyolandia suddenly accused someone named EJcarter of being a sock puppet, this is a really extraodinary behavior for someone who never edits. I don't know but EJcarter in his/her turn compared Stateofyolandia to someone named Historiographer. And I'm not sure, but I found something in Historiographer's edits which suggests that EJcarter may have thought he was someone named Philip126, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Philip126/Archive. I don't know, I don't really want to spend several hours comparing their edits. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)-~ I am sorry if it is forbidden to discuss a user's behavior on article talk pages as Drmies suggested in this edit. If it is, tell me cause I think that was not the first time I did it and I didn't know. :) --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)` Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Philip126/Archive ←←← But really, just look at this and compare with Stateofyolandia's contributions. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC) This January 13 edit by Jaws12345 removes one of the paragraphs removed by Stateofyolandia. What's interesting, Jaws12345's contributions are also scattered across several years. It looks like someone's sock puppet. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Another interesting editor, Party4321 (contributions). --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive723#User:Quendearn and User:Wlkr999 ←←← A very interesting thread on ANI where a user named Historiographer seems to be concerned with behavior of the same two users Stateofyolandia mentioned here. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC) (I read it, Historiographer's English is not good, but who knows... People learn...) --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• Will some sane and uninvolved person (I'm 0 for 2) please say something that puts a stop to this. Just one thing: Moscow Connection, article talk pages exist to talk about articles, not about other editors. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I've already stopped, by the way. If it doesn't look right, I won't say a thing here anymore. I was simply investigating and I thought it was useful for Wikipedia, etc. Thank you too. :) --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I've found this edit by Stateofyolandia in the Korean Wikipedia: [281]. He posted on Historiographer's talk page (사용자:Ph is Historiographer, their user pages are linked). Therefore, they are not the same person. I apologize to Historiographer for my guess. It did look strange that Stateofyolandia reverted to Historiographer's versions twice: [282], [283], and the latter edit summary was very similar to this: [284]. So EJcarter's hypothesis was not improbable. --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Moscowconnection, you need to stop posting shit here unless someone else says something.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, I saw the linked 2ch post. The original ja is 英語版ウィキペディアの朝鮮の歴史テンプレートで、韓国人が漢四郡を削除して隠蔽しようとします。誰か英語ができる人漢四郡を復帰させて下さい。 and the translation is At en:WP, a Korean editor is trying to remove Four Commanderies of Han from the Korean history template and conceal the fact of it. If there are en speakers, please restore Four Commanderies of Han. There is no accusation at all. I don't understand the OP and Moscow Connection. Oda Mari (talk) 08:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I noted to OP that he had been discussed on 2channel. I didn't understand half of the 2channel post, so I just jokingly said "evil things" and went to investigate. I don't have any idea what he thought, but I can see what he wants my words to look like. I added as many smilies as I possibly could: [285]. Seven minutes later I explained to him what "evil" he did: [286]. This was his reply: [287]. He said there had been a discussion to remove Four Commanderies of Han from the template, while actually the user who started the discussion said in the last reply that it was part of Korean history. --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Continued person attacks on other user by User:Juddhoward

User:Juddhoward has engaged in personal attacks in his summaries of his edits to the article Pope Francis such as these two "(cur | prev) 01:29, 26 March 2013‎ Juddhoward(talk | contribs)‎. . (116,411 bytes) (-20)‎ . .(Even a confused mind crammed with incoherent theology should be able to appreciate that "homosexuality" encompasses SSM.) (undo) (cur | prev) 01:24, 26 March 2013‎ Juddhoward(talk | contribs)‎ . . (116,431 bytes) (+366)‎ . .(Does the good Lord not saying something about cleaving to the truth? The paragraph does not already mention this, my lying, whitewashing friend) (undo)". I brought this up on the talk page and they suggested mentioning it here. I have asked Juddhoward to refrain from personal attacks on other people. In his most recent response on his talk page he essentially accused me of being a potential child molestor because he feels that I am a religious person. I do not think such accusations are in anyway appropriate on wikipedia. He has gone into behavior that strikes me as being totally out of line an inapropriate. He has consistently demonstated a failure to be anywhere near civil in wikipedia discussions. People should not be accused of crimes because of their actual or assumed religious views.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

•  Done Drmies (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I had typed up a long and hopefully helpful commentary on his page to try and help him see the light, but lost it in an edit conflict. Ah well. His continuing edit summaries indicate it was probably a vain hope anway as he's on a fast track to TPA revocation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Don't you love it when the C- student in Freshman Comp pulls out the thesaurus and overreaches? "With such efficiency and a vacuous life", I take that first part as a compliment and the second part as a wished-for blessing. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Legal threat

...in the edit summary:[288] "Slanderous and if posted again legal action will be made." For what it's worth, the content in question has two reliable sources, and is neutrally phrased - not slander, in my opinion. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked for legal threats. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• On the basis of WP:DOLT, I had look at that section. Atrocious. Did anyone actually bother to read what was there and check the sources? I removed the second paragraph which was sourced solely to an anonymous gossip column on the Huffington Post, which was quoting this tabloid, which was quoting an anonymous "insider". The second source listed didn't mention Byrne at all. It was a review of a film in which her alleged new boyfriend had appeared. Voceditenore (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Sock created with my name

Choyooł'įįhí:Seb az86556 (talk · contribs)

Please delete account admonish user. Thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Choyooł'įįhí:Seb az86556 is a wp:doppelganger, not a sock. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 is not a registered account. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

And why are you my doppelganger? Did I ask you to do that? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Blocked with extreme prejudice. DMacks (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I reduced the prejudice. But yes, Emmette, that's pretty inappropriate. DMacks (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh really, so now someone else has a password to an account that could be me who is blocked? I want that password. The only reason I even found out was that I happened to see Emmette's contribs; didn't even bother to tell me. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

There was a tiny difference in the apostrophes, it seems; Choyooł'įįhí:Seb az86556 (talk · contribs) was the "real" impostor, and Im not sure how Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 (talk · contribs) figures into it but it is not an actual user, impostor or otherwise. It seems that Emmette Hernandez Coleman created the account, thinking he was doing you a favor, and there was a misunderstanding because he didn't tell you. So I hope we can all understand and forgive and forget now. —Soap— 21:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

No. I want the password. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

That's up to you and Emmette to discuss, but I warn you both now that posting passwords on-wiki is grounds for immediate account blocking as a security risk (and to answer a variation, it's not possible for anyone *else* to look up that password if Emmette declines to give it to you him/herself). The account is indef'ed with talkpage access disabled, so there's no use for it. DMacks (talk) 21:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

What kinda bullshit is that? Someone holds the password to my name. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Consider this: anyone who tries that not-actually-your-account right now is not actually you, so the person doing them is liable to be blocked. And whoever has that password is powerless to use it anyway (even if you had it yourself). Your best bet is to leave it alone, and avoid taking on the risk of using a tainted account. Alternately, you can discuss off wiki whatever you two want regarding trying to use a blocked account. DMacks (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

[edit conflict] The account's blocked, and nobody's going to unblock it; Emmette couldn't do anything with the account even if he wanted to. Nyttend (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Rename resquested. Leave it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I created the account to keep Seb from being impersonated, that's why I used the {{doppelganger-other}} tag. I don't see how that is inappropriate, if it is why do we have the {{doppelganger-other}} tag? Seb, I don't hold password to your name, I used a radioum password that I never bothered to record. Even if I did it would be a major improvement over the previous sutetion where everyone with an Internet connection held your name, no password necessary. had I routinely create these doppelganger accounts, and nothing ever came of it before. I used to inform people when I cerated a doppelganger for them, but then I realized that someone might see one of those messages and get the idea to create an imposer account, which is exactly what I'm trying to prevent. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Completely inappropriate; you might come from a culture where names do not matter; handling someone else's name or names without their permission is the highest possible offense. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The vast majority of us come from such a culture, and many or most people reading this thread (me, for example) had no clue that Navajo culture was different; it would be unreasonable to expect EHC to act differently in your case from other people's cases. Nyttend (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no good reason to create doppelganger accounts for other users. I've nominated that template for deletion. Ryan Vesey 21:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. It would be reasonable to expect that no-one does this kinda shit for whatever reason. Who the fuck is this user to usurp some sorta managing position like that??? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there some reason for the foul language? We get it that you are pissed off. Swearing doesn't help your cause it seems.--Malerooster (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

If there was ever a good reason for using the word fuck...this would be it. This is an odd sort of thread. What is going on exactly that a user's name is being used in this manner. I think Seb should be allowed to usurp that name in some manner so that it may never be used again.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

That's the point, there is NO good reason for foul language here. All it shows is ignorance and immaturity. --Malerooster (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

We don't censor editors and when there appears to be a reaction that anyone could understand, why would you care that the word was used? Incivility isn't a matter of the use of a single word...its how it is used.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, He can swear all he wants to, and it's up to him to decide whether or not he cares about what others may think. Chamal ^T•C 12:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I think there's a serious lack of WP:AGF here. Emmette clearly didn't mean to cause any damage by doing this: he thought he was doing something good in order to protect other users, he broke no rule (and even used a template created explicitly for this purpose), and he intended to help the project, not damage it. Yes, perhaps it was a bit too presumptuous of him to do this, perhaps it was a tad inappropriate, and perhaps he should have notified Seb that he'd done this (in fact, he definitely should have), but ultimately he was acting in good faith, and there has been no damage caused. Perhaps a trout is in order for Emmette, but that's about it. – Richard BB 13:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Other account creations

Emmette Hernandez Coleman has apparently created a number of alternate accounts for other users. The account above was clearly not created at the user's request, so I question whether any of the others were requested. At least a few of these are rather inappropriate, and while probably well-intentioned, these account creations should stop. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Absolutely. Ryan Vesey 21:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)They weren't requested. I understand Seb, as that seems to be a cross-cultural issue, but otherwise I don't see how it's inappropriate. Before I registered then any potential impostor could have registered and used them. Now that I have, no one, not even I, can use them (they all have scrambled passwords). If this is inappropriate, why do we even have the {{Doppelganger-other}} tag? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I've nominated that for deletion. Ryan Vesey 21:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't make me exotic or whatever. There are numerous people who wouldn't want you or anyone else to do this, just like they wouldn't want you to cover their house with mirror-sheets so it saves energy and lowers their electricity bill. You just don't do that kinda stuff. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Best place to add comment, I guess. Totally agree that I would go completely ballistic if someone set up a "friendly" doppleganger account for me, no I'm not Navajo (peace to the nation in passing), live in Europe but take any kind of ID usurpation very badly, well-intended or not. Also, WTF, the user is entitled to let off steam and, for fuck's sake say fuck, if they are really pissed about a really serious issue, such as having one's identity ripped-off. To quote God knows who, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

None of this makes any sense. Don't we have the account creator right for users who are trusted to do this? If Coleman isn't an account creator, he needs to agree to stop immediately. Since he doesn't understand why people have a problem with this, he should be given a restriction. Viriditas (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who has had the account-creator rights for use on the unblock-en mailing list, it just lets you skirt the 6 accounts per day limit or whatever the number is. -- ۩ Mask 08:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

There's no point continuing this argument here at ANI. Wikipedia policy doesn't say that a doppelganger account cannot be created by one user on behalf of another. Therefore Emmette's actions (which were clearly done in good faith) are technically not wrong. Personally I feel this is inappropriate, but my personal opinion doesn't really matter for this discussion. The issue on the template is being handled separately at TFD already, and if anybody thinks a change in policy is required you can propose it at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) or any other appropriate location, but ANI is not the place. Chamal ^T•C 12:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I should also mention that account creators do create doppelgangers for other users if and when requested. IIRC I have created a couple myself when I was an account creator before I got the admin tools, although it doesn't happen often as far as I know (although I don't really know anything about the present situation). Chamal ^T•C 14:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Emmette, if you are going to create dopplegangers on behalf of other users (though I very strongly suggest you don't, as there is zero reason to), at least have the manners to notify them in future. GiantSnowman 15:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused. I see messages up above saying User:Choyooł'įįhí:Seb az86556 is blocked, but I see no indications of that in that User's block log. RNealK (talk) 22:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The account has been renamed, so there is currently no user with that name. --Carnildo (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Does that open up the possibility of the account being created again? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm very surprised at this opposition to unrequested doppelgangers, but I won't create them (except maybe for Jimbo), at least not until policy on doppelgangers becomes clearer. In response to Viriditas, there's a difference between not understanding why people have a problem with this, and not not understanding that people have a problem with this. The second has become plainly obvious. In response to the people who said that I should have informed people when I cerated a doppelganger for them, I used to, but then I realized that a potential importer might see one of those messages and get the idea to create an imposer account, which is exactly what I was trying to prevent. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I really can't figure out what this is all about. Could you clarify (a) why you picked the accounts you did - of all the thousands of possibilities - to "protect" with these doppelgangers and (b) how precisely does it protect the original account? DeCausa (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Why do you feel the need to take it upon youself & "protect" these users? If they want a doppleganger, I'm sure they know how to create one. What you are doing is slightly...I dunno, creepy...and if it happens again I will consider it harrasment & disruptive behaviour and will block you. Simple as. Unless consensus here from other admins says that EHC's creation of accounts on "behalf of" other users is somehow OK... GiantSnowman 20:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

As for why I "feel the need to take it upon [my]self", that's simple. To prevent impersonation, tough a few such User:Example public weren't dopplegangers, but were simply created because they are "placeholders" that should not be used. As for the block threat, I've already said that I won't create unrequested doppelgangers, at least until until policy on doppelgangers becomes clearer. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Skookum

Skookum1 (talk · contribs) was asked by me (after a really weird situation in IRC-help) about a dubious source to one paragraph in a company's FAQ page for the article Skookum. He proceeded to wave his supposed credentials in my face, and saying "that that was the first cite for this page when it began" and (same diff) " Thing is, it's a valid cite, what's on it is true" and "It's true, what's on it", showing a blatant misunderstanding of what a reliable source is. He then, after I take it to WP:RSN proceeds to make these comments: "but then this is wikpedia, where the lies of the mainstream media can be repeated as if factual because the definition of "reliable sources" includes them and excludes non-mainstream media (independent news blogs)" "pu[i]ssant rulebook-follower" "has just done the lazy, uninformed route by wanting it deleted" "Look up "cupidity" in re "blogs are unreliable sources because they have no editorial oversight" is hogwash" "A consensus of fools s only foolishness.......why have you made this article so important to get rid of that you are attacking, and now threatening, one of its principal authors?" "And you're not my equal, nowhere near it." " Get 40,000+ edits and start as many articles as I have, then you might come halfway close.". "nonsensical scolds". There's some more on WP:RSN too.

The issue here is one of WP:IDHT when confronted about reliability of a source, and attempted credential-mongering (I invented that term, so if there's a better one feel free to tell me) to say a blatantly unreliable source is reliable. He also claims that he is above consensus, and that consensus is foolishness. He keeps beating the dead horse after the consensus began to (and pretty well finished) emerging at WP:RSN that he was wrong. There's also some semi-attacky comments, regarding equality of editors on Wikipedia based on edit count, and calling other users fools, lazy, and scolds. I was advised to bring it up here for a community decision on something, but this person is bordering on not here to be a part of a community. Any input is appreciated. gwickwire^talk_editing 03:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Also notified gwickwire^talk_editing 03:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

gwickwire asked me to comment here. I agre that Skookum's behavior is truly opposed to the standards one might glean from the five pillars. When his source is challenged, rather than try to achieve consensus or prove it is reliable, he merely flaunts his alleged credentials as an editor or a "Chinookologist". At the very least, he needs to understand in no-uncertain-terms that he should avoid using his personal website as a source. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, the reason I asked him to comment is he was the one who suggested I bring it here upon consultation. gwickwire^talk_editing 03:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Bulls**t, you threatened to come here after repeatedly attacking me and insulting my intelligence on my own talkpage. Given this and your immediate participation in User:Huon's AfD on Skookum, and your evident polling (re Someguy's post here) what I'm seeing/feeling is a witchhunt. qwickwire has also said in his attacks on me on my talkpage "I personally would like to see you gone".....oh really? So who's attacking who? Saying he felt I was "threatening" him with my credentials as a chinookologist (such as they are) then turning around and threatening me, and now coming here to fulfill his threats. Why is this being made such a firestorm when the article could use expansion and further citation, and some understanding of the subject matter instead of rejecting it out of hand......when articles like Quadripoint are allowed to stand? This happened on my talkpage, it didn't happen on an article talkpage; I was attacked/criticized and defended myself....oh, apparently I'm "unwilling to listen" and "attack-y" too (see the "debate" on my talkpage). Why the witchhunt?Skookum1 (talk) 03:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Include context. I made that comment saying that I don't want editors here who won't listen to consensus and have no regard for policy. Therefore, I said I'd like it if you left. Maybe it was a bit harsh, and I'll go ahead and say now that it was a bit over the line, but that doesn't excuse you. gwickwire^talk_editing 03:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Skookum1's feeling cornered & frustrated, right now. Let things settle down for awhile. There's no need for a block. GoodDay (talk) 03:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

So because he's frustrated he's allowed to make (albeit minor) personal attacks, claim he's above consensus, and refuse to listen to a RSN decision? gwickwire^talk_editing 03:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Consensus is against you on the parallel AfD which you so eagerly joined in; I'm not the only one who realizes the value and meaning of the article you attacked me over; you made (albeit minor) personal attacks on me while attacking the cite you don't like (which a "real" chinookologist happened to agree with so much he included it verbatim in his book). Go head, google "skookum" and see what you find, instead of trying to tear an official strip off me here and chiming in with the deletionist agenda.Skookum1 (talk) 06:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Given your choice of username, are you in the business of selling these snookum dolls or whatever they are? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Even if he is, the term is generic, not a brand name, so no sensible admin would block him for that. They might as well block you for 'promoting' baseball in your user name. 5.12.84.31 (talk) 11:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

There are endless sources demonstrating the notability of baseball. And of Rumania, for that matter. Not so much, for this snookums thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Heh, Bugs, I'd call you a cheechako, but I realize you don't live in the Pacific Northwest anyway. It wasn't all that long ago that anyone in the PNW, at least north of Oregon, who didn't know what skookum meant was marking themselves as a cheechako. These days though, even natives can't be assumed to know what cheechako means, let alone skookum. Still, it's obvious from your comments you don't know what you are talking about. Pfly (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I have no association with any product or company using this name; it is a username I had long before I came to Wikipedia and I grew up speaking it, assuming it was normal English (which in my part of the country, it is). It's Skookum-One like a CB handle but as "skookum one" e.g. "that's a skookum one" (big and hefty, or maybe a really good pie) or "he's a skookum one" (reliable, trustworthy, probably also big and solid but maybe small and tough). There is no COI or AUTO or OWN going on here, only DONOTDELETE. It's because this word is part of my culture, my upbringing, and I know its full context and all the ways it has been put to use in commerce and geography and also in music and robotics......there's more here than a dictionary meaning, and that there are standalone uses......and there's lots of cites. So instead, someone picked a fight with me, maybe triggered by seeing my username, and came at me; with threats and accusing me of threats. Yes User:The Interior is right, I do have a temper, and very often rightly so when accused of what I am not doing and threats are made out of the blue over something the assailant knows nothing about and is just being a particularist on a particular cite; instead of researching more to see if the article can be improved, to dispute the person with expertise on the subject very hostilely and drag it here, and then support a PROD. C'mon now.......do you think I'd go through all this to pitch dolls or sell my kittens?Skookum1 (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

No, Baseball Bugs thinks you're selling an adjective "thing" which also happens to be a given name for goat [289]!. For that you should be instabanned. End of story. That's how ANI works. Or not. Behehehee. 5.12.69.171 (talk) 17:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is going more about the topic/content of the source/articleLet's drink our morning coffee before booting up the computer. Totally read everything here wrong gwickwire^talk_editing 14:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC) and less about the conduct of the user in question, just saying. gwickwire^talk_editing 14:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

That may be related to the weak case you've put forward for blocking a hard-working yet temperamental editor. Yes, he has a temper. And yes, if you come at him hard enough, he'll probably react by doing something block-worthy. But why bother. The inciting incident here is very inconsequential. How is the encyclopedia improved by this ANI thread? The Interior (Talk) 14:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The fact that he is "hard-working" and "temperamental" isn't the issue. The issue is that when he was questioned about this source he claimed that since he knew the stuff to be true, it was a reliable source. Then, when at RSN people said he was wrong, he claimed that he was going to ignore them, selfsite an admitted unreliable source, and leave the page in its current state as a dictionary entry. In the process, he made a few personal attacks, and many comments that were incivil. You're basically saying that since he does make some good edits he is immune to a block, and that's not true. gwickwire^talk_editing 14:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Excuuuuse meee, what's not true is that that I never said it was an "admitted unreliable source", I said that its content was valid - as any other chinookologist would back me up on, and as noted Jim Holton has used it in his book verbatim (they didn't get it from him, I know Jim); and my own site (http://www.cayoosh.net/hiyu/ - which I put up years ago and barely work on and am not here to promote - is considered a reliable source by other Chinook studies people. Skookum Tools put up a site on local folk language/history and it has some really interesting bits; and it's evidence of how current and popular this term is; so I was right, and now backed up by a published cite, and you still want to complain that I "admitted" something was unreliable when I explicitly did NOT, I averred that it was verifiable and also valid and, given that it is part of popular culture/heritage, and because of that such a cite is clear evidence of how current the understanding and popularity of it is the general culture. I can't think of any chinookologist or even a professional linguist who would dispute that citation; that such a fuss has been made over a page that has verifiable information to the degree to this has gone; to an ANI and a AfD in a double-pronged attack. Your misrepresentations of me and your overreactions to me (being "threatened" by me being a chinookologist and saying you are equal to me....not in this field, you're not, and that's not OR, that's testimony. Sources such as Skookum Tools are regularly cited in actual Chinook studies works and publications because they are the fact and presence/evidence of CJ in contemporary and historical culture and the local argot and business/org nomenclature. No academic paper on this could conscionably say that a popular source was not valid on a subject about popular culture. That this was catapaulted to ANI and AfD at the same time, after this article's been around for a while, is just silly (and kinda mean, what I'm hearing, and whiny); how many hours of my time, never mind yours, have you wasted doing this instead of actually writing an article - or finding out more about this subject and improving the article instead of just taking a weedwhacker to something that wasn't a weed? To me, this ANI isn't about the content, or about me, it's about you.Skookum1 (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

IP sock using AWS?

At the Windows 8 article I am seeing a series of edits ( [290], [291], [292]), also at its talk page ( [293], [294], [295]), by what is clearly the same person using different IPs. The ever-changing IPs are apparently coming from virtual machines at Amazon Web Services (AWS). (It is characteristic of AWS VMs that each gets a different IP every time it is started, unless you pay extra for a static IP.) I don't know if this person has done any other edits under different IPs, not without searching 256x256 possible IPs.

The edits are not really abusive yet, and may simply indicate unfamiliarity with WP. But for now they clearly show a combative tone ("I want it gone"), which combined with the IP-hopping seemed to me to warrant a "hey, you might want to look at this" notice here.

I'm notifying under the last seen IP, but I doubt that will accomplish much. Jeh (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the page for a week. -- Dianna (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Jeh (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

YahwehSaves

Please see a long, long list of complaints spanning years at WT:MIL#Guidance question from Admin or Sysop, please, including article talk page vandalism from today. The reasons the other editors were hesitant to report this at ANI might also be of interest. This came up recently three months ago at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive779#User:YahwehSaves refusing to leave signature. - Dank (push to talk) 03:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Recently? That link is from 3 months ago.

What is the current problem which requires admins? 88.104.27.2 (talk) 04:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey, didn't you used to be the banned user "Light current"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Not even close. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Then how did you know who I was talking about? And you ARE close geographically. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

He's still not signing.[296] Supposedly, refusal to sign is a blockable offense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Was already blocked 24hrs before regarding this issue. Another follow up seems appropriate.—Bagumba (talk) 08:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, disruptive editing at the Audie Murphy page. Talk:Audie Murphy#Closely checking for copyvio and sourcing details what we are trying to correct just from the most recent spate of his edits. There's more, but not everything has been checked from his March edits. Copyvio, no sourcing, and (in an earlier thread on that page), "don't know all the technicalities you're talking about or time to know" in response to editors asking him to properly source his edits. Audie Murphy is a GA, that we are trying to bring up to FA. Now we spend all our time checking and correcting the edits of YahwehSaves who lifts entire phrases from other sites and/or doesn't bother to source, refuses to learn the basics of editing in WP Manual of Style. — Maile (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Baseball, your diff above actually shows YS attempting to sign, they just got the format wrong. Four tildes present, so that is promising. I also cannot see any recent attempt to discuss the matter with YS before bringing to ANI. No admin action required at this point, I would say. GiantSnowman 11:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Oops, you're right. So why didn't the signature show up?←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

How about the disruptive editing? — Maile (talk) 11:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The original complaint - now found to be premature - was about YS not signing posts. if YS is engaged in disruptive behaviour then please provide some diffs to evidence that. GiantSnowman 11:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

There are several MILHIST editors that have been monitoring this article and the complete debacle it has become due directly to the involvement of YS. He refuses to follow the MOS, has committed numerous copyvios and when reverted he just reverts and carries on as normal. The level of disruption is significant and sustained. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

YahwehSaves was invited to join the discussion at MILHIST, and has ignored the invitation. There have been around 50 disruptive edits in March, plus long non-productive ramblings from YahwehSaves on the Audie Murphy talk page. — Maile (talk) 12:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

If you provide a few recent diffs I will be happy to take a further look. GiantSnowman 12:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I haven't dug out all the diffs, so take this with whatever grain of salt you choose, but I agree that YS has become an unnecessarily time-consuming, disruptive presence there. Attempts to discuss sourcing and copyright violation on that talk page don't seem to have made progress, as YS has stated that he/she doesn't have time to learn Wikipedia "technicalities". Maile posted a quick summary of what's happening to the Audie Murphy talk page at Talk:Audie Murphy#Dates below reflect YahwehSaves edits, my signature date is when I made changes that may give a start to whoever wants to catalogue this properly.

And, FWIW, a glance at the talk page does show various unsigned comments besides the one cited above: [297], [298], [299]. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Give me some time. I'll give you the initial copyvio rv that happened and their reversal back and forth. Hope I'm doing this correctly: [300], [301], [302], [303], [304] These all concern one copyvio that YahwehSaves kept reverting. There's so much more disruptive editing that just this. That whole article is now embedded with recent bad edits by YahwehSaves that we are having to go through. But you also need to look at the talk pages on Audie Murphy and Military History to get the full picture of what has been going on. — Maile (talk) 12:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's another copyvio revert by me (different than the one above), of a YahwehSaves March 9 edit, [305], YahwehSaves has not been editing the article over the weekend, so we don't know if he'll revert this or not. A lot of the YahwehSaves edits being reverted are for no sourcing. In some cases, YahwehSaves edits contradicts known sources, but he won't cite his own source. In one case, he insisted the existing source was invalid and that his source was valid, but he refused to give his source. And in a great deal of what YahwehSaves has done to the article in March, we simply do not know where he got the information. Given his history of copyvio, we can't risk unsourced prose from him on an article that is aiming for FA WP Main Page attention.— Maile (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

This [306] March 19 diff is where YahwehSaves has replied to a source challenge with, " I'm not a professional editor and don't know all the technicalities you're talking about or time to know." — Maile (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

March 17 and 18 diff [307], in which YahwehSaves removed text and existing sourcing from both an online site named GlobalSecurity (which he claims is not good) and also sourcing from the United States Army War Department official records. He replaced the removed sourcing with unsourced scans. In spite of his being told on the talk page that scans are not sources and that the article text required sourcing, YahwehSaves did not remove the scans and source his editing. I reverted these unsourced edits of YahwehSaves [308] on March 22. — Maile (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

This same editor showed similar tendencies with the Medal of Honor article around the same time as the first complaint linked by Dank above. A quick glance at his/her talk page seems to show a history of issues with this kind of behavior. Intothatdarkness 16:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, regarding GlobalSecurity, he's right. As for the rest of his issues, though, I agree that this editor is not a benefit to the project, and may indeed be a net drain. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I would like to propose a couple of topic ban-mentoring options. My goal is to get the Audie Murphy article up to A-class at the Military History project, and eventual FA nomination. Related articles of Filmography and the Honors and Awards pages need to be in sync on content. Most of my post-March 7 edits on the Audie Murphy page were clean up from YahwehSaves. The main article is treading water on its GA status, and I would like to deter YahwehSaves from branching out to the other two articles. (The filmography does not carry the Military History banner as the other two do) . I also note YahwehSaves's history at Medal of Honor. This editor also has 195 edits on Matt Urban under his own name, and 27 IP edits under the "suspected sock" that got him a temporary block. The posts on the Military History talk page indicate that other editors have tried to engage YahwehSaves on other like articles. Therefore, I would like to offer:

• Proposal #1 - Topic ban on all Audie Murphy articles (Audie Murphy, Audie Murphy honors and awards and Audie Murphy filmography), contingent upon YahwehSaves agreeing to mentoring. The ban would only be lifted if the mentor feels YahwehSaves has made enough progress to freely edit on Wikipedia.

• Proposal #2 -Topic ban on all Audie Murphy articles (Audie Murphy, Audie Murphy honors and awards and Audie Murphy filmography), AND all articles that carry the WikiProject Military History banner. This would be contingent upon YahwehSaves agreeing to mentoring. The ban would only be lifted if the mentor feels YahwehSaves has made enough progress to freely edit on Wikipedia.

If YahwehSaves will not agree to undergo mentoring, then there should be a block for disruptive editing. Vote or comment. — Maile (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• It might make things less complicated if we ask YahwehSaves if they're interested in mentoring; it doesn't seem likely. - Dank (push to talk) 13:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be how either of the proposals would work? I've not dealt with ANI before. But it seems if one of those proposals is decided on, then YahwehSaves is notified that this is the deal. If YahwehSaves fails to respond, or refuses the mentoring, then the block goes into effect. You put a notice on his talk page when you opened this ANI, and engaging in the dialogue here has always been his option. I might add that on March 20 a notice was put on his talk page regarding the dialogue happening on the talk page at WikiProject Military History. He didn't respond to that, either, but continues to edit at Audie Murphy and at the Audie Murphy talk page. — Maile (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment Given YS' complete lack of interest in the attempts of the community to engage him regarding our concerns about his editing, I believe mentoring options would be a waste of time. I believe the only effective way to deal with him is a lengthy (6 month) topic ban on Audie Murphy-related articles, with an option for appeal after 3 months if he has demonstrated he has learned how to edit properly and in a non-disruptive manner. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to propose a topic ban, I suggest starting a new thread, seeing as this one has gone stale. GiantSnowman 12:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The central question in the various RfA RfCs has been whether tough choices need to be made because work normally associated with admins isn't getting done. I only drop in here occasionally, so I don't know what's going on, but it's easy to imagine editors being put off by the reception these editors got, and I don't fault any of the admins watching for that ... it may just be that the workload is such that you're really not in a big hurry to get involved in cases that might generate drama or require some hand-holding or some sorting-out. Anyone who wants to educate me on the issues here is welcome to do so. - Dank (push to talk) 15:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Or, it may be that there's just a lot of work to do here and not as many people doing it ... and others matters do have greater urgency (abusive socks, vandals, etc.). I've been a vocal opponent of Pending Changes 2, but it may be time for another look. - Dank (push to talk) 00:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

User making threats of cyber attacks...

Thanks, we're aware. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 02:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure of this is the right place but User:TeamSentaSecurity was making threats of "cyber war" with the city of Glendale See Threat Here --Cameron11598 (Converse) 20:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC) Do I need to notify emergency@wikimedia? --Cameron11598 (Converse) 20:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC) I have notified the user here --Cameron11598 (Converse) 20:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC) I'd consider that a threat against Wikipedia enough to forward it to emergency, because imo when they get blocked they'll retaliate against Wikipedia (others may differ in opinion). If you can find a contact for the tech department of the city/ISD, forward this to them as well. The account needs to be immediately indef autoblocked with no e-mail, for this threat. gwickwiretalkediting 20:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC) I guess it is a moot point now the user was blocked and the page diff hidden by an admin...--Cameron11598 (Converse) 20:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC) RD3 seemed to be borderline-applicable. If another admin disagrees with revdel in this case, they are free to revert this decision without my consent (though I would appreciate a note with their reasoning). --Chris (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC) Emergency e-mail is borderline (I think it *may* be okay), but it may be better just to shoot an e-mail to User:Philippe (WMF) and have him forward it to the applicable persons. gwickwiretalkediting 21:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC) From what I understand HERE the consensus was emergency didn't need notification... --Cameron11598 (Converse) 21:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC) I did leave a note on Philippe's talk page as per your suggestion --Cameron11598 (Converse) 22:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Issues on AE

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.

---

An IP editor has filed an AE request at AE. this has been reverted by Giano as he seems to think IP editors have no rights I assume someone will correct him on this. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

If the editor wishes to request an arbitration enforcement, they can sign in to their account to do it. That way we have transparency about who is making the request. That forum is far too easily gamed by trolls for IPs to be starting threads there. --RexxS (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not smart enough to figure out this AE stuff, but sheesh, Darkness, surely you have better things to do than to edit-war over a request that will most likely quickly be nixed. Drmies (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

IP editors have the same rights as we do, Giano has now hit 4RR removing this IP complaint as well as mine. Darkness Shines (talk)

No. In this case IPs do not have the same rights. Let me remind you of the notice at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement:

• "Anyone requesting enforcement who comes with unclean hands runs the risk of their request being summarily denied or being sanctioned themself."
• "At the discretion of the administrator processing the request, editors who repeatedly file substantially meritless requests may be sanctioned for disrupting the Arbitration Enforcement process; editors who file clearly groundless, frivolous, vexatious, or bad-faith requests may be similarly sanctioned, even for a first offense."

If IPs can file, then any editor with 'unclean hands' will simply log out to make the request and avoid any possibility of boomerang. Not an acceptable situation for such serious matters. --RexxS (talk) 22:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've just full protected the page for three hours, so hopefully there will be no edit warring blocks. I realize this is out of the norm, so anyone is free to unprotect early. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I think blocks would have been more appropriate here, as that is such a highly used board that can't be shut down for 3 hours. --Rschen7754 22:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Alright, I'll unprotect if you issue the blocks... Mark Arsten (talk) 22:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Yer, 14 hours without a post before the IP troll showed up. We can shut it down until Darkness Shines sobers up. --RexxS (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Or has finished a serving of crow. Drmies (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Who the hell said I was I was drunk? I know never did. It takes a tad more than a bottle of Glenfiddich, The issue here is the removal of an AE request by an IP and also one by myself. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Good grief you're even slurring your typing. --RexxS (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Goodness. Taking a closer look, that might not be the best approach either. What would people say to unprotecting, but giving both editors a warning that any further reverts *will* result in a block? --Rschen7754 23:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Drmies (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I've asked Giano nicely if he would be kind enough to disengage, and EdJohnston has notified Darkness Shines that the IP was editing from an open proxy (now blocked). It looks like Darkness Shines won't revert again, so I guess it's safe to unprotect. Thanks all. --RexxS (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

IPs should not be allowed to make AE reports. GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, the whole point of why AE works is that it's an open system out in the open. Also, I'd like the OP to explain why they used the term "pull shit" when posting on Giano's talkpage. There was no need for cursing, nor that kind of comment, imo. If it was just a lost temper, I understand and don't really mind, but just wanted to point that out. gwickwire^talk_editing 23:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

"Pull shit" is rather rude, especially in the imperative, but we know where it's coming from, and Giano can handle it (and did it more eloquently). What's sad is that the IP is a player with an account, using a proxy, then finding someone to be a proxy and escalate into EW territory, all the while putting meat on what was little more than trolling... I don't care if such AE pages are permanently semi-protected. IP editors of good faith will find a good and more honest way to make their voice heard. Drmies (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

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

WP:HOUNDING/WP:POINT edits by User:GabeMc

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.

---

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

Since 1:00 UTC 27 March, GabeMc has done the following:

• Nominated Post-presidency of Bill Clinton for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-presidency of Bill Clinton)
• Nominated KOXY for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KOXY) ‎
• Nominated Crab puff for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crab puff) ‎
• Nominated Chili burger for merger
• Placed tags of various kinds at List of Crayola colored pencil colors, Walter Moore, Iowa Stars, Charles Amadon Moody, Jacob Zeitlin, the sporting-man culture, the 1909 Inter-Mountain League, the Pacific Electric Watts line, Leading U.S. Advertisers, Dar Tucker, and the Dali painting “The Elephants”

All of those pages are pages I created or significantly edited, as if GabeMc had gone to my “articles created” list, clicked on each one, and did the worst he could to it. There’s nothing else these articles have in common; they range from a baseball league to a bookseller to food to an on-campus radio station. This is a pretty clear example of WikiHounding and WP:POINT editing, to say nothing of “drive-by tagging”, a highly frowned-upon process, and the inaccuracy of several of the tags. User:Yaksar warned him about making a point and WikiHounding, but GabeMc reverted it as vandalism. I noticed this pattern partly from the three AfD notices on my page and partly from edits in my watchlist. Can I get some help here, please? pbp 05:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• Wikihounding means you just follow someone's edits around to harass them whenever you think you can get away with it. It does not include someone nominating stubs you created then abandoned years ago. KOXY was created by you in 16:24, 22 August 2010‎ and is still a one sentence stub. And Crab puff is two sentences you created, with no references at all. Things like this [309] should be tagged for original research, that's what it looks like to me, since you have no references at all. This one [310] is properly tagged by him for being unreferenced and possibly original research. Dream Focus 06:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  • No, that's inaccurate. This is pretty clearly WikiHounding. There's no rhyme or reason to GabeMc's edits except that they share a common creator: me. For two hours, GabeMc did nothing but tag articles I created. That is diruptive WikiHounding and he should be blocked for it pbp 06:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

This is pretty clearly a pattern of poor article creation. It is not wikihounding if an editor notices a pattern of problematic editing and then goes through someone's contributions to find and act on other examples of problematic editing. I had a look at your contributions for new articles (here), and GabeMc certainly could (and perhaps should) have gone further.

Separately, diff, would you like to show me where it says that I've been banned or prevented from editing in any way? Otherwise, it's just an attempt on your part to bring an ally into this discussion. Classy. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 06:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

For someone so active at AfD, particularly in badgering of keep !votes with which you disagree, you're very defensive about articles that you yourself create. A clear case of WP:OWN. It'd probably help if the articles you create weren't so pathetically low quality, like Crab puff. Your usual strategy of wikidramamongering (here, and in your keep votes at the AfD's) isn't a good reason to retain those articles. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 06:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'll just point out here that being a stub, no matter how long it's been a stub, is not a valid reason to delete. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
• This nom (now speedy closed) appears wrong, maybe pointy, about the rest, as you are a quite experienced user, if you don't want your articles nominated for deletion (or tagged as unreferenced/ OR) it would be wise to add a couple of references as evidences of notability (and in accordance with WP:verifiability). Here you should thank The Bushranger for doing the work you had to do before moving this stub in the mainspace, here frankly I don't see any trace of notability or chance to kept the article. About the tags, all them appear correct. I don't see any action required here. Cavarrone (talk) 07:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• Most of the stalking edits were not actually wrong or detrimental. That being said, however, enough were that it is clear that the user's goal was to target a particular editor rather than improve the encyclopedia. The Bill Clinton article has already been discussed above, so I'll talk about Chili Burger. There's actually nothing wrong with nominating an article for a merge when it has been previously nominated in the past. But when it's already been recently nominated for one twice, and a merge was also additionally discussed at its AFD, you'd think that someone who had put the minimal effort into at least reading the talk page would know they'd need more than the half-assed sentence "A Chili burger is just a hamburger with chili on top, its not a distinct food type onto itself." This was not a legitimate attempt at improving the encyclopedia, but was an attempt to bother a specific editor. I'm all for assuming good faith, but when a user has over thirty edits in a row over the course of a few hours all targeting the articles of one user, there's clearly something going on. If this were someone else, perhaps unrelated or un-accused or recent stalking or someone who was not in what looks like what I'd think would be a god damn agreement not to antagonize each other it would be different. --Yaksar (let's chat) 11:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm mostly pissed because this all came around 24 hours after the close of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:GabeMc:_personal_attacks.2C_deadhorse which you can still see above. When a user defends themself against allegations of hounding (maybe properly, I don't know) and then goes on a spree of edits purely on articles of the editor they were accused of targeting (regardless of whether some or most were proper) they're either looking for drama or have a 5 year old's sense of how to avoid trouble. Maybe what's bothering me is just how little attempt there was to at least obscure that this was pointy. Is it that hard to not antagonize each other, guys?--Yaksar (let's chat) 11:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, you are true, I haven't noticed the above discussion, and probably these actions were some kind of indirect response to the above discussion, a conduct that is clearly inappropriate. If not, it is a response to something else, as there is clearly a history behind these two users (I have no idea who/where/when it all started). That said, none of these actions is "patently" pointy or disruptive, and even in the Bill Clinton post-presidency AfD some editors are rising some decent arguments about merging the article's content in the parent article. The only way to solve the problems is to address the concerns, I have personally removed several tags after working on the marked issues, all the tagged/nominated articles have (as a minimum) several problems, for the main part it was just a question of time before someone else would have marked them. Cavarrone (talk) 12:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• In short: Obvious wikihounding. Some admin needs to trout Gabe, tell him to stop immediately. Let the noms/edits to date run their course, and strongly encourage editors to expand User_talk:Purplebackpack89#Gentleperson.27s_agreement to a gentleman's interaction ban. Don't waste time considering blocks or trying to "procedurally close" what has been done to date.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Fully agree with Milowent's suggestions. Toddst1 (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I quote Milowent: "Do not delete content but require nominator to merge into Occidental College ... he's got his panties in a wad over some surely inane dispute with article creator Purplebackpack89. If someone is going to waste our time with WP:POINTY bullshit, that incivility should be punished severely, by making the editor improve Wikipedia articles." 1) Real classy. 2) I'm pretty sure that's a personal attack, and 3) I have done more then my share of improving the project. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

You're like school in the summer, Gabe. NO CLASS. Own up to what you did like a man and move on. Now why is this thread still open and getting longer, I guess I'll have to keep reading.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• It's also concerning that as PBP pointed out, an attempt to discuss this matter with Gabe by a third party before it was brought here was dismissed [311] - an inappropriate use of rollback as well. Toddst1 (talk) 12:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
• This could have been a simple case of GabeMc recognizing that Purplebackpack89 had created a boatload of very poor quality articles, requiring the worst ones to be tagged in some manner, except for the behavior by GabeMc of unresponsiveness on his talk page, the questionable action at chili burger, the recent edit warring with PBP at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/People, the recent accusation of HOUNDING at WP:ANI#Wikihounding by Purplebackpack89, the prior conflict between the two editors at GabeMc's talk page, and the complete absence of an effort by GabeMc to explain to PBP the problems with the poor-quality articles. Seen in that light, this series of edits is pointy and hounding. Gabe should cease this avenue of toxic interaction. Binksternet (talk) 14:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Excellent job summarizing it all. I concur.--v/r - TP 15:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - The nomination of Post-presidency of Bill Clinton struck me as POINTy at a minimum. I suspect there is some merit to the hounding allegations. Carrite (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. - 1) I started the tagging because I noticed that pbp had red-linked to Crab puff. I thought: "he must mean Crab Rangoon, but then a while later the link was blue. So I clicked on it to see that he had started an unnecessary stub, so I looked to see if he had created other articles in this fashion, and he had. I noticed that he creates articles and then abandons them without sourcing or ever working on them; as of last night, pbp had made 4 total edits to Chilli burger and 10 total edits to PPoBC, which certainly does not make him a major contributor or even a creator, he just peeled off someone elses work from other articles, he did not improve the articles. 2) As far as blanking and rollingback Yaskur's edits to my talk page 1) its my talk, 2) IMO, he was being a belligerent bully. Perhaps I should have attempted to talk it out with him, but a) he is a known friend of pbp, so I didn't see any neutrality from him, and b) I noticed that one of the very first pages Yaskur ever edited after joining Wikipedia was a Harry Potter article. In light of the recent dispute with pbp regarding Potter's inclusion in Vital Articles, I thought there was absolutely no chance whatsoever that Yaskur would hear my side, at all. So why bother? 3) Read this recent AN/I thread and them tell me that pbp wasn't defending his actions (quite similar to mine) regarding Dream Focus. I quote: "Also, looking at another editor's contributions from time to time is perfectly acceptable, so nobody is going to tell me not to do it ... Finally, 'now and again' doesn't make it HOUNDing; for it to be HOUNDing, it'd have to happen way more often than it does." (emphasis added) I quote Ryan Vessey: "Whether or not Purblebackpack is following Dream Focus' edits is irrelevant. If an editor is worried about the quality of another editor's article work or arguments, following their edits is a good way to correct errors." That's all I was doing. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• In hindsight, the Clinton tag may not have been 100% correct, but the others were IMO. I still say that there is only about 800-1000 words difference between them, and as such they should be merged. With proper editing, the BC article would gain maybe 300-500 words, and his article is currently only about 8,000 words, so its not like there isn't room. Right now, the Bill Clinton article looks like the remains of what's left after all the engaging detail has been stripped out to sub-articles, which will be a factor in any future FAC. Question. - If I noticed that pbp had a habit of creating unnecessary articles then completely abondoning them without further improvement, why can't I tag them? Also, this is all indicative of the general problem with pbp: if he likes the content, then it stays, while he brags about being a deletionist regarding the work of others. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• FWIW, from today: Dream Focus to pbp: "Kindly stop making ridiculous accusations about me", pbp to Dream Focus: "No thanks, I'll keep making them." GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• I want to take you seriously, but considering that you seem to have, instead of responding my question, went back into my edit history and found that I edited a page in 2006 (or is it 2007, I can't remember when I joined) related to harry potter, which for some absurd reason I can't discern is related to all of this, it's really hard to.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• Yaksar, that's exactly what pbp has been doing to me for weeks, and he has used my taste for popular music several times in attempts to humiliate me. I only looked at your contribs because I wanted to see if you were neutral. If you look at the talk page of WP:VA/E you will see that pbp and I have been going back and forth over the inclusion of Harry Potter as a Wikipedia Vital Article, (while the world's 3rd best-selling poet, Kahlil Gibran is not included). If I made a false assumption about you then I sincerely apologise. I wish I had tried to talk it out with you, but I may have jumped to a false conclusion based upon my feelings of being ganged-up on by numerous Wikibuddies of pbp over the last few weeks. For a brief history of pbp's propensity for hounding, look here, here, and here. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• Ok. I'm really not at all involved with that discussion, so I don't know the circumstances. The whole reason I jumped in here was not as anyone's friend or ally. I was the one who up above tried to tell everyone to just relax and stop trying to piss each other off, and seeing your edits got to me because it really does look like you intended to stir up trouble and rankle Purple. If you guys could all at the very least stop making edits designed to specifically antagonize each other, even if most of the edits themselves would be ok, it would go a long way.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• I agree, and FWIW, although I would much rather learn to work with pbp, I would be absolutley fine with an IB between the two of us, as he absolutely refuses to compromise, and he continuously demeans me in edit summaries and at talk pages. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

* FWIW, pbp is not a significant contributor to any of the articles I nomed for AfD.

• Nominated Post-presidency of Bill Clinton for deletion/merge, pbp has made 10 total edits there.
• KOXY, pbp has made 2 edits to the page.
• Crab puff, ‎pbp has made 2 edits to the page.
• Nominated Chili burger for merger, pbp has made 4 edits there, and he hasn't improved the article since 27 June 2010. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• It's strange to try to claim via counting edits that pbp is not a major contributor when pbp started them and contributed a large proportion of the text. Now you're being dishonest as well as tendentious. Reyk _YO! 00:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• Copy-pasting material from one article into a "new" one, then completely abandoning it isn't really contributing to the article, is it? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• Seeing as it was kept, the Wikipedia community seems to think so. And again, by content added, in each of the articles you nominated for deletion or merger (and I might add, three of the four discussions have been closed as speedy keep), I am one of the people who has added the most content. The point, as Binksternet said above, that you did it because you have some axe to grind at WP:VA/E (not sure why you have the axe to grind, I'm the one who got called a "Type-A control freak). The assertion that GabeMc and I are going "back and forth" over Harry Potter is a bit inaccurate: GabeMc is actually alone in wanting Harry Potter deleted, and the rest of us dearly wish he would stop talking about it. Also, I resent the accusation that somebody who agrees with me is automatically my WikiBuddy. There's a difference between somebody finding that calling another editor a "Type-A control freak" is wrong and being someone's WikiBuddy. I don't even know a lot of people who post to your talkpage! And finally, my interactions with DreamFocus and Danjel, while tepid (I freely admit that I have had enough of both of them), do not give you an excuse to be disruptive towards me pbp 01:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) @ Gabe: That seems quite an elitist thing to say. We each contribute to the best of our abilities and each of us has varying interests. Not every subject is featured-article material. It's inappropriate to denigrate another person's efforts as not being valuable, or try to dictate how others should pursue their editing careers. This guy said it well ; -- Dianna (talk) 01:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, that's really not what I meant to convey. All edits and contribs are valuable IMO. Keep in mind the context of pbp mocking my editing of "pop-culture" articles for the last month. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• The "context" of PBP mocking your edits is exactly why so many people here are saying you are out of line with this hounding activity. You are basically confirming that a grudge against PBP was building for the last month and then it blew up into your hounding behavior. Binksternet (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• Point taken, but Bink, I don't have a grudge againt pbp per se. What I don't like is hypocritical bullies who run people off Wikipedia so that they can dominate. He mocks and demeans and says "nix on that" and " I have to put my foot down here", etcetera, like he owns the place. That's what I see from pbp, and several others have seen the same character trait. Are you suggesting that pbp can follow Dream Focus around Wikipedia checking for errors and reverting him and confronting his work, but that I can't one time ever take a gander through his collection of unreferenced stubs? If we shouldn't tag-and-run, then someone should take away the tags, because I'm not going to waste my time sourcing other people stubs in topics I am not versed or interested, would you? What am I missing here, two wrongs don't make a right, but nobody told pbp to back-off Dream Focus, did they? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• If I know anything about Dream Focus, it's that he can take care of himself. He's a pretty tough guy.--v/r - TP 12:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• I would say the same thing about pbp. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• Gabe, you're a brilliant guy. What say you disengage from this, informally decide to stay out of each other's way for a while? I am sure you have other things to be getting on with. I can see you have acted with the best of intentions but it looks like it's created more heat than light. It happens. Walk away. --John (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• John, FWIW, I think pbp and I have now worked out our differences, and I have apologised extensively for my rude behaviour. Thanks for your concern. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• That's great news. I am closing this now. --John (talk) 09:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Harassment by a User

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

---

I have been harassed by a user Somedifferentstuff, who has leveraged a seemingly close relationship with an admin Bbb23 to swifty 7-day ban me when I claimed that several closely associated edits could be sock puppetry. Yet recently, the admin actually was giving him guidance on how to formulate a ban on my properly registered account after the editor did a write up that I was a socket puppet - [312] I don't even want to be a part of this community at this point. Not to mention the editor in question didn't go to talk, and changed 3,750 of the article which had been posted to talk for 48 hours and cited line by line prior to insertion. Oh, and I was threatened with an instant ban by the admin when I tried to mediate that he deleted several users edits on his talk page.[313] — Preceding unsigned comment added by LifeEditorLatinAmerica (talk • contribs) 04:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Here is a citation of bbb23 randomly removing interesting and good edits about the background of the guy, because the two sources are good enough, Unreliable? look at the sources they check out fine.[314] - — Preceding unsigned comment added by LifeEditorLatinAmerica (talk • contribs) 06:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Here bbb23 deletes another quality submission [315] from another user. Yet oddly he has not reverted a single one of Somedifferentstuff who has over 60 edits on this page.

When I remark here after penwhale protected the article: "Entire controversy section removed - please honor the administrators mediation and get consensus in talk.) " bbb23 jumps in and calls the undo which I complete above as 'disruptive': "Reverted to revision 544904963 by Scientiom: prior to disruptive edits." [316] — Preceding unsigned comment added by LifeEditorLatinAmerica (talk • contribs) 06:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• You are not being harassed. Your posts are well-nigh incomprehensible, the particulars of you complaint are beyond vague, and your comprehension of our BLP and RS policies is, judging from this edit for instance, below par. Also, you were never banned or blocked, but you may well be headed that way. It is apparent you don't listen to what other editors tell you, so pointing to WP:BOOMERANG may be redundant. You're forum-shopping all over the place and making a nuisance of yourself, and yet I still have some positive advice for you: lay low, stop complaining all over the damn place about other editors, and try to make positive edits based on reliable sources--that way you won't get blocked indefinitely for incompetence and being a time-sink. Finally, is it really too much trouble to sign your messages? Bbb23 can do it, so can you. Drmies (talk) 06:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• And to state the obvious: your edits on Nicolás Maduro are unacceptable. Drmies (talk) 06:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I've looked at all this user's edits. They're not here to improve the project, they cannot properly verify the stuff they add, they canvass all over the place to get their way, they think this place is for soapboxing, and they're incompetent. I'd block them indefinitely but I won't since Bbb (the focus of their ire) and I used to go surfing together in the 1970s so we might be considered involved. Next admin gets to pull the trigger and do us all a favor. Drmies (talk) 07:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
    • They had to, and so did I. Blocked indefinitely, for now. Drmies (talk) 07:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

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

2Cellos

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

---

Hi, can someone please have a look at 2Cellos?[317] The nationality of the band has been discussed at nauseam at its talk page, and still one of the users (User:Odiriuss) tries to change it according to his wishes. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The only one who is neglecting facts and pure evidence and trying to enforce your point of view is you User:Eleassar. Their official pages have been updated http://www.2cellos.com/us/biography , including their facebook page http://www.facebook.com/2cellos/info. I don't understand what you are trying to do here, you of all people should know that wikipedia is based on facts and not on random persons delusions. Odiriuss (talk) 09:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. Please take it to WP:DRN. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

He can take it there if he wants. If he changes it one more time though i am reporting him for vandalism because i have already warned him. Odiriuss (talk) 09:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Please neither of you air your disputes here. This is the wrong forum. Attempting to do so does neither of you any favours. Take it to WP:DRN Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Possible sockpuppet

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

---

What do you guys say about this? Breese Anderson (talk · contribs) seems to have only three edits, one of which is to WP:NHD & other two to articles. All of them today. I think this is the same guy as Techwriter2B (talk · contribs) and the IP at NHD. Please see the post at WP:NHD#Bad writing. Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Techwriter2B says that the physical location is Connecticut & servers are from AT&T. WhatIsMyIPAddress.com confirms that this guy's ISP is AT&T and location is CT. I haven't reported this to SPI, but I think CheckUser evidence might be needed to confirm this. --Ushau97 ^talk 15:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

A number of other editors and I have been dealing with Techwriter2B for years now and there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that this is him/her. None at all. I am extremely familiar with this LTA's telltale practices and techniques as explained in great detail in Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Techwriter2B and this current event fits every one of them. This LTA was permanently banned from WP by the community on July 18, 2010. Centpacrr (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Then report the editor to sockpuppet investigations. TBrandley 03:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: SPI investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Techwriter2B. --Ushau97 ^talk 09:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

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

MC Kinky

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

---

This is probably going to be a very painful experience because I spent well over a week writing MC Kinky. User:FERAL is KINKY has been complaining that her article is full of weird information. I don't see it myself given that I've listed 21 different sources (3 primary, 18 secondary), but I want an independent opinion.--Launchballer 20:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The neutrality of the prose needs work, but that's a different story. There are WP:BLP concerns in this article. I'm a tad uneasy that the allegations of expulsion from school and arrest for solicitation are tied only to one source - Allmusic.com, not exactly a paragon for credible journalism.--WaltCip (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Almost all of the sources in the article are unreliable, and I've removed them and the material they supposedly supported. The article is still messy and poorly written, just much shorter.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

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

More Adventure Time vandalism

321Wikiman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

And, 321Wikiman's Adventure Time vandalism continues, although he has moved to a different article. Basically, he added the info he keeps trying to include in the character page on the season 5 page, however, he does not provide a source at all (and he has tried this maneuver before). Here's a compare and contrast. He knows at this point, and he is just being stubbornly defiant.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• Notification to the user? I've remedied this for you Hasteur (talk) 04:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The one diff you provide is not particularly helpful. In glancing at his edits, it looks like he's a fan who doesn't speak English well and isn't particlarly competent. Although he doesn't talk much (he has only a handful of edits anyway), when he does, it's fairly descriptive of the problems. At least some of the plot summaries in Adventure Time (season 5) violate the copyright of this website. See, e.g., episodes 112 and 113. Interestingly, 321Wikiman adds the copyrighted source and others remove it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Nazi flag on user page

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

---

I know users are allowed significant latitude on what they can put on their user pages, but is it appropriate for a user to put the flag of Nazi Germany on it? OGBranniff (talk · contribs) has placed the flag there ostensibly because he is declaring his membership in WikiProject:Germany. However, the default flag of WikiProject:Germany is that of the modern German state; OGBranniff has had to deliberately override the default with a handmade userbox to achieve this effect (see before and after). An editor requested on OGBRanniff's Talk: page that he remove the Nazi flag, but OGBRanniff has ignored the request, and continued editing. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Having an evil flag would be fine if he were a member of WikiProject Soviet Union, or WikiProject Nazi Germany if there were one, but otherwise, unless there's somthing I'm missing here no. No swastikas, no hammers and sickles. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• WP:POLEMIC covers this. "Very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing" is not allowed on userpages, and the Nazi flag is generally considered "very divisive". To claim otherwise is to be blind to reality or to be intentionally making a WP:POINT and neither is good. --Jayron32 03:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• OG's flag should remain. If one doesn't like it, one doesn't have to look at it. GoodDay (talk) 03:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • No, it should not. Freedom doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want. Viriditas (talk) 03:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
    • We'll have to disagree. GoodDay (talk) 03:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I removed it. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with Jayron and Coleman. This was covered already when another user (Neogeolegend) did the same -- and sysop Uncle G changed the flag. Neogeolegend was also subsequently blocked indefinitely in August by Future Perfect at Sunrise for nazi advocacy (in August 2012; this user appeared in December 2012). See here, for discussion about the flag.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• OK, Nazis weren't nice, but what policy are we implementing here? HiLo48 (talk) 03:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• A common sense one. I see the flag has been changed back again by another editor. I'd suggest reverting and locking if that gets reverted. Black Kite (talk) 03:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• The one that says we're not calling all Germans Nazis, even if we're Jewish. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• There are two wp guidelines already specifically pointed to above. See Jayron's comment, which I had supported. And, of course, we have WP:CIVIL, which is one of our five pillars, and part of wp's code of conduct.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• For what it is worth... [318][319] Viriditas (talk) 03:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• So, you are thinking that there is a possible sockpuppet in the midst? There's a bit of evidence there, but I'm not sure if that's enough for this to be a WP:DUCK situation. Steel1943 (talk) 03:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed. However, their contributions show that both users are interested in Italy/Italians. Another coincidence, perhaps, I don't know. I've been accused of seeing patterns where none exist, so take this with a grain of salt. Viriditas (talk) 03:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• If he wants to self-identify as a Nazi I don't think it's our place to intefere with his form of expression, but I think he should move the flag out of the wikiproject box: he has the right to associate himself with the swastika but not the project. Betty Logan (talk) 03:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Not exactly relevant discussion, eh. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wowsers, I hope Canadian monarchists & Quebec nationalists don't start demanding changes to my userpage. GoodDay (talk) 03:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Does your page say something about Canadians? What do you accuse them of? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Francophone Canadians might demand that I have a french version of my message. GoodDay (talk) 03:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC) They might; but the userpage in question says "I am Jewish, and I am writing about Germany which is still the Nazi state it used to be and all Germans are Nazis." That's a bit different from yours. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Canadian monarchists may declare my message treasonist & demand its removal. GoodDay (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Yes -- and ushers at Fenway Park might ask a fan to take off a Yankee hat. So? It's obviously an absurd comparison, that I imagine you don't make seriously. This is a whole other level. Uncle G had an interesting point at the earlier flag discussion, writing it's against the law to wear badges like this in some countries and people from many countries edit here." Is what you are writing illegal?--Epeefleche (talk) 03:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC) I don't care much for OG's flag, either. But, who am I to kick down his door & rip the flag off his wall. GoodDay (talk) 03:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Unless the Canadian government commits genocide or starts a World War, I think you'll be ok. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 03:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Our wall. At the end of the day -- it is the project's wall. And project guidelines apply to what users can put on the project wall that bears their name.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC) We'll have to disagree about OG's userpage. GoodDay (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC) But it is certainly the project's page. That it is allowing the user to use. If he uses it in accord with wp guidelines, such as wp:civil, wp:Polemic, and wp:point. Do you really believe that he should be allowed to put pro-pedophilia advocacy on it?--Epeefleche (talk) 04:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Two things here, and I'm going to say this to both of you. 1) We aren't discussing pro-pedophilia advocacy, we're discussing a Nazi flag. 2) We aren't discussing a Canadian flag, we're discussing a Nazi flag. Bringing unrelated issues or analogies into the discussion (either for or against the removal) is a strawman argument, and neither of you does your argument any merit by doing so. Instead of bringing up either of those issues, give your opinion on this use of the Nazi flag on this user page. And since you've both done so, It really isn't advancing the discussion to bring up entirely unrelated issues. You've given your opinions, and others will give their's I bet. Once everyone has weighed in, we'll have a consensus one way or the other. If, after this is done, we need to discuss either of those issues, start a new discussion. But lets keep this about this Nazi flag, mkay? --Jayron32 04:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Some here may be trying to fairly apply correct policy here (although it's not yet clear to me which one that is), but it's also obvious that some are applying WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. That's not healthy. HiLo48 (talk) 03:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:POLEMIC is the policy, the use of a userpage to display divisive content is expressly forbidden. --Jayron32 03:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Hilo-Editors like WP:POLEMIC, WP:POINT, and WP:CIVIL. These were pointed out to you, when you missed them in the discussion. They appear to be directly on point.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Context matters. I could see situations where the Nazi Swastika would be ok on a user page, but in this instance it is clearly polemic as Jayron points out.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there a policy that expressly prohibits the Swastika on User pages? I assume not. In which case we are simply playing opinion games here. And making all sorts of assumptions. Dangerous ground. HiLo48 (talk) 03:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Have you read WP:POLEMIC? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and it demands considerable interpretation and assumption to say that we have "...statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities." Such assumption and interpretation MAY be correct. It may not. We must be careful. To act with such certainty about someone else's evilness is perhaps not much better than the alleged evilness. HiLo48 (talk) 04:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

It would be impossible, ahead of time, to predict every possible "very divisive or offensive" thing that someone could do on their userpage before someone actually does it, which is why such a list has not been created. For the first case, the existence of such list would imply that the list, and only that list, would be divisive or offensive enough, and the human capacity to be obnoxious is quite expansive. Secondly, the existance of a list would encourage gaming the system. Instead, WP:POLEMIC is quite enough, it notes that very divisive or offensive material isn't allowed, and we decide what is too divisive or too offensive in discussions such as this. Your opinion is noted, as are others. When enough opinions have been given to establish a consensus, action will be taken one way or the other. That's how Wikipedia works. --Jayron32 04:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I think the above discussion is creating more heat than light. POLEMIC dictates that divisive content is against WMF policy. The debate here is that any topic may cause someone to become hostile. Let's use me as an example. My userpage states I am in Wikiproject Mongols and Wikiproject Mining. You could argue that both of those topics could be offensive. I don't care. Pick your side. The difference is, while Mining can be regarded as evil to some, Nazis are universally regarded as inherently evil. Mining=not genocidal supremacists. Nazis=evil genocidial maniacs. Clearly you can see the difference? ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 04:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• The question is not whether any content which could offend anyone is not allowed. The question is whether consensus is that this Nazi flag is in violation of WP:POLEMIC or not. Heat is only generated by people who steer the discussion away from that question. Either "yea" or "nay" on that question would be light. Asking whether Wikiproject Mining is offensive is unrelated to the question at hand, and is thus heat. --Jayron32 04:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe WP:POLEMIC needs a review. GoodDay (talk) 04:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• WP:VPP is thataway. Until it's changed, however, it is consensus policy, and we need to make our decisions in this case with that in mind. If we need to change the established policy, we need to do that in another context, and not in discussions over the enforcement of that policy. --Jayron32 04:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'll leave that option to OG. :) GoodDay (talk) 04:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• The thing that is missed is that this isn't a Nazi flag on someone's userpage. This is somebody using the Nazi flag in the WikiProject Germany userbox. The former, under certain circumstances, could be permitted. The second, however, creates the association WPGermany = Nazism. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Does it? Really? As an absolute certainty? I'm not certain. HiLo48 (talk) 04:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
    • It does. Really. As an absolute certainty. I'm absolutely certain. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Wow, that's a clever answer. I'm convinced. Not. To be certain, one needs absolute evidence. We don't have it. HiLo48 (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I don't think there should be any sort of a simple ban on having a Nazi Flag on your userpage. If an editor is interested in the history of Nazi Germany, I see no reason for us to state they cannot display that on their user page. That said, it appears like this specific user is intentionally attempting to be divisive in his posts both on his user page and elsewhere. See this where he lists "sluts" as an interest and here where he states "When I'm not banging hot sluts, I'm beasting on the Chess board." at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess. Although he redacted most of this, he initially stated "We could work together like the Gestapo and SS in Germany... you investigate and identify the deficient articles, and I'll round them up and ship them off. It'll be efficient." Taking all of these into consideration, I feel like OGBranniff is being intentionally offensive, and as such should not be allowed to keep the flag. Ryan Vesey 04:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • By demanding the removal, are we not giving OG what he wants? drama & attention? GoodDay (talk) 04:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
    • You betcha. HiLo48 (talk) 04:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • If this editor wrote "All modern Germans are Nazis" I would agree with its instant removal, but he hasn't. HiLo48 (talk) 04:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Ryan, this sounds very familiar. Didn't we have another banned user who talked about women like this? Also, if anyone hasn't seen his AfD statistics, check them out.[320] They are totally bizarre. Viriditas (talk) 04:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Update: back in 2009, User:Badger Drink referred to an incident involving a blocked user who trolled Wikipedia as the "Aspergic Brazillian Concerned With Hot Jewish Sluts". Although the name of the user escapes me, I'm wondering if there is a connection. Viriditas (talk) 06:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• It is clear the user was misrepresenting the project in order to create the impression that the project itself used the Nazi flag in this manner. That is what is unacceptable.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• Seriously. You don't put Nazi flags anywhere. It's disruptive. "If he wants to self-identify as a Nazi I don't think it's our place to intefere with his form of expression"--bullshit: Wikipedia is not the place for self expression. If anyone wishes to express literally they can use a sock for it or get a MySpace page; if they wish to do so rhetorically they can do it in a way that is acceptable to the community and to common sense. Nazi flags are not acceptable. I can't believe this has to be said explicitly. Drmies (talk) 07:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• I've defended this user, to some extent or other, in the past, but I don't defend shit involving Nazi flags. Any proposal that starts with "indef" and ends with "block" has my full support, whatever clever stuff gets put in between. I'm tired of kids playing around with fucking Nazi flags like it's a game. It's not a game. It's not funny. Go play somewhere else--we're not a forum or a teenage chat site. Drmies (talk) 07:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Good call by Jayjg, appropriate guideline per Jayron32, conclusion per Drmies. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

OGBranniff restored the flag, which I then reverted (with a promise to lock his userpage if he continues). --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Starts with indef and ends with block

• Considering the most recent edit by Bongwarrior [321], the statement of Drmies above [322], and the evidence I presented above that OGBranniff is intentionally trying to offend other editors [323] I propose an indefinite block. Ryan Vesey 08:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support As proposer, sort of, Drmies mentioned it first. Ryan Vesey 08:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - He looks like a pretty constructive editor, so I think blocking him will be a little too harsh. If he persists, perhaps just lock/delete his userpage. Only if he keeps on "Naziing" at various areas here on Wiki then I would support an indef block. Arctic Kangaroo 08:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Obvious blocked troll is obvious.[324] This appears to be the same user who was previously blocked for his "Aspergic Brazillian Concerned With Hot Jewish Sluts" trolling pre-2009.[325] I'm unable to recall the user name. Viriditas (talk) 08:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Reasonable, after looking at Viriditas' say. Arctic Kangaroo 08:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support - unfortunatly, the evidence presented by Ryan and Viriditas is enough to indicate that this is someone who the project is better off without. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• If xhe doesn't show up here and gives some sorta statement within the next half hour, support. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - would there be any value in requesting this editor to justify his use of the image and/or requesting that he removes it to avoid an indef bock? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Always have to be careful of time zones, but he's already responded 08:19 by restoring the Nazi flag. Unless there's any conceivable technical reason why Jayjg's page post would not have prompted an orange you have new messages box, looks like suicide by admin. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support Wikipedia requires collaboration and is not an exercise in free speech. It may be ok if someone found a useful way to incorporate a Nazi emblem into their user page, but the method chosen is definitely not acceptable. A good-faith user would have responded to the polite request about the flag on their user page posted a few days ago. Johnuniq (talk) 09:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef block - per WP:POLEMIC, and per the fact that Nazis are not welcome here (or anywhere). Most likely a troll, most likely a returning blocked user, and I very much doubt he is Jewish as he claims below. GiantSnowman 09:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Typical ANI lynch mob approach to (non-)justice. No advice to the editor involved. Comments of others not so certain blatantly ignored. I don't care how guilty he is. He deserves a fairer trial than this. HiLo48 (talk) 10:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• If not for obvious trolling... The discussion above is terrifying. People think they are objective while being political and prejudiced. I can imagine how the Chinese flag is being banned from Wikipedia tomorrow. And North Korean. The Soviet flag has been already mentioned. While the flag of the United States is also considered inappropriate in some countries. I have nothing against banning the swastica from user pages, but you should have invented a better reason. You were ready to ban the user without any reason at all, just because you didn't like the flag... --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support, after considering the response below too - obvious troll/sock. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

OG Branniff

Oh hi everybody, it's me, the subject of this discussion. I just noticed this discussion here. Yes I did change the user page back about an hour ago when I thought I had it changed without discussion, but I didn't know of this ANI or new messages till now. I had no idea this flag thing would be disturbing to anyone. I am Jewish myself. I am sorry, I didn't mean to offend anyone. I am just interested in the history of Nazi Germany as you can see from my edits. Is there a Nazi Germany Wikiproject? Thanks, OGBranniff (talk) 09:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

So what did you think this related to then? --John (talk) 09:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see that, sorry. OGBranniff (talk) 09:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Many years ago there was a user named User:Wiki brah. Like you, Wiki brah is from São Paolo.[326][327] And like you, Wiki brah lived in Miami and spent time in New York, Germany, and Austria.[328][329] And like you, he referred to women as "sluts". Constantly. And like you, he would create user names with the first three letters in uppercase (User:FFDiempredome, User:BTO Roadie, User:SEB Chapman).[330] Even German user names like User:Hielmann.[[331] Would you say this is just an incredible coincidence and that this pattern only exists in my mind? Viriditas (talk) 09:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

That all looks to me rather too much of a coincidence. While one might understand, or even tolerate, the use of the Nazi flag as a signifier of (one part of) modern German history, I really don't think referring to women as "sluts" can be tolerated here for one moment. I think a rapid resignation might be welcomed. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

This is socking at an almost industrial level Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Wiki brah. Which means he will back in the next 3 days with yet another one. Wiki brah, what are you doing this for? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Not quite to over nine thousand sock level, but getting there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

That is quite staggering. I think everyone would be genuinely interested to see an explanation. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Given what Viriditas turned up regarding Wiki brah,  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

OGB, has someone just invented this list as a personal vendetta against you? Could you please explain? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. Who besides you claimed anything about a personal vendetta? Could you please explain? OGBranniff (talk) 11:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Here's a different question - why have you created the 139 sockpuppets in that list? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about, or why you are taking such a snide, confrontational tone. Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 11:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I had thought my tone was quite neutral. So you are denying that any of these 139 accounts are in any way linked to you, yes? And another neutral question - why do you refer to women as "sluts"? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The reason OGBranniff called your question snide and confrontational, User:Martinevans, is because "why have you created the 139 sockpuppets in that list?" is expressed as a question, but clearly and for all to see, it is instead, an unproven accusation. *Also*, where did OGBranniff write, that women = sluts. Nowhere, that's where. (Yet, again, you are not hesitant to accuse, with a very nasty accusation, which is really a form of personal attack itself, smearing him by putting words into his mouth he never said.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC) p.s. Lovely place is this, WP/ANI!

Checkuser results

The evidence that Viriditas provided above was compelling enough to run a check on OGBranniff. The check confirmed a connection between the following accounts:

• OGBranniff (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Hefha72 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Gregbard (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Note in particular that Hefha72 created this AfD which OGBranniff ended up voting delete on. Based on that it is  Confirmed that Hefha72 and OGBranniff are operated by the same person (although note that two other checkusers seem to be more inclined to think it's meatpuppetry rather than sockpuppetry, see this). On the other hand, I'm left confused as to what Gregbard's involvement in this is. From the technical data, other than the one overlap I noted, his account looks separate enough from OGBranniff's. The most likely explanation, as I see it, is that they work together. That explanation fits very strongly with the technical data that I have available to me. For now, I'll keep investigating. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 10:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Please see this Checkuser on Hefha72. Has anything changed since February 10th? I request that you redact your "confirmed" finding. You have confirmed nothing. OGBranniff (talk) 11:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I have made that statement based on checkuser evidence I have available to me, so I request that you don't ask me to redact it. However, like your request to me, my request to you is worth nothing. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

How is the "evidence" you have available any different than the evidence that the other two checkusers had in February? Please explain. OGBranniff (talk) 11:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Further technical evidence from your contributions, I'd presume. And, speaking frankly, the behavioral evidence presented above is sufficient that if I wasn't already involved in the discussion you'd be already blocked as being User:Wiki brah, so you need to provide some very convincing explanations as to how you're not him even though everything about you is exactly the same as him. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

You can presume anything you'd like, but I wasn't asking you anything, was I? OGBranniff (talk) 11:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

If you want only one specific person to respond, use email. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

There's only one person with the personal knowledge necessary to answer the question, and that was "Deskana." You two jumping in with your accusations and off-topic "presumptions" are just making yourselves look foolish. OGBranniff (talk) 11:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

What exactly did I "accuse" you of? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no "off topic" with regards to your behavior in an AN/I discussion. And, frankly, the refusal to address the issue only makes things look more suspicious, but I must be off to bed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

My CU results agree with what Deskana stated above and I am also convinced that Hefha72 and OGBranniff are one in the same. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! I am both fascinated and concerned at this notice. I know of no connection that I have to these other accounts. I am who I say I am on my user page. My real name is Gregory James Bard. I was born in Norwalk, Connecticut. I lived in Chico, California for about twenty years until December 2010. Now I live in Barefoot Bay, Florida. Is there something that I am being accused of here? I will cooperate with any investigation that's going on, so what can I do for you? Greg Bard (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Just one simple question, I suppose: do you go around calling women sluts? On a serious tip, I think this matter can be dealt with on the basis of behavioral evidence--or do we need to move this question to an SPI? Drmies (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

No. I am an active and vocal feminist and humanist. I wouldn't use language that denigrates woman, nor any other group, because a human being is primarily an individual, not a member of some group. So what happened? I edit a lot of diverse articles. Greg Bard (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Indef block

For all the above reasons (confirmed and suspected sockpuppetry, and behavioural reasons), I have indef blocked User:OGBranniff. Fram (talk) 12:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I still say the Nazi Flag shouldn't be removed/banned. However, the discussion did eventually lead to the uncovering of a sock-master (not to mention other provocative behaviour), so the indef is deserved. GoodDay (talk) 13:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you could agree that your viewpoint about the flag is in the minority though.--v/r - TP 13:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Atleast it hasn't been deleted from the Nazi Germany article. GoodDay (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

It holds educational value there.--v/r - TP 14:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Flags can be tricky things it seems (even without flames). I was awaiting some kind of better explanation from that editor as to why he thought its use was justified on his User Page. In fact, he is still able to tell us on his Talk Page, if he wanted to. Not that many seem inclined to allow it back. Nor that, either way, it would greatly affect his behaviour, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I support the block for sockpuppetry. I do not support the removal of the flag from the userpage. I think it reeks of censorship of an unpopular position. If the userpage said "I think the Nazis were right in their eradication plan." I think that would be divisive and improper. The flag alone is not divisive enough in my opinion. Not that it really matters now they're indef blocked. James086^Talk 16:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Displaying a Nazi flag is divisive. In an article, there is a context, a reason. The only context here is odd and damning: in a userbox the German flag is replaced with a swastika. How that can be read in any other way than "Germany=Nazi" is not clear to me. Placing a swastika on one's user page in some other way could conceivably provide a non-damning context, but I know people (oh, including me) who will instinctively turn away from such a user page and such a user. That's the result of division. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

On the other side of that coin: How far do we allow trolling to go so we're not "censoring?"--v/r - TP 16:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there's a bright-line rule for what is divisive or not, nor should there be one because trolls will try to game the system if flexibility isn't permitted. In this case you two clearly think it's divisive enough while I do not. I find plenty of userboxes (standard ones, not even those with a replaced image) distasteful and would make me question the user's judgement, but I don't seek to delete or remove them. When someone is (or appears to be) editing Wikipedia with the intention of irritating others, then we should stop them, not if they hold unpopular views. I understand that consensus is against me here, but it doesn't change what I think is right. James086^Talk 17:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit lost trying to understand those here who argue for allowing to use the Nazi flag to refer to modern Germany. Let's be very clear, the user did not "just" put a Nazi flag there, they explicitly used the Nazi flag to refer to modern Germany. That is quite a strong insult to both the Germany state and ordinary Germans. That being the case, I really cannot understand the logic and would be interested in hearing the argument for why users should be allowed to compare modern Germany and ordinary Germans to nazis even at their user page.Jeppiz (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

That's odd, because I don't see where anyone said that except you. (If that's wrong, please point out where someone said that, other than you.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The "sluts" references, and Nazi-related references from OGBranniff, are both old news. (There was a no-sanction ANI triggered by the "sluts" comments, with two Admins concluding nothing blockable, one stating OGBranniff's behavior was "within behavioral guidelines". OGBranniff received a warning, and has made no further "sluts"-related comments since. That past incident seems to be used in this ANI to his disfavor, when it seems instead, that it should be to his credit, seeing that he demonstrated a change in that particular behavior after receiving his warning. Two project members were told to gather a wealth of meticulously documented diffs for any future case to have a chance in any venue, and RfC/U was strongly suggested as the proper venue by both Admins.) The only thing new here is the Userbox. (There was a sock-puppet investigation, as OGBranniff has pointed out above, with the result negative. Was there something deficient with that investigation? Was it conducted incompetently? OGBranniff asked rightly the same question above. Did he receive a clear answer?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Why is any of this still being discussed? In regards to the Nazi flag discussion, if we want that discussion to continue, it can be taken to WP:VPP or some other venue than this. The rest of the issue related to OGBranniff is irrelevant, a CU confirmed that he was socking so. Ryan Vesey 18:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with Ryan, above. Time to close this discussion.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• Thank you IHTS, for clarification of historical sluts. I am still confused about the relevance of a single negative sock-puppet investigation in the light of a list of 139 sockpuppets. But an indef block is an indef block, I guess, even if the user has been given "credit" for changing past behaviour. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Repeated aggressions

There are repeated vile attacks by 124.185.17.216 [332], [333], [334], [335]. Both another user and I have pointed out WP:FORUM but the IP keeps continuing to violate that princople, as well as violating WP:NPA. The fact that it takes places at an article at the heart of the WP:ARBMAC-ruling only makes it worse.Jeppiz (talk) 10:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oh come on now. Yes you two pointed to FORUM--in edit summaries. I find it odd that neither of you had the energy, will power, determination, or common sense to mention this on the user's talk page, for instance, which is where such things need to start, yet you had no qualms about starting an ANI thread. Sure, their comments were not OK, but please act like a grown-up and take care of these matters in the appropriate way. Did you see what it says on the top of this very page? Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page. Go deal with it. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

What should also be noted is that this is taking place on a talk page, and generally removing another person's comments are a violation of WP:TPG --Kyohyi (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

My comments were directly removed without any consultation, or link to my user page. As per above this is a form of censorship of speech against the truth of the Macedonian state and a violation of WP:TPG if the user had an issue they would be more than welcome to raise it with me, or discuss the matters at hand. This is nothing more than petty censorship. You would also take note to realise that it is not the same user making both sets of comments so this is hardly "repeated". --124.185.17.216 (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't usually care much to discuss with IPs who compare other users to Hitler, that is true. My personal opinion is that such people should be banned from Wikipedia at sight. And removing comments that are purely intended to insult others and make no attempt to discuss how to improve the article is not a violation of WP:TPG.Jeppiz (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

IP editor, Wikipedia is not a forum, as you have seen. Your commentary is unwelcome here. Make such remarks or comparisons again and you will be blocked: "this is a form of censorship of speech against the truth of the Macedonian state" is utter nonsense. I hope that is clear. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

This is not a forum issue but a matter of reality about Titoism and other states modeled on facist ideology and the creation of modern Macedonia after World War II. It was a purely divisive name created by Tito to incite racist and nationalist hatred of the neighbouring Greek population. The irony of the facts is that it continues to work more than 70 years after the fact. This matter is not debatable. The creation of nationalism under a false identity by Tito is the issue here and any Macedonian smart enough should understand this.

The fact I raised this as a talk issue rather than an article issue does not make it a forum discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.17.216 (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about The Truth. It is about verifiable facts. "Any Macedonian" is not a reliable source, please provide sources for your claims. If you cannot, this cannot be on Wikipedia; if you can, it should be included. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

These sources are already provided in articles pertaining to the Macedonian naming dispute and other similar articles that attempt to raise issue with the nationalist agenda of the current Macedonian state. Unfortunately Wikipedia has kowtowed to misinformation from Slavic Macedonians about the "history" of their nation rather than promoting education of the facts as they are --124.185.17.216 (talk) 01:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC).

I can only conclude that this IP is much better than I at presenting the case for why they are unsuitable for Wikipedia. There's a reason for WP:ARBMAC.Jeppiz (talk) 09:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I can only conclude that there is a bunch of nationalistic wikipedia editors who are Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system in order to promote misinformation. However from a historical, international and political perspective they do not have a leg to stand on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.17.216 (talk) 02:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Could you please stop soapboxing? Thanks. Dolescum (talk) 10:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Repeated aggressions

There are repeated vile attacks by 124.185.17.216 [336], [337], [338], [339]. Both another user and I have pointed out WP:FORUM but the IP keeps continuing to violate that princople, as well as violating WP:NPA. The fact that it takes places at an article at the heart of the WP:ARBMAC-ruling only makes it worse.Jeppiz (talk) 10:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oh come on now. Yes you two pointed to FORUM--in edit summaries. I find it odd that neither of you had the energy, will power, determination, or common sense to mention this on the user's talk page, for instance, which is where such things need to start, yet you had no qualms about starting an ANI thread. Sure, their comments were not OK, but please act like a grown-up and take care of these matters in the appropriate way. Did you see what it says on the top of this very page? Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page. Go deal with it. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

What should also be noted is that this is taking place on a talk page, and generally removing another person's comments are a violation of WP:TPG --Kyohyi (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

My comments were directly removed without any consultation, or link to my user page. As per above this is a form of censorship of speech against the truth of the Macedonian state and a violation of WP:TPG if the user had an issue they would be more than welcome to raise it with me, or discuss the matters at hand. This is nothing more than petty censorship. You would also take note to realise that it is not the same user making both sets of comments so this is hardly "repeated". --124.185.17.216 (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't usually care much to discuss with IPs who compare other users to Hitler, that is true. My personal opinion is that such people should be banned from Wikipedia at sight. And removing comments that are purely intended to insult others and make no attempt to discuss how to improve the article is not a violation of WP:TPG.Jeppiz (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

IP editor, Wikipedia is not a forum, as you have seen. Your commentary is unwelcome here. Make such remarks or comparisons again and you will be blocked: "this is a form of censorship of speech against the truth of the Macedonian state" is utter nonsense. I hope that is clear. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

This is not a forum issue but a matter of reality about Titoism and other states modeled on facist ideology and the creation of modern Macedonia after World War II. It was a purely divisive name created by Tito to incite racist and nationalist hatred of the neighbouring Greek population. The irony of the facts is that it continues to work more than 70 years after the fact. This matter is not debatable. The creation of nationalism under a false identity by Tito is the issue here and any Macedonian smart enough should understand this.

The fact I raised this as a talk issue rather than an article issue does not make it a forum discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.17.216 (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about The Truth. It is about verifiable facts. "Any Macedonian" is not a reliable source, please provide sources for your claims. If you cannot, this cannot be on Wikipedia; if you can, it should be included. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

These sources are already provided in articles pertaining to the Macedonian naming dispute and other similar articles that attempt to raise issue with the nationalist agenda of the current Macedonian state. Unfortunately Wikipedia has kowtowed to misinformation from Slavic Macedonians about the "history" of their nation rather than promoting education of the facts as they are --124.185.17.216 (talk) 01:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC).

I can only conclude that this IP is much better than I at presenting the case for why they are unsuitable for Wikipedia. There's a reason for WP:ARBMAC.Jeppiz (talk) 09:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I can only conclude that there is a bunch of nationalistic wikipedia editors who are Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system in order to promote misinformation. However from a historical, international and political perspective they do not have a leg to stand on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.17.216 (talk) 02:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Could you please stop soapboxing? Thanks. Dolescum (talk) 10:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)