Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive729

I have edited

from using AWB until it is decided what to do about certain problems that have occurred recently.

• On 14 Nov. Beyond My Ken warned Waacstats: "Lotfi Zadeh is an electrical engineer and computer scientist, he is not an 'artificial intelligence researcher'". I am not sure if that one was done using AWB as it does not include AWB in the string in the edit but other edits made by Waacstats with AWB don't always do so.
• on 19 Nov. Wizardman You're spelling "baseball" wrong ... (20:24) Again, it's baseball rather than "basebeall" (20:41)
• on 26 Nov. PBS. People who lived in the British Isles before the
  Act of Union 1707 were not British. So the change you made to William Heveningham(1604–1678) is not correct. [The article] says he was an English politician in the first line and the stub is {{England-politician-stub
  }} so how did you come to the conclusion that he was a "British politician"?

I then went to see how many articles Waacstats might of edited incorrectly and was surprised to see that Waacstats was editing 10 a second, so I pulled the plug, rather like hitting the stop button on a bot.

I have let a message on Waacstats's talk page:

suspended your AWB usage], for two reasons the first is that this talk page show that you have been careless on at least 3 separate occasions this month. But more worrying is that despite being warned about carelessness, you are making 10 edit a minute. There is no way in that time you can check the that changes you are making are correct. In your last 50 edits from

• 08:28, 26 November 2011 m Didier Boulaud ‎ (→References: Add persondata short description using AWB)

to

• 08:32, 26 November 2011 m Francis Hillmeyer ‎ (→References: Add persondata short description using AWB)

The minutes (28 and 32) my well bot be full minutes:

• 28, 8 edits
• 29, 10 edits
• 30, 11 edit
• 31, 10 edits
• 32, 10 edits

(I've miss counted by on there are only 49 edits there)

I conclude that you have broken at least the first two of the

WP:ANI

, the suspension is like a bot stop, it may be on refection that you can have the privileged back very shortly it depends on the consensus but as an administrator seeing your caress edits on three separated occasion in less than 2 weeks I am not willing to let you change 10 pages a second while a consensus is reached at ANI.

OK what is to be done. This is the first AWB case I have dealt with so some guidence would be appreciated by my (and I suspect

) 11:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course nobody should edit war, and I'm all for shutting off AWB if someone is mis-using it, but Lotfi Zadeh is in fact an AI researcher. He was even recently inducted into the IEEE's AI hall of fame, per his biography. He is best known for work on fuzzy logic, which is an AI topic among other things. See also his CV which describes more of his AI work. I don't think BMK's warning was appropriate. 67.117.144.140 (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

IP 67 is correct, Zadeh lists "Artificial intelligence" on his faculty page as an area of research (something that I don't recall having seen there before, but I could well be mistaken.) Given that, I'm on my way over to the article to restore "Artificial intelligence researcher". I;ve extended an apology to Waacstats. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I personally am also not all that worried about the edit rate. He seems to be keeping it around 10 per minute which is the standard do not exceed threshold for AWB use. The typos do worry me a little though and would suggest they use more care when editing.--

talk

) 02:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It depends on what one is doing. For example if is changing a category name from one to another and only making that change then little to no checking is needed. But changes like this need to be done much more carefully, because one has to check place and dates and probably categories. Also discussion will have to take place if a person was born in England but died in Great Britain, are they British English or both? -- This type of change can not be done at 10 a second. In the case of the article on

talk

) 07:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

As Beyond My Ken points out above they have since changed the description back to AI Researcher and I would like to say that my edit to that article was not done with AWB. Also with regard to the others, the misspelling of baseball was a genuine mistake and once I realised what Wizardman was on about I went back and corrected the misspelt edits I had made before continuing with the rest of the list. I admit that the run I did on British politicians was badly judged and I wrongly assumed that anything in Category:British politician stubs and it's stub cats could be described as a British politician and assumed that the Category:English politician stubs and Category:English MP stubs were much the same as other English stub cats and that there would be no problem calling them British, I accept that with hindsight this was completely wrong and I should have had more care. I have learned from this and it is obvious to me now why no-one else has attempted to remove this particular backlog, as it will almost certainly mean manually editing a further 680,000 articles+ but then I always liked a challenge. Waacstats (talk) 11:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

WaacstatsI have re-enabled your AWB privileges. It takes time for the page to load and save using AWB, you must have been hitting the save button without checking the changes you were making, so in future check your changes before you sav. --

talk

) 03:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

At

01:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

In particular, could an admin please look at Jab7842's move log and see whether any useful articles were deleted after he(?) moved them into userspace. Jenks24 (talk) 04:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

This person seems to have signed up just to make disparaging comments about Chaz Bono. On his or her talk page she made extremely insulting comments [1] and on the article's talk page he or she did the same. [2] I removed both comments and suggest that something be done about the abusive editor. Thanks. 76.204.91.45 (talk) 03:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, the user has been blocked indefinitely. 76.204.91.45 (talk) 03:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Bonowatcher is a sock of a banned user. Please feel free to report to me or AIV right away. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I have edited

from using AWB until it is decided what to do about certain problems that have occurred recently.

• On 14 Nov. Beyond My Ken warned Waacstats: "Lotfi Zadeh is an electrical engineer and computer scientist, he is not an 'artificial intelligence researcher'". I am not sure if that one was done using AWB as it does not include AWB in the string in the edit but other edits made by Waacstats with AWB don't always do so.
• on 19 Nov. Wizardman You're spelling "baseball" wrong ... (20:24) Again, it's baseball rather than "basebeall" (20:41)
• on 26 Nov. PBS. People who lived in the British Isles before the
  Act of Union 1707 were not British. So the change you made to William Heveningham(1604–1678) is not correct. [The article] says he was an English politician in the first line and the stub is {{England-politician-stub
  }} so how did you come to the conclusion that he was a "British politician"?

I then went to see how many articles Waacstats might of edited incorrectly and was surprised to see that Waacstats was editing 10 a second, so I pulled the plug, rather like hitting the stop button on a bot.

I have let a message on Waacstats's talk page:

suspended your AWB usage], for two reasons the first is that this talk page show that you have been careless on at least 3 separate occasions this month. But more worrying is that despite being warned about carelessness, you are making 10 edit a minute. There is no way in that time you can check the that changes you are making are correct. In your last 50 edits from

• 08:28, 26 November 2011 m Didier Boulaud ‎ (→References: Add persondata short description using AWB)

to

• 08:32, 26 November 2011 m Francis Hillmeyer ‎ (→References: Add persondata short description using AWB)

The minutes (28 and 32) my well bot be full minutes:

• 28, 8 edits
• 29, 10 edits
• 30, 11 edit
• 31, 10 edits
• 32, 10 edits

(I've miss counted by on there are only 49 edits there)

I conclude that you have broken at least the first two of the

WP:ANI

, the suspension is like a bot stop, it may be on refection that you can have the privileged back very shortly it depends on the consensus but as an administrator seeing your caress edits on three separated occasion in less than 2 weeks I am not willing to let you change 10 pages a second while a consensus is reached at ANI.

OK what is to be done. This is the first AWB case I have dealt with so some guidence would be appreciated by my (and I suspect

) 11:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course nobody should edit war, and I'm all for shutting off AWB if someone is mis-using it, but Lotfi Zadeh is in fact an AI researcher. He was even recently inducted into the IEEE's AI hall of fame, per his biography. He is best known for work on fuzzy logic, which is an AI topic among other things. See also his CV which describes more of his AI work. I don't think BMK's warning was appropriate. 67.117.144.140 (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

IP 67 is correct, Zadeh lists "Artificial intelligence" on his faculty page as an area of research (something that I don't recall having seen there before, but I could well be mistaken.) Given that, I'm on my way over to the article to restore "Artificial intelligence researcher". I;ve extended an apology to Waacstats. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I personally am also not all that worried about the edit rate. He seems to be keeping it around 10 per minute which is the standard do not exceed threshold for AWB use. The typos do worry me a little though and would suggest they use more care when editing.--

talk

) 02:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It depends on what one is doing. For example if is changing a category name from one to another and only making that change then little to no checking is needed. But changes like this need to be done much more carefully, because one has to check place and dates and probably categories. Also discussion will have to take place if a person was born in England but died in Great Britain, are they British English or both? -- This type of change can not be done at 10 a second. In the case of the article on

talk

) 07:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

As Beyond My Ken points out above they have since changed the description back to AI Researcher and I would like to say that my edit to that article was not done with AWB. Also with regard to the others, the misspelling of baseball was a genuine mistake and once I realised what Wizardman was on about I went back and corrected the misspelt edits I had made before continuing with the rest of the list. I admit that the run I did on British politicians was badly judged and I wrongly assumed that anything in Category:British politician stubs and it's stub cats could be described as a British politician and assumed that the Category:English politician stubs and Category:English MP stubs were much the same as other English stub cats and that there would be no problem calling them British, I accept that with hindsight this was completely wrong and I should have had more care. I have learned from this and it is obvious to me now why no-one else has attempted to remove this particular backlog, as it will almost certainly mean manually editing a further 680,000 articles+ but then I always liked a challenge. Waacstats (talk) 11:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

WaacstatsI have re-enabled your AWB privileges. It takes time for the page to load and save using AWB, you must have been hitting the save button without checking the changes you were making, so in future check your changes before you sav. --

talk

) 03:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

At

01:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

In particular, could an admin please look at Jab7842's move log and see whether any useful articles were deleted after he(?) moved them into userspace. Jenks24 (talk) 04:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

This person seems to have signed up just to make disparaging comments about Chaz Bono. On his or her talk page she made extremely insulting comments [3] and on the article's talk page he or she did the same. [4] I removed both comments and suggest that something be done about the abusive editor. Thanks. 76.204.91.45 (talk) 03:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, the user has been blocked indefinitely. 76.204.91.45 (talk) 03:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Bonowatcher is a sock of a banned user. Please feel free to report to me or AIV right away. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure this report would be rejected at SPI for being ducky, so I'm putting it here, plus a request for page protection together. Korean language has had 5 accounts try to insert the same unsourced fact over the last few days. The account names all have a similar style, staring with "Korea":

• KoreanInfo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Koreankorea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• KoreanInfo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Korearesearchteam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Koreanpedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

They've all been trying to dramatically increase the amount of Korean speakers in the infobox.--

) 23:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Errr...why would it be "rejected for being ducky"? A CU might be declined because  
  deafening quacking) - The Bushranger _{One ping only}
  00:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Also found:
• Ask1korean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Koreanresearcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• KoreanResearchCenter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - the oldest account
  • - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
    • SPI page - if additional socks appear, they should be reported there and we'll see about protecting. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• And now we have Korean1peninsula (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with more of the same. Both Koreans and Korean language have been semi-protected for a week. the IP has been blocked, so hopefully that's the last of him. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

In the past, we've brought ducky socks here rather than open SPIs on them, I guess things have changed a bit.--

Crossmr (talk

) 22:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Persistent spammer

Resolved

 – Spam-Away™ applied. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

This user

Bengali Brahmins using various spellings in some kind of manouvre to promote his religiously based facebook group[5]. User has been warned numerous times at their talk. but persists. Heiro

21:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for one month. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Swat0120

Resolved

 – AIV in future please. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please take a look at the above apparently vandalism-only new account. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I left a level-3 warning. This should've really gone to

WP:AIV.--v/r - TP

16:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack by Hipocrite

We in the Athletics Portal have had numerous problems with IP addresses vandalizing historical results pages. User:78.148.44.92 is doing it right now. I have just reverted a stack of their damage. This account should be blocked like the others who have tried to do this same kind of damage. Trackinfo (talk) 21:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• He seems to have stopped, but I dropped a 3-hour block on him just to be sure for now. ♠
  MC
  ♠ 21:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

MangoWong Block review

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

I've just blocked MangoWong for 48 hours, for his latest in what I see as a long term campaign of thinly-veiled personal attacks and harrassment against another editor, User:Sitush. Sitush is one of a very small number of editors who have been working hard to improve our coverage of Indian topics, especially caste-related ones - they were originally horribly POV affairs, containing little more than the glorification of various castes, and now they are much better with neutral wording, reliable sources, etc.

In the course of this, Sitush and other content editors have been on the receiving end of quite a bit of abuse from various caste champions, pro-Indian nationalists, etc, a good few of whom have since been indef blocked. MangoWong has managed to get along by keeping his head just under the radar, thinly veiling his attacks, and being careful to avoid any individual attack that's been sufficiently egregious to warrant a block. But I think his low level of insults and insinuations has gone too far and constitutes

. Here are some examples...

• This is the final interaction that led to his block, in which he said "On caste articles, as soon as someone shows any objection to your edits, they are automatically "canvassed from orkut", "caste warriors", 'more than a caste warrior", "do not know English", "do not know policy", are dogs, stupid, tendentitious, sockpuppets, meatpuppets, unbalanced, has COI etc. etc. etc. and what not". Firstly, bringing up disagreements on caste articles is nothing to do with the article being discussed, and appears to be an attempt to personally discredit Sitush. The accusation that Sitush called people "dogs" and "stupid" is particularly despicable, as he has done no such thing. And the rest is a misrepresentation of actual events - there really have been lots of socks, etc, and it's all supported by evidence (eg SPI reports). I warned him only about the "dogs" and "stupid" slur, to which he responded "You may say that Sitush did not use the word "dog", but then, I may say that he made that insinuation through some other phrase" ([7]), which again is blatantly untrue. Anyway, please do see whole discussion - I've included these extracts here as the article is at AfD and may soon only be visible to admins.
• Unfounded accusation of "OR lies", "lynching" - [8]
• Unfounded accusations of "bullshit quality sources, OR, misrepresentations, synthesis, misinterpretations etc. for S***** fixation and other defamatory material. ... endless amount of ABF, incivilities, accusationmongering, argumentativeness" - [9]
• Unfounded accusations of "OR lies &/ synthesis &/ misrepresentations &/ unreliable sources &/ amateur sources &/ cherry picked sources &/ passing comment sources &/ off topic sources &/ misinterpreted sources &/ lead fixation &/ S***** fixation &/ defamatory material &/ undue material &/ sources with mysterious credentials", not specifically targeted, but it's clear who it's aimed at ("S*****" is "Shudra") - [10]
• Unfounded accusation of "massive obsession with inserting defamatory material about Indian castes" - [11]
• Unfounded accusation, "It is uncivil of you to keep asking people to leave WP. You don't own WP. Do you?", where Sitush has never asked anyone to leave WP as far as I know - [12]
• Unfounded accusations, "It is well known that you three (Sitush, MatthewVanitas and yourself) have been exercising an overbearing influence on the entire topic of Indian caste articles. You three have been acting in tandem on all these articles and have acted in tandem to obtain blocks and bans on hordes and hordes of eds who have tried to edit these articles" - [13]
• Throwing in "narrow minded colonial racist britishers" - [14]
• Further unfounded accusations, including that Sitush and others "operate on the principle -- "Any Tom/Dick/Harry writes a book, says something defamatory/palikuluing about an Indian caste, becomes an RS." - [15]
• Accusations of conspiracy - [16]
• Accusations of "trying to get blocks and bans etc. and doing various forms of armtwisting on anyone who has disputes on you" - [17]

The examples above are only going back a relatively short time, but it's been going on for a fair bit longer and there are plenty more similar examples.

On a number of occasions, he's been asked to take his accusations to ANI or can them - to put up or shut up. But he won't (eg [18]), presumably because he knows he won't succeed. In fact, you can see his opinion of ANI here - "The ANI is a completely useless place. It is stuffed with limeys who have written British-Indian history articles from a whitewased British POV and are committed to keeping it that way".

As it says at Wikipedia:Harassment, "Harassment is defined as a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always) the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely. It seems clear to me that that is exactly what has been happening, and it has to be stopped.

So, I'd like to ask for opinions on my 48 hour block, and on whether any further action might be necessary at this stage (I shall now go and post notices on the Talk pages of people mentioned here). Thanks in advance. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Been a long time coming. An expert in

WP:POISON could pretty much be written based solely on his actions. The only real surprise is that he was afforded quite so much good faith. Given the extreme unlikelihood that a two-week holiday will have the expected correctional impact I'd up it to indef. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk

) 14:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Perfectly justified. The links above and a look at MangoWong's contribs give one side of the story. When MangoWong was asked to illustrate Sitush's crimes, he came up with this which I do not see as remotely equivalent - nor even problematic in any way. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Good block considering the circumstances; though I very much doubt 48 hours will do anything to change MangoWong's behaviour to any degree that could be considered acceptable. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
• Yes. Boing, your lengthy explanation is appreciated, and I wonder if it'll show up in an RfC/U at some point. Also, what Chris said. And Kim. And Jezebel. Now let me look at my archive to see what vile actions have been taking place there. I will tell you one thing: I don't know how Sitush deals with all that chain-janking and still improves those horrible articles. I vote that we pay for him to get a JSTOR account, and that will save me some time as well, haha. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I think we could see an RfC/U coming from this before too long - though with the endorsement I've had here so far I don't think I'd hesitate to quickly escalate blocks myself now, should this behaviour continue. And yes, Sitush has shown amazing patience and dedication - I'd certainly support a JSTOR account too (I do miss the one I used to have access to when I was an OU student) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Trivia corner: JSTOR was not available when I was a student, but I did have access to a magnificent erection". - Sitush (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Sitush, is that what she said or are you still talking about that toe of yours? Drmies (talk) 15:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Good block indeed. Too many a poisoning-the-well experts are let to do their "handiwork" when they stop just a hair short of obvious personal attacks. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• I have been somewhat puzzled since MangoWong made the "dog" statement but I think that I have now found the connection. For the sake of clarity, given how bizarre it seems, within this series of ANI messages there are three which appear perhaps to be relevant.

...a failed SPI which caused pain to about half a dozen individuals. The initial comment in this section was an irrational threat. Unless someone can show that it is presently reasonable to block much/most of India.-MangoWong ℳ 05:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, diddums. I apologised. Some of those named were subsequently blocked for various reasons. Look, just drop this bone: there is no way that range is going to be blocked. Common sense should tell you that. - Sitush (talk) 05:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

That you apologized does not mean that it is sufficient to take away the pain you caused half a dozen people. That most of the others were subsequently blocked for various reasons only shows that you are expert in obtaining blocks on your opponents. just drop this bone That you think I am a dog only shows your severe problems with WP:CIVIL. there is no way that range is going to be blocked. Common sense should tell you that. Whether or not the range is going to be blocked or not, I do look at the initial comment in this thread as a seriously intended threat.-MangoWong ℳ 05:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The subject was wrt someone suggesting blocking the 117.195.x.x range (!), then someone brought up what was at that point the only SPI I had filed that had proven to be "no match" & which involved MW. It is all a little distasteful, sorry, but I know that many at the time recognised the amount of flak being fired in my direction & that of a couple of others who were trying to straighten out some caste articles. I may be a "good guy" but I do not have the patience of a saint & will grrrr eventually. BTW, the ANI report in question led to the topic ban of User:Thisthat2011. I haven't been able to find the evidence yet but I am sure that the bone/stick phrase had been explained previously, & TT2011 both had used it and used it subsequent to my message. MW had been supporting, and then defending, TT2011 vigorously. - Sitush (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Around that time we were getting socks almost daily, and MangoWong was supporting just about every one of them and was being abusive to the people trying to clean things up - I think this particular SPI was justified, even if it proved a negative. But at least we probably now know where he got the "dog" thing from - from his own misunderstanding of English idiom -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but this is partly why I have raised the issue. I might be committing wiki-suicide here but I do have a sometimes ridiculously honed sense of what is morally right/wrong. The entire systemic bias issue does, of course, include idiomatic phrasing & allowances have to be made for this. In my case, I ask when I do not understand/need clarification - examples of which MW has disparagingly referred to in the past being "straw man argument" and "Krishnaji" - but others may just jump in. If you look at it from this POV then MangoWong's comment makes a little more sense. At the extreme was a misunderstanding that appeared to cause them to connect "

long story

.

The problem is that the semantic obfuscation/wriggling that MW frequently exercises (as appears in part to be hinted at, for example, in the thread here) makes it clear, to me at least, that s/he does in fact have a reasonable command of the English language/idioms etc. MW can wikilawyer for [name your country here]. Also, MW was supporting TT2011 throughout this entire episode and therefore will have seen explanations of the term & that T2011 used it. I was just being open in declaring this situation. I do not know for sure that it is even the "accusation" to which MW was referring. - Sitush (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Sitush and Fowler and Fowler contributions go much beyond cleaning out articles , they are audacious onslaughts on previous content and content provided by other editors . Their presumption to higher erudition is misplaced , and arrogant as I have noted in my attempts to discuss his/her deletions of cited content in particular. In fact its sad( but exceedingly dexterous !) how it can be missed , to see how successfully Sitush along with Fowler and Fowler and several others can work in conjunction to turn an article on its head , concurrently and minutely examining content to retain and delete as per his/her frame of things , from an article and also horrendously miss glaring facts needing the same inspection . It would be completely inappropriate to see MangoWango blocked , but not surprising Intothefire (talk) 03:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Ummm...you might want to be careful, as your comment is nearly a personal attack itself. In a certain sense, though, you are correct--Sitush and F&F often do make strong "onslaughts" against previous content. That's because so much of the content in the topic area is unverified, non-neutral, or verified by sources that don't meet

WP:RSN to actually discuss the issue and get outside involvement. Couple that with the personal attacks, and we're where we are today. If you want to contribute constructively in the field, you'd be much better off not following MW's example. Qwyrxian (talk

) 06:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• I dont see the right to unilateral removal of properly cited content or removal without discussion as policy endorsed by Wikipedia , and I dont see Sitush or Fowler and Fowler having a special privilege to arbitrate validity of good or bad cited content without cogent reasons or discussion. See Deletion of cited content and citations from articles by Sitush
• I also dont see justification for deliberately false reasoning provided for changes on articles.See
  Discussion on Talk Jat page with Fowler and Fowler.Qwyrxian your Admin interventions on articles and talk pages in my interactions with you where Sitush and Fowler and Fowler have been aggressively engaged could have been more constructive albeit if they were more balanced and thorough .Sorry the ban on Mangowong instead of the restraining on Sitush , Fowler and Fowler and Mathew Varitas is a classic example of bad judgment Intothefire (talk
  ) 09:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Sigh...I won't draw this out unnecessarily, but all editors all have the "right to unilateral removal" of material that is improperly cited, that is uncited, or that is cited to unreliable sources. See

WP:V. Of course, if others disagree, they shouldn't edit war...but once an issue has been discussed, and the other party refuses to attend to any form of dispute resolution, removal is the correct choice. And just to clarify, I did not block MangoWong, nor would I ever do so outside of a clear emergency (and then I'd seek review afterward). Nothing, though, prevents me from commenting on the actions of other admins. Qwyrxian (talk

) 09:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian , your response is general , whereas I have provided a specific link to Deletion of cited content and citations from articles by Sitush as well as

Discussion on Talk Jat page with Fowler and Fowler , if you are defending Sitush and Fowler and Fowler , then please respond in specific reference to diffs provided and content thereon , Mangowong is hung on specific charges of bothering Sitush , so its only fair that specific instances of Sitush and Fowler and Fowler edits are put up to the same level of specific editorial inspection otherwise we have a witch hunt here. I may know little on the subject , but I know enough to see how these two along with and several others have really bothered various editors and I am willing to provide many more specific instances .Although I have myself been the recepient of a warning from Mangowong , I see the ban on him here is absurd and shallow , with justice really miscarried whereas the hammer should should have clearly fallen elsewhere. Intothefire (talk

) 10:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Intothefire, MangoWong has not been banned but rather has been blocked for 48 hours. He had previously had a 24 hour block in July, and the nature of blocks is that they tend to become longer if the contributor continues to make similar infractions of policy etc. I think that if you want to raise issues regarding my conduct or that of Fowler&fowler then probably you should start another thread. NB: Fowler&fowler is not contributing at the moment due to real life issues & so discussion of his actions may be tricky. - Sitush (talk) 11:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Lol ,Earlier when I was having a discussion with you Qwyrxian said you were going to be absent , now you say Fowler and Fowler is going to be absent so discussing his edits is tricky, .I find this musical chairs syndrome tricky . No this block is completely misdirected but emblematic . Intothefire (talk) 13:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Please

assume good faith. - Sitush (talk

) 13:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• I appreciate the support here folks, thanks. I was a little wary due to the sensitivity of some India-related articles, so my block was quite lenient and I possibly went further than necessary with the amount of evidence. But I feel confident now to impose escalating blocks should the same behaviour continue. And if anyone has any dispute with any future admin actions I might take in this area, I am always open to discussion and will be happy to respond to any civil approaches - and will fully cooperate with any discussions here on this board, or in any other relevant forums. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You mean, you want to be adminning those caste articles which Sitush will be editing? MW ^ℳ 02:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with that, as long as I don't use the admin tools over a content issue that I have taken part in. And it's nothing to do with Sitush specifically. I have been providing admin supervision of a number of India-related articles for some time, and have acted against a number of editors whose behaviour is contrary to Wikipedia policy, sometimes egregiously so - socks, personal attacks and harassment, etc. And I will continue to do so, whoever they are and whomever they attack. Anyway, if you have a complaint about my actions, or anyone else's, you have been told a number of times what you should do - make an ANI report, or start an RfC/U, and have the admin corps/community decide -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with that, as long as I don't use the admin tools over a content issue that I have taken part in. Does that mean you can be an admin on a content issue you have not participated in, even if you have otherwise been editing other content in the same article?-MW ^ℳ 15:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

That's what it means. As I've told you before MW [19], just because someone has edited the same article as you have, it doesn't mean they are too involved to block you for personal attacks. Your habit of accusing people of making this attack or that, without providing supporting diffs, can certainly lead to your being blocked by any admin. I suggest you try to understand this. --regentspark (comment) 16:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Please allow Boing! said Zebedee to answer the question. The issue you are clarifying is different from what BSZ is saying. BSZ is not talking about performing admin actions "in case of PA". BSZ appears to saying that it is OK to perform admin actions on content issues that BSZ has not edited, even if BSZ has edited other content in the same article. Clear?MW ^ℳ 16:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

See

WP:INVOLVED. If you ever believe you see me violate it in my admin actions, raise a report in the appropriate venue. Over and out. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk

) 23:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it true that you and Sitush are from the same country, and live within 50 km of each other? That you have been supporting Sitush through and through, and the caste articles have been in flames ever since you two took to them? That you have claimed the right to be an admin in a caste article (Kurmi) after you had edited it (incidentally, to reinsert a misrepresentation which I had deleted) ?-MW ^ℳ 02:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Trying to make a case of admin abuse out of this issue is not going to work. Particularly in cases involving POV pushing in articles related to groups of people, admins are welcome to follow the case and take action as required. It is often necessary for some admin involvement to occur because completely uninvolved editors find it too hard to get up to speed with the complex back and forth. Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Other admins have been doing their stuff on these articles, btw. Examples include User:Drmies, User:Salvio giuliano (who issued you with your first block), User:Ohnoitsjamie, User:SpacemanSpiff, User:C.Fred. I stress, those are just examples, and to my certain knowledge not all of them live in the same country as myself. I guess that I now have to notify all of those named. - Sitush (talk) 03:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Sitush, just to make sure that it doesn't appear we're involved, I won't say hi to you in the pub tonight. Also, these accusations on MangoWong's part are making my wife suspicious. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Now that you seem to have acknowledged that both of you are from the same country, would you like to clarify whether you and BSZ live within 50 km of each other or not?-MW ^ℳ 04:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. Drmies (talk) 04:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why? You are being rude and, yet again, assuming bad faith. Location is not relevant, as should be obvious from the list that I have already provided. However, if you or anyone else wants to call on me and share a cup of tea then you are more than welcome. Carry on like this and you may find yourself with a break that would facilitate such a visit. - Sitush (talk) 04:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear here: right after returning from a block for well-poisoning (with strong support), MW turns up at the ANI thread for said topic and begins trying to pin INVOLVED status on the admin who blocked him based on evidence-free insinuations of meatpuppetry? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

In a word, yes. Evidence-free insinuations are MW's stock in trade. JanetteDoe (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I've re-blocked MangoWong, for a month this time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Once again, I appreciate the support shown here - thanks folks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Could an admin either semi-protect Talk:Nair, or do a rangeblock? It's attracting unambiguous PA's from from an IP. JanetteDoe (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk page semi-protected, abusive edits rev-deleted -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, in the event that this thread is referred to if/when MW returns in a month or so, I don't think that the postings of the last few days at Talk:Nair were by MW using some other guise. The wording/style etc was way, way different. I shall visit my mother later and see if there is any smoke/flames/redness around her ears. - Sitush (talk) 06:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The author of that rather childish stuff geolocates to somewhere in the US - the IPs belong to Opera Software ASA -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

PS: If anyone sees personal attacks on articles like this, please do feel free to drop me a line on my Talk page too - I might not be around, but if I am I'll act quickly -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

(unarchiving as unresolved)

I'm reviving this thread concerning the behaviour of Mughal Lohar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I've been attempting to engage him in conversation about his unexplained image changes and removal of sourced content [20], and my efforts have been met with allegations of racism [21], [22]. I see from this user's talkpage that they have a history of non-communication, copyright violations and sockpuppetry, among other problems. It would help if some users here could keep an eye on him. Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 11:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

He doesn't appear to be calling you racist - he's suggesting that the image in question is a "racist depiction", as far as I can tell -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Zebedee ... nobody is being called a racist, however, the

BWilkins ←track

) 12:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep, good call -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I think you may be right. I didn't want call him out for personal attacks because I wasn't quite certain of his intent. I figured other sets of eyes would see it, if it was there. Thanks for taking a look. :) Kafka Liz (talk) 12:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for further block or ban

I am taking a short break from my Wikibreak to comment here and to ask for further action. There have been problems with this editor for some time, from copyright violation to failure to communicate to his even when told not using proper references (no details of books, just links, sometimes to snippets). He's been asked to use edit summaries a number of times, for instance, and still doesn't. I suspect he is still inserting copyvio but this is not always easy to check. Please also take a look at my talk page - it's complaints there that have brought me out of my break to ask for more action. Certainly if he doesn't respond here and satisfy editors that he is going to change his ways I'd go for an indef ban until he does. I'd be happy to have his block lifted so that he can discuss here if he agrees not to do any article editing fur at least the duration the block was supposed to last.

) 14:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I've got suspicions about some of the phrasing in his Siege of Bijapur article (i.e., that it's copyvio), but he seems to be tweaking things just enough that it can be difficult to trace. Kafka Liz (talk) 14:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Doug, I was concerned that bare URLs were being used in, for example, Muhammad Shah which pointed to google search snippet view for a rather generic search term; and I am not convinced that the snippets support what he actually says in the articles. Nor is it easy to see to which particular statements an end of paragraph reference refer. Two articles recently created also either point to a generic google books snippet view, or simply to the entry for a whole book, without giving page numbers. Thanks again and sorry to disturb your break, eric. Esowteric+Talk 15:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

And despite being asked to follow our guidelines for copying from other Wikipedia articles, he continues to copy and paste without attribution (and he uses other articles as sources).

talk

) 15:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Snippet view example: In Aurangzeb, this edit diff introduces a Google Books snippet view for the very broad search phrase "aurangzeb" in the book. There are 91 results and no page number is given.

This is used to support the sentence: "Shah Jahan fell ill in 1657, Aurangzeb's elder sister Raushanara Begum appropriated his seal to ensure that he would not involve himself in any possible war of succession."

I could not find anything like this in the snippets. A narrower search for the word "seal" does not appear to yield something that will support the above sentence (unless say, the word seal occurs again, further down the same page).

Page 50 and page 153 come the closest:

p50: "Her younger sister Raushanara fell out of favour with their brother Aurangzeb because whilst he was ill she took over the Great Seal and signed decrees in his name."

p153: "During the crisis sparked by Shah Jahan's illness, Raushanara apparently appropriated Aurangzeb's seal to ensure that his seal was on all decrees, to establish him as his father's legitimate successor."

What Mughal Lohar writes could well be correct, but it is not at all easy to verify. It could be that he's initially searched for (say) "aurangzeb", then carried out a different search, but not adjusted the reference's URL accordingly? Or I could be getting this wrong. Regards, eric. Esowteric+Talk 11:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

(od) I suspect there is some block evasion going on as well [23].--regentspark (comment) 13:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's him, mainly due to the differences in geolocation between this and known IPs. This one also actually tries to communicate primarily via the talkpage, which Mughal Lohar seldom does.

In any case, he's fresh off his block and reinstating his preferred versions to Suleiman the Magnificent and Aurangzeb, again without discussion. Kafka Liz (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see post-ANI entry on his talk page, about what to me is a bizarre use of snippet view. Esowteric+Talk 19:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC) diff for ease of reference

Few mentions show as snippets. Maybe there's a random element to what snippets are returned? Esowteric+Talk 19:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm still laughing about the nuts and prostitutes. Kafka Liz (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Advice on use of Google book search by Jayen466: I asked an experience editor, Jayen466 about the use of snippets, and this is what he said on his talk page:

"It's often possible to find a text match in a Google Books search which is shown as bold text in the Google Books search listing. However, if you click on the search hit and the book has snippet view only, the snippet shown will only be the nearest one available to the relevant passage that Google Books found. Sometimes you're lucky that your search string is in a displayable snippet, sometimes not. Generally, it doesn't make sense to link to a snippet display if the snippet doesn't show the relevant text. The book may well contain a relevant passage on that same page though. However, there is another thing that has to be said: if you haven't got the physical book, and you don't have a Google preview spanning several full pages in context, it is quite risky to add anything to a Wikipedia article just based on having seen a snippet, either in the Google Books search listing or in snippet view. Context may be all-important (the book may quote a discredited theory, or you may fail to realise that the whole passage is intended as humour, etc.). So it's not a way of working that should ever be used, except in the most straightforward cases (like finding a birth date in a reputable dictionary of biography with snippet view). These days, Amazon (linked to from Google Books) has Look Inside enabled for many books. Using both Google Books and Amazon in tandem is often worthwhile. --JN466 20:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)" Esowteric+Talk 09:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked him indefinitely (which is not a ban, it's simply a block that can be lifted at any time. I've no problem if anyone wants to unblock him, but he really does need to start communicating better and I don't see any other way to get him to do this. He also needs to stop this type of use of snippets and sources. I hope that people will copy any responses on his talk page to here (I really am trying to keep by Wikibreak and wno't be around in any case, contact me by email if vital).

talk

) 19:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Block seems fine, though you really should leave a note on his talk page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Odd I wrote one something went wrong. Done now.

talk

) 22:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

User requests unblocking: Hi, Mughal Lohar requests unblocking: "i honestly didn't know anything about the snippets law." Can someone handle, please? Esowteric+Talk 10:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, he has previously been advised at least twice about the problematic nature of the Google books snippets, both on his talkpage five days ago and on the Arangzeb talkpage two days ago. I'm not sure "I honestly didn't know" is a legitimate defense. Kafka Liz (talk) 13:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

My mention of snippet view verifiability is probably detracting from the real issues, which have yet to be addressed, actually: slow edit warring, lack of edit summaries, uncommunicativeness; etc. Could be that the user doesn't quite know what's expected of him now, re unblocking? eg a statement recognizing the issues and a commitment to rectify?Esowteric+Talk 13:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, he's been spoken to repeatedly about all these issues, as well as the importance or reliable sources. He certainly should know what the problem is - I just don't know if he understands that he needs actually to listen to what others say and learn to work in a more collaborative way. Nothing he's said yet indicates that.Kafka Liz (talk) 13:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I have declined the unblock request. I agree with Kafka Liz: the editor does not seem to have taken in at all what others have said.

talk

) 15:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The range is very busy so getting socks from the IP is difficult, but I believe this one is Sridhar100 -- Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sridhar100 —SpacemanSpiff 09:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice catch. They certainly have similar interests. Interesting. Kafka Liz (talk) 13:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The Cavalry (Message me) 14:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked Lucy-marie (talk · contribs) for one month for vandalising while logged out, as well as using Somali123 (talk · contribs) as a  Confirmed sockpuppet. Somali123 is indeffed, but I'd like an opinion from the community on whether a one month block for Lucy-marie is appropriate, or whether it should be upped to indef based on the long-term disruptive history of Lucy's editing. The Cavalry (Message me) 00:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I personally feel that based on their long history of disruptive activity, the fact that this is the second sockpuppet they've used before, and the fact that they've operated this sockpuppet since 2007, that an indef block should be considered. As a disclosure, myself and Lucy have differing views on content and indeed have in the past had an adversarial relationship, so my comments should be taken with a grain of salt, but I don't feel that I am alone in my feelings, as her talk page and archives show.

The clock is ticking....

00:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I previously blocked Lucy-marie (talk · contribs) for abusive sockpuppetry years ago, and let him/her off the hook with a final warning. The socking in question was quite disruptive, and if it's happening again, then I think it's time for an indefinite block. That said, I haven't followed this account closely over the years, so if there are mitigating factors I'd be open to hearing them. MastCell ^Talk 01:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Having looked through her and her sock's edits a bit tonight, I'm wondering why she hasn't received a formal ban or at least been indef blocked. Just from looking at User:Somali123's edits, I see disruption, vandalism (and really, calling Heather Mills a (edit) bad name is so 2009), ignoring consensus, vile racism, and distasteful ethnocentrism. If a new editor did this, he/she'd be gone in four edits, and rightly so: this editor is damaging the project. An indef block would protect the project, a formal ban even more so. --NellieBly (talk) 08:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

By

the deafening quacks), 95.147.55.213 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is L-M. I think an indef is appropriate. T. Canens (talk

) 10:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support indef block Using a bad hand sock for four years for disruption, edit warring against consensus, vandalism and BLP violations is bad enough, even ignoring the sock was created just after a month after a previous disruptive sock of Lucy-marie's had been blocked. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I have a problem with user 46.196.33.96. This user has changed things in the article (Ben Gurion Airport) without any proof (and these things are not true...). I wrote to him twice and i asked to give his evidence on the talk page of value but he didn't answer me and continued to change. I put my proof today on the talk page of the article. I'd love if you do something about it --Friends147 (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

There's an open thread on the talk page. If the IP doesn;t respond in a reasonable timeframe, feel free to revert referencing the talk page. There's no point going to ANI on the very first revert. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I spoke with an admin and he sent him a warning. --Friends147 (talk) 09:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

We have an editor who is recreating

) 07:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Both salted. Not sure how to handle the possible socking. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I suspect that this is a single purpose editor that will go away once they get the message that we're not going to accept the article. I'll keep an eye on both accounts' contributions and open an SPI case if they start moving into other areans. Again, thanks, Sparthorse (talk) 07:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Angry Video Game Adult and gave a warning to User:Josephnintendonerd not to do it again. –MuZemike 14:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

There has been discussion at WP:FTN, on Talk: Scorpio (astrology) and elsewhere about a template that has been added to all articles on astrological star signs that some of us consider to be unencyclopedic because it involves repeating the same chunk of information in each article, some of that information being poorly sourced.

I commented at length, and I think patiently, on the question, and suggested that WikiProject Astrology was the place to sort out whether the template was encyclopedic or not.

On 24 November, User:Zachariel (Zac) notified members of WikiProject Astrology of a discussion. To be fair, he did post on the WikiProject talk page, saying simply "Need for discussion of issues has been put to WP:Astrology project members". He didn’t post about the discussion on WP:FTN where this was under consideration or notify me or anyone who had contributed at FTN. I had explained that I wasn't going to join the project but would contribute there from time to time.

My first impression was that Zac’s notification of individual editors had been very selective. I posted in a new section on the WikiProject talk page to say there was prima facie of vote-stacking. On investigation, it does turn out that he notified each member of the project. It has taken me hours to sort out who was and wasn’t a project member, or notified, mainly because so many listed project members are inactive, and several have changed their usernames. Most listed haven’t edited anywhere on the encyclopedia for years, some are blocked, and he himself is still listed under his previous username.

Zac also notified three people who aren’t project members. User: Ihcoyc, User:Lighthead and User:Prof.Landau. The last of these has not been editing for a long while. I don’t know why the other two were notified.

What may be of concern is that since the discussion was opened, in the last three days, five new members have joined the project: User:AxelHarvey, User:Dwayne, User:Logical 1, User:Robertcurrey, User:Ken McRitchie.

Zac introduced the discussion with a very long post, containing his own interpretation of my view, using only one of the three examples that I had given as typical.

Then various editors snowed in to support his position. They include three of the five new project members: User:AxelHarvey, a few minutes before joining the project; User:Robertcurrey, commented on 24 November, added his name on 26 November; User:Ken McRitchie, commented on 25 November, added his name on 26 November.

Most of those commenting in the thread declare themselves on their user pages as professional astrologers or writers on astrology, or are easily identified as astrologers active on the Internet.

I see few arguments that address the actual question: whether a WikiProject should recommend a template that involves repeating the same text across a number of articles.

Would you please advise whether this amounts to vote stacking? Any other advice about how to move forward on article quality would also be appreciated. Thank you. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• I've been following developments off and on through an editor I have worked with the past who's involved (
  89
  ≈≈≈≈ 17:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • This is unsurprising. Robert Currey recruits editors from offsite to meatpuppet for the pro-astrology point of view.[24] This is a serious problem, and I suggest that discretionary sanctions be applied liberally on these articles. Involvement of the larger community via RFCs has also been effective in limiting the damage this behavior causes. Skinwalker (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

How does this get moved forward to resolution please? An RfC is already open on Astrology. I have raised the issues on talk pages, on RSN, FTN and now the WikiProject. Non-admin users who are willing to wade in to try and sort the mess out, by improvement to the articles, quickly become seen as "involved". Itsmejudith (talk) 17:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I dunno...you started this thread. Skin, it sounds like you feel that Robert Currey should be blocked for meatpuppetry

89

≈≈≈≈ 17:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably not, it's practically impossible to get support for a meatpuppetry block - even in patently obvious cases. I think RFCs and topic bans are more tenable and effective solutions. Skinwalker (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean Template:Zodsign1? That is an odd template William M. Connolley (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

An RfC is a good step, though I don't see one active on the Astrology talk or on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astrology related to this template (to get one active such that the community notices it, you need to use the instructions here). So, open one of those. I'm going to accompany that suggestion with a non-partisan warning that the next person or people I see revert-warring on Template:Zodsign1 is/are getting blocked for edit-warring. Having an RfC open, if one indeed is, does not give anyone license to revert anything to their preferred version. This is not directed at anyone in this thread in particular, but at everyone involved in this entire thing: the warring is going to have to stop, now. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• I am not formally a member of the astrology project, but I have done some editing on astrology related pages. My take on this is different. There is a large body of available public domain text that's recognized by astrologers as significant and authoritative, including works by
  reliable source. I'd like to be more involved in updating and expanding the pages with information from these sources, but the pages have been lawyered to death by the "sceptical" contingent. A large number of editors, including a number of IP editors, remove content willy-nilly, and post dismissive messages claiming that astrological sources are from an "in universe" perspective, as if astrology were a fictional subject. The template's an attempt to respond to one recurring cavil, concerning the difference between the tropical and sidereal zodiacs. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003!
  18:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with Smerdis here. There are reliable sources for the description of astrology, both ancient and modern. This is a separate issue from whether astrology is a pseudoscience: even if it is, it is only correct to describe astrology and its history from the sources the field itself considers reliable. I have observed some of these sources rejected by overactive skeptics. For a long time we did not have a good historical picture of
    talk
    ) 18:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

First, I would like to clarify that I have commented on the Astrology Project discussion six times since August and being on my Watch List it is of interest. I did not add my name to the list of members of the project originally as nothing seemed to be happening and I considered that further highlighting my interest would be used against me as indeed it was today with Itsmejudith's comments. When Zac made this proposal and others followed, it felt appropriate to add my name.

Second, Skinwalker - this is the third time you have accused me of meatpuppetry or recruiting editors using this same link from March. Anyone who reads the public link, which I have not taken down, will see that I was not recruiting editors and if anything, advising people to follow the WP rules and not to go to the Astrology Page to edit war simply because other editors had been banned. As far as I know no one became an editor as a result of those comments on a Facebook page and I challenge you to find a WP editor. If you feel that there is a case against me, then you should go through the proper channels and I will answer it. It is time to put up or shut up. I believe it is quite wrong to take advantage of the fact that an editor does not have the protection of being anonymous to dredge up external information in an attempt to make something out of nothing. Robert Currey talk 23:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Both of you are involved editors, at least as involved as I am. I already raised the primary source nature of ancient, medieval and early modern writers. There is extensive historical research on these periods, and that's what we should be using. Having articles restricted to modern scientific criticism is just a red herring. We are talking about history here. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

This is an example of the sort of lawyering that gets in the way of building these articles constructively. Whether you label Lilly, Leo, or Ptolemy as primary or secondary sources is should be a matter of indifference. They are treatises. Their texts are recognized by astrologers as foundational authorities. All of them write as the presenters of an established tradition, not as doing original research in astrology. If you object that astroiogy is a pseudoscience and doesn't use empirical methods, you don't get to complain that the authorities consulted are out of date. The main focus of an article on Scorpio (astrology) ought to be "What does astrology say about Scorpio"? When you have reliable public domain material that we can adapt easily, we should grab with both hands. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 23:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, go on, use the Ptolemy, then. Of course you're thoroughly familiar with it in the original ancient Greek. You've read all the relevant literature in Classical Arabic, Latin, Old French and Middle English. Of course you have. Itsmejudith (talk) 02:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Meatpuppetry is a valid concern. One of my attempts to cleanup astrology articles was very swiftly undone by an editor who created their account earlier this year, during the previous campaign of ballot-stuffing and meatpuppetry by astrology editors, and who has only made a handful of edits since then - turning their userpage and talkpage into bluelinks, and then voting in astrology-related polls... bobrayner (talk) 12:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

  Meanwhile, we have all too many articles which look like [25]. When I try trimming some of the cruft or doing some minimal rewording so it's presented as "Astrologers believe that..." rather than a statement of fact, I'm usually reverted by an astrology editor on the pretence that the content is backed by some imaginary or manufactured "consensus" or that there's no justification for cleanup. Sometimes even blatant fiction gets reverted into articles; content that's incompatible with even schoolkid physics, but the text looks nice to an astrologer... Personally, I would be happy to see a historical subject presented neutrally, but quite often astrology articles fail to do so. bobrayner (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Everything I've read here and on the project page suggests to me that wikiproject is rogue - either via POV-pushing or straight forward incompetency the main people involved in it seem to blundering around with no idea what a wikipedia article should be - that template they created and all thought was a great idea is a disgrace. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the project should be disbanded, then. It sounds like a POV-pushing CABAL

89

≈≈≈≈ 16:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It's reminding me of

WikiProject World's Oldest People

, which was used for maintaining a walled garden (with accompanying off-wiki canvassing, outing threats et al.) until there was an ArbCom and bannings.

I'm going to open the RfC on the template as suggested above. The discussion is spreading out over multiple forums at the moment. Thank you all for your attention to my post. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

For info, I did open an RfC but someone else took the template to Templates for Deletion. Which I could have done all along, had I thought. Looks like it will be deleted there. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Because of the misinformation placed above, some clarifications are in order.

Itsmejudith, who opened this, was the one arguing most strongly that the contested content should be put to the Wiki:astrology project members for evaluation, and that the astrology project members should create agreed guidelines for a consistent approach towards structure and content of this set of articles. She first suggested this on 19 November. I agreed in principle and hoped she or someone else would initiate it. Due to time pressures, it was with reluctance that I initiated it myself, after a period of delay, in order to satisfy her arguments that this was the right thing to do (see also here and here).

She now says:

On 24 November, User:Zachariel (Zac) notified members of WikiProject Astrology of a discussion. To be fair, he did post on the WikiProject talk page, saying simply "Need for discussion of issues has been put to WP:Astrology project members". He didn’t post about the discussion on WP:FTN where this was under consideration or notify me or anyone who had contributed at FTN. I had explained that I wasn't going to join the project but would contribute there from time to time.

This is simply not true. The opening comment of my astrology project post - given with working links - was this:

There has recently been a lot of discussion about the Scorpio (astrology) page. The concerns have been discussed on the talk page of that article and on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard. They relate to the structure, content and sources used for all the 12 zodiac signs...

I also kept Itsmejudith and the other editors who had contributed to the previous discussion fully informed. Posting several times on the Scorpio-talk page (where this was being discussed) that I was making a post on the Wiki:Astrology project members and inviting their comments there – see this, this and this.

Itsmejudith was perfectly aware of the situation (see here) and I have no understanding of why she chose not to comment herself in the place where she knew it was being properly evaluated, following her suggestion – especially after she took it upon herself to define the astrology project tasks and principles by inserting – without any prior project discussion – a list of rules, purposes and goals for the astrology project (see the series of six posts she made starting with this).

She now implies “Zac’s notification of individual editors had been very selective. I posted in a new section on the WikiProject talk page to say there was prima facie of vote-stacking.”

There was nothing inappropriate and my procedure was this: I contacted the members of the project by using the list of members advertised on the project page and the ‘what links here’ list of users who demonstrate their membership by displaying the project membership box on their user pages.

As Itsmejudith acknowledges, most of these are clearly out of date, but I am not able to establish which these are so I contacted them all without any attempt to be selective. She says I notified three people who aren’t project members. User:Ihcoyc, User:Lighthead and User:Prof.Landau. Actually, though the account is almost certainly dead, Prof Landau’s name is listed on the project’s membership page, and Lighthead was also listed as a project member – (he de-listed himself after I issued the notice). User:Ihcoyc, the only editor not listed as a member, was known to me as one of the few editors who had contributed content and news recently to the astrology project pages, and who I felt would expect to be treated as a member because of his obvious involvement with project concerns – see this, for why that was failry obvious logic.

She also states:

What may be of concern is that since the discussion was opened, in the last three days, five new members have joined the project: User:AxelHarvey, User:Dwayne, User:Logical 1, User:Robertcurrey, User:Ken McRitchie.

Why should this be of concern? There is a high profile discussion currently taking place across several pages, asking editors to demonstrate a willingness to be part of a working team for this project, so quite naturally some have been reminded that the project is still active and in need of contributions. Equally, Lighthead, similarly reminded about the project, chose to delist his membership.

So the situation is this: I was urged to get the astrology project members involved, and did that to the best of my ability. The person who argued most strongly in favour of that happening chose not to contribute, despite being fully informed and requested to do so. Having seen that the use of the template found unanimous support, she now wants to suggest that there was something inappropriate about the process.

The notice at the top of this page states “You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion”. The accusation directly concerns my activity, with the suggestion that I was selective in who I contacted in order to engineer deliberate vote-stacking. Yet I know of this ANI report only because I have just read the short and rather vague notice on the astrology project page – one that I missed yesterday and might easily have missed today.

I would like to have Itsmejudith’s involvement scrutinised since I believe the fragmentation of discussion has been highly disruptive. Already this ANI thread and has elicited negative responses, which then influence the new RFC, based on unfair representation of the problem, alarmist suggestions and the unfounded declarations that the disputed content uses unreliable sources – this is not the case as other editors (above) have tried to explain. The purpose of the Astrology project discussion was to centralize discussion so that all criticisms could be looked at, understood, with proposals suggested, guidelines created, and any difficult issues referred to appropriate notice boards as these were identified. Instead blanket criticisms (many of which have no substance) have become scattered again, so no one knows now the correct place to engage in meaningful evaluation and debate.

So far, the astrology project members have clearly supported the notion that some sort of clarification of the sign-identification issues needs to be included upon every page, because there is too much confusion on issues that are quite easily explained and are fundamental to the understanding of the topic. The project needs time to evaluate whether modification of the content is necessary and to agree the guidelines on how to improve the quality of all the 12 pages - so that they are offering information on the history, mythology and technical issues connected to the astrological use of the zodiac signs. Nothing can move forward while-ever there is uncertainty over where to evaluate and formulate consensus over these issues. To create an appropriate environment of rational debate I hope the administrators here will approve of the astrology project as the best place to work through all the issues systematically, and that requests for comments should be directed to the astrology project pages where the issues are being explained in full and proposals for solutions can be explored in full. As previously explained, all contributions are welcomed there, whether they come from editors who identify themselves as members of the project or not -- Zac Δ ^talk! 14:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Zac, a template, particularly one that is as POV-pushy as the one you have, is not the proper way to do the things you seek. You claim that the information is reliable; I seriously doubt that. And, regardless of whatever consensus may have been reached at the Astrology project, it's the consensus of the greater community that matters, and it appears that the greater community does not want things done the way the Astrology project wants. Particularly when it seems quite clear to me that the Astrology project ignores or even violates several policies and guidelines. And I see no reason to scrutinize itsmejudith's involvement...she has not violated any policy

89

≈≈≈≈

Furthermore, you ask why bringing up those other editors is relevant. Pointing to those editors could be a reference to either meatpuppetry or canvassing, both of which are egregious policy violations

89

≈≈≈≈ 17:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

And one more point...both here and at the TFD, you claim that the best way to convey this information is with a template. That is not what templates are for Templates are either boilerplate notices or links to other articles. Large amounts of sourced text have no place in templates.

89

≈≈≈≈ 18:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Zachariel accuses editor of censorship

Zachariel (talk · contribs)

Here,

≈≈≈≈ 20:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah! The old "Help! Help! I'm being repressed! Now we see the violence inherent in the system!" routine. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• We normally have to suffer longer before someone on a mission is topic banned—but it is clear that a group of astrology enthusiasts has got used to promoting their in-universe view on Wikipedia, and topic bans will be required. Zachariel has over 2500 contributions and I cannot see any outside the topic of astrology. Their first edit was four years ago (adding a link to an astrology website—there was a long period of inactivity soon after). I suspect that it is only recently that much pushback against cruft has been experienced by the members of WP:WikiProject Astrology, and the wider community needs to take control because there are sufficient enthusiasts that any standard talk page discussion is swamped. Johnuniq (talk) 01:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, 2500 contributions would not surprise me - nor would it surprise me that I have corrected more patent innacuracies and added more lacking citations and references to this subject than any other editor. I realise that makes me a sitting target for the many editors who are quite open and transparent about their hatred for the subject, and don't even bother to disguise their inability to be objective in their reports on it. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 01:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Purplebackpack89, your edit summary reads like a tabloid headline: “New subsection: Zachariel accuses editor of censorship”. It also has the same degree of reliability.

How about this one “Topic ban proposed for Zac: self-confessed involved editor argues prior use of words could work; another suggests a 'too many contributions' argument” (?)

No Purplebackpack89, my comment was not directed at you, and I’m sure the editor whose post it did follow understood that general irony and analogy was being used, even if you didn’t. I will let the admins decide if I have made baseless accusations or defended myself from them. The fact that someone uses the word ‘canvassing’ does not mean the case is closed before it is judged. Now – this comment is addressed to you - are you saying that I am involved in meatpuppetry? I know I am not, so I am interested to hear what you have to support that. Or are you of the belief that it’s only necessary to make accusations, and not at all necessary to justify them here?

Anyway, for those who want to ‘read all about it’, my post that mentioned the word "censored" is here. (I didn't know, BTW, that the word "censored" was censored, or that if anyone uses it, it becomes grounds to make sure they are censored ....) -- Zac Δ ^talk! 01:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

First off, why is everything directed toward me, and why the criticism of the edit summary? Second, I didn't say you meatpuppeted, merely that someone else said you did. Even if you didn't, you have engaged in similar concerns, such as canvassing (earlier today, you insisted that it was necessary that astrology editors be notified personally of these new rounds of discussions; that's canvassing plain and simple). Add to that editwarring and countless examples of being CLUEless. Clueless that we actually have rules about what goes in templates. Clueless about what cruft is. Clueless about the fact that the word "censorship" isn't to be joked around with. I could go on. Put it all together and, even without the cleaver, IMO you've still got grounds for a long block, let alone the topic ban I've floated

89

≈≈≈≈ 02:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Why is everything directed towards you?? Geez, could that be because you just started this ANI notice about me and suggested I should be topic-banned without good reason? Actually:

1. no one has said that I have meatpuppeted. I would take great exception to that so if you believe anyone has suggested this please point to the diff. I am fully responsible for my own posts and no one else’s, and all of my comments are made in good conscience with a good understanding of the topic I comment on and the relevant WP’s policies that apply to it. All you did was bandy a word around, in the hope that a negative suggestion would stick without the need for it to be justified.
2. I have not engaged in canvassing – the purpose of my contribution to the previous discussion was to clarify that, and I leave it to the judgement of admins to differentiate between canvassing and following the procedure that I was recommended to instigate by those who now complain about it.
3. I neither canvassed nor “insisted” anything in the post you linked to – and the facts of that are “plain and simple” to anyone who checks the link you gave (the comment is the bottom one). All I did was ask a genuine question about whether the editors who had previously commented needed to be aware of the new discussion and asked to comment again. It is hardly “insistence” to ask a reasonable question once and then make no further response or take no further action on that point. Please note that I have not contacted anyone subsequently to the situation described in the thread above, where it was suggested that discussion be generated amongst the astrology project members.

I am not so clueless as to not note the prominent orange box that appears at the top of this page when contributors edit it – stating quite clearly “You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion”. Where was my notice for either of these accusations? It is only because this page got added to my watchlist yesterday (after I commented on the previous post, which had developed substantially in a very negative vein before I became aware of it and was able to clarify the situation) that I have been able to see how you put two and two together to total five.

I didn’t joke about the word “censorship” (you can’t even quote me correctly on that) but you certainly need to lighten up or at least get your facts straight if you are going to carry on thrashing that cleaver around. Everything about this accusation and your proposal that a topic ban or long term block be applied to me shows that you are too willing to by-pass procedures and ignore what is really relevant in the hope that vague and unsubstantiated critisms are all that will be noticed here.-- Zac Δ ^talk!

Zac is not getting it—that diff shows the reinsertion two hours ago of a template that is a SNOW delete at TfD, and without consideration of the many widely experienced editors who have explained that we don't use a template to insert article text, let alone duplicate that text in multiple articles. Johnuniq (talk) 03:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I do 'get it'. There is a RFC on that template, and astrology project members have been pointed to that page as a demonstration of its use, in order to establish consensus on the content it proposes and whether this needs amendment. Responses are not able to be elicited on the use of the template if the template is removed whilst the RFC is running. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 13:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

This is the problem, you just don't get it - there is no way on earth that template is acceptable to the community, your RFC could run for months and that template will still be deleted at the TFD discussion. This is the big problem for me, your guys (the wikiproject) are basically incompetent (I don't say that with malice, that's just it seems to be) - you don't seem to have any understanding of why that template is completely unacceptable and seem no closer to any understanding even after multiple editors have explained it to you. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it seems to me that most of the project members are unaware of the template discussion. I have fully understood the problem, but recognise that it goes deeper than you appear to realise. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 15:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem, Zac, is that there is a policy that says this is not what templates are used for but you think that this subject - with which you have a conflict of interest - deserves special treatment. You're living in a dreamland if you think that (i) this is going anywhere but a snow delete, and that (ii) if enough people on WP:AST argue long enough that this will override policy. Let me be clear: even if 100 people from project astrology show up on TFD and !vote keep, it will still be deleted because consensus is a policy based discussion, not a vote (incidentally, the "!" in "!vote" is supposed to be read as "not-vote"). If you want to change policy, go to the policy page. Otherwise please stop wasting time by arguing that these types of things aren't violating policy when they very clearly are. Yes, it is clear to people outside of the astrology community and that's why the only votes to keep on TFD are from astrologers. N^oformation ^Talk 20:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

That TFD is snowing - why not nuke it from space now to prevent editing warring? --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Note the title of the previous discussion - from which this one was spawned. Decisions are not made at the first sign of snow. Sometimes, apparently, a rapid fall of snow gives cause for concern. Better to ensure that all who may wish to contribute discussion are given the opportunity to do so -- Zac Δ ^talk! 13:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Look forget it, no matter what a lot of meat-puppets turn up and say, that there is absolutely no way that the community will allow that template to stand - it's just not going to happen, policy does not allow it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Then what's the problem? Don't you think it would be wise to at least establish whether it is the use of the template that is causing the problem, or the content it presents? Currently it seems that it would be easy to drop the use of the template and transclude the text instead. But I very much doubt this will fix the problem, don't you? Better to have the issues identified properly, and then resolved properly. Besides, editors are still commenting, but this is just my view of course -- Zac Δ ^talk! 14:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

In response to the meat-puppets remark: are you a meat puppet Cameron Scott? (Be aware that now I have asked this, any editor may legitimately report that questions have been raised about the possibility of you being involved in Meatpuppetry.) Do you think I am a meatpuppet? Do you think I am representing here any views but my own? Er, why not look around … where are the meatpuppets turning up anyway? Most members of the astrology project appear to be completely unaware of the template discussion, and there is no one commenting here but little old me, in this special thread that has been dedicated to me, in honour of all the WP contributions I have made. That’s the way I am seeing it anyway, since it was a silly ANI post that should never have started. If an admin requires comment I'll duly answer, otherwise if I’ll make this my last post (if you want to make non-essential remarks about me you can do that on my talk page). -- Zac Δ ^talk! 15:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Both the technical way in which the template is used (transclusion of identical article text into many articles, making it practically impossible for casual editors to change the text) and the current content of the template (serious pro-fringe POV pushing coatracked on a somewhat related topic) are a problem. Both will be solved. The solving has started with the technical side. Maybe that was a mistake. Maybe we should have started with the content so long as it's all in one place. But I see no legitimate reason why we shouldn't be able to find a central location, such as WT:WikiProject Astrology, for discussing whatever happens to all the individual zodiac articles. Hans Adler 14:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I consider the above post a very sensible one. There definitely needs to be one place for centralised discussion. I think that currently there are about 6 active discussions, all simultaneously talking about the same essential issues, but scattering different views across talk-pages, project pages, noticeboard forums and this ANI thread. So you go to one place and get a clear consensus on one opinion, go elsewhere you get a clear consensus on another. A complete mess. I agree it was not helpful to turn what I now percieve to be a dispute over content into a use of template debate. The latter is easily fixed but if the dis-ease over the template is only a sympton not the cause, the problems will rumble on and on. The WT:WikiProject Astrology exists to consider these issues, and it is not supposed to represent only the view of enthusiasts. Some of the members are sceptics who have joined in order to ensure the subject gets balanced appraisal - but it's not necessary for anyone to 'join' the project to participate in the discussions. The project should be given the opportunity to define sensible guidelines which acknowledge legitimate criticisms. Questioning the project's ability to formulate these guidelines appropriately should only be done when it has engaged in the discussions fully and formalised the task, not when it has only just begun looking at it. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 15:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Being as how astrology is as bogus as a 3-dollar bill, isn't Zac's term "inaccuracies" kind of redundant? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's keep this small - you see there are many differing views on this subject, most of which are purely subjective as yours is. WP aims to give an objective assessment of what is reported in reliable, verifiable sources. Are you a reliable, verifiable source? I think not. So we’ll take this as just your personal opinion, which is no more weighty than mine. But what is reported should be accurate – so if a page says something like “Hindu astrology includes several elements not found in Hellenistic astrology, such as its system of lunar mansions” when the reliable sources show very clearly that the lunar mansions are described in Hellenistic (and Babylonian) sources, then this is an “inaccuracy” which is best corrected by reference to the reliable sources – can you see how this works? -- Zac Δ ^talk! 14:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure that Bugs can back up his assertion with a myriad of sources

89

≈≈≈≈ 20:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I think someone needs to start a movement similar to the

Flying spaghetti monster but parodying astrology instead of deistic religion. That kind of reductio ad absurdum does wonders in explaining why something is retarded without actually calling it retarded, which allows people to evaluate an argument without taking it personally (since it's now about X instead of astrology). On the other hand, I guess you could say something like Feng shui

is already a parody of astrology, it's just not intended to be.

Anyway, on topic: the astrology cabal here seems to severely misunderstand WP policy in many respects. It took 2 RfCs and who knows how many thousands of kilobytes to explain to them that using fringe sources to criticize mainstream science was unacceptable, and now it's taking a ridiculous amount of time to explain the very simple fact that templates are not used for these purposes. Do they not get it, do they not care, do they think that policy is more of a guideline than a rule? I think, perhaps, that they believe that policy is secondary to rhetorical argumentation, and so if they can convince other people of their position (not related to policy, just their position in general) then their POV will stand. Most of the arguments in both the RfCs and on the template subject are total red herrings filled with Special pleading. I don't know, but it's been problematic for a while and it's good that the larger community is finally getting involved. However, I think something more substantial needs to be done in regards to the SPA astrologers, I'm just not sure what. N^oformation ^Talk 20:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

...and my lunch break is about to end. So I thought I had best draw another admin's attention to the DB-Attack notice that has been placed on User talk:Djathinkimacowboy/Archive 1 by User:Erikeltic. It looks like these two have some history, if this thread is anything to go by.

Cheers!

12:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

People might want to read this before commenting here. (I should be considered 'involved' because if Djathinkimacowboy isn't a sock, I don't consider him of net benefit to the project) --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I felt that the "running commentary" Cowboy was assigning to that page fell under the guidelines of an attack page, that's why I nominated it for deletion. There is no trouble brewing from me, that's for sure. As far as my history with Cowboy, that history is two days old provided he isn't a sock. However, between the hostility he's shown me and other editors and all of the other reasons listed in the SPI, I believe he is a sock of the infef-blocked Jake Fuerstrum. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 13:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• I have no comment on Erikeltic's behavior, but I've blocked Djathinkimacowboy for continued personal attacks on multiple editors both on the linked subpage, the WQA board, and most recently on User talk:Walter Görlitz.--v/r - TP 14:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I just want to add that my block is only for 24 hours. It appears this discussion may be leaning toward a longer block.--v/r - TP 15:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• I collected this User_talk:Andy_Dingley#Steampunk this morning. I can't make any sense of it, other than to assume it's gratuitous stirring. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not an uninvolved editor in this matter, having participated in a conversation with Djathinkimacowboy in which I asked him to be careful when tagging edits "minor" (here: [26]), although his frequent blanking of his Talk page makes it difficult to find. My impression, based on this experience, is that he tends to start out in a defensive/argumentative mode rather than assuming good faith. This, along with his frequent clearing of his Talk page, detract from his ability to contribute to the encyclopedia, in my opinion. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 15:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Short of looking through every single contribution an editor makes, is there any method at the disposal of an admin to search a user's edits for a particular phrase? I only ask because other than Cowboy I have only ever read one other editor write, "I edit hard-and-fast". That editor is Jake Fuersturm. If there is no way to search, I will have to start digging through contribs. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 16:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure, check toolserver. Else maybe there should be :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Going back to the editor's behaviour, what I saw from a case that "cowboy" opened at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance is that the editor refuses to accept that other editors may be in the right and that "cowboy" may be in the wrong. I think that goes beyond assuming good or bad faith, it's assuming personal superiority.

Another problem that I noticed is that "cowboy" starts the edits in one location and then follows the editor to their talk page and then opens complaints or cases against those whom s/he feels is attacking them when in essence, it's the other way around. It's more than wikihounding, it's poking a bear (or lion) with a stick and then complaining when growls.

However, the editor seems to have made a few good edits. Can the latter behaviour excuse the former? Will the former behaviour be tempered over time? I don't know. I don't think that a longer block is in order, unless the behaviour starts up again. If it resumes immediately, it's obvious "cowboy" does not wish to be a cooperative editor and the block should be indefinite. If there is a lull of a few weeks in the bad behaviour, then a block longer than 24 hours may be in order, with instructions and intention of rehabilitating the editor. In no way should we attempt to be punitive.

As a summary of the WQA case: it was closed as a non-issue. I certainly made it clear that the problem was not the editor being reported but rather the editor making the report. Another editor had similar comments, albeit not quite as pointed as mine. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

St. Catherine of Alexandria

Resolved

There is a low-intensity edit war with an editor who started by removing sourced material that asserted that Catherine of Alexandria was ahistorical ([27],[28],[29]) and has since insisted on inserting his OR rebuttal of the sourced text ([30],[31]. This editor has not grasped the policies against

synthesis

. As the edit summaries and Talk Page discussion show, we are not against presenting rebuttals to the sourced assertions that Catherine is ahistorical. We just insist that those rebuttals be sourced rather than based on the OR of a Wikipedia editor.

It might help if an admin were to reinforce this point with a reminder of what the relevant policies are.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely comfortable with the implicit assumption that an admin's view on this deserves more weight than a non-admin. Editors with experience in the area may deserve more weight, but they don't have to be admins. I would think a better place would be Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard, where someone with experience, not necessarily an admin, could make the point.--SPhilbrickT 16:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Admins do not have that kind of authority. You could ask for help at

Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, however. --Kim Bruning (talk

) 17:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Doesn't qualify for

WP:3O since there is already a third editor involved. Didn't know about those notice boards, though. I'll try one of them. --Pseudo-Richard (talk

) 18:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

COI and edit war involving I.pezzuto

User:I.pezutto is a new user who has posted links to publications by Ivo Pezzuto, an academic at Swiss Management Center. While these citations may well be useful to the project, the conflict of interest issue has caused editors to remove these contributions while they are discussed on the talk pages of the associated articles (Financial crisis, Subprime mortgage crisis, and Securitization). Instead of responding to requests to engage in dialog I.pezzuto has engaged in edit warring at Financial crisis and Subprime mortgage crisis. I suspect most of this is due to this user's lack of experience in the project and that s/he is likely to be a valuable member of the editing community. However, we need to get his/her attention first. Jojalozzo 18:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

They've been spamming these links on article for a while but in the past it's been as an IP. MrOllie requested an edit filter to at least slow this down. It was

Ravensfire (talk

) 21:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

As a further note, Pezutto has been adding the exact same links to multiple articles. If there's a further reading section, he always adds them to top of the list. It's pretty blatant spamming of his own research. I don't see anything notable about his work, no effort on his part to discuss this despite many, many requests and no reason to keep the links.

Ravensfire (talk

) 21:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd support a block if the user continues making COI edits against consensus. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems more serious if it's been happening for a while and this isn't a new editor, just a new account. Looking at the contributions of the IPs suggests a block is in order:

• 94.36.107.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 94.36.101.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 78.14.231.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 78.14.232.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Jojalozzo 21:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

New account creating sock farm

Resolved

 – Just MascotGuy. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Santa's Holiday Smackers, a new account, is building a sock farm. See [32]. Enjoy. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Eton edu ph

Resolved

Organization account used for promotion in contravention of numerous policies including

WP:ORGNAME. ^Bongo_matic

19:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:UAA couldn't handle this, why?--v/r - TP

19:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

And you need to make sarcastic comments, why? I'm not a frequent poster to the admin boards, but the user is violating numerous policies not limited to UAA. Feel free to remove and repost there if it's a more conventional place to handle this kind of request. Bongo_matic 19:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a directory at the top of this page that says "To report improper usernames, see usernames for administrator attention." Regardless, I blocked.--v/r - TP 19:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Stephfo, disruptive editing after unblock

Unarchiving as it was not closed - can an uninvolved admin have a look?

Stephfo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked Sept 3rd for disruptive editing, but was unblocked late October after agreeing to work with a mentor on his talk page. This week, his problems have resumed, and he's been contacted by a slew of editors requesting that he work more productively. I notified his mentor when the problems began, and his mentor has been contributing actively to Stephfo's talk page, but to no avail. Recently, he's begun edit warring, making personal attacks, and slinging accusations of disruption and vandalism at other editors. I, his mentor, and other editors have requested that he stop editing until he can resolve these problems. He responded that he wasn't interested, and planned to continue editing anyway.

Please review his talk page for a small sampling of the issues. I'm afraid that, either due to

intentions

, he's unable to contribute productively to the project, and is only serving as a disruption to the community. I feel that he may need to be reblocked.

Prior to bringing this issue here, I made my intentions clear, and asked him to reconsider, but instead of responding to me, he continued editing and then (presumably) logged off. For context, here's a previous ANI case, but most of his history is contained on his talk page (some of which has been deleted). I can provide more diffs if necessary. Notified Stephfo, Alpha Quadrant, Amatulic, and Dominus Vobisdu. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Pls. note as I was allowed to do so, I will present my defence in new section.--Stephfo (talk) 17:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, I believe the issue is due to the fact that he currently doesn't have a good grasp on several Wikipedia policies (in particular

WP:NPA#WHATIS). Part of the problem is due to the fact that he appears to have a strong opinion regarding religion, creation, and evolution topics, resulting in further difficulty in remaining neutral when writing in these areas. Eventually, he may make good contributions in the area. I believe he needs to edit in other less controversial areas, where he can gain editing experience. I suggested he do this, but he continued to edit the in the topic. Before he is indefinitely blocked again, perhaps we could just try a six month topic ban from the areas of religion and creation/evolution. After that time period, he should have gained enough experience in editing and would have a better grasp on Wikipedia policies. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk)

21:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

My concern here is that he has previously said he will not do X or Y, and then has done X or Y. I am not sure that just a topic ban will do the trick. I may just be cynical, but, that is my opinion. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

(Stephfo has never specified gender, and for that matter neither have I for myself. For some reason I have always thought of Stephfo as "she" but I'll use "he" established by precedent in this section unless Stephfo feels the need to correct it.)

I was one of several admins who declined one of Stephfo's frequent unblock requests back when Stephfo was indef-blocked. I also supported Stephfo's unblocking.

Since then, Stephfo has made the mistake of creating disputes in controversial areas, activity which resulted in blocking in the past. For the most part (except for in

WP:BRD

, in that he actively uses talk page to challenge reverts. Unfortunately, Stephfo's conduct on talk pages, while civil and polite, borders on tendentious, causing the patience of others to wear thin. Whether deliberately or through misunderstanding, Stepho has given the appearance of ignoring explanations, demanding clarification for answers that have been given repeatedly, as well as some amount of Wikilawyering.

There's a battleground mentality evident here, where Stephfo sees atheism or anti-Christian bias everywhere, and feels that it is proper to "correct" this, not by attempting to re-write anything neutrally, but to introduce opposing bias, regardless of whether that bias is non-neutral, relies on fringe theories, misrepresents sources, or otherwise quotes sources out of context.

I think Stephfo can become a good contributor to Wikipedia. Re-enacting the prior indefinite block would be a mistake. At this point, however, I support the view of Stepho's mentor (Alpha Quadrant) above for a temporary topic ban of areas in which Stephfo evidently has a conflict of interest, namely articles with topics that would be controversial to fundamentalist Christians (creationism, evolution, articles critical of Christianity, and so forth). ~

talk

) 23:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I will try to challenge you, please explain why you deem an article on Christian terrorism as NPOV -balanced, I suggest to perform a survey within project Christianity members whether they support your assumption that given article is neutral in respect to Christian views on given topic, if they will agree with you, I accept your point, otherwise you should accept mine that article is really biased. I do not know single Christian who would hold such views as presented there and it is not true that I break NPOV rules, I never ever deleted opposing opinions AFAIK but always have tried to balance them in line with NPOV policy.--Stephfo (talk) 14:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

This is not the place to engage in content disputes. Furthermore, it does not matter whether Christians feel a topic is non-neutral from their religious perspective. This is a secular encyclopedia. Being offended by some content due to your personal religion is irrelevant to editorial decisions about article content. ~

talk

) 12:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Part of the problem I see is that the editor plainly doesn't have the English as a first language, but unfortunately has taken it as a personal attack that someone asked them about it. A good deal of the disputes seem to centre around not understanding what others are saying, and their own communications are not that great either. We could try a topic ban for a month - tell them to edit anywhere from architecture to zoology, but avoid creationism and intelligent design. I don't want to stop them creating articles - the notability hurdle seems to have eventually been got over, and they can always just use a sandbox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Roads (talk • contribs) 00:03, 22 November 2011

I agree with everything said so far. His contributions to

competence, Stephfo has consistently shown that he simply cannot work with other editors on even the most basic of tasks. That's a problem for a collaborative project. Frankly, I would rather see him topic banned until he gains an understanding of policy (or indefinitely if coming back is too problematic) but after all we've been through, I simply cannot fathom any possible resolution than an eventual block; if topic banned, I fully anticipate these same issues will turn up everywhere he interacts with another user, and we'll be back here in no time at all. I mean, look at the "Big Bang" dispute he had with Farsight

. Farsight's explanation couldn't have been clearer, but Stephfo drove him off in frustration, demanding he clarify every minor detail. His primary contribution in any topic is to frustrate and drive off productive users everywhere he goes. That's not a negligible issue.

Maybe I'm wrong. The issue may be a language barrier, exacerbated by a strong opinion on the topic, and perhaps with extensive mentoring on a neutral area, he'll improve. Perhaps a topic ban is worth a shot. However, if we go with a topic ban, it needs to be broad ("religion, science, and controversial topics"), and there needs to be an understanding that 1) his behavior thus far has been inappropriate, and 2) if it continues on other topics, he will be blocked. I have reservations on even this, since Stephfo does not yet have an understanding there even is a problem, much less what that problem is, so I can't imagine how he's going to change, but if users are willing to work with him to improve, then perhaps we can salvage a few of his positive contributions.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I can read Stephfo's native language (not perfect, but well enough to follow a discussion), and the problem has nothing to do with a language barrier. Wikipedia's problems with Stephfo predate his appearence on English WP. Before he came to English WP, he had been an editor on Slovakian WP as "Steffo" since April 25, 2011. (No outing here; Stephfo clearly identifies himself as Steffo [[33]]). He edits mainly articles related to creationism, and quickly gained a reputation there for being a POV warrior. He has been repeated warned by multiple co-editors that "Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. It's not for making statements either of your political, religious or other views", and that his edits were disruptive [[34]] [[35]].

Stephfo's debut here on English WP involved expanding a stub that he wanted to use in a discussion on Slovakian WP. He was discovered, and the article was deleted. A copy of it and it's history remain on his user page: [[36]].

After that, he focused his attention on English WP, especially on the article on

Intelligent Design

, where his disruptive behavior led to a couple of blocks before he was eventually indefinitely blocked. As one of the main editors that dealt with Stephfo at that time, I can assure you that the experience was unpleasant to the extreme. He inserted highly POV material that was essentially OR and SYNTH based on unreliable sources, and when challenged, adopted a battlefield attitude that included abundant accusations of bad faith on the part of other editors. He engaged in interminable deadhorse arguments, ignoring the responses of other editors and repeatedly demanding answers to questions that had already been answered several times, or that were completely irrelvant to the topic.

Both content-wise and behavior-wise, his editing was vastly at odds with WP policies. He ignored repeated instructions to familiarize himself with WP policies, using them solely as a source of cherry-picked quotes taken out of context to support his own POV and behavior. He never demonstrated any interest in building consensus, and consistently treated anyone that disagreed with him as an enemy that was out to get him. He wasted huge amounts of his fellow editors' time in pointless deadhorse arguments and Wikilawyering. This is what led to his eventual indefinite block.

Stephfo appealed his blocks several times, during which he demonstrated that he did not understand why he was blocked, and placing the blame on other editors. Eventually, a sympathetic editor told him to find a mentor, and having done so, successfully appealed the block with their help.

After his return, Stephfo took his mentor's advice and avoided controversial topics like creationism for EXACTLY one month before returning to the article on Intelligent Design and resuming his previous disruptive behavior. In the discussion about a change he had made and was reverted, Stephfo wrote an astounding 31 posts in only 10 hours, which demonstrates that he barely took the time to read the responses of other editors, never mind to understand them. He repeatedly demanded answers to questions which had already been explained in great detail, and his posts and edit summaries demonstrated that he holds his fellow editors in very low regard, repeatedly calling their contributions vandalism, weird, odd, or just plain dishonest.

I've only peripherally participated in that discussion, but have been dealing with Stephfo on an AfD of one of his creationism-related articles. While his behavior there has been somewhat more civil, there still have been multiple accusations of bad faith as well as Wikilawyering. The most important thing, though, is that it is patently obvious that he does not yet understand what Wikipedia is about, and what the policies mean. Not even the core policies. And I have to conclude that he has absolutely no intention to ever educate himself in this matter.

He has ignored all warnings to cease his disruptive behavior, even those of his mentor. When it seemed that he had calmed down an tacitly agreed to stay away from the Intelligent Design article, he moved on to another highly controversial article on

Christian Terrorism

, where he is contnuing his POV warring.

I'm sorry, but unlike Amantulic and his mentor, Alpha Quadrant, I see no hope for Stephfo ever being a constructive editor here on WP. He is by nature first and foremost a contentious POV warrior, and he has come to WP in order to pursue his own agenda. Stephfo has amply demonstrated that he is a leopard that will not, and cannot, change his spots.

I believe the reasons he gave in his last block appeal and his month-long period of "good behavior" were not sincere, especially considering that that period of good behavior lasted EXACTLY one month. His behavior indicates that his agenda is fundamentally not comaptible with Wikipedia's mission, and that he has no intention of complying with WP policies. Most of all, there has been no improvement since before his block, and no sign that he intends to improve except for self-serving reasons.

I therefore recommend that he be indefinetely blocked. I would strongly object to only a topic ban, but if one is decided upon, it must include all religion-related topics, including atheism, creationism and all areas of science relating to creationism, including biology, geology, astronomy and cosmology, very broadly construed. And it should be indefinite. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You agree that the problem is that he cannot maintain a neutral point of view on this topic. If a topic ban were imposed, would that not solve the problem? As you have said, Stephfo had a productive period of editing while away from this topic. Indefinitely blocking him therefore seems a bit premature. At this point, I believe a temporary topic ban may be imposed, if anything is done about this. I don't believe that we should rule out the possibility that that as he gains experience, he could learn to edit this topic area neutrally. If after the topic ban is lifted, and he goes back to the same behavior, it could always be extended to indefinite. If after the time period he does fine in the area, then we won't need to do anything. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 01:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Alpha, but, as I said, I don't believe in the sincerity of Stephfo's one month of good behavior. I believe that during that period, he was just biding his time and itching to get back to POV warring. That is why a temporary topic ban simply will not work. The second the ban expires, Stephfo will undoubtedly resume his bad behavior. Stephfo is here on a mission, and that mission is fundamentally at odds with everything that WP strives to be. There is just no place for Stephfo in a collaborative project like WP in my view. He is far too hot-headed, rash, hasty and hostile to work with others. Even if we topic-ban him, he is eventually going to get into a dispute with other editors on non-controversial topics, and he will behave then as he has had on controversial topics. Frankly, we have spent a lot too much time indulging him and giving him second, third and fourth chances, and now you want to give him a fifth? Even after he has ignored your advice as his mentor? There is no point in chasing good money after bad anymore. Sorry, but I don't see any baby in the bathwater. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid that I have to agree with DV. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I've seen editors with far worse behavior, who received much lighter sanctions; WikiManOne/BelloWello comes to mind. Alpha Quandrant, Stephfo's mentor, has been working with him and can best appraise the situation. If Alpha has that much faith in Stephfo--it's good enough for me. It's occasions like these where we need to trust in the mentorship system: it's here for a reason. – Lionel ^(talk) 06:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Mentoring works only with editors that are able to restrain themselves and consult with their mentors before making any rash moves, and then to accept the advice they receive. Stephfo is either incapable, unwilling, or both. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Stephfo is currently ignoring his mentor's advice. I don't know how a mentor is going to help when he's being ignored.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Currently, he is following my advice. I told him yesterday to stop editing articles until this was resolved. He has heeded my advice, and has not edited since then. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 21:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to ask whether I have right to defend myself and react to accusations presented. Thanks--Stephfo (talk) 11:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes you do. Please post here if you wish. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

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

Stephfo is banned from all "Creation/Evolution topics and topics critical of Christianity, including atheism and creationism, and all areas of the natural sciences relating to creationism, including pertinent areas of biology, geology, astronomy and cosmology, broadly construed" for a period of 6 months. This is a modified version of the original proposal, which there appears to be consensus for. While opposition to the original proposal has been based on the fact that it was too broad, there is a general consensus here that a topic ban of some sort is necessary to assist Stephfo in learning the policy that governs this site. In enacting a topic ban, the community expects Stephfo take a step back, slow down, evaluate his/her position on editing, and work closely with his/her mentor to learn the policies of the project. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

---

I propose a topic ban on Christian and science related articles, broadly construed, for a period of 6 months. During this 6 months Stephfo is expected to work closely with their mentor so that the same behavior does not repeat when the ban is over. If the behavior resumes after a period of six months or if the behavior continues into other topics, then ban extensions and blocks are expected, respectively.

• Support as proposer. I share Dom's characterization above after being involved with the original editing disputes that got Stephfo blocked in the first place. Without a doubt, I have never personally dealt with a more tendentious or disruptive editor. I assume good faith on their part, in that I believe that they believe they are helping the encyclopedia, but results are results and the results are that this editor cannot seem to grasp nuanced WP policy or how editors are expected to interact. However, we have reason to believe that this editor can function in less controversial areas and so I believe that a block is unnecessary until proven otherwise. If s/he begins to act the same elsewhere then we'll know that it isn't limited to these articles, but in the meantime it's worth a shot. N^oformation ^Talk18:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, when you reopened the topic of my past blockage, I regarded for tendentious approach the requirement that I should understand the 5 voices calling for inserting reliable source presented at the article talk page on one occasion as an consensus against inserting such document, and strange assertion that inserting this university source that 5 people called for was finally used as 1st reason for my blockage, because this insertion was in fact allegedly going against some hypothetical consensus, although it can be demonstrated that 5 people called for such insertion. --Stephfo (talk) 07:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

See this is exactly one of the main problems with your editing: I cannot understand even vaguely what you are trying to say above. I regarded for tendentious approach the requirement that I should understand the 5 voices calling for inserting reliable source presented at the article talk page on one occasion as an consensus against inserting such document[...] is not how English speakers communicate. Ultimately, you have to be able to communicate in English that people on en.wiki can understand. All the good faith in the world means nothing if you cannot have a succinct, concise conversation. N^oformation ^Talk 02:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support, as a last chance to avoid being re-blocked. The emotions surrounding these articles make it all the more difficult for a new editor to get to know wikipedia policy. This will also allow the rest of the community to fully ascertain whether or not Stephfo is really interested in productive editing. eldamorie (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support with reservations: Based on what I've written above, it's obviously that I prefer an indefinite block. If a topic ban is decided upon, it must include all religion-related topics, including atheism, creationism and all areas of science relating to creationism, including biology, geology, astronomy and cosmology, very broadly construed. And it should be indefinite. I don't think he will ever be able to edit in those areas contructively. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose the topic ban as currently proposed, on Christian articles, broadly construed. Stephfo has been a good contributor to Christian articles that are non-controversial, such as
  talk
  ) 21:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Probably too late to change it now that it has this much input. Should we start a new section and collapse this then? N^oformation ^Talk 22:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems the revised proposal below by DV is agreeable to everyone. I still think "indefinite, until a successful appeal" is preferable, but it appears we're all divided on that point.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Conditional support: I fully agree with DV. The topic ban would need to be religion, creationism, and related sciences, and it would need to be indefinite. Stephfo would be free to appeal the topic ban after demonstrating his willingness and competence to contribute positively; comments like this indicate Christianity alone will be insufficient, and if the ban is a definite period, Stephfo is likely to just "wait it out" without improving at all. If he's going to come back to these articles, he needs to first demonstrate he can do so without disruption.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I would support a six month topic ban from Creation/Evolution topics and topics critical of Christianity, but encompassing the entire topic of science is way too broad. Under the current wording, he is banned from all types of science (literary, mathematical, social, etc.) I can't think of any articles that don't have something to do with one type of science or another. Even articles on companies fall within a
  type of science. Albeit, in a minuscule way, but with "broadly constructed", edits in the topic area could be interpreted as a violation. If we are going to make a topic ban, we need to make one that an editor can actually follow. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk)
  21:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

How about "all controversial religion-related topics, including atheism and creationism, and all areas of the natural sciences relating to creationism, including pertinent areas of biology, geology, astronomy and cosmology, very broadly construed"? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

That sounds quite reasonable. It is broad enough to cover the topic area that is a problem, yet not too broad that it covers half the encyclopedia. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to get him to understand that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. If it's good enough for both of us, it should be acceptable to everyone. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose From what I have seen of User:Stephfo's edits, he is attempting to edit some articles in order to make them comply with
  WP:NPOV. Wikipedia Administrator User:TParis noted that "User:Dominus Vobisdu grosly violated procedure when he gave levels 1, 2, 3, and 4 warnings at the same time in this edit." I do not usually edit articles pertaining to Intelligent Design, etc. However, at one point in time, I saw a content dispute between User:Stephfo and User:Dominus Vobisdu, User:Noformation, et. al. and attempted to make a compromise in accordance with WP:NPOV. Nevertheless, I was strongly opposed by the editors there and left. I saw that User:Stephfo was trying his best to provide references and a version of the article acceptable to others. However, he was taunted by other users and was treated with disrespect. Rather that enforce this unreasonable topic ban, I would request that a Dispute Resolution regarding the matter take place, where a neutral user can mediate between the two parties here. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk
  04:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose This action is premature in the extreme. Stephfo's behaviour has changed: he has stopped edit warring and is using the talk page. In addition he is creating articles and thereby making positive and constructive contributions to the encyclopedia. As of Nov 24 he is abiding his mentors counsel. Look: I'm not saying he is a model editor. But just because certain editors have grown impatient with his verbosity is no reason for rash action. Considering he is no longer edit warring and is following his mentors advice I see no reason for drastic measures such as a topic ban. I emphatically urge that we give mentoring a chance. – Lionel ^(talk) 10:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Over the last few days, I have been debating whether or not a brief topic ban is needed yet. On one side, he is having trouble learning policy. Normally this would not be a problem. However, he was editing often contentious topics, where editors are much less forgiving of mistakes. Until Stephfo gains experience, it is likely he will continue to have problems with other editors in this area. With that said, there are not any issues that simply gaining experience editing can't fix. It is very evident that Stephfo is learning. He could continue to learn in this contentious area, but it will likely cause some controversy among editors who edit in the area. At this point, he isn't really doing anything that is blatantly disruptive. He is genuinely trying his best to edit in this topic area. While a topic ban would help him avoid controversy while learning policy, it may not be the best way to remedy this situation at the moment. I said above that yes, in the event a topic ban is needed, I would support. I am not sure a formal topic ban is needed at this point. My only concern is, if a topic ban is not placed, and another user takes this to ANI, how would it be handled? I am strongly opposed against a block. Given time, Stephfo has a potential to become a very good editor. Alpha Quadrant (alt) ^talk 17:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support. This is good last-chance offer for a very disruptive editor. I agree with DV that the next block should be indefinite. Binksternet (talk) 11:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Pls. advise what do you regard for very disruptive edits of mine and, if possible, provide the hyperlinks to the ones identified as such. Thanks a lot in advance.--Stephfo (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support. This is I think the last hope for this user to show (s)he can become a more constructive editor. I also agree that if there will be another block it should be indefinite. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose  The adversarial back and forth of the lengthy argumentation taking place at the AfD for John Hartnett, along with the excessive length of six months in the proposal, shows this proposal is not about improving the encyclopedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

You should take a look at Talk:Objections to evolution and see if it changes your opinion. I imagine that if you were on the receiving end of those conversations you'd be supporting a topic ban as well. N^oformation ^Talk 00:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I looked at Talk:Objections to evolution.  Stephfo has not edited that page since before he/she was blocked, so there is nothing to consider there that is relevant to the current discussion, which has the title, "User:Stephfo, disruptive editing after unblock".  Unscintillating (talk) 02:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support; this kind of pov-pushing wastes other editors' time and goodwill; it should be stopped for good. bobrayner (talk) 01:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support topic ban to avoid need for something more permanent. The editor needs to take some time to read and digest the many comments on many talk pages from a wide section of the community, and needs to work on expressing themselves in comprehensible English. Johnuniq (talk) 04:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Improper Venue All proposals of this nature must be made on

WP:AN only. Magister of Destruction (talk

) 08:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Plenty of topic bans get passed here on a weekly basis. I've never heard of this policy before and would like to see it. However, even if it is written somewhere, currently AN/I deals with topic bans very regularly and that's not likely to change soon. N^oformation ^Talk 08:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Add. “can you just back the hell off Stephfo”

As I was allowed to defend myself, I will try to use this opportunity step by step as soon as permission stays in force, even though having very limited possibilities as being on travel. I apologize as accusations are long, naturally my defense will most likely also be long, although I will try to do my best and partition it. First of all I’d like to point out that I see this ANI report in the context of following sentence: “can you just back the hell off Stephfo” [37] and this general trend at WP: [38] . I very much suggest those who accuse me of my bad English to help me with translation interpretation of this phrase, as I only manage to find Spanish explanation (I had only one semester of Spanish) and that mentions something about “a rather rude way of saying” something, possibly insult, what I would not believe my good-faith assuming fellow editor have anything to do with. I would like to say that I was participating on translation project for fund-rising (“ Your translations make the fundraiser great!”; [39]), but in light with these current trends at WP I stopped and currently I’m hesitant whether I should continue. Nevertheless, please free to judge myself independently of this fact and block me if you deem as appropriate. I”ll try to be brief:

• 1. Add. “Recently, he's begun edit warring”  Please note I was not edit warring but following
  WP:VAND advise: “If you see vandalism in an article, the simplest thing to do is just to remove it. … With undetected vandalism, editors may make edits without realizing the vandalism occurred.” If you look at reason for deletion, it states: “this isn't in the body, and so does not belong in the lead.” What is false reason in discrepancy with reality as I explained in my revert summary
  . Vandalism might seem to be too strong word, but I believe still the fact that user have not provided any other reason than false one fully entitled me to revert back. Imagine what most of the people trying to get me blocked here would do if I start remove their content by reasoning “this isn't in the body, and so does not belong in the lead” even if it clearly would be there. Also Note: “Assess whether the edit was made in good faith or bad faith. If it is in good faith, it is not technically vandalism, ... If it is in bad faith, then it is vandalism and you may take the appropriate steps to remove it.” I evaluated it as bad-faith because in discrepancy with accusations the article body clearly contained this information in section “Christian attitude to terrorism” referred to as missing. Jess continues arguing that I’m allegedly edit warring but escapes discussion at talk page where the argument “I doubt you read edit summaries, if you would, you would find that there is a section named "Christian attitude to terrorism", it cannot be overlooked although I'm admitting it can be misunderstood” is clearly stated.
• 2. Add. “After that, he focused his attention on English WP, especially on the article on Intelligent Design, where his disruptive behavior led to a couple of blocks before he was eventually indefinitely blocked.”  Please note I’m not aware of any my activity on that page allegedly occurring there before my last unblock and this information is taking me by surprise. Anybody interested can verify in history of
  Intelligent Design
  edits.
• 3. Add. “Prior to bringing this issue here, I made my intentions clear, and asked him to reconsider, but instead of responding to me, he continued editing and then (presumably) logged off.” -> In reality I just went for business trip with no access to Internet.
• 4. Add.” I, his mentor, and other editors have requested that he stop editing until he can resolve these problems.” – As a matter of fact, I did stop right after reading his message about (although technically there might be one more later-stamped message given the fact I was involved in discussion and read message only afterwards) and Jess broke his word to put ANI report only if I continue editing: “This is one last request to stop… If you can't agree to do that, I plan to take this back to WP:ANI.”

To be continued later.

• 5. Add. “Now, the only correct answer to this post is "Yes, sir. I understand, and will comply". I'm not at all interested in hearing you protest, object or defend yourself anymore, nor is anyone else.” I’d like to ask dear administrators if someone would leave at talk page of theirs message like this, if their response would be “Yes, sir/Mr(s). Dominus Vobidsu, I understand, and will comply” [40]. Personally I would not deny anybody right to defend himself if we would have a dispute over any topic and I regard such denial for rude. I also had an encounter with DV after he was pushing the idea that he found “gross fundamental errors in basic biology and biochemistry” in one of my source ("I've read the paper, and it is basically gibberish, and contains gross fundamental errors in basic biology and biochemistry. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC) ") but in fact refused to enlist what the alleged errors should be (“Would it be please possible to enlist the three major fundamental errors in basic biology and biochemistry you have managed to find in that text? Thanx--Stephfo (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)"). My reading of that non-collaborative attitude was (just my interpretation of attitude, not actual statement by VD): “it is not important if there are claimed problems, if I do not like it, I can state whatever I want and you have no choice but to accept it.” I wonder if it is encouraged at WP to remove article content by arguing that it contains errors but not stating a single one. Should I do the same and it will be accepted? I have nothing against VD, but experiences like this really make it hard to keep the rule on good faith and civility in mind when dealing with him. Nevertheless, I’m always able to excuse myself if I do anything wrong and I’m trying to do my best and ask for pardon if I might have harm him/her anyway. - just explanation why our relations and collaborations are so challenging.--Stephfo (talk) 23:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Stephfo, the behaviour that is causing difficulty is set out above. You'll see it that a number of editors have given statements. The community thinks that a topic ban as set out would be beneficial for a while, to allow you to gain editing skills in less contentious areas. Would you be prepared to consider avoiding the areas that are problematic for a while? Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

"set up above" is very vague term to accept that involves accusations of alleged edit warring even though I just did exactly what WP recommends to do when somebody deletes content based on a claim that is in discrepancy with reality. You would need to be more specific and explain why such things should be allowed at WP and whether you grant me the same right - to delete content from article leads by making claims "this isn't in the body, and so does not belong in the lead" even though the truth is exactly opposite. If not, I'd like to learn why there should be such double-dealing. It is also a test for your intellectual honesty - if you do not accept my crystal-clear point here, it is awkward to demand someone else to accept such vaguely defined accusations. Please, explain. Thanks--Stephfo (talk) 13:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Stephfo - the proplems that people are reporting are set out (not set up) above. Wikipedia does not tell you to keep reverting and call other editors vandals. It tells you to discuss the matter. It doesn't tell you to attack other editors. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for typo in set out. As for the remaining reaction, does it mean that if I do the same action as the one that I corrected, namely if I would delete from article leads parts by making declarations that "this isn't in the body, and so does not belong in the lead" even though it can be clearly demonstrated that it is there, that you will support me in doing such activities and you will try to get blocked people who will correct it after me and you will blame them for edit warring? Sounds strange to me, I apologize for any inconvenience, but I have all reasons to believe it would not be so. --Stephfo (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

That would depend on whether you were trying to make a

WP:POINT. N^oformation ^Talk

23:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Then please advise what would be the legitimate defence in your opinion against accusation of being EW when in my strong opinion I just corrected actions that was made based on untrue declaration. Is the only reaction the board of WP administrators can offer to me the acceptance of such false accusation? IMHO, if someone makes crystal-clear wrong accusation, it is civil to apologize, at least I normally do so when I make mistake; we are, after all, humans prone to making them, and to say "sorry, I was wrong", is not a tragedy.--Stephfo (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Add. "See this is exactly one of the main problems with your editing: I cannot understand even vaguely what you are trying to say above. I regarded for tendentious approach the requirement that I should understand the 5 voices calling for inserting reliable source presented at the article talk page on one occasion as an consensus against inserting such document[...] is not how English speakers communicate. Ultimately, you have to be able to communicate in English that people on en.wiki can understand. All the good faith in the world means nothing if you cannot have a succinct, concise conversation. Noformation"

Thanks a lot for expressing your opinion, I may try to help you out if you have difficulties to read "what [I'm] trying to say" from the given hyperlink (Pls. advise if following people having trouble to agree on the meaning of one sentence should be blocked too to get chance to improve their skills in communication so that people on en.wiki can understand them better in the future). I believe the sentence "I think it demonstrates that my wording was, perhaps, unclear. It was not intended to be of course." proves sufficiently that occasional unclear wording at en.wiki is not an extraordinary phenomenon, let alone uniquely associated just with me. Now back to your contentions contentious point:

• "Provide reliable sources that meet QP policy requirements!!!!" -I provided, if someone disagrees I guess he/she should go for
  WP:RSN to find out the reliability status of Texas A&M University
  press, I counted VOICE #1 calling for reliable SOURCE
• "Finding sources is YOUR responsibility." -I took it as my responsibility, I counted VOICE #2 calling for SOURCE
• "do you ever intend to start editing according to policy, finding sources for your claims" -I found the required source according to wish, and counted VOICE#3 calling for finding SOURCEs
• "We have as yet no third-party source" -I did provide the 3rd-party source that, I believe, I satisfied by providing quote from Texas A&M University press that addressed all remaining concerns as well. I counted VOICE#4 calling for third-party SOURCE
• and at the same time I followed the clear advice of other editor {“Perhaps, if you add references after the content in the format that I have done in this article (with the title, publisher, original quote, etc.), your edits will not be disputed as much.“ I counted VOICE#5 calling for adding REFERENCEs
• IN TOTAL I summed up 5 VOICES (none oppose)= in my reading CONSENSUS that I should add 3rd-party reliable SOURCE, has been reached.

Now guess what was the 1st reason for my indef block:

• You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing despite previous warnings and blocks. This has included continued edit warring in the Objections to evolution article (this edit, which was made despite a consensus against including this material on the article's talk page which was reached several weeks ago)

(cf."Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. ... --Lambiam 07:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)"). At the same time, I answered the summarized concerns of others one-by-one at article talk page while numbering them and I have been waiting for 15days to see if someone might have anything against that, and then when nobody raised any opposing opinion, I performed the given edit in line with WP rule that consensus arrives with absence of objections. Please, advise what would you do differently if you were in my shoes. I personally believe that from the perspective of elementary logic, it is extremely difficult to conclude that the call for 3rd party reliable SOURCE should be understood as a consensus against including this material , but of course I do not have such rich experience as you and I naively assumed a good faith of aforementioned editors, I had no clue that they actually meant exactly opposite wrt. what they wrote. I hope this will help you to understand a bit more than vaguely what I'm trying to "say" above, and I would really appreciate a lot if you could try at least remotely answer with your extended English skills my aforementioned question raised, and especially what went wrong in my understanding, all to be explained in line with your wish to maintain succinct, concise conversation, if possible. Thanks in advance for your genuine effort to adhere to wikipedian policies. --Stephfo (talk) 01:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Fæ = User:Ash (and was previously User:Ashleyvh and User:Teahot)

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

Nothing for administrators to do here. 28bytes (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

---

I recently learned that User:Fae is Ashley Van Haeften (he disclosed this since he's on the board of Wikimedia UK [41]. Mr. Van Haeften went through a successful RFA in March of this year [42] in which a previous account was acknowledged. But aside from insisting that it was a clean start with no problems, no information was given. Current arb

User:AGK.) I was a participant in that RFC and in some of the problems surrounding Ash and Blps, and learned his real name at the time (he'd edited some articles of people close to him). No big deal, but some of the editing was. As Teahot, for instance, he had created articles like the since deleted (over his objections) List of gay bathhouse regulars (afd here [44]

). Mr. Van Haeften is a grown man (i.e., not some dumb teenager whose views are likely to shift substantially as they mature).

• I would hope the knowledge that someone requesting a position of authority and trust (on one of the highest trafficked sites on the internet) thought listing people as being fond of cruising for anonymous sex was a good idea would give most RFA voters pause. By the time of the RFC, Van Haeften (i'm using his real name since it's disclosed and avoids confusion with the four online handles) had been found by me and a few other editors to have a habit of misusing sources in BLPS (that is, he frequently asserted that sources contained information on living people that they did not, in fact, contain). Van Haeften, as Ash, also frequently attacked people who criticized his editing as being motivated by homophobia, implied he was a victim of real world stalking and harassment, referred to "hate crimes" and implied that he was leaving wikipedia to protect the safety of himself and his family. The Ash user page continues to say he left the project because of a "disturbing personal attack" and "sustained wikihounding" (there was, of course, neither; he merely got caught fudging sources). He remained an active editor until April 13 2010 (the RFC was opened on April 5) and the RFC was then closed with the line user has stopped editing wikipedia; delisted due to inactivity. [45]. Yet Van Haeften had already taken up editing as Fae on March 28 2010, even as "Ash" was retiring over some alleged, yet incredibly vague, threat to himself and/or his family (the story changed a lot). The paranoia about real life identities and "hate crimes" struck me as disingenuous then, and more so now that he's openly disclosed his identity on wikipedia.
• I could go on, but this is already overly long. What action am i seeking? A re-run of the RFA with full disclosure. This was an editor who not very long ago was mucking about with BLPs in a cavalier, to say the least, fashion. I'd also like for the arbs and admins that enabled this obfuscation to reflect on why so many people don't trust anything that happens behind closed doors on wikipedia. Your judgement about what other folks might think is relevant A. Isn't good and, 2. It's inapropriate to even try. A clean start for some gnomish guy who wants to avoid his past problem areas? Fine, great. A clean start for someone who wants a position of authority that does (no matter how much you deny it) have an outsized impact on content, just so they can avoid scrutiny? A really bad idea.
  talk
  ) 21:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Urgh. The opposition at RfA was primarily due to the non-disclosure of the previous account. Had the identity been known at the time it'd never have passed. Textbook gaming of the system. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The desired outcome of the RFC was The desired outcome of this RFC/U is a voluntary agreement by Ash to cease editing BLPs (biographies of living people), which require "particular care" in the sourcing and verification of facts as per WP:BLP. Further investigation into the extent of the misuse of citations may also be warranted. I think a key question is whether the Fae account did avoid BLPs.--

talk

) 22:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

User left while the subject of a RFC user and it isn't relevant at that users RFA seems incredulous. The user is open to recall and I suggest that would be the way to go. If there are six to ten users that object to the non disclosure of the User:Ash account at Fae's RFA you could ask him to re apply with the disclosure of the now known previous accounts. User:Fae has himself in the cat admins open to recall and I would support recall. - Youreallycan (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Good point. If admins are open to recall, then that should be rewarded by using that procedure as opposed to another, more humiliating one. This is especially important for a user who has connected his real name to his account. I was not familiar with that user and have just done a little bit of unsystematic research starting from the links provided by Bali ultimate. What I have seen so far suggests to me that in the editor's past contentiousness there was a mixture at play of (1) homophobia (or at some points maybe just reaction to Banjeboi's activism), and (2) seriously sloppy sourcing which was denied or downplayed by the user. I have so far not seen a really bad smoking gun, but rather things like incorrect references to a page in Google Books where it doesn't appear that the information is on the next (unavailable) page, either, but someone claims without proof that that is the case; or a reference to an ad in a magazine that does not mention it's only an ad.

Under these circumstances, I think it was inappropriate to run for RfA without disclosing the previous account and will also support recall. Hans Adler 23:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

A completely different matter is that while the account Fæ has outed itself, this thread is outing the previous accounts by setting up the connection. I think this is not explicitly forbidden by the outing policy, but we are treading on delicate ground here. If User:Fæ reacts swiftly by giving up the bits, I would support oversighting this thread to minimise the danger for his reputation in real life. Hans Adler 23:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• To be fair here, it appears that Fae did his best to run his RFA as completely by-the-book and openly as he could without publicly disclosing his prior identity - according to the Fae RFA, he informed an editor who had opposed him on the Ash RfC and got their blessing AND he informed both arbcom and an individual arbitrator and had THAT person also evaluate whether the issues of the RfC had been resolved and whether he had refocused. It's valid for editors now to feel that the prior identity was so tainted that it had to have been disclosed to run a valid RFA, but please keep in mind that according to statements on the Fae RFA (I haven't trawled through his recent edits), Fae does truly have appeared to a) have left behind his problem areas and b) disclosed as much as, and possibly more than, would usually be required of a cleanstart editor.

  Those things said, at least some people clearly seem to feel that Ash (an editor about whom I knew nothing prior to this outing) departe4d "under a cloud" that needed to be dealt with prior to the person behind that account running an RFA. While I strongly disapprove of the purposeful malice with which this outing was carried out on another site (from which it has now filtered down, without the malice, to here), it may be in the best interests of Fae to consider a reconfirmation RFA or other recall/reconfirmation procedure. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• I just re-read the RfA (which I opposed by the way). I see nothing at all misleading from Fae/Ash in that RfA. He made it clear he left during an RfCU. I think John V. gave honest replies. I think we all knew we might be getting a pig in a poke and we all made decisions based on that. I don't see the basis for a recall other than perhaps buyer's remorse. We weren't misled by Fae and I don't think we were intentionally misled by John. Hobit (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Good points, but if I factor in the hat collecting after the restart (OTRS, director of Wikimedia UK), then I am really not sure that I can change my opinion. Hans Adler 23:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused by this comment: "Had the identity been known at the time it'd never have passed." Isn't the fact that it was not obvious at the time of the RFA or until now what the old account was reason to believe that the user has in fact changed and improved since the events that led up to the RFC/U? I dont see the problem here. If I couldn't tell one account from another, it would lead me to believe that there was a change in behavior. Don't we base the

WP:DUCK test on behavior evidence? If there isn't any here, than the user's perspective toward editing has demonstratably changed and that would seem to support the idea of a 'clean start' and the RFA would be valid. Right?--v/r - TP

23:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I think this is actually a quite simple case. Fae made a clean start, was transparent about doing so in his RFA, and passed quite clearly (85% support) in spite of being "a pig in the poke". Bali (and others), you have since then uncovered facts about his past that make you uncomfortable. However, absent any actual misuse of the tools or other egregious behaviour on-wiki since then, we cannot and should not compel him to re-run, any more than we would compel someone who some time after passing RFA turns out to have real life aspects which are contentious. However, since Fae is open to recall, you or any other editors can investigate what his criteria for recall are, and go down that route - assuming his criteria for recall allow recall for any loss of confidence, not just misuse (I have not checked). I do also find the repeating of his real name gratuitous; this situation without the loss of any necessary detail by merely linking to the requisite accounts, possibly also the Wikimedia UK page.

Martinp (talk

) 00:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Has Fae done anything wrong? Are Ash's interests of any relevance here? Is Bali ultimate simply dramamongering after reading some gossip at the Wikipedia Review? Tune in next time to find out the answers to these questions! (Hint: No, no, and probably, but there are more important things to do than to read WR.) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

CLEANSTART is not a deletion of previous behaviour. Editors who disappear under a cloud and who subsequently make rapid moves towards positions of power (such as adminship) upon reappearance should be treated suspiciously: history strongly suggests that this leads to eventual problems for the encyclopedia. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, Fae hasn't abused his admin tools. Second, he hasn't repeated the behavior that resulted in the RfC. Third, he was extremely transparent about the cleanstart at his RfA. I really don't see any reasons for an action here. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 00:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

History suggests a lot of rubbish. If ArbCom allowed him to start an RfA under the account Fae, then why are we wasting time questioning it now? All we are doing now is making an established contributor unwelcome and uncomfortable. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• And what do you expect to be done? ArbCom allowed Fae's RfA and return. There's no issue here; this thread is just rubbish. HurricaneFan25 01:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Arbcom fucked up, then. They don't get to pick and choose who is allowed to run for adminship without disclosing their past troublesome identity and who is not. Tarc (talk) 03:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

If it's anyone's fault, it's the community's, not arbcom's. Fae openly disclosed that he did a cleanstart in the middle of a contentious user RFC and that he was seeking adminship without disclosing his prior identity. Based on the strength of his yearlong participation as Fae, the community was comfortable making him and admin with an 85% support percentage. It's not Arbcom picking and choosing, it's the community choosing this was OK. Now, I agree with Thumperward that maybe the community should be more careful about cases like this going forward, but that's another story.

Martinp (talk

) 13:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't frequent RfA much, but if I had known that Ash was reincarnated as a potential administrator that I certainly would have showed up to vote "no". I question the agenda-pushing that an editor shows when creating and supporting the retention of articles such as List of gay bathhouse regulars. Tarc (talk) 13:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Ash had been exposed as having a long history of misrepresenting sources. I hope someone on Arbcom has been checking he hasn't continued this habit as User:Fae. Epbr123 (talk) 05:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The graver matter we are completely missing is the fact that User:Fae, who is (shockingly) a WP administrator, has indulged in sockpuppeting. From the discussion I have seen, it is clearly one of the biggest WP crimes one can commit. Certainly you are not going to take his multiple sockpuppeting lightly? Other users who were not admins have been less lucky when regarding this issue, even if they re-started with a view to a clean slate. AnkitBhatt^WDF 12:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Happy to be corrected if there's something I'm missing, but I have seen no discussion/evidence of sockpuppetry, either since the user RFC or mentioned within it. In fact, I would encourage you to retract the accusation unless you do have evidence, since it raises the temperature of the discussion. As far as I can tell, Fae seems to have done a by-the-book CLEANSTART, and then achieved adminship on the new account with the full knowledge of the community and arbcom that this was not the full story (the community did not know the full story but was comfortable anyway).

Martinp (talk

) 13:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't see the evidence for the sockpuppetry allegation. The Ashleyvh -> Teahot and Teahot -> Ash transitions seem to have gone through the standard account renaming process. There was some overlap between the Fae and Ash accounts which was acknowledged by Fae in the RFA. I've seen speculation at WR that there might have been other accounts but no candidate account names, let alone proof. Am I missing something? The key question is whether the problem behaviour which led to the RFC/U has been carried on by the new account? Has anyone commenting here checked for it and did they find it?--

talk

) 13:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I was about to write something like your post. I found the following information:

• In the RfA, Nikkimaria explicitly asked whether there was an overlap of editing between the two accounts (i.e. Ash and Fæ as we now know.) Cunard made this an official question, got an evasive response, asked again, and got the following: "There was an overlap; I continued to work on a few articles with my old account in order to finish adding information without outing my new account or to close down discussions. There were a total of 23 edits outside of my userspace or not made to fix broken transclusions made by other people as a result of deleting pages in my userspace. There was no double voting and it was made clear that I was closing the account."
• The Fæ account was created 08:21, 28 March 2010 and started editing 22:27, 28 March 2010. [46]
• Notice at the top of Ash's user page and talk page when Fæ account was created
• 6 Ash edits while Fæ account was dormant
• 463 Ash edits after Fæ started editing

The description "23 edits outside of my userspace or not made to fix broken transclusions" appears correct. I counted the same number. Although it would of course be better to make no edits at all after deciding to switch, there is no specific guidance on this in WP:Clean start, and I can see nothing problematic. Hans Adler 14:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

My personal rule of thumb here is 3 months between last edit previous account, and (eg.) RFA; whereby on new account I see clean behaviour. (I also go by internet personas rather than natural persons, because -hey- welcome to the intertubes; but that's complicated, and 99% of the time leads to similar results anyway. Here I'd look at whether Fae and the previous editor had any form of overlapping editing patterns whatsoever, later than 3 months before RFA. (ie:Distinct personas or not.). If not, Fae would also be in the clear). Either way, apparently, -based solely on evidence already presented above- we're closer to either 9 or 12 months. So my position is that Fae is solidly in the clear here. --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh my God. So stupid of me! I forgot to check the user transition history :(. I fully retract my statement, and next time I should really be more thorough before saying something so silly. Please accept my sincere apologies. AnkitBhatt^WDF 16:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• I think this has been {{resolved}} ... Yes? 22:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs)

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.

Review of auto-patrolled rights

Stumbled upon articles created by auto-patrolled

User:Assassin's Creed‏‎ who is creating many poorly referenced articles on non-notable subjects. He should have his auto-patrolled rights revoked so his articles will be properly reviewed upon creation. Appealcourt (talk

) 04:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It may possibly be just a little bit early for that. Since Wikipedia is a collaborative process, it might be a good idea to wait a little while to see what other people think about these articles in the Articles for Deletion-s that you have initiated.--Shirt58 (talk) 05:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Does the fact that the OP sat nearly idle for 2 1/2 years after creation, then suddenly, in the last two hours, started nominating a massive slew of articles for deletion, ring alarm bells for anybody else? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and that after 2 1/2 years of idleness he's suddenly knowledgable enough to post AFDs, report someone to ANI, and ask that someone be denied autopatrolled status. --NellieBly (talk) 07:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It happens. (look at me! ;-) ). Definitely needs checking on all sides though! --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC) ok, maybe I'm never quite on a 2.5 year hiatus, that's pretty long.

Hmm, I never really liked the notability and RS criteria, but I do see that some of the articles by

User:Assassin's Creed‏‎ could be better referenced. Who could help him with that? --Kim Bruning (talk

) 16:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I think one time you should check out the contributions of

(talk)

22:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that's what I said. ;-) It certainly bears further checking. At the same time, my random sample of some of his deletion tags show them to be somewhat accurate. <scratches head> . I'm willing to

Assume Good Faith on both sides, until proven wrong. --Kim Bruning (talk

) 23:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Sneaky vandalism campaign involving fake references

ISBN 1925-5594. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help

)". This is apparently a fake, made-up reference.

"Kozma Prutkov" is a fictional writer made up by some satirists in the 19th century. There exist neither a book under the given ISBN, nor a book with this alleged title. There is a website calling itself "Annuaire de la Noblesse Moderne" (noblessemoderne.com), but its content pages are deadlinks. References to this alleged publication appear to exist only on several Wikipedia editions in several languages, where they all seem to have been inserted during the last few months by suspicious royalist agenda accounts, especially Rapportroyal (talk · contribs) (sp-wiki: [47], fr-wiki: [48], en-wiki: [49]

Making up fake sources to bolster a POV agenda is one of the most serious forms of vandalism. I suggest an immediate indef-block of both Rapportroyal and Mr. D. E. Mophon. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

OT: Thanks for introducing me to the word "pertinacious" - it's a great word -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Vandalism+lying+general dickery= indef? You get my vote. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Indeed. Making up references, esp. book references, is a stab to the heart of RS and AGF. Mophon will be blocked; Rapportroyal inserted the same reference again after being urged by the boss not to do so: also indef. Fut. Perf., as thanks for your tenacity you get to take Kozma Prutkov (talk · contribs) as a sock. Congratulations. Drmies (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
• Good idea to indef anyone connected to this behavior. This is not to be tolerated. --Jayron32 18:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• indef away - this sort of behaviour is a complete no and we should waste time with people who think it is acceptable. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
• Good blocks and I'd suggest
  WP:BAN immediately as well - this sort of thing is something that should be 100% zero tolerance. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC) After reading the details I'm willing to accept this was a - very bizzare - error, and unblock on the understanding that no similar events should ever occur in the future. - The Bushranger _{One ping only}
  16:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Good blocks indeed and I'd support a ban for this guy. Inventing references is, in my opinion, the most grievous vandalism possible. There is not an iota of good faith to be assumed. WilliamH (talk) 02:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Retracted per the developments; however, editorial standards must apply - don't cite something you haven't read/verified. WilliamH (talk) 09:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• support and is anyone tipping off the other projects?--
  talk
  ) 20:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support per all the above. Heiro 23:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

*support Neither excusable nor forgivable.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• support I hold with those that favor fire (but have they been notified of this discussion)? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Continued icey support: I know enough of bad sourcing practices to say that gross incompetence when translating wikipedia pages and a failure to read the source you're inserting in an article would suffice for disruption. It is exactly the same conduct as deliberately inserting bad sources in the first place. If you haven't read it, don't cite it. ISSN 1925-5594 returns nothing in Ulrich's by the way. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support Given the subject, would the guillotine be too strong a solution? Einar aka 01:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock – With regard to Mr. D. E. Mophon I have the articles where these disputes have taken place on my watchlist so have seen the dispute but have not involved myself in it. I think with respect to Future Perfect at Sunrise they have grossly exaggerated the case here, Mr. D. E. Mophon made just a single edit on two different articles and as such they have been branded an 'edit warrior', ridiculous. And with that single reference, the Kozma book, it appears they made an honest mistake, the other references being very real and legitimate. I can’t see how an indefinite block for an honest mistake is sustainable and just. I would encourage people to read Mr. D. E. Mophon's explanations and unblock request and think again. It's sad the user has been condemned to an indefinite block on the basis of an exaggerated case and before they had a chance to respond here at ANI. - dwc lr (talk) 03:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock per
  Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou is Head of the House of Bourbon for one reason or another, in fact several of them are sources I would have thought acceptable, and cumulatively they make a case in support of the point the accused believes is defensible. My own search for reliable sources on this point does not substantiate that the man is indisputedly referred to as Head of the House of Bourbon, but I was frankly surprised to discover that fact (the real dispute is over the claim that Louis Alphonse is "rightful" claimant to the throne of France which is, indeed, highly contested and generally rejected even in monarchist circles, except by the small but staunch Legitimists). His claim to be Head of the House of Bourbon (or of the entire Capetian dynasty for that matter) is admittedly self-proclaimed, but since it carries no legal implications it is not generally disputed (being a matter of pure genealogy) although, I've now learned, not generally acknowledged either. In any case, this block for this infraction is overkill, and I think that the accuser, understandably frustrated by the edit-war, has mistaken sloppiness driven by over-zealousness for deliberate falsification of sources. FactStraight (talk
  ) 04:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, if you used a source that you haven't actually seen, that is kinda shady in my book. If you put it in here, you should have seen it. When we insert an offline source, other editors are relying on us to have been ethical. Using an offline source you haven't seen is not too smart. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose block – have come across Mophon before, and he's open to discussion, without being overly a POV-pusher. Also, a quick Google of the supposed "fake title" shows it to be in use on 5 or 6 different articles, each a different language Wiki. Are you going to find each editor on each wiki who cited them, or use Mophon as a witch hunt example? Also, why is this here, instead of
  WP:RS/N? Suspicious sources should be properly investigated before laying into the editor with accusations, and blocks. Only one editors word has been taken for granted here, and Mophon has not been given a fair opportunity to defend himself here, due to a hasty indef block. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF}
  ] 04:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Editor has placed an unblock request and a lengthy explanation on their talk page. An uninvolved admin is invited to have a look. Drmies (talk) 04:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose block. Mophon's explanation has merit. Block was too quick and too harsh. Binksternet (talk) 05:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose block/Support immediate unconditional unblock As per the above comments, the block was done way too quickly, and without waiting for any type of proper response from the editor. Their comments have merit, and they should be unblocked immediately, with an apology.
  Let's dialogue
  05:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support block/ban, largely because we don't have the technology to nuke this sort of vandal from orbit over the internet yet. There is no way to AGF about falsified references, particularly falsified BOOK references. rdfox 76 (talk) 06:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Per Wikipedia:Vandalism#Misinformation, accidental this type of edit does not constitute "vandalism". Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 06:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Absolutely correct Marcus. If there was an established history of such things, then one could make a case that they are a vandal, but a single act of a good faith error not does a vandal make.
  Let's dialogue
  06:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Unblock. I have noticed this user during clean-up of various BLP-related royalty cruft, which he generally opposed, but never in a disruptive way as far as I can remember. I am convinced that he merely added an existing though unreliable source under the impression that it is a reliable source. If we assume the worst, it would have been the conscious pushing of an unreliable source for a not particularly problematic BLP claim. Add to that the manner in which he asked for an unblock (polite and constructive; one really must read between the lines to see how angry he must be), and I think an unblock is absolutely justified. Hans Adler 08:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • As Future Perfect has pointed out below, in the French Wikipedia article this was a general reference rather than a footnote reference, so Mophon must have known that using it in a footnote as supporting a specific claim could not possibly be OK without first reading it. (Which apparently he has not done, since the website related to the source seems to claim the opposite.) Under these circumstances, I think the present outcome (user shocked with an indef, then unblocked, no apology from blocking admin) is an excellent one. Hans Adler 09:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment How do you accidentaly use a source you have not checked?Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The funny thing is that the fr-wiki page fr:Louis de Bourbon (1974-), from which he said he got those references, wasn't even using the "Prutkov" reference to support anything related to the claim in question, but was listing it merely as an unspecific "further reading" entry [50]. So, even if we give him the benefit of the doubt with respect to not being aware of the fraudulent nature of that reference as such – and I'd be inclined to grant him that –, his claim that it supported the specific proposition in question is still something he must have simply made up on the spot, and knowingly so. (In fact, I now find that on the rudimentary website that is this alleged book's only reflection out there [51], on the few content pages it actually offers, it seems to be supporting the very opposite of the contested proposition, as it lists that other guy as the "chef" of th "Maison Souveraine" of Bourbon. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• To whoever is interested: please see my comment on editor's talk page. With thanks to the editors here; Hans, your comment was helpful and constructive and I agree certainly with the tenor of your message. Whatever happens, I hope the editor will take some of the commentary here to heart, esp. Fut.Perf.'s last note. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Note: 1925-5594 is in fact an ISSN, not an ISBN. Rich Farmbrough, 22:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC).
  
• I have unblocked. It seems that this is a perfectly understandable error on the user's part, although it might not have appeared that way. Many words of sage advice have been given to him, and an appropriate number of mea culpas said. No point dragging it out any further. Rich Farmbrough, 22:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC).
  

Likely student editing

I was looking at one of the articles brought to AFD yesterday: Human Exposure to Thimerosal from Vaccines Labeled for Use in Dogs. The article is currently on track toward deletion as novel synthesis/original research, with the first commenter remarking that "it is a research paper". In fact, based on the article history, I think that is exceedingly likely. In fact, there is a fairly expansive group of editors with similar names, most in the form 570xxx, plus one at 507xxx that may have been a typo at creation. From the talk pages of these editors and the articles they have created, it is obvious that they know each other from outside Wikipedia. I suspect this is a university project, possibly at Iowa State.

Hazard (risk), in particular), they are generally well-written and generously sourced. I seem to remember there is some management or outreach group to handle this sort of university project? Unfortunately, I'm not really familiar with where groups such as this might be directed, but I'm confident that someone here has some experience with this sort of situation. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk

) 18:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

User:570ajk has a list of what's being worked on. If Iowa State is right, I'm guessing it's related to this course Nil Einne (talk) 18:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The pages you are looking for are

Wikipedia:Ambassadors and Wikipedia:School and university projects. If you can identify the account of the professor, you should refer them to these pages ASAP, and make sure they work with the Ambassadors to help them smooth the process of incorporating Wikipedia editing into their coursework. From my personal experience in running into this problem before, it is often the case that the professor is doing things quite well, but the students are half-assing the assignment. Though it always pays to touch base with the professor just to make sure they have all the support they need. --Jayron32

06:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

User insists on including contact information on his talk page.

User talk:Sudhir Kumar Garhwal has been masquerading as geo stub about a village in India. Not really a problem, except for the fact the heading "Notable persons" lists the mobile phone numbers of the people listed there. None of them are subjects of articles in the main space. Removal of this sensitive information has been reverted twice: [52], [53]. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 06:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The phone numbers on that page have now been

suppressed, per policy - Alison ^❤

06:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget to suppress all edits prior to this one. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 06:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

And also on Bidsar. Ok, I think that's them all now ... - Alison ^❤ 06:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Done! -
  Mailer Diablo
  06:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Need an admin for a page move

The House on Mango Street has been moved to I have to write a stupid essay on this book and it is really hard so i am taking out my anger on it's wikipedia page. We'll need an admin to move it back. Zagalejo^^^ 02:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Done per

WP:COMMONNAME. Nyttend (talk

) 02:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

And

WP:COMMON SENSE. Thanks. Zagalejo^^^

02:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

At least it's reasonably creative as vandalism goes. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome; I just felt like doing it for an unusual but valid policy-based reason rather than for the

obvious one. Thus I also left a note that the user had been blocked for 604,800 seconds instead of for a week :-) Nyttend (talk

) 02:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you mean

WP:VAND? ~Alison C. (Crazytales)

06:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Clearly, the most pressing problem with this page title is the use of "it's" instead of "its". Don't they teach good grammar in school these days? --B (talk) 02:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

No grammar for you! - The Bushranger _{One ping only}

02:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe he's a

greengrocer? Nyttend (talk

) 02:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Wow, really 42 minutes with that title? Egad!!! LOL, and all that jazz.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm just curious how many people (if any) found it by accident while it was at that title... Nyttend (talk) 02:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Best part is that I Googled it, and it actually came up.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

And it also picked up Worst Book Ever Writen, which was the title for just a fraction of a minute. Amazing how fast their crawler works! Nyttend (talk) 02:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm adding both of those to

WP:DAFT now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい

) 06:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block – None of this user's edits have been constructive. Moreover, there's this. –MuZemike 03:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Note that I removed the barnstar when I added the block notice. Nyttend (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Can't wait to see what Grok.se makes of this. Rich Farmbrough, 11:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

How long is 604800 seconds in days, hours, minutes, seconds??

(talk)_(contribs

) 18:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

1 Week exactly

talk

) 18:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

drunkposting?

What is the general practice with drunk posting? I mean in the theoretical that it occurred. (Then again who posts sober?)

TCO (talk) 02:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Serious answer ==>
  WP:DRUNK
• Less serious ==> Drink early, drink often.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editing Under the Influence is also highly relevant. Mark Arsten (talk

) 03:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

A "friend" had this question. TCO (talk) 03:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

So like a Wikipediholic, but with alcohol instead? Mark Arsten (talk) 03:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

A friend told me that doing RCP while high is a bad idea. Just sayin'. causa sui (talk) 03:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The policy is: results are all that matters. No one knows if you're drunk or not. We can only judge users by the content of what they post. --Jayron32 04:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Anyways, on the Internet, nobody knows you're a drunk.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I've heard that doing NPP while high might cause extreme cases of giggles :-P (

BWilkins ←track

) 10:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

G dash D only knows what keeps those über-nerds at

White Stripes. And I should know.--Shirt58 (talk

) 14:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Editor from Chile using multiple ip addresses to evade blocks

Active IPs: 190.46.108.149 (talk · contribs), 201.215.208.83 (talk · contribs)
An active editor from Chile is frequently rotating through various ip addresses, committing personal attacks and block evasion after numerous warnings and previous blocks. The editor has been blocked several times before, including here for personal attacks [54]. It was later discovered that the personal attack was actually made while under a block from a different ip address [55], also for a personal attack. After this somewhat lengthy discussion at ANI, it was decided that the ip should be given another chance (which I agreed with) since some legitimate edits were reverted out of hand. The block evasion was overlooked, with some editors and admins approaching the ip offering to assistance [56] in the future. Unfortunately, just a few days later, the ip address returned and made yet another personal attack [57] and promptly received a 31 hour block, upped to 72 after excessive talk page personal attacks [58]. In defiance of the block, the ip then switched to another address and returned to editing [59]. The ip also edited an archived closed ANI thread, calling another user dishonest [60]. This editor has openly stated they will ignore blocks and use multiple ips to circumvent [61] ("I have no respect so will ignore them") [62]. This blatant sockpuppeting and block evasion needs to be dealt with. -OberRanks (talk) 14:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

All that needs to happen for peace to prevail is for people not to be blatantly opposed to IP contributions. I've been blocked for things that are ignored if they come from people with usernames. I've been accused of not discussing things when I always leave edit summaries. Usernames revert my edits with such comments as "rv IP edits" and clearly dishonest accusations of vandalism and apparently that's fine. From another IP address I wrote a lengthy article on an important topic basically from scratch, and got not a single word of thanks for that. Instead, I got harassed and blocked for making a trivial edit to a different article. Does it surprise you that I don't feel like being terribly co-operative with certain people? 201.215.208.83 (talk) 14:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Well if this is an example of you using edit summaries to communicate, I don't think you're helping your case. Nil Einne (talk) 14:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The article I wrote, in case you are interested, was International Ultraviolet Explorer. 201.215.208.83 (talk) 14:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, sockpuppetry refers to multiple accounts being operated by the same person. I've never done that. I edit from one IP address at a time. 201.215.208.83 (talk) 14:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours on 06:03, 29 November 2011 for personal attacks, switched ips to avoid the block and edited again on 11:36, 30 November 2011. Still actively editing The Road (2009 film) while under your original block. That's using multiple accounts for block evasion. -OberRanks (talk) 14:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

My IP address changes without any prompting from me. I have never used sock puppets. Let's not get away from the point: all that needs to happen for peace to prevail is for people not to be blatantly opposed to IP contributions. 201.215.208.83 (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget

BWilkins ←track

) 14:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I oppose blocking the IP at this time. The most recent edits to Road appear to be about some cast selection material in the cast section. I looked at the Smit-McPhee part - it has a reference, but the content here doesn't appear to be in the reference. The reference has some related material, however. The content here could be rewritten in accord with the reference and/or moved elsewhere in the article. But what exactly is the underlying dispute about? Gimmetoo (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The user is under a 72 hour block from a different ip for committing a personal attack [63]. While under that block, they switched to a different ip address and went back to editing. The ip is trying to deflect this to a content dispute on "The Road" when this is simply about blatant block evasion. -OberRanks (talk) 14:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The content dispute aside, this editor is engaging in block evasion, edit warring, and personal attacks, and shows absolutely no sign they will stop.Cúchullain ^t/c 14:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The merit of whatever block you're talking about depends partly on the content issue. On the other hand, there are quite a few other users involved in this who have done various things against policy. Note that policy only authorizes reversion of a banned user's edits - restoring what may be unsourced material just because it was removed by a user blocked under a different IP strikes me as not only unsupported by policy, but a curious inversion of priorities here. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I thank you for pointing that out, I was wondering the same thing. Anyway, I count 6 reverts at least, in violation of 3RR, whatever the circumstances may be. And no one but this ip committed a personal attack. I think people have been abundantly patient with this situation. -OberRanks (talk) 15:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

False accusations of vandalism are a personal attack. Calling me a fucking weasel is a personal attack. Calling me mad is a personal attack. 201.215.208.83 (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:DENY exists to discourage block evasion - the content also appears to be sourced. Restoring material deleted by a blocked use is a legitimate reason to revert provided the content is sound. Wee Curry Monster talk

15:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

That page refers to vandalism. Why did you link to it? 201.215.208.83 (talk) 15:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The real issue isn't the content, it's that this editor has repeatedly removed it with no explanation and engaged in disruptive behavior to get what they wanted. The priority is to prevent a disruptive editor (they've been at this for months at various articles) from further disrupting the encyclopedia with edit warring and personal attacks, and evading blocks to continue doing more of the same.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Disgusting lies, yet again. I have extensively explained what I did. Those reverting have failed to do so. There's no way you could have mistaken the situation or not seen my explanations; you're simply lying. 201.215.208.83 (talk) 15:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

(EC with many) I think a bigger issue when it comes to that particular case is that there's clearly some sort of content dispute. I freely admit to not checking the ref (and still haven't) before reverting as I didn't much care about the content dispute. (I also didn't give a great deal of thought as to whether the seemingly sourced stuff when I reverted, they removed was really POV etc as they claimed. Per BRD, it's fair for RJ who was the first user to get involved, to revert and discuss the changes. Except that the IP is blocked and therefore cannot discuss the changes and has made no attempt to discuss the changes anyway other then via edit summaries where they have used personal attacks. (RJ can of course initiate a discussion but when reverting a block evading IP deleting apparently sourced info I think I think it's hard to criticise them for not doing so.) Perhaps most importantly, AFAICT the IP never even mentioned the info wasn't properly sourced, just suggested it was unnecessary, POV or promotional which is clearly always going to be a matter of dispute. The user behind the IP is clearly aware they have been blocked, and are evading their block, they simply don't care.

Remember one of the reasons we allow people to revert banned users is because it's unresonable to expect users to have to carefully check the edits, of someone who has completely lost the trust of the community, to see if there is any merit to them. I think this clearly applies here when we have a situation where there's some sort of content dispute and perhaps the content at heart is not be properly sourced, but this was never noted as a reason for removal by the IP. If they want to wait out their block, and then calmly discuss the changes on the talk page, I suspect many would welcome that and perhaps there is merit to their concerns even without considering the alleged sourcing issues. This isn't going to occur as long as the user keeps evading blocks and refusing to discuss changes on the talk page.

(BTW AFAIK I have no involvement with this user until I commented here and reverted once in the article.) The funny thing is of course this user keeps insisting how unfair things are to IPs, yet I suspect if a user had created enough accounts in quick succession to get around as many blocks as they've apparently had so far, I suspect we wouldn't even be discussing any of this and by now they'd be blocked for at least 1 month and probably pushing to indefinite.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Follow up, I've reverted again. Also I can confirm what Gimmetoo said that one of the lines is unsourced. The other one is sourced, whether or not it belongs. Nil Einne (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the IP has changed anyway. From a brief look into the history, it seems they've been involved in Falklands War. I took a look and found the most recent edits were from Special:Contributions/90.214.41.57 who added about 3 minutes after the last contribs from the above IP, what is either vandalism or unsourced POV pushing twice quickly self reverting both times. I rollbacked anyway as the net effect was a formatting error (space between comma and word). Nil Einne (talk) 14:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)(Struck per below)

That one doesn't appear to be him. Ip from London. All of this editors ips come out of Santiago, Chile. I typically use the "WHOIS" tab to see who I'm dealing with. -OberRanks (talk) 14:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Apologies I didn't geolocate as the IP looked similar to one of the ranges the IP comes from. The other IP is back anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 14:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The last time this came to

15:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The situation at

WP:3RR with no signs of stopping. -OberRanks (talk

) 15:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

They've made it pretty clear they have no intention of ceasing the problematic behavior.[66]Cúchullain ^t/c 15:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

"wee curry monster", what I said is that if people stop making wantonly false accusations then there will be no problems. People like you keep on making wantonly false accusations. Ergo, we have problems.

As for you, you edit-warred on an article you had no previous interest in, just because I edited it. You reverted my edits for the sole reason that they came from an IP - "rv IP edits". You edit-warred to restore POV to Falklands War. You are, in fact, a known and sanctioned POV pusher. My simple removal of blatant bias from Falklands War triggered a major grudge from you which shows no signs of abating. You are a problem. But you're getting not just tolerated but encouraged, simply because you once filled in a form and have a username. 201.215.208.83 (talk) 15:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

As the IP continuously repeats this falsehood, I will point out the sequence [67] I reverted the IP who was editing warring to restore a paragraph in which his edits had changed the meaning, in this case to imply that Prince Andrew travelled with the press pack. I then followed his contributions and noting the removal of content on Ian Gow I once reverted with the summary "rv IP edits" but thereafter resorted to my standard practise of more informative edit summaries. On Ian Gow he revert warred to remove content and when I tried to talk about the edit on the talk page he resorted to personal abuse [68] with comments like you You dopy little fuck and Cunts. On Falklands War, I had no problem with User:Antandrus edit, that addressed the issue with the change of meaning. Check the edit history of both articles or my contribution history. I offer a fuller explanation, since the IP's claim he is reverted solely because he is an IP editor is regularly accepted on face value. He was reverted as his edits were not constructive. As to claims of a "grudge", they are simply another manifestation of claiming to be persecuted to avoid the repurcussions of his actions. The guy does not contribute constructively, his conduct is destructive and if he isn't prepared to edit with the acceptable norms of wikipedia should be range blocked to prevent damage to the project. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

"(I also didn't give a great deal of thought as to whether the seemingly sourced stuff when I reverted, they removed was really POV etc as they claimed..." - so you just reverted for no reason. Do you think that might be a little bit ridiculous? 201.215.208.83 (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Note: - I have blocked this IP for violating 8RR. --Bongwarrior (talk) 15:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I also reported the matter here -OberRanks (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I didn't revert for no reason. I reverted because you were a block evading user trying to force changes on an article which had been disputed having already violated 3RR (although I didn't notice that part at the time). I didn't and don't have a personal opinion on the changes, but since they are disputed, they need to be discussed not forced on the article via block evasion. The lack of any real discussion didn't help, but the block evasion even if it was for other reasons pushed it over the line. If you want others to give due thought to your edits, you need to give due respect to your fellow contributors, which you seemingly haven't to most so far so far. Nil Einne (talk) 16:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW you might not have been wrong about that IP, he claims to have written International Ultraviolet Explorer using IP 90.199.34.136 whois says BSkyB in the UK. IP 90.214.41.57 on Falklands War whois also says BSkyB. We appear to be dealing with an editor using proxies rather than a dynamic IP. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

That's an issue in and of itself. Can someone look into that?Cúchullain ^t/c 16:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, I think it is without a doubt this user will return before the 3 day block expires, editing under an alternate ip address, violating yet another block using a different ip. There is no reason to think that anything is going to change. If we do have another incident, I would recommend an indef block with standing permission to revert any changes made under alternate/sock ips. Everything that has gone on adds up to a clear pattern of

WP:DISRUPT. -OberRanks (talk

) 16:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Funnily enough that was the IP I saw which made me think it was them (as I checked that article to see what they were saying they contributed), although as said I didn't check the IP info. However both the above IPs seem to come from the same Chilean ISP. Have any other ISPs been seen? Presuming it is the same user, perhaps they simply have access to some computer, proxy or whatever in the UK with the Chilean IP being their normal connection (or vice versa). However I think we need more evidence before worrying about it. If there's no clear cut overlap, perhaps the user simply moved (the IUE stuff was back in August). Having a UK user vandalise the Falkland War article isn't exactly surprising, so no real evidence it's them despite the timing and similarity with a past declared IP. Nil Einne (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Valoem (talk · contribs) and Andy Dingley (talk · contribs) notified. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that several months ago, a user brought back a deleted version of the Dieselpunk article. (It was deleted after a discussion last year, and shortly thereafter the page history was undeleted to assist in the creation of a viable article.) I wish I'd discovered this sooner. In the ensuing months, the article has been modified, but remains essentially the same as the deleted version. I redirected the article to correspond with the outcome of the discussions, but was reverted twice and accused of vandalism. Any thoughts on next steps? - Eureka Lott 04:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Start a new Afd; follow the consensus at the outcome of that Afd.AerobicFox (talk) 07:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

edit:on a side note I find it interesting that the previous deletion discussion had 9 users in favors of keeping the article and only 1 in favor of deleting, yet the article was closed as delete. I have never seen this happen, and believe that the role of an admin is to determine consensus and act according to that, and not to enforce their own interpretations against consensus, although I cannot affirm or condemn the actions here as of now because I haven't fully looked into it yet.AerobicFox (talk) 07:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Consensus isn't determined by

WP:VOTE. If it's 9 to 1 but the 1 points out that there are no reliable sources then not much else really matters. It's a core policy. N^oformation ^Talk

09:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. A remarkably strong close in the face of the usual terrible arguments for keeping fictional cruft. The current "article" is the usual parody of encyclopedic content which results when you ask WP's fictioneers to find reliable sources: a hodge-podge of self-published sources, trivial mentions and OR / SYN which looks superficially well-referenced but is as a whole no more than a user essay in the wrong namespace. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking through the "resurrector's" contributions, this seems to be a recurring theme (for instance, asking for

) 10:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I am deeply concerned by the suggestion of a pattern of behaviour of bad restorations of poorly sourced contents over the results of AfDs. I would appreciate other users investigating this and reporting on this pattern of behaviour while proposing a community sanction. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• I recommend immediate removal of reviewer to start ... I was about to do it myself, but figured some additional consensus might be a good idea (
  BWilkins ←track
  ) 11:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • You can remove it, but its not doing any harm considering that the pending changes "trial" is long over (are you perhaps confusing
    WP:AUTOPATROLLED?). Jenks24 (talk
    ) 13:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, because if I remember, REVIEWER granted the person AUTOPATROLLED, and thus removing the reviewer access would in fact remove autopatrolled as well ... (

BWilkins ←track

) 13:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Nope, reviewer never granted autopatrolled (they are completely separate userrights). Jenks24 (talk) 13:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Then I have a faulty memory. Nevermind then :-) (

BWilkins ←track

) 14:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Looking at my edit history I had been on wikipedia for over 5 years. The Devil's Tree article is in fact notable and I unfortunely did not have time to fully edit the article. I had several more citations ready. I generally favor inclusionism as Wikipedia is not paper. However, you can see that I always have made strong edits and have no history of vandalism. A single edit regarding The Devil's Tree which there is disagreement is hardly the call for removal of reviewer. I do what is best for wikipedia and my edit history shows it. If you take a look at
  Ben Jackson (electronic sports player) article I did a full DR review when deletion was clearly not the correct answer. To remove reviewer would not only be a personal attack but clearly unfounded. Valoem ^talk
  17:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with AerobicFox An appropriate action would be to hold a new AfD, because whatever happened in the intervening time, an 18 month old AfD is too stale to act on. I might not like the outcome of such an AfD (I advocated keeping the article in the first place), but I would respect it as an action according to consensus and policy. Deleting 30k articles though is vandalism, and repeating that deletion immediately it's reverted is both edit warring and vandalism.

Nor do I appreciate being threatened with immediate blocking by admin Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward), who is happy to accuse others of "fairly blatant end-runs around" policy when they disagree with him, but casts a blind eye (maybe it's that pirate eyepatch) to Eureka Lott's actions. This isn't about an article (I agree, it's fancrufty, maybe it just isn't good enough to keep), it's about one editor using redirs as a shorthand for POV-deletion. That should never become how things are done, especially not when it's backed up by their friendly admins threatening to make other editors walk the plank if they disagree. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Recreation of material previously deleted at an AfD in much the same state as it was is

CSD G4, and is specifically designed to avoid red tape. An 18-month-old AfD is only "stale" if there's been significant change to the content of the article, which there have most assuredly not been (the changes consist of the addition of two one-word citations and some trivial / bot cleanup). The "threat" issue is orthogonal to this: you (twice) misused Twinkle to make anti-vandalism rollback of an edit which wasn't vandalism, and a user talk warning is a standard response to that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk

) 14:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Then why didn't

CSD G4

, rather than a summary deletion? CSD is rapid, but it isn't instant - it still allows for challenge and review, because we're supposed to work here by a collegiate process, not individual fiat.

Your claim that vandalism stops being vandalism provided that the deleter puts an "I've deleted this" message on the talk page afterwards is ludicrous. The purpose is not to make an audit trail, we have page histories for that, the purpose is to support action as a cohesive group. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Because redirecting =/= deletion. With a redirect, the article history remains. With deletion, it does not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• As an aside to those claiming that
  WP:MADEUP, the page view stats are a pretty healthy 10k/month. Not bad going for a non-subject. Andy Dingley (talk
  ) 15:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is an Alexa 10 site. Any large piece of content on it will bubble up through Google like lava. That's why page hit count is a bogus indicator of notability (which != popularity), something which you already know through your extensive history of these debates at AfD, and completely irrelevant to the issue at hand (a user unilaterally undoing the result of at least two AfDs, and an editor misusing Twinkle to support that action). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Just as a comment...since Dieselpunk is a valid term, if perhaps not a valid article yet, maybe instead of outright deletion a
      bold redirect to Cyberpunk derivatives#Dieselpunk (where it is reasonably discussed) might be in order? - The Bushranger _{One ping only}
      16:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
      • That's precisely what I tried to do. Prior to its recreation, the page redirected to that section for more than a year. - Eureka Lott 16:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Then it should be reverted to that and protected, perhaps? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
          • That would be fine with me. It can be unprotected if somebody creates a draft that meets
            WP:V. - Eureka Lott
            20:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
            • This is an article with 61 cites on it already. Now even if 90% of those weren't up to the standards of WP:RS, that would still be enough to support an article. Please don't discuss this as if it's our usual othercrap and is "obviously" non-notable, as if it warrants deletion and protection without further chance of debate. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
              • It's exactly "our usual othercrap". The 61 cites are either one-word references (as likely to be influence by WP validating the term "dieselpunk" as anything else; no different from any xckd neologism) or OR / SYN which doesn't mention the subject at all. But regardless, this is not a do-over. The right result here is a redirect; should that be undone again without significant reason to believe things have changes, said redirect should be protected. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• "page hit count is a bogus indicator of notability" No, as of the latest pronouncement from WMF (ask Malleus, he will explain it so much more forcefully than I can), page hit count is now to be the primary driver of WP editing effort. Those who work on minor topics are mere "dabblers" or even worse "star collectors". 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• I am renewing my bid for a new AfD after looking up this topic more. I want a chance at discussion which was previously denied due to the unexpected deletion closure of a snow keep AfD. I won't mind a similar thing occurring again if it must, but I want a chance to weigh in and for others to as well as I believe there are legitimate reasons for keeping this article.AerobicFox (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

  Then make a userspace copy of the article and improve it so that the deletion rationale no longer holds. "Another chance" is a totally wrong approach here, given that this was an almost uniquely strong AfD closure in light of "snow" keeps of absolutely no weight; most admins would have given in to the weight of numbers no matter how useless the arguments to keep were (hint: they all were). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

  The deletion rationale has not been proven to hold because it has not been discussed because the last one was closed prematurely without a discussion of many points.

1. One editor described this as getting the appearance of "something made up in school".
   • That is indeed what the
     WP:GNG are supposed to prevent, but that is not the case here. A web magazine(formerly a print magazine) dedicated to it exists. There exist many dedicated dieselpunk groups around the world
     including Russia, Germany, Spain, Canada, Australia, etc. The presence of it in many reliable sources on Google scholar is evidence of its accepted use, although I cannot read the many different language ones so I don't know if they go into depth or not.
2. For instance, I don't believe any of the games in "Dieselpunk and the gaming industry" have in fact been classified as dieselpunk by their creators or by reviewers writing in reliable sources.
   • "“Bioshock 2” (PC, PlayStation 3, Xbox 360) • The diesel-punk-inspired sequel to 2007’s best first-person shooter", Salt Lake Tribune, the largest circulating newspaper in Salt Lake city
   • Sine Mora has been widely called a dieselpunk game, from Grasshopper Unveils Diesel-Punk Shooter, the Escapist, and A Diesel-Punk Shoot’em Up? Sure, Why Not., Kotaku. The direct himself has stated so "Theodore (Reiker), the director, has a very solid idea about the animations ... he wants to create the game with a Diesel Punk style."
   • Bright Hub is also a reliable source, and it has described many of these games as dieselpunk as well as discussed the differences between steampunk and dieselpunk.

There are two points that can be easily addressed, the bottom one though couldn't even be responded to since it was the admins closing statement. I suppose it would be less disruptive though to just wait until there is more coverage and its notability more clear, so I will wait until then.AerobicFox (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You're making the depressingly common mistake of assuming that because a green bus appears in 4576356 different Saturday morning kids' TV shows, green buses are notable even if there is literally no direct analysis of the subject. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm reminded of Douglas Adams, and the philosopher who proved black was white, only to be killed on the next zebra crossing. Yes, you have conclusively disproved the existence of green buses. It's still not a good idea to go for a sleep in the road outside the bus stop.

Dieselpunk exists. People write about it, 10k readers a month come here looking for it. Whilst high quality standards are a great thing, and it's possible that Wikipedia needs to hang up that sign saying, "Sorry, Wikipedia has so far failed to produce an article on dieselpunk that we can be proud of", sitting here pontificating in a pirate hat about how "Dieselpunk doesn't exist" is that same ridiculous old fallacy that WP defines existence, rather than the other way round. The more vehemently you claim this, the more ridiculous WP looks, and the more detached from reality. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You're at the same time missing and proving the point I'm making. Of course green buses exist. People see them all the time! But if nobody says anything about them other than "they are buses, and they are green", then we can't write an encyclopedia article on them. Nobody has been able to come up with anything in the way of direct references to dieselpunk which say anything other than "it's steampunk shifted forward a hundred years", and "X film resembles dieselpunk". Is it a distinct subject, separate from steampunk (which does have plenty of direct analysis) to the extent that we can write an article on it? Not that anyone has proven. And hence, a footnote in steampunk is a perfectly adequate treatment of the subject. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• I seems absurd to argue the merits of an article here: these discussions should be offloaded as soon as possible to AfD. It is much more productive to argue there on the merits than to argue here on whether or not int was close enough to the previous version to merit a speedy. Perhaps we need to revise G4, to say within the last year. Consensus can change. DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The AfD has already run its course. The DRV did not overturn it. Nobody could honestly argue that this represents a significant enough change to the article that G4 doesn't apply. As suggested above, editors who believe this content can be salvaged are encouraged to request it be userfied and work on it outside of articlespace. Leaving it where it is sends a clear message to editors that they can simply ignore AfDs they don't like and then edit war with those attempting to undo that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Those arguing most vehemently to delete the article are also those most opposed to an AfD. Their line is to delete it, to salt it, and to block anyone who disagrees. Just what are they scared of? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Re-running the AfD simply encourages editors to repeat this chain of activities (to wit: ignore the AfD and DRV, recreated the deleted article exactly as it was, edit war over its removal, and demand a re-run) every time an AfD doesn't go their way. We don't want to encourage that. There's a path out of this (userfication, improvement, nomination for a move of the new version back to articlespace) which bypasses this drama and does not explicitly support disruptive activity. One might, to invert your rhetorical trick, wonder what "scares" anyone about that suggestion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• There's no way a new AFD is warranted, the only thing needed is for the redirect to be enforced by page protection. Look at the history involved here:
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dieselpunk in 2005 resulted in delete
  • A speedy deletion in 2008 was overturned at DRV to relist at AFD
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dieselpunk (2nd nomination) was the AFD in question, and resulted in delete
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dieselpunk (3rd nomination) in 2010 resulted in delete
  • Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 June 14 endorsed that result
• Nothing has really changed in the article since the end of the last AFD. Every time this article, or prior versions of it, has gone to community discussion the result has been the same - delete. So why do we need to waste more time with this? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• • • I had restore the article on the basis that there were no reliable sources when in actuality I discovered 5 sources which were academic in nature. There are many more sources on the internet and this article is in no way cruft. I posted those sources on the talk page as reasoning for my bold restore. Valoem ^talk 17:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Considering that one of these "academic sources" was this page, which is neither available at the Internet Archive nor anything resembling a non-trivial reliable secondary source from your description of it on the talk page, I'm not sure who you think you're convincing here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Note I have declined the speedy G4, since the DRV result was, while listed as "support" actually a redirect result. For that reason either the page should become a redirect again, or, if the criteria for an article to exist there are met, an article. Rich Farmbrough, 01:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC).
  
  • Andy Dingley's "changed in volume alone by over 10%" comment on the talk page is a rather deceitful way of saying it's shrunk by 10% due to the removal of some of the more egrecious original research. Content-wise there is no substantive new material which would throw the AfD result into doubt. Redirected again. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Chris, you have threatened me already with summary blocking for describing another editor's repeated deletion as vandalism. What would yoou suggest for describing other editors as "deceitful"? I really do not appreciate this sort of comment. Has it not changed in volume? Does this not indicate that another editor has been reviewing and working over the content? I don't care whether they added or subtracted, the point is that they've been working on it. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Why has this been redirected without consensus should this be taken to DRV? There has been considerable editing on that page with multiple reliable sources. It shows based on this discussion page that a consensus has not been met. Based on arguments alone this seem to suggest a keep. How did you conclude this as a redirect? Valoem ^talk 14:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Valoem: try reading the thread. Your decision to simply ignore the multiple AfDs, and the subsequent DRV, which resulted in the redirect does not entitle you to a do-over of a discussion that you didn't like the result of, much as when you did exactly the same thing with The Devil's Tree. Andy Dingley: the "threat" of a block for using Twinkle's anti-vandalism feature to rollback non-vandalism edits is spelled out quite specifically on the Twinkle page. If you feel that my labelling of your half-truth (for it indisputably was) as "deceitful" is blockable then by all means request that, but the situations are quite dissimilar. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

) 03:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

They don't appear to ever edit Talk pages.

talk

) 03:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

And now they appear to have moved their Talk page to

talk

) 05:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• support a block. Clearly disruptive, active refusal to communicate.--
  Crossmr (talk
  ) 06:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Does their wikipedia e-mail work? --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd say it's irrelevant. We don't have to continually bend over backwards for disruptive users. He's clearly aware of his talk page and the content on it since he made an attempt to hide it. He's being actively and intentionally disruptive.--

Crossmr (talk

) 23:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

By trying to upload lots of images? <scratches head>. Has anyone tried to explain how this CC thing works to them? Just askin' ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC) Also, user appears to be active on multiple languages. Not 100% cut-and-dried imo.

So what could he possibly think all of those messages for almost four years were all about, and what happened to the images he uploaded which have been deleted?

talk

) 05:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Repeating bad behaviour is disruptive if you've been warned about it. Especially if the warnings go on for 3 years. In addition, he's being intentionally disruptive by trying to hide his talk as he's done above. It's clear that he's aware of his talk, the content on it, and he went out of his way to try and hide it from view after this discussion was started. There is no point in e-mailing this user, it's far beyond what we as a community need to, or should, be doing to deal with problem users.--

Crossmr (talk

) 08:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• I agree. Since they won't communicate, won't stop the behavior after literally years of notices and warnings, and are deliberatly attempting to obfuscate the record to appear squeaky-clean, I reccomend a block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably not serious, but I thought it important to report this nonetheless. Dallasmartino (talk · contribs) has made death threats at Presidency of Barack Obama. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Block and report to the secret service. I bet he won't be trolling wiki if men in black show up at his door step :). N^oformation ^Talk 18:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked and reported to the foundation. They can escalate higher if they choose.--v/r - TP 18:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

And now the diff has been deleted so the police can't see what was written. Bad idea. Good idea to report, bad idea to stonewall the report. 65.96.60.92 (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe some admins have the ability to pull deleted posts if needed, so that shouldn't be too much of an issue.

talk

) 21:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

All admins can see deleted articles and diffs. It's only stuff that's been deleted and

Bencherlite^Talk

21:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

And how many officers of the law are admins? How many admins are in regular contact with the law? Oh right...none. Epic poor decision making. 65.96.60.92 (talk) 05:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd wager the Wikimedia Foundation has staff to know if a death threat is simply a prank or is indeed serious. If the latter, they'll certainly report it to the appropriate authorities. --McDoobAU93 05:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

@65.*: I'd sure hope you think more of your local authorities than that they stop an investigation at the first sign of it being "tough to investigate". Generally, I would think, these things are resolved through subpenas. It would just be fair to assume that a police office taking a "screen shot" wouldn't be a very effective policing tool. I would think that a affidavit from the Wikimedia Foundation with records from the database and logs of the transaction would help the police better. And they can't get any of that just by looking here or asking an admin anyway.--v/r - TP 19:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

User: Tartanator: Bullying, ownership, threats

I'd like to please get some eyes on the behaviour of Tartanator (talk · contribs) as displayed here. He appears to be on a mission to exclude a couple of relevant, topical, supported sentences about the Tiananmen Square event from Beijing. Despite apparently clear consensus for the material to remain, Tartanator appears bound and determined to bully, bludgeon, revert, shout, and steamroller his way around any attempt at discussion and consensus-building.

This is not necessarily a request for administrative intervention in a content dispute, though Tartanator does appear to be acting tendentiously, belligerently, willfully, and relentlessly against consensus. There are, of course, other channels for addressing difficult content quarrels, though most of these channels are effective only to the degree all involved editors voluntarily honour the process, and it does not appear Tartanator intends to do so. The material in question complies with

. It is directly and obviously apposite, for it concerns a notable event that took place in the city that is the subject of the article. The material is appropriately concise and bears a properly-formatted link to the main article for more in-depth coverage. Everything about it appears to be in accord with all applicable Wikipedia policy, protocol, and general practice.

Every contributor aside from Tartanator who has offered an opinion on the matter, either by dint of edits to the article or comments on the talk page, appears to agree the material should be included. Tartanator, who appears to hold stridently fervent opinions on matters related to China (Update: 30 November 2011, 03:33, Fastily (talk · contribs) —the same admin who locked down Beijing!— deletes Tartanator's user page at Tartanator's request; the linked material is therefore no longer visible) apparently does not want the material included. Following his six immediate reversions of four editors in five days ([69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74]) to keep the Tiananmen Square material out of the article, after which he visited the talk page to flatly assert the rectitude of his unilateral deletion on the last of those five days [75], he had what appears to be the great temerity to request and receive a lockdown of the article on account of (his own) edit warring.

He has removed others' comments from the article talk page [76], [77]; has issued what appear to be physical threats [78], has attempted to use the threat of his own anger and Wikipedia's administrative channels as a means to silence other editors [79], [80]; has misused Twinkle-generated warnings in an almost random manner to harass, harangue, and intimidate another editor [81], [82]; and has asserted that he intends to carry on pushing his own point of view even if the material he dislikes is properly supported by reference to reliable sources [83].

Other editors and I have attempted to engage this editor in productive discussion on the article talk page while objecting in a largely civil manner and without personal attacks to what looks like pretty questionable behaviour on his part. I'm growing exasperated, though. Obviously I can (and shall) step back and disengage from a conversation attempt that doesn't seem to be getting anywhere, but I do feel this editor's behaviour warrants some scrutiny and possibly administrative sanction. Time is somewhat of the essence in this case; the article lockdown expires on 2 December after which it appears likely Tartanator will resume working to exclude material in violation of pretty clear consensus for its inclusion. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C07:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Consider using
  Mailer Diablo
  08:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I did and decided to post here instead. If that decision was definitely in error, I'll move this report over there. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C08:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Hear hear, Mailer Diablo. Scheinwerfermann, be wary of TL;DR, "I didn't hear that", and failure to consider the actions of ALL parties' involved (that would be you, me, and Nodar95). I think it is very fair game to expect that Nodar95 would be boomerang-ed for an edit summaries like this, this, and a flat-out accusation of vandalism here. You unfortunately continue to dodge these matters, and are in the mindset that I am the only editor in the wrong here. I asked you multiple times on the talk page to focus on content, and yet your responses are almost all lectures on policy or some other form of commenting on the contributor. This is arguably more worrisome than anything I have done—what if you continue to do this in other discussions? It holds discussions up and is not at all productive.
• Though I was convinced earlier that Scheinwerfermann would not believe this at all, I will state this now: After this edit by Nodar95, I had not realised until then that what Nodar95 last inserted was different. You know, it is very difficult to assert the true intentions (and for that matter, faith) of someone who nastily says "Let's see how this gets censored"; from experience I also know it is close to impossible to have a meaningful discussion with someone with such a despicable attitude. Only at 00:54 29 November did I realise what the change was (hence the edit summary) and brought it up on the talk.
• Induction does not work outside of mathematics, Scheinwerfermann; you have not a shred of evidence that I will continue removal. In fact, after the input of Jiang, I am now willing to insert material on major post-1911 events to serve as a balance.  The Tartanator  08:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Mathematics is deductive, not inductive, and arguments outside of mathematics can be inductive or deductive. N^oformation ^Talk 08:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• That post which you falsely claimed to have been a physical threat (it was a description of what had already occurred) has since been clarified. Calling this warning random is completely unwarranted considering Nodar95's edit summary. Perhaps you yourself enjoy accusing others of censorship and maybe even being a
  Wumaodang and it would behove you to take a great leap back and reflect on your errors.  The Tartanator 
  09:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The series of event described above by

Tiananmen_Square_Protests_of_1989

."

At 06:45, November 23, 2011 that sentence was deleted by User:Tartanator with the associated comment at 06:44, 23 November 2011: Since the appropriate way to proceed with the lack of outside reference is by using Template:Citation_needed, not by deleting an editor’s contribution, I reverted the deletion, added references to my contribution in Beijing article and commented the deletion as an act of Wikipedia:Censorship at 18:09, November 23, 2011.

At 04:10, November 24, 2011‎ the same sentence was again deleted by User:Tartanator with the following comment on User_talk:Nodar95 at 04:12, 24 November 2011. And the following added comment at 04:14, 24 November 2011 on User_talk:Nodar95.

Since there were now strong indications that User:Tartanator will be deleting that sentence no matter its validity I moved the problem to Talk:Beijing page at 02:30, November 25, 2011 with the following entry. At 17:48, November 25, 2011

."

As anticipated the sentence got deleted at 17:45, November 25, 2011 by User:Tartanator. At 22:21, November 28, 2011 I requested Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism against User:Tartanator as both my edits and discussion entries were systematically deleted. From 22:31, November 28, 2011 until 01:25, November 29, 2011 a revert/delete sequence took place with

.

At 00:25, November 29, 2011 User:Tartanator added an entry on Talk:Beijing, related to the entry I originally posted at 02:30, November 25, 2011 but without reverting his deletion of that entry. From that time a lengthy interaction took place on that page between User:Tartanator and multiple editors, with an unanimity supporting the presence of the following sentence in Beijing page: “Beijing was the location of the

.” with the references added at 18:09, November 23, 2011.

At 01:26, November 29, 2011

at 01:09, November 29, 2011. I concur with

Wikipedia:This_page_is_protected

status expires.

Added to this there are proven instances of the following violations (at the minimum of

:

• Use of deletion as a censoring tool, as described above.

• Personal attack on User_talk:Nodar95 starting at 04:12, 24 November 2011

• Threat of “getting your account blocked” on User_talk:Nodar95 at 04:14, 24 November 2011.

• Threat of "having your mouth shut" on User_talk:Nodar95 at 08:57, November 30, 2011.

• Threat of deserving “far worse” on Talk:Beijing at 03:52, 30 November 2011. Nodar95 (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• I have blocked User:Tartanator for a week for edit warring, which is what should have been done in the first place, and unprotected the page. I take a very dim view of edit warriors attempting to game RFPP, and with four editors disagreeing with him, and Tartanator over 3RR, it is obvious where the problem lies. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I have noticed an IP adress (130.58.248.157) has nominated my page for deletion. The user has a history of vandlism. The page is Eden World Builder.

Thanks

13:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You can remove

WP:NOTE. Yunshui 雲‍水

13:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, per

WP:VANDAL for a definition of the term here on Wikipedia. Yunshui 雲‍水

13:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) It's not your page,

WP:OWN. IPs are allowed to prod articles. One edit in 2007, one edit in 2008 and two edits in 2011 is hardly a history of vandalism. CambridgeBayWeather (talk

) 13:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You also need to ensure you notify the subject of an ANI discussion. I have done this for you, but in future please ensure you place a {{subst:ANI-notice}} tag on the talkpage of any user you mention on this board. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

For reference, the article in question is now at AFD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eden World Builder. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

(Moved here from WP:AN, since the complaint is about a specific incident. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC))

This article is impossible to work on. Any attempts to fix the obvious POV-pushing of having endless quotes taken from propoganda sources, contrasted with no attempt to explain the arguments for the mainstream view, or against the fringe claims (except for a couple trivial attempts in image captions), are met with rudeness, obstruction, and

to ridiculous levels.

In particular, William M. Connelley's behavious seems to be straight out trolling, including having launched (so far unsuccessful, at least) attempts to try to find out my real name in revenge for me disagreeing with him.

This page is pretty much pure propaganda, it being on Wikipedia at all is a sign of Wikipedia's failure - we really need a page consisting of quotes from fringe propaganda?! The editing environment is intentionally made as awful as possible, in order to drive any mainstream editors off. It basically survives by having global warming deniers camp on the page, and shoot down any mainstream editors who come by before they can get organised. 86.* IP (talk) 01:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

That's why I don't follow those pages anymore. They're trash.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Umm.. William M. Connelley is anything but a "global warming denier". Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Due to the contentious nature of the content, what did you honestly expect? It is an article about fringe theories, after all.—Ryulong (竜龙) 01:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I must have missed the bit where (allegedly) problematic behaviour is considered OK in articles on controversial topics. It's not. Nick-D (talk) 02:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

He has not proved that there has been problematic behavior and he has posted something that is the opposite of what is known to be true (William M. Connelley is a climatologist and is being accused of being a global warming denier). 86.** appears to be in the minority of the consensus on the talk page and appears to be coming to

WP:AN to try to sway a growing consensus against him, and there are misconceptions by 86.** throughout this page and this one.—Ryulong (竜龙

) 02:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Be that as it may, WMC is trying to violate my privacy, and, in this issue, is pure troll. I'll provide links in private if you need proof. Forgive me if I don't want to link half-arsed speculation about my identity, lest it gives someone a boost towards violating it for real. I'll also point out that I may be a minority on the talk page - because the rudeness and

WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT makes it very hard for anyone to stay there that doesn't agree with everything - but that a majority of people in the last AfD voted for it to be deleted, so it would appear a majority of Wikipedians as a whole think it has severe problems. See poisoning the well for what Ryulong is doing. 86.** IP (talk

) 02:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Well this seems to be a merely baseless attack against someone who is part of a separate majority opinion from you. If you expect us to believe that these issues exist, you should at least post direct links to examples of it happening, barring the

WP:OUTING issues.—Ryulong (竜龙

) 03:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) You'll forgive us if, in the absence of evidence, we reserve judgement—particularly given that this isn't the first time in recent weeks that you've made spurious complaints about this article and this editor.

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive727#List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive725#William M. Connolley and List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

At this point, it may be appropriate to consider restrictions on 86.**'s conduct under the discretionary sanctions provisions applying to climate change topics. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

How on earth am I supposed to link to the outing issues while avoiding linking to them? That's all WMC does as direct attacks on me. There's some examples of him seemingly intentionally missing the point or being very rude, e.g.

Are the only secondary sources available "journalists"? If so, I expect the quality of them varies a great deal. If people have been categorised by well-known science journalists writing in good mainstream publications, that would seem to fit our criteria for good secondary sources. Any academic sources on philosophy of science, sociology of science, etc. would trump those, but I doubt if many are available, will have a look. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but: you've been commenting here for quite a while. Isn't it about time you actually found out about the sources? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

So, you did an academic literature search before starting editing? I find 91 results in WoS for "climate change" AND (sceptic OR skeptic OR denier). Some look to be refereed journal papers. Starting to go through now, will take a long time. Would you like to try alternative search terms? Itsmejudith (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

(from the talk page)

But I'd need to quote hundreds of these to show a pattern, which is impractical.

86.** IP (talk) 03:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• I would like to suggest that you email the Arbitration Committee with the supporting evidence showing WMC's attempted outing. That would both preserve your privacy and allow for them to investigate. 76.16.72.26 (talk) 03:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that William M. Connolley was ever notified about this discussion, so I have done so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

That's very unfortunate. I don't know how much more clear the notice could be. I will AGF and assume it was an honest mistake that he was never notified. 76.16.72.26 (talk) 04:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

This wasn't posted here originally, it was moved here, and was intended to be general. I can't help it if people make this about a particular person, when I wanted to discuss a general problem. 86.** IP (talk) 05:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You say you wanted to discuss a "general problem", but your comments put forth a claim of being "outed" by William M. Connolley, which you make in the second paragraph of your original post. Whether that claim is made on WP:AN or WP:AN/I is irrelevant, once you advance a specific charge against a specific editor, you should notify them of the thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Enough, Ken. Don't muddy the waters by turning this around onto 86.**. Try to assume some good faith, alright? 76.16.72.26 (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) It's hard to know what 86.** IP is complaining about. Because he seems not to be a new editor, he has been repeatedly asked to clarify whether he has had former named accounts (e.g. by DGG, Itsmejudith, WMC, Colonel Warden). He started editing from a range of IPs geolocating to Edinburgh in September, with edits to Ayurveda. A long discussion took place on User talk:Itsmejudith. [84] His repeated postings about this and related articles here and elsewhere are unhelpful and are now becoming disruptive. Mathsci (talk) 07:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Side note: Many BT IPs appear as geolocating to Edinburgh/Scotland including IPs from Northern Ireland so I wouldn't use geolocating to say much.

talk

) 14:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I think he simply requests more eyes on the article, that's all. His outing issues should be between him and ArbCom via private email. Let's archive this thread and move on, ok? 76.16.72.26 (talk) 07:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You've only got like 5 edits here. Why is this important to you? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) No, there do not appear to be any outing issues on-wiki. If, as he says, 86.** IP happens to have had a previous account, trying to identify that account does not constitute

WP:ARBCC might be what comes next, or at least a warning. Mathsci (talk

) 08:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• I got the idea that it might be Shoemaker's Holiday from a suggestion of WMC. It seemed fairly clear that this was a tendentious editor returning under a new account. My first guess was that it was ScienceApologist or perhaps one of the editors banned from this topic area by arbcom but WMC's guess seems quite plausible, given that that editor has a history of editing the article in question. Anyway, given the arbcom sanctions on this topic area and the alacrity with which Scibaby socks are driven off, I am surprised that 86 has been allowed such a free rein. Warden (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Diffs like these [85] [86] on the article talk page from 2009 are quite similar to some of the postings of 86.** IP. Mathsci (talk) 13:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Its not my guess; someone posted it to my talk page. But those diffs are quite suggestive. But does anyone care, greatly? SH isn't banned or anything, AFAIK William M. Connolley (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I should have noted here earlier that I warned 86.** IP (talk · contribs) for edit warring in the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming article in response to this report. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, in response to your question of me having "5 edits" and "why this is important to me", please read

) 19:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to BMK for notifying me of this discussion. It is hard for me to know what to say: as has been pointed out, 86 has totally misunderstood my position. For whatever strange reason, 86 has taken up a campaign against that page, to the point of being disruptive. Perhaps he should be encouraged to find other interests. Someone suggested to be the 86 might be User:Shoemaker's Holiday (aka AC) and who knows, this may or may not be correct. 86 is evasive when asked, as already noted William M. Connolley (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

86 has been edit warring at the page and is touchy about that, too [87]. The page falls underARBCC; can some admin not give 86 a warning under that? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

This topic (= conflict of opinions) is a tough one for Wikipedia because the "question" itself is not one question, it is a POV-selection-of-the moment variable question. (E.G. is man having some effect?, is man having a significant effect? are variations we see mostly from man, mostly from nature, or a good mix of both?, which effects count as effects?. Also, even for the questions where the minority view is the smallest, it's a minority view, not a fringe view. North8000 (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

See, again this is why I don't don't even bother with these articles any more. It's just a bunch of POV pushers trying to win the hearts and minds of the mass population. Geesh, get a grip, all of you. In reality, nobody gives rats ass what any of you think about global warming. Its just a bunch of hoo haw, wrapped in tin foil, and sold to the sheeple as gold plated ear rings. People are smarter than you all think, so whatever voodoo science goes in or out of these articles is just a waste of space in my opinion.--JOJ ^Hutton 12:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Shall we close this thread and be done with this? What is the admin intervention that is being requested here? 67.175.159.127 (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Admin intervention? The user account 86.** IP might be blocked or topic banned for canvassing, incivility, disruption, sock-puppetry, edit-warring, tendentious editing and violation of Arbcom sanctions. Admins might also take a look at the user account User:Jabbsworth which openly admits to being another sockpuppet and which has now started editing this article. They seem to be the banned sockmaster Ratel. Warden (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Jabbsworth, I was cleared to edit by Arbcom. Thanks. I have no sanctions on this article, and did not have in my other accounts. I have not edited article space here either.  Jabbsworth  01:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

According to J's talk page, he is User:TickleMeister, who is indef'd for socking William M. Connolley (talk) 09:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

See section below. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The original poster should be allowed the chance to comment. Mathsci (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Seriously.I complain about attempts to violate my privacy, so unfounded, evidence-free speculation gets repeated to a wider audience? And apparently, I'm the one at fault? What the hell? 86.** IP (talk) 07:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Your "complaints" were without merit, since linking you to other wikipedia accounts is not outing. No information that is not publicly available on wikipedia has been mentioned. In those circumstances it is unclear what you mean when you write "violate my privacy". Perhaps, since you have already mentioned that they exist, you could disclose which named accounts you have previously used. That might help clear up matters. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

In the space of two months, 86.* has raised this article at its fifth AfD (Result: Keep), AfD Review (Result: overturn to No Consensus), at the Fringe noticeboard several times, on Jimbo's page(!) [88], and now here. I've asked him/her several times to contribute to the discussion, which he/she's done to a limited extent. 86.* has made a couple of relatively constructive edits to the article in the last month. Most recently 86 was warned for reverting article tags three times in quick succession. In the circumstances I find the reference in the original post to

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is rather rich. I would have thought a reminder of the general sanctions, and that Wikipedia is based on discussion and consensus building, not appeals to authority, would certainly be appropriate. --Merlinme (talk

) 09:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems that IP***86 isn't a sock but is probably a previous user returning. I encouraged him to set up an account, which he did, and his contributions to Ayurveda-related articles have been useful. In regard to this article we all need to work harder to get consensus. IP***86 needs to spell out the points he objects to and to realise that it isn't really a climate-change-denial position being promoted here (ironically it might at first sight appear to be, but on further inspection it's not). I need to look up the sources I said I would. And some of the page regulars who know who they are need to drop the WP:OWN and be more welcoming to policy-minded, science-friendly editors coming new to the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, you are a policy-minded, science friendly editor coming new to the article who's willing to making constructive edits to the article and contribute constructively on the Talk page; I've seen precious little evidence 86.* is. Catching up after the weekend, I noticed 86.* had reverted three times on the page, which is the first time a single user's done that in a long time. I left him a polite notice on his Talk page. Since leaving that note, I've discovered that he's raised his concerns again at an inappropriate venue for content disputes, having made essentially zero further attempts to engage in the article page discussion. I then discover that he had previously received the 3RR warning from an admin... which he removed from his Talk page. On top of the groundless accusation against WMC included in the original complaint, without even informing WMC, I'm afraid I've rather lost patience; "launched (so far unsuccessful, at least) attempts to try to find out my real name in revenge for me disagreeing with him" is a ludicrous distortion of the truth. It's clear from 86.*'s user page that he's not a newbie; someone suggested to WMC that he might be User:Shoemaker's Holiday, to which WMC's response was mainly mystification. WMC then asked 86.* if he would clarify any previous accounts used, to which 86.*'s response was to delete the request from his user page. --Merlinme (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not, as 86** states, that this article is "impossible to work on." It is more like 86** finds it impossible to get what he monmaniacally wants. His appearance here is just another instance of his forum shopping, which is just one facet of his general tendentiousness. His overblown hyperbole ("This page is pretty much pure propaganda") and total misattribution of his difficulites to "global warming deniers" illustrates the difficulty of trying to reach him. His presence has not been conducive to improving this article; he should be invited to leave. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 00:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Side issue?

76.16.72.26 (talk · contribs)
67.175.159.127 (talk · contribs)
Oddly aggressive editing by the above Illinois-based IP series. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, like closing the discussion with "Needless drama" and not signing the close. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

TickleMeister (talk · contribs)
Jabbsworth (talk · contribs)
The one is a self-admitted sock of the other, as noted by WMC farther up the page. I've asked Future Perfect at Sunrise to come here and explain what's going on with that user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The only thing I know is he admitted the socking but was given a second chance by Arbcom's ban appeals committee, after promising to stick to a single account [89]. I now topic-banned him from the Aspartame topic (under "Pseudoscience" discretionary sanctions) because he was relapsing into the same sort of disruptive behaviour he had shown as TickleMeister a year ago. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Should he not be obliged to provide a link back to the old account? It seems wrong to have to reply on admin-memory. For example, you've just topic-banned him, but you couldn't have done that without a prior warning, which was given to an old account. Similarly, the arbcomm block memory (and unban discussion) is lost without a link back William M. Connolley (talk) 11:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

One would think. And if he's not interested in creating that link, maybe someone should create one for him? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a link. If other editors had known that he was TickleMeister - and known that Arbcom had allowed a multioffending sockmaster to continue to edit - we'd all have been better prepared to deal with him.

If people like him are allowed to keep editing, then there should be a general amnesty announced on the front page of the New York Times for all banned sockmasters to return, get a new account, hide the connection to their former disruptive accounts, and we can start all over again wasting time dealing with these creeps.

It's this kind of time sink, injustice and drama that discourages so many good editors from using more time at Wikipedia. These types of partisan editors who can't control themselves that make good articles into battlefields. Articles have no stability, even when they get to be good articles. That's too bad. The better an article becomes, the more protections it should enjoy so as to allow editors to concentrate on making progress in other areas. I'm not saying that articles should be locked, but it should be harder to vandalize and edit war at such articles. Only significant and important additions, changes and revisions should be allowed.....but I digress....it's a slightly different topic.

Anyway, a link should be provided and it be required that he never remove it. It would be cool if a standard template was made for such purposes. --

talk

) 18:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

J has now removed what link there was [90] William M. Connolley (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I see I'm being discussed here. (1) Thanks for telling me (2) Are my edits to the Talk page in question "oddly aggressive" as are those of the IP named above (clearly not)? Do I have a history, under any other account name, with this page (I believe not)? If not, is there any cogent reason to be discussing me here?  Jabbsworth  23:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You don't appear to have any history with either TM or Ratel on that article. However I believe you do have a history in the climate change arena under Ratel so it's probably not unresonable your edits to another CC article are going to come under greater scrutiny. In addition that article obviously lends to BLP concerns, I believe under one or both older accounts people have had concerns over your editing when it comes to BLP before (whether or not you agree those concerns are legitimate) so it's sort of a double whammy. However I don't see anything needing administrative action related to this. There is the open question of which I have no opinion on of whether arbcom should have allowed you to come back and whether we should re-block you but that isn't related to the CC arena. The seperate issue of whether you should provide a link to the other accounts seems a valid question, just not one for ANI. As for 'telling you' I presume that is sarcasm. As per ANI requirements, you should have been notified. You were notified of being mentioned by Warden. As this is a subthread of the same discussion and arose only a few hours later I presume out of Warden's comments and was later specifically noted under Warden's comments above, I don't think it's that clear cut further notification was needed even if perhaps it would have been ideal. Nil Einne (talk) 13:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Jabbsworth has been blocked for sockpuppetry, yet again.[91] This should resolve this portion of the side issue.Novangelis (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Could an admin please deal with this unacceptable feedback that was left by an indef-blocked vandal? --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• I've hidden the comment. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
• Note that we have an article about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Shows you where my mind is. I interpreted it as a term (slightly misspelled, though) used as an insult in Spanish, which I won't bother reiterating here per
  WP:BEANS and whatnot. --Kinu ^t/_c
  22:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Is it possible to block people's ability to edit the feedback dashboard? I've just hidden a bunch of WP:NPA violations by P3Nl566. Nyttend (talk) 02:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• The vandal in question just posted some more disgusting inappropriate feedback. There really needs to be a mechanism that can prevent blocked users from posting at the feedback dashboard. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 02:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• Hey, we have a Feeback dashboard--that's really interesting! The things you learn at ANI... PS Nyttend, I hid a couple more by that joker. Drmies (talk) 05:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Is that a dealie that's accessible from the "rate this article" thingie? Someone's actually using it??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Nope, that's a different thing for new editors. And it could use some serious cleanup, folks...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

AlexisC.NPMS (talk · contribs) claims to have the real phone number for Hunter Parrish and wants to share it. Notifying here since it seems the most appropriate board. Thanks. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 00:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

As an emergency measure, I've indef blocked the user and revoked Talk page access to prevent their revealing the information -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Has made a number of PA’s against WebHamster This has resulted in a wikiquete discussion [[92]] in which MarcusBritish has made a number of highly confrontational comments, and sees this as some kind of a battle in which you are either an enemy or a ally [[93]]. He has accused me of saying things I have not said [[94]]. I don’t think the user is generally a problem, but in the subject of WebHamster he has a highly aggressive battlefield mentality.Slatersteven (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So in short, what you're saying is – "if you want a blocked user banned outright, you should be blocked". And you question my mentality? You do realise that I'm more than willing to push this type of reaction through ArbCom and throw your attempt to question my integrity into the firing line, I hope. Wasting you time, trying to make a name for yourself Ste. You stand in middle-ground, making false indications that you support one opinion, then another, but in reality you're luring people. There is nothing here worthy of ANI interest. It took EIGHT years to get Webhamster blocked, and he still has people toadying to his every desire. Where do you thing that puts you, apart from clear as mud sycophancy to ANI, Hell bent of pushing your own POV? Laughable liberal wish-wash. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 19:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I am here because more then one user has said your commeents about webby oversteped the mark, and you response is this attitude.Slatersteven (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't take "the mark" of a BNP supporter as a reliable. You're as petty as it gets. Your motives are not above suspicion. In fact I suspect you're looking for retaliative action because you "can't win" with your unassisting remarks at WQA. Don't know why you bothered in the first place, your entire history there did not have anything to do with the aims of WQA. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 19:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Who's being accused of being a BNP supporter?

Nev1 (talk

) 15:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Political affiliations (which have not been demonstrated in any case) seem tangential to this conversation. I'm concerned such comments fall foul of the

Nev1 (talk

) 17:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Lol, what views? He's not said anything of value that can be discredited – he's simply a general, all-round

storm in a teacup. To be even more to the point, this isn't even his argument, so why he attempted to make it about him is beyond me. Perhaps he was bored. He certainly bores me. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF}

] 18:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not Slatersteven supports the BNP is irrelevant to this discussion, so why you brought it up in the first place is unclear unless you wished to discredit him. And the assertion is unsubstantiated, considering the strong views the party provokes it is unwise to level such accusations.

Nev1 (talk

) 19:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Can I just say; over the last couple of days you two have done basically sod all except argue about this topic... There is a level of maturity in simply walking away from a confrontation and finding something productive to do. No one has to have the last word here. But what we could do is divert this attention into writing some article content. :) --Errant ^(chat!) 19:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

As both times [95] it was in direct reply to a post by me the target is logicaly me.Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Yo, Brains. This.is.not.about.you. You.are.not.the.subject. Stop.trying.to.become.the.center.of.attention. I.do.not.find.you.interesting. Your.desire.for.revenge.is.transparently.obvious. Drop.the.stick. — And use a spell-checker for Pete's sake, they are free, and come in-built in browsers like Firefox. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 18:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec)The issue is not whether the user should be banned, but that it is inappropriate to use terminology such as "prime nut," and "the only good thing that could ever develop in what little brain he does have is a tumour." to advance such a case, and to accuse anyone taking exception to those personal attacks as being in some sort of collusion.

talk

) 19:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

As someone who is supporting Webhamster in overturning a block, which had a ~65% pro-block consensus, the question of your motives, COI, or bias leaves me to conclude that you will say anything to contradict me. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 19:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• I've been on the receiving end of some of Marcus's vitriol, sure. But I don't see the need for administrative action here.

  Now, the above accusation (in response to Gerardw) is really in bad faith, and I'm sure Marcus would say something similar about me: "you don't support a block so you're partial"--which of course works both ways: Marcus supported a block so he's not partial? Come on now. "Liberal wish-wash" is nonsense; Marcus, you'll have to live with the fact that people disagree, and that it's not always for political reasons, and that your argument is self-defeating.

  There's a bit more--besides accusations of partiality, there was some nonsense of 'all of us' Hamster defenders being a club of regulars at Hamster's pub in Manchester or something like that, which isn't just in violation of AGF but also extremely silly. I mean, really--geolocate me, or, if you really don't want to put your money where your mouth is, give me your address and I'll send you a postcard from Alabama.

  Anyway, I don't want to compile a laundry list. I think that Marcus's behavior left a lot to be desired, but I don't want another editor blocked as a result of this mess. I hope Marcus sees that not everyone in the community feels as he does, and that ruffling feathers is not always a good thing. No action please, if Marcus keeps his cool. Or finds it. Drmies (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

A touching example of floccinaucinihilipilification, from Drmies, there. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 00:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't call you unimportant. I'm sure someone loves you. Drmies (talk) 04:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Haha, I'd double-check your definition of flocci— there. I didn't mean me. Rather, the situation itself. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 05:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry: I bow to your vision--"Wiki is currently the "land of the blind" in which I have one eye." Drmies (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

If you actually know what that means, and can apply context, then do so. Otherwise it's just a meaningless quote without any form of interpretation. Nor is it any of your business for the time being. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 15:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps MarcusBritish needs a block for his general behaviour (uncivil, NPAs) over the last days. But more urgently, I don't think he is the right person to be adressing WQA discussions, see

) 10:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of time for WQA but his posts there are clearly unsuitable given the rationale behind it's existence - likely to inflame rather than solve any problems. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above two points; whether or not MarcusBritish is to be blocked (probably not) is of secondary concern to his involvement at

WP:WQA. Reviewing this situation, and his performance over there, WQA requires a bit more diplomacy and tact than MarcusBritish seems to wish to use. It would be best if he found other places at Wikipedia to use his skills, because that arena is clearly not well suited to his style of interacting with others. --Jayron32

00:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The instigator wasn't interested in diplomacy, nor was it a matter of etiquette in reality. It was over-spill from an SPI and the editor was seeking to advocate support with regards that his accusations of being "stalked" were feasible. Another editor supported my findings and requested closure of the WQA. I suspect the two editors will be here, on AN/I before long anyway.. neither wants to drop the stick, with one accusing the other of being a sock, the other accusing of stalking; behaviour which he has carried to no less than 5 editors talk pages and rattled a few cages in the 26 days since he registered. I, modestly, think I handled the situation well considering that the editor was never going to be interested unless someone who believed every word he said and was willing to block the edited he was accusing, showed up. It was a matter of expressing concern for his behaviour. Another editor expressed the same concern. I did my "voluntary" job, whilst none of you now complaining about how I handled my first WQA lifted a finger to offer any assistance. To be frank, the previous WQA aimed at me was far less productive, and editor Slatersteven who argued with me there did not attempt to resolve anything, he just argued. Whereas I achieved a result to the satisfaction of several people. Before you employ double-standards, I suggest you take that fact into account.

WQA reads "The goal is to help all parties in a situation come to a mutually agreeable resolution." Another fact, is that the opening editor did not even inform his opponent of the discussion, so there was no aim for a mutual resolution on his part, his comments were aimed at reporting his opponent and discrediting him with SPIs dating back nearly 3-years, which I rejected as being somewhat uncivil, and the discussion whilst it started amicably, broke down upon his realisation that myself and another editor did not agree with his conclusions, or accusations against anyone. The editor he accused was invited, by myself, to present his story, and I gave a neutral conclusion after looking at the diffs and comments offered. WQA isn't a Samaritan Hotline, nor is it AN/I, and the two editors were advised to keep their distance or use AN if they had a solid reason to. There was, in my judgement, no other outcome or better way of handling the matter, except with a firm hand. It was a fast moving WQA, as the opening editor was unwilling to take time to present information to give us a clearer perspective of the harassment he claimed to receive – I hunted for a while and found nothing to support his claims. So based on what was presented – old news – the matter was closed, by a third editor, following agreement between myself, and the two involved editors that there was no further course of action at WQA – they didn't want to make up, they didn't want to back down from their opposing claims.

Like I've said, if any of you feel that could have done any better, you could have chimed in - the first two of you commented 7 hours before the case was even closed, so there is no excuse for only spectating if, as responsible/"skilled" admins, you feel that I was mishandling the matter – a personal opinion that is a load of nonsense with no merit whatsoever. In short, these illogical comments leave little to be appreciated. An admin who calls for a block, when they didn't lift a finger to partake in a WQA which lasted from 06:06, 28 November 2011 until 17:30, 28 November 2011 – 11.5 hours – should be blocking themselves, for being unable to justify their own lack of action, whilst attacking someone else for bothering. There is no

block rationale

can be brought to bear here, because there isn't even a case – my first WQA (as an outsider) was handled without any disruption, as "patiently, helpfully, and not disrespectfully" as possible – contrary to the supposition and near-miss attack implied above – and a trivial uncivil reaction from the WQA opener, which is no skin off my nose, and case closed.

Before some of you start waving your mops about indiscriminately again, you might consider putting "Wet Floor" signs down – you're liable to cause an accident using them without training. Some of the WQA people seem better behaved than many of the competitive, disdainful and patronising admins on AN/I, as evidenced here where admins attack another editors honest selfless actions, but refuse to put themselves in the firing line, despite ample opportunity. Given that people are normally banned from areas of wiki reactively not proactively, and given that I have volunteered a total of ONE single WQA response, you have no basis on which to even discuss this with certainty, except in bad faith (esp. considering the edit summaries aimed at me). The suggestion, which actually bears no relevance to this AN/I topic as the WQA came 3 days after it was opened, but whatever I'll humour this questionable side-track, whatever the motive, is that of a form of interaction/WQA topic ban. And per

WP:BANPOL

, there has been no disruptive behaviour there from me as an outside responder to the case dated 28 November 2011, and no warnings have been issued to me relating to that one WQA. Whilst I don't consider this a personal attack as such... rather, a condescending lack of AGF, and prudish admin behaviour. To be honest, I expect my decorum is better than most. So, that's that!

Now — Go 'ave a cuppa! Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 06:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to get involved in a WQA case and at the same time claim that another participant in the case should stop participating there. If I had done that, people would claim I was involved and not neutral in my statement here. Damned if you don, damned if you don't. If you believe that e.g. "To me it sounds like paranoia" is a "patient, helpful and respectful" comment, it only strengthens my believe that you are (at the moment) not an editor who should be involved in handling WQA cases. As for this coming without prior warnings and so on: you have been warned repeatedly for your incivility and personal attacks, so getting involved in the one area where those are least wanted is a logical continuation of this, and doesn't need a new set of warnings and numerous cases.

Fram (talk

) 07:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

There was still nothing to stop you adding to the WQA and discussing your "concerns" on my talkpage. Which, FYI, is what I am referring to when I say I have had no {{

uw-warning}} type notifications. I'm sure you know what I mean though, and I should not have to clarify myself after writing "Gone with the Wind..." up there. "To me it sounds like paranoia" is frank.. just because you don't consider the word "paranoid" as a productive word, doesn't mean everyone doesn't. In fact, your interpretation leaves a lot to be desired. Let us bear in mind I speak native English, and you may not be as familiar in terms of what is "mild" and what is "strong" wording. Now, if I had called him "delusional", which means much the same thing, that would be stronger and more aggressive. Paranoia relates more to social judgements, delusion more to mental instability. I hope that is clear, and you do not think I am patronising you. As for "warned repeatedly", again I beg to differ. Some people have raised concerns, mostly that I appear uncivil at times. As for "personal attacks", there have been no confirmations of such behaviour. As for accusing me of "continuation", that would seem, again, to represent your lack of good faith, and looking down your nose at me. Something I don't take from anyone in this day and age. You either recognise yourself as an equal when you address me, or you don't address me at all. Wiki isn't a place of "class distinction", not do I care who you are, or what your edit history says about you. As far as 1:1 respect between people goes, it should be earned, nor given away or inherited. So once again, I repeat that your critique of my ability to handle WQA is flawed. For your humble information, I have exactly 4 years and 4 months experience working in live customer service for one of the UK's biggest companies. Direct real life communication with people, customers, both resolving complaints and handling difficult and regular people. I think I am probably more aware of my ability than you are, from your limited understanding of the circumstances behind this topic, rather than the unrelated matter of my answering a solitary WQA, which hardly constitutes a career move/ I suggest you adopt a less pessimistic manner regarding my ability, I consider it a personal attack on my integrity rather than my character. You concerns are not justified, because your opinions are merely unsupported guess work, no one can predict the future. Even SPIs need more than that to qualify an IP block. So you certainly do, to qualify your insinuations regarding my work at WQA. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF}

] 08:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

"Further comments in that vein will result in a block.""but WP:NPA applies even when talking about blocked users, and if you do not follow it you will find yourself blocked." User Slatersteven started this section (correctly) with "Has made a number of PA’s against WebHamster". Nev1 in this discussion stated "I'm concerned such comments fall foul of the no personal attacks policy,", Gerardw in this discussion stated "anyone taking exception to those personal attacks". Errant in the WQA discussion stated "Long, immature and wearisome rants are only going to encourage admins to block you." I don't think stating that "As for "warned repeatedly", again I beg to differ. Some people have raised concerns, mostly that I appear uncivil at times." correctly describes the situation. You have been, at different venues and by different people, warned about your comments, the PA nature of some of them, and the block that may be the result of it. "As for "personal attacks", there have been no confirmations of such behaviour.": well then, let this be the confirmation: you have made a number of personal attacks, for which you have been repeatedly warned by different editors, and should do well to stop making them (and other highly uncivil remarks) if you don't want to get blocked.

Fram (talk

) 09:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Took your time digging for dirty socks in my drawers, didn't you? At least I know what level of mentality you operate at now. You either don't want to listen or don't want to understand, so let me make this as clear as 1+1=2 for you, because you're only going to look foolish if you keep using an imperative tone against someone who is not easy to belittle:

You and you alone raised the matter of my WQA involvement. It is a

synthesis

. I suggest you go read about it, and as an editor with 100,000+ contribs, do not do it again! That is a warning from me, regarding you making false accusations, incriminations, bad faith judgements, and personal attacks of your own! If you think your opinion, which has more bull than a Spanish arena, stands for anything, you better take your "WQA ban" proposal through ArbCom.

Your attitude leaves a lot to be desired – in fact, you are ruder on AN/I than I was on WQA. Shirking WQA whilst branding someone else for at least making an effort and getting a result whilst you took a back seat. Inflated egos don't impress me. You may think you're invulnerable and above suspicion, but basing your proposals on synthesis alone proves you're as fallible as any regular editor, perhaps moreso – with 100k+ edits in 6 years, you should know better!

And FYI, I didn't plan to make a regular habit of answering WQA cases. You drew that conclusion based on your own false sense of self-importance too. So that puts a big halt to your logic, period. Logic is based on patterns. One WQA response is not a pattern or trend, and bears no correlation to behaviour on any other area of Wiki. Again, you should know better after 6 years. You introduced a false line of reasoning to this topic. Any ulterior motive? As for your use of the term "highly uncivil", you are the first to use it. Hyperbole. Bringing a WQA response to the forefront of this topic was bold, but lacks credence, except that I suspect your only hope is that Fram-loyal admins will support you unwaveringly, without even considering that you made a mountain of a mole hill. You see, the thing about digging for dirty socks is the more you handle them the quicker you get used to the smell on your hands – a.k.a. power corrupts.

Per

WP:CIVIL

I'm going to suggest you intentionally presented a fork to support your own argument, using synthesised logic all based on a false premis, that is in fact:

2. Other uncivil behaviors

• "(a) taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves"

Go figure! Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 10:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked MarcusBritish for 24 hours for repeated and continuing uncivil behaviour and personal attacks. I don't believe that getting verbal abuse and walls of text from someone after you warn them about their personal attacks against others makes one involved (or it would become very easy to make many admins "involved" and remain unblocked by virtue of that), but if people see this differently, feel free to change the block of course. I have had no prior involvement with MarcusBritish that I am aware of, and have not been a WebHamster defender (having blocked Pink Oboe and his talk page), so I don't think there is any chance that this can realistically be seen as retaliation for his attacks on Webhamster.

) 11:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

For appearances sake it probably wasn't a good idea to do this yourself, given the above. But I doubt anyone else will come to a different conclusion. causa sui (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from, but I have seen too many cases of an admin warning someone for something, getting abuse from the warned editor, and then clailms that that abuse makes the admin involved. I don't think that encouraging this line of thought is productive. Taking any form of admin action against a person (warning, blocking, speedy deleting their articles, ...) doesn't make an admin involved. Anyway, he got reblocked (for longer) by another admin, so it is rather moot now.

Fram (talk

) 08:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it's somewhat drama-reducing for another admin to do it, but it's certainly not involved under policy or precedent here. I see no problem with the block here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

An anonymous user at 174.117.71.185 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was blocked at 02:23, 30 November 2011 for persistent vandalism on a large number of articles (second block). At 15:51, 30 November 2011 an anonymous user at 38.116.202.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) edited Passive voice, adding the same words that 174.117.71.185 had added 13 hours earlier. 38.116.202.13 has likewise been previously blocked, and had been warned a half-dozen or so times in the past two weeks about persistent vandalism. I am not sure if these are the same person – many of the vandalized pages are different, but at least Passive voice is the same. If they are not the same person, 38.116.202.13 must have consulted the page history of Passive voice and known that his/her edits were tantamount to edit warring. 38.116.202.13 last edited more than 10 hours ago, so I am not sure what, if any, action is warranted, but wanted to bring the incident to your notice. Cnilep (talk) 01:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• Well, they have more in common: compare this with this. Will block. Cnilep, if that passive voice nonsense continues, please visit
  WP:RPP and ask for semi-protection. Thanks, Drmies (talk
  ) 02:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Sam Moser acting in contravention of community ban

69.135.200.184 (talk · contribs) posted in one of Sam Moser's old threads, using the same train of illogic (granted to prove the opposite point, but for the same reasons). The IP address is located in Dayton, Ohio; which as can be seen by checking this other IP used by Sam, is where he lives.

Sam Moser was community banned for all kinds of crazy and harassment. Time for a block. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• That seems pretty clear. I've blocked for a week. Let's see if he comes back with his all kinds of crazy. If other admins think that this IP might be static enough to warrant a longer block they are welcome to extend it. One of my buddies lives in Dayton and this might be him; I'm going to tell him he needs to get a job and stop posting nonsense. Thanks Ian, Drmies (talk) 02:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

No, thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Has made a number of PA’s against WebHamster This has resulted in a wikiquete discussion [[96]] in which MarcusBritish has made a number of highly confrontational comments, and sees this as some kind of a battle in which you are either an enemy or a ally [[97]]. He has accused me of saying things I have not said [[98]]. I don’t think the user is generally a problem, but in the subject of WebHamster he has a highly aggressive battlefield mentality.Slatersteven (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So in short, what you're saying is – "if you want a blocked user banned outright, you should be blocked". And you question my mentality? You do realise that I'm more than willing to push this type of reaction through ArbCom and throw your attempt to question my integrity into the firing line, I hope. Wasting you time, trying to make a name for yourself Ste. You stand in middle-ground, making false indications that you support one opinion, then another, but in reality you're luring people. There is nothing here worthy of ANI interest. It took EIGHT years to get Webhamster blocked, and he still has people toadying to his every desire. Where do you thing that puts you, apart from clear as mud sycophancy to ANI, Hell bent of pushing your own POV? Laughable liberal wish-wash. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 19:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I am here because more then one user has said your commeents about webby oversteped the mark, and you response is this attitude.Slatersteven (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't take "the mark" of a BNP supporter as a reliable. You're as petty as it gets. Your motives are not above suspicion. In fact I suspect you're looking for retaliative action because you "can't win" with your unassisting remarks at WQA. Don't know why you bothered in the first place, your entire history there did not have anything to do with the aims of WQA. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 19:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Who's being accused of being a BNP supporter?

Nev1 (talk

) 15:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Political affiliations (which have not been demonstrated in any case) seem tangential to this conversation. I'm concerned such comments fall foul of the

Nev1 (talk

) 17:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Lol, what views? He's not said anything of value that can be discredited – he's simply a general, all-round

storm in a teacup. To be even more to the point, this isn't even his argument, so why he attempted to make it about him is beyond me. Perhaps he was bored. He certainly bores me. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF}

] 18:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not Slatersteven supports the BNP is irrelevant to this discussion, so why you brought it up in the first place is unclear unless you wished to discredit him. And the assertion is unsubstantiated, considering the strong views the party provokes it is unwise to level such accusations.

Nev1 (talk

) 19:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Can I just say; over the last couple of days you two have done basically sod all except argue about this topic... There is a level of maturity in simply walking away from a confrontation and finding something productive to do. No one has to have the last word here. But what we could do is divert this attention into writing some article content. :) --Errant ^(chat!) 19:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

As both times [99] it was in direct reply to a post by me the target is logicaly me.Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Yo, Brains. This.is.not.about.you. You.are.not.the.subject. Stop.trying.to.become.the.center.of.attention. I.do.not.find.you.interesting. Your.desire.for.revenge.is.transparently.obvious. Drop.the.stick. — And use a spell-checker for Pete's sake, they are free, and come in-built in browsers like Firefox. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 18:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec)The issue is not whether the user should be banned, but that it is inappropriate to use terminology such as "prime nut," and "the only good thing that could ever develop in what little brain he does have is a tumour." to advance such a case, and to accuse anyone taking exception to those personal attacks as being in some sort of collusion.

talk

) 19:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

As someone who is supporting Webhamster in overturning a block, which had a ~65% pro-block consensus, the question of your motives, COI, or bias leaves me to conclude that you will say anything to contradict me. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 19:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• I've been on the receiving end of some of Marcus's vitriol, sure. But I don't see the need for administrative action here.

  Now, the above accusation (in response to Gerardw) is really in bad faith, and I'm sure Marcus would say something similar about me: "you don't support a block so you're partial"--which of course works both ways: Marcus supported a block so he's not partial? Come on now. "Liberal wish-wash" is nonsense; Marcus, you'll have to live with the fact that people disagree, and that it's not always for political reasons, and that your argument is self-defeating.

  There's a bit more--besides accusations of partiality, there was some nonsense of 'all of us' Hamster defenders being a club of regulars at Hamster's pub in Manchester or something like that, which isn't just in violation of AGF but also extremely silly. I mean, really--geolocate me, or, if you really don't want to put your money where your mouth is, give me your address and I'll send you a postcard from Alabama.

  Anyway, I don't want to compile a laundry list. I think that Marcus's behavior left a lot to be desired, but I don't want another editor blocked as a result of this mess. I hope Marcus sees that not everyone in the community feels as he does, and that ruffling feathers is not always a good thing. No action please, if Marcus keeps his cool. Or finds it. Drmies (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

A touching example of floccinaucinihilipilification, from Drmies, there. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 00:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't call you unimportant. I'm sure someone loves you. Drmies (talk) 04:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Haha, I'd double-check your definition of flocci— there. I didn't mean me. Rather, the situation itself. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 05:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry: I bow to your vision--"Wiki is currently the "land of the blind" in which I have one eye." Drmies (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

If you actually know what that means, and can apply context, then do so. Otherwise it's just a meaningless quote without any form of interpretation. Nor is it any of your business for the time being. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 15:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps MarcusBritish needs a block for his general behaviour (uncivil, NPAs) over the last days. But more urgently, I don't think he is the right person to be adressing WQA discussions, see

) 10:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of time for WQA but his posts there are clearly unsuitable given the rationale behind it's existence - likely to inflame rather than solve any problems. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above two points; whether or not MarcusBritish is to be blocked (probably not) is of secondary concern to his involvement at

WP:WQA. Reviewing this situation, and his performance over there, WQA requires a bit more diplomacy and tact than MarcusBritish seems to wish to use. It would be best if he found other places at Wikipedia to use his skills, because that arena is clearly not well suited to his style of interacting with others. --Jayron32

00:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The instigator wasn't interested in diplomacy, nor was it a matter of etiquette in reality. It was over-spill from an SPI and the editor was seeking to advocate support with regards that his accusations of being "stalked" were feasible. Another editor supported my findings and requested closure of the WQA. I suspect the two editors will be here, on AN/I before long anyway.. neither wants to drop the stick, with one accusing the other of being a sock, the other accusing of stalking; behaviour which he has carried to no less than 5 editors talk pages and rattled a few cages in the 26 days since he registered. I, modestly, think I handled the situation well considering that the editor was never going to be interested unless someone who believed every word he said and was willing to block the edited he was accusing, showed up. It was a matter of expressing concern for his behaviour. Another editor expressed the same concern. I did my "voluntary" job, whilst none of you now complaining about how I handled my first WQA lifted a finger to offer any assistance. To be frank, the previous WQA aimed at me was far less productive, and editor Slatersteven who argued with me there did not attempt to resolve anything, he just argued. Whereas I achieved a result to the satisfaction of several people. Before you employ double-standards, I suggest you take that fact into account.

WQA reads "The goal is to help all parties in a situation come to a mutually agreeable resolution." Another fact, is that the opening editor did not even inform his opponent of the discussion, so there was no aim for a mutual resolution on his part, his comments were aimed at reporting his opponent and discrediting him with SPIs dating back nearly 3-years, which I rejected as being somewhat uncivil, and the discussion whilst it started amicably, broke down upon his realisation that myself and another editor did not agree with his conclusions, or accusations against anyone. The editor he accused was invited, by myself, to present his story, and I gave a neutral conclusion after looking at the diffs and comments offered. WQA isn't a Samaritan Hotline, nor is it AN/I, and the two editors were advised to keep their distance or use AN if they had a solid reason to. There was, in my judgement, no other outcome or better way of handling the matter, except with a firm hand. It was a fast moving WQA, as the opening editor was unwilling to take time to present information to give us a clearer perspective of the harassment he claimed to receive – I hunted for a while and found nothing to support his claims. So based on what was presented – old news – the matter was closed, by a third editor, following agreement between myself, and the two involved editors that there was no further course of action at WQA – they didn't want to make up, they didn't want to back down from their opposing claims.

Like I've said, if any of you feel that could have done any better, you could have chimed in - the first two of you commented 7 hours before the case was even closed, so there is no excuse for only spectating if, as responsible/"skilled" admins, you feel that I was mishandling the matter – a personal opinion that is a load of nonsense with no merit whatsoever. In short, these illogical comments leave little to be appreciated. An admin who calls for a block, when they didn't lift a finger to partake in a WQA which lasted from 06:06, 28 November 2011 until 17:30, 28 November 2011 – 11.5 hours – should be blocking themselves, for being unable to justify their own lack of action, whilst attacking someone else for bothering. There is no

block rationale

can be brought to bear here, because there isn't even a case – my first WQA (as an outsider) was handled without any disruption, as "patiently, helpfully, and not disrespectfully" as possible – contrary to the supposition and near-miss attack implied above – and a trivial uncivil reaction from the WQA opener, which is no skin off my nose, and case closed.

Before some of you start waving your mops about indiscriminately again, you might consider putting "Wet Floor" signs down – you're liable to cause an accident using them without training. Some of the WQA people seem better behaved than many of the competitive, disdainful and patronising admins on AN/I, as evidenced here where admins attack another editors honest selfless actions, but refuse to put themselves in the firing line, despite ample opportunity. Given that people are normally banned from areas of wiki reactively not proactively, and given that I have volunteered a total of ONE single WQA response, you have no basis on which to even discuss this with certainty, except in bad faith (esp. considering the edit summaries aimed at me). The suggestion, which actually bears no relevance to this AN/I topic as the WQA came 3 days after it was opened, but whatever I'll humour this questionable side-track, whatever the motive, is that of a form of interaction/WQA topic ban. And per

WP:BANPOL

, there has been no disruptive behaviour there from me as an outside responder to the case dated 28 November 2011, and no warnings have been issued to me relating to that one WQA. Whilst I don't consider this a personal attack as such... rather, a condescending lack of AGF, and prudish admin behaviour. To be honest, I expect my decorum is better than most. So, that's that!

Now — Go 'ave a cuppa! Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 06:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to get involved in a WQA case and at the same time claim that another participant in the case should stop participating there. If I had done that, people would claim I was involved and not neutral in my statement here. Damned if you don, damned if you don't. If you believe that e.g. "To me it sounds like paranoia" is a "patient, helpful and respectful" comment, it only strengthens my believe that you are (at the moment) not an editor who should be involved in handling WQA cases. As for this coming without prior warnings and so on: you have been warned repeatedly for your incivility and personal attacks, so getting involved in the one area where those are least wanted is a logical continuation of this, and doesn't need a new set of warnings and numerous cases.

Fram (talk

) 07:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

There was still nothing to stop you adding to the WQA and discussing your "concerns" on my talkpage. Which, FYI, is what I am referring to when I say I have had no {{

uw-warning}} type notifications. I'm sure you know what I mean though, and I should not have to clarify myself after writing "Gone with the Wind..." up there. "To me it sounds like paranoia" is frank.. just because you don't consider the word "paranoid" as a productive word, doesn't mean everyone doesn't. In fact, your interpretation leaves a lot to be desired. Let us bear in mind I speak native English, and you may not be as familiar in terms of what is "mild" and what is "strong" wording. Now, if I had called him "delusional", which means much the same thing, that would be stronger and more aggressive. Paranoia relates more to social judgements, delusion more to mental instability. I hope that is clear, and you do not think I am patronising you. As for "warned repeatedly", again I beg to differ. Some people have raised concerns, mostly that I appear uncivil at times. As for "personal attacks", there have been no confirmations of such behaviour. As for accusing me of "continuation", that would seem, again, to represent your lack of good faith, and looking down your nose at me. Something I don't take from anyone in this day and age. You either recognise yourself as an equal when you address me, or you don't address me at all. Wiki isn't a place of "class distinction", not do I care who you are, or what your edit history says about you. As far as 1:1 respect between people goes, it should be earned, nor given away or inherited. So once again, I repeat that your critique of my ability to handle WQA is flawed. For your humble information, I have exactly 4 years and 4 months experience working in live customer service for one of the UK's biggest companies. Direct real life communication with people, customers, both resolving complaints and handling difficult and regular people. I think I am probably more aware of my ability than you are, from your limited understanding of the circumstances behind this topic, rather than the unrelated matter of my answering a solitary WQA, which hardly constitutes a career move/ I suggest you adopt a less pessimistic manner regarding my ability, I consider it a personal attack on my integrity rather than my character. You concerns are not justified, because your opinions are merely unsupported guess work, no one can predict the future. Even SPIs need more than that to qualify an IP block. So you certainly do, to qualify your insinuations regarding my work at WQA. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF}

] 08:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

"Further comments in that vein will result in a block.""but WP:NPA applies even when talking about blocked users, and if you do not follow it you will find yourself blocked." User Slatersteven started this section (correctly) with "Has made a number of PA’s against WebHamster". Nev1 in this discussion stated "I'm concerned such comments fall foul of the no personal attacks policy,", Gerardw in this discussion stated "anyone taking exception to those personal attacks". Errant in the WQA discussion stated "Long, immature and wearisome rants are only going to encourage admins to block you." I don't think stating that "As for "warned repeatedly", again I beg to differ. Some people have raised concerns, mostly that I appear uncivil at times." correctly describes the situation. You have been, at different venues and by different people, warned about your comments, the PA nature of some of them, and the block that may be the result of it. "As for "personal attacks", there have been no confirmations of such behaviour.": well then, let this be the confirmation: you have made a number of personal attacks, for which you have been repeatedly warned by different editors, and should do well to stop making them (and other highly uncivil remarks) if you don't want to get blocked.

Fram (talk

) 09:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Took your time digging for dirty socks in my drawers, didn't you? At least I know what level of mentality you operate at now. You either don't want to listen or don't want to understand, so let me make this as clear as 1+1=2 for you, because you're only going to look foolish if you keep using an imperative tone against someone who is not easy to belittle:

You and you alone raised the matter of my WQA involvement. It is a

synthesis

. I suggest you go read about it, and as an editor with 100,000+ contribs, do not do it again! That is a warning from me, regarding you making false accusations, incriminations, bad faith judgements, and personal attacks of your own! If you think your opinion, which has more bull than a Spanish arena, stands for anything, you better take your "WQA ban" proposal through ArbCom.

Your attitude leaves a lot to be desired – in fact, you are ruder on AN/I than I was on WQA. Shirking WQA whilst branding someone else for at least making an effort and getting a result whilst you took a back seat. Inflated egos don't impress me. You may think you're invulnerable and above suspicion, but basing your proposals on synthesis alone proves you're as fallible as any regular editor, perhaps moreso – with 100k+ edits in 6 years, you should know better!

And FYI, I didn't plan to make a regular habit of answering WQA cases. You drew that conclusion based on your own false sense of self-importance too. So that puts a big halt to your logic, period. Logic is based on patterns. One WQA response is not a pattern or trend, and bears no correlation to behaviour on any other area of Wiki. Again, you should know better after 6 years. You introduced a false line of reasoning to this topic. Any ulterior motive? As for your use of the term "highly uncivil", you are the first to use it. Hyperbole. Bringing a WQA response to the forefront of this topic was bold, but lacks credence, except that I suspect your only hope is that Fram-loyal admins will support you unwaveringly, without even considering that you made a mountain of a mole hill. You see, the thing about digging for dirty socks is the more you handle them the quicker you get used to the smell on your hands – a.k.a. power corrupts.

Per

WP:CIVIL

I'm going to suggest you intentionally presented a fork to support your own argument, using synthesised logic all based on a false premis, that is in fact:

2. Other uncivil behaviors

• "(a) taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves"

Go figure! Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 10:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked MarcusBritish for 24 hours for repeated and continuing uncivil behaviour and personal attacks. I don't believe that getting verbal abuse and walls of text from someone after you warn them about their personal attacks against others makes one involved (or it would become very easy to make many admins "involved" and remain unblocked by virtue of that), but if people see this differently, feel free to change the block of course. I have had no prior involvement with MarcusBritish that I am aware of, and have not been a WebHamster defender (having blocked Pink Oboe and his talk page), so I don't think there is any chance that this can realistically be seen as retaliation for his attacks on Webhamster.

) 11:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

For appearances sake it probably wasn't a good idea to do this yourself, given the above. But I doubt anyone else will come to a different conclusion. causa sui (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from, but I have seen too many cases of an admin warning someone for something, getting abuse from the warned editor, and then clailms that that abuse makes the admin involved. I don't think that encouraging this line of thought is productive. Taking any form of admin action against a person (warning, blocking, speedy deleting their articles, ...) doesn't make an admin involved. Anyway, he got reblocked (for longer) by another admin, so it is rather moot now.

Fram (talk

) 08:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it's somewhat drama-reducing for another admin to do it, but it's certainly not involved under policy or precedent here. I see no problem with the block here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

An anonymous user at 174.117.71.185 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was blocked at 02:23, 30 November 2011 for persistent vandalism on a large number of articles (second block). At 15:51, 30 November 2011 an anonymous user at 38.116.202.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) edited Passive voice, adding the same words that 174.117.71.185 had added 13 hours earlier. 38.116.202.13 has likewise been previously blocked, and had been warned a half-dozen or so times in the past two weeks about persistent vandalism. I am not sure if these are the same person – many of the vandalized pages are different, but at least Passive voice is the same. If they are not the same person, 38.116.202.13 must have consulted the page history of Passive voice and known that his/her edits were tantamount to edit warring. 38.116.202.13 last edited more than 10 hours ago, so I am not sure what, if any, action is warranted, but wanted to bring the incident to your notice. Cnilep (talk) 01:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• Well, they have more in common: compare this with this. Will block. Cnilep, if that passive voice nonsense continues, please visit
  WP:RPP and ask for semi-protection. Thanks, Drmies (talk
  ) 02:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Sam Moser acting in contravention of community ban

69.135.200.184 (talk · contribs) posted in one of Sam Moser's old threads, using the same train of illogic (granted to prove the opposite point, but for the same reasons). The IP address is located in Dayton, Ohio; which as can be seen by checking this other IP used by Sam, is where he lives.

Sam Moser was community banned for all kinds of crazy and harassment. Time for a block. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• That seems pretty clear. I've blocked for a week. Let's see if he comes back with his all kinds of crazy. If other admins think that this IP might be static enough to warrant a longer block they are welcome to extend it. One of my buddies lives in Dayton and this might be him; I'm going to tell him he needs to get a job and stop posting nonsense. Thanks Ian, Drmies (talk) 02:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

No, thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Davshul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly, massively vandalised 2011 in the United States and other 2011 in "other country" articles.

I have pointed out on several occassions, to no useful end, that all these articles are part of the parent 2011 (a well-policed article), and that the change he keeps making needs to be cleared there first in the talk section, Talk:2011. Instead he has gone to the talk section for the actual article, Talk:2011 in the United States with useless discussion that he knows in bad faith that no one but me will ever read since the discussion there is poorly read, and most likely, completely never read.

As per Wikipedia:Recent years#Article body - individual dates are linked.--70.162.171.210 (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you aware that it is also bad faith editing to claim someone else is editing in bad faith? Leaving headings like "notification of bad faith edits discussion" on the user's talk page doesn't help either. No comment on the actual dispute, just an FYI.--v/r - TP 17:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

what are you talking about?, the posting mechanism here said i was supposed to notify him--70.162.171.210 (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and generally that is done with a heading that says "AN/I Discussion". That isn't a free license to accuse someone of bad faith.--v/r - TP 17:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

i have changed it--70.162.171.210 (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

@70.162.171.210: I see nothing in the history of this dispute except your repeated characterization of Davshul's work as "vandalism" or "bad faith" or "disruptive". I don't see where any of his work is any of that. What you should do, rather than calling his editing what it is not, is to instead seek discussion on the article talk pages. If you believe that the discussion does not have enough participation from neutral parties, then see

WP:DRN) to get extra attention. Using perjorative terms to describe someone's editing doesn't help you "win", it merely makes you look like a bully and is unlikely to result in a positive outcome for you. Instead, speak to and about others in non-confrontational terms, use existing mechanisms for dispute resolution, and have the patience to understand that disputes may not be resolved instantly; it may take some days for enough people to comment to allow for a reasonable consensus to arise. --Jayron32

17:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Davshul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has finally in good faith attempted to justify his vandalism of year in country articles in an appropriate location (not just some talk page that no one ever reads), why he did not see fit to write anything here is beyond me to explain towards "his good faith", his comments are on this talk page Wikipedia talk:Recent years#Date linkage in subpages.--70.162.171.210 (talk) 04:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, let me make this clearer. Don't call his edits vandalism. Continuing to do so is unlikely to go well for you. Which is not to say that his edits are necessarily going to be best for Wikipedia. But if you keep calling his edits vandalism, it just makes you look bad, and thus you'll end up making your position in this dispute look bad. If you genuininly believe you are correct, stop using the word vandalism, because it is clear that you don't know what it means. I am quite interested in seeing the right thing get done here, and if your position in this dispute is "the right thing", I will be quite upset if you screw that up by calling his edits vandalism if they are not. I have not idea which side of the dispute is "right", but as so often happens, the "right" position gets clouded by "wrong" behavior. Calling vandalism things which are not vandalism is a bad idea. Instead, convince people you are correct. --Jayron32 04:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Supporting what Jayron32 is saying here. Vandalism is when a user makes a change with the sole intention of messing up the project, usually for their own entertainment. This is vandalism. If there is a chance that the user is trying to improve the project, you should assume good faith and discuss your disagreement with them, like this: "I noticed you were making edits to 2011 in the United States and other articles. I disagree with these edits. Could you explain their purpose?" Dcoetzee 05:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

i have been informed that the word "vandal" is too harsh --- i will withdraw it but not anything else said.--70.162.171.210 (talk) 06:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

70.162, I invite you to read our article on vandalism,

WP:VANDAL, so you know what we at Wikipedia mean by the word "vandalism". It's not that the word is "harsh" (which quite frankly smacks of you saying we're too delicate for The Truth), it's that it's the wrong word. It's inaccurate. There is no requirement for an editor to discuss his edits to an article at some special centralized talk page, and expecting an editor to do so in advance - and calling his edits "vandalism" when he doesn't defer to your wishes - is unproductive and disruptive. (Note: as the editor is an Israeli-based Jew and the Sabbath has just begun, it might be best to timestamp this (I don't know how) to give him time to respond after the Sabbath ends.) --NellieBly (talk

) 06:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Archiving blocked for 5 days. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the anon is correct as to the guidelines. Although there are errors in

WP:LINKING, the RfC authorizing the change in the guidelines specifically exempted timeline articles. It's not vandalism, but it is unhelpful and distruptive. — Arthur Rubin (talk)

07:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Quite possibly true: However, the way to be right is not to accuse people of things: It is to engage them in conversation, convince them you are correct, and if you cannot do that, then bring in neutral parties to evaluate the dispute. Accusing people of things that they did not do makes you lose. If you lose, and your position was the correct one, then Wikipedia loses. That's why you should not behave that way, ever. --Jayron32 19:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

my method may have been wrong but i have been trying to finger in the dike against the flood i knew would come --- if only i had been listened to at the begining the massive list below would now not exist ---

User:Davshul has made changes to all these articles:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1969_in_Argentina&diff=prev&oldid=461606429
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_in_India&diff=prev&oldid=461609054
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_in_the_European_Union&diff=prev&oldid=461611386
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012_in_Canada&diff=prev&oldid=461639619
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2010_in_France&diff=prev&oldid=461643558
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_in_France&diff=prev&oldid=461646189
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_in_Ireland&diff=prev&oldid=461930100
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_in_Northern_Ireland&diff=prev&oldid=461930248
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_in_Germany&diff=prev&oldid=461554952
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_in_Romania&diff=prev&oldid=461604489
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_in_Argentina&diff=prev&oldid=461605345
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_in_Canada&diff=prev&oldid=461504010
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_in_Canada&diff=prev&oldid=461504240
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_in_Canada&diff=prev&oldid=461506025
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2010_in_South_Korea&diff=prev&oldid=461554109
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_in_South_Korea&diff=prev&oldid=461554262

--70.162.171.210 (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I have the following comments.

• First, may I commend and thank NellieBly for her/his observation and suggestion (and thank The Bushranger for the his/her response) postponing the archiving of this topic to enable me to see the latest comments and respond.
• I had not participated initially to this discussion, since following the comment of Jayron on November 22 (in which he/she pointed out, in no uncertain terms, that my edits were neither "vandalism", "bad faith" nor "disruptive", and that anonymous user (Anon) who initiated this discussion was giving every appearance as a bully and that, if he felt that my edits were incorrect, there were various mechanism open to him, but this was not one of them), I had nothing further to add and believed the matter to be at an end.
• The edits made by me on were supported by three other users on
  Wikipedia:Three-revert rule#The three-revert rule
  , four of such reversions taking place within a single hour on November 20. Furthermore, none of the edit summaries gave any indication to discuss the matter, and appeared to be based upon Anon's believe that only a regular editor of the page was entitled to edit it (such as "cool that you suddendly (sic) show up here having never contributed to this article and make wholesale changes to it -REVERTED"- "let the war begin - thou i think that any admin you get to look at it will see you as a vandal", etc.). The fact that Anon was even allegedly relying on any guidelines was only mentioned for the first time as an edit summary to his reversion of November 21, over 16 hours after he had commenced his reversions.
• I still believe that the guidelines quoted by Anon do not extend to the Year in Country series. However, although the various edits made by me were still in place, and there appeared to be no outstanding challenges, I opened up a second discussion on the issue, on Wikipedia talk:Recent years, (as the initial discussion, also initiated by me, on Talk:2011 in the United States, was alleged by Amnon, as stated above, to be "useless discussion that [I] knows in bad faith that no one but [him] will ever read..". Amnon responded to the new discussion with another wave of accusation of vandalism.
• The discussion, both here and on the various Discussion pages, has now been joined by
  WP:LINKING, the RfC authorizing the change in the guidelines specifically exempted timeline". I do not consider that this is the place to discuss whether or not the dates in question should be links. However, I find it hard to believe that had the guidelines intended to initiate a change in the format of hundreds, or more probably thousands, of articles (there are alone currently 236 in the Year in the United States series and 313 in the Year in Canada series), would require users to rely on an extended interpretation of the guidelines or upon some historic RfC (which I have not been able to locate). The first line of the guidelines specifically states that it applies to "year articles (e.g. 2009, 2010
  )", there is no mention of it applying to sub-articles and indeed much of the guidelines has no application to such sub-article.
• I have now been editing on Wikipedia for some years, having created many articles (including a number in the Year in Country series) and have at all times endeavored to comply with Wiki guidelines. I would add that I have also put in a great deal of effort in order the ensue that articles are presented in an organized and consistent format and, in this respect cannot see why, say, the 237th article in a series should be presented in a different format to the 236 earlier articles, without, at least, some comment on the Discussion page or even in an edit summary. However, I was and am, as clearly demonstrated by me, willing to discuss this matter in an organized manner.
• One point that I find somewhat alarming and surprising is that Arthur Rubin, who appears to be an experienced editor, should have chosen yesterday unilaterally to revert my edits in 2011 in the United States whilst the whole issue is under discussion in several forums.

There are a number of further points that I had intended to make, but unfortunately this response is already longer that I had anticipated it would be and, unfortunately, I have a number of commitments, apart from Wikipedia, that take up my time, including th eneed to earn a living. Davshul (talk) 16:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You apparently weren't involved in the massive rewrite of

WP:LINKING#Chronological items; if you were, you would probably have noticed that the the guideline exempted "intrinsically chronological articles", and there is no discussion as to whether "year in country" articles are "intrinsically chronological". I cannot see any rational interpretation in which they are not. If the guideline doesn't apply, then you're left with consensus on the article, which, at least in 2011 in the United States, is clearly in favor of linking. I cannot agree with the anon that you are a vandal; but I can agree that you are disruptive; I suggest you revert all the unlinking edits you've made against custom in "year in country" articles; or, at least, do that before doing any other unlinking. I find it difficult for any any of the bots and macros that I have access to relink only the appropriate links, so it may be necessary to revert to before your edit, thereby losing potentially valuable information. — Arthur Rubin (talk)

20:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

since you already did some of the revert work Arthur then now you can see why i was aggressive from the begining

1-the guy who made all the those massive changes - will he revert the work - of course he wont - so it is left to others to do the mind numbing effort of syntax changes
2-does the guy care that others will have to now hunt down all those same massive syntax changes - it appears not --70.162.171.210 (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• I note that
  WP:LINKING#Chronological items, which exempted "intrinsically chronological articles" from the general guidelines against linking. These guidelines, on at least two occasions, give clear examples of what is meant by this expression, stating "Intrinsically chronological articles (1789, January, and 1940s) may themselves contain linked chronological items." Note: no reference to subpages and what all these intrinsically chronological articles have in common is that they are all part of a series in which all other pages in the series contain such linkage. This is not so in the case of the Year in Country series, which do not full within the definition of intrinsically chronological articles and where earlier years are not linked. I note that, as a second line attack, Arthur Rubin now brings up the issue of consensus. I must admit that I had not considered the question of a small group of users reaching a consensus not to apply guidelines. However, as the general guidelines are not to link, there should therefore have been a discussion and consensus before the linkage look place in the first place, which there was not, and any such discussion should take into account that all earlier articles in the series were unlinked. If there is no consensus, then the default is not to link. The mere fact that my edits on 2011 in the United States were immediately supported by at least three other users must indicate that there is no consensus to link. Although I may have been hasty in not giving some notice on the Discussion page of my intention to make these changes, I believed, and still believe, that I was applying Wiki guideline. I would add that of the 36 pages currently listed in 2011 in Year in Country series, 25 appear never to have had linked dates, and which certainly does not show any consensus to linkage. Furthermore, as regards the edits made by me, in several instances, the pages included both linked and unlinked dates, and my edits brought consistency to the pages in question. Davshul (talk
  ) 13:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Contrary to the anon's assertion, "subpage" is not the relevant criterion. It's "intrinsically chronological articles". Are you willing to argue that
  November 1998 (generally deprecated, but new articles are still being created); 20th century; and 3rd millennium. I don't see why 2011 in the United States would not also fall in the category. As I pointed out in one of the other threads, years before 1990 or so have been unlinked, contrary to the guidelines, by an ambitious bot or bot operator. That doesn't mean that the dates shouldn't be restored. I haven't checked the history of all of the yyyy in the United States articles, but if mostly unlinked after 2009, consensus, rather than the frequently misinterpreted guideline, should be the primary factor in whether the links should be included. — Arthur Rubin (talk)
  15:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Unless I am very much mistaken this topic is currently subject of discussion at

WP:MOSNUM, so really it should not be used as an argument here. Rich Farmbrough

, 22:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC).

I would congratulate

land grab'. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame!

02:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Ohconfucius for your words of support. After so much abuse and bullying for taking steps, in accordance with Wiki guidelines, to improve the presentation of articles, cut out unnecessary linking and create consistency in presentaion, you have restored by faith in Wikipedians. Davshul (talk) 08:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

@Ohconfucius. I think the example list is disingenuous; November probably shouldn't be there, and November 30 is conspicuous by its absence. In any case, it may be rewritten to include at least some "year in country" articles.;

@Davshul: Your (collective) efforts do not create "consistency in presentation", even if that is the intent. There are always exceptions, and, although we can disagree as to where the boundaries should be, no rational person would ever expect Wikipedia to be without exceptions in any guideline. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

How well do we tolerate outright lies on a User page? I am specifically referring to

) 06:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Meh. Seriously? One person's outright lie is another persons obvious joke. Who cares? This is not anything worth getting one's panties in a bind over. If it bothers you, ask them on their talk page to take it down. But if they don't, so what? Do you seriously think that anyone who happened to read that userpage would be duped by it into believing that person actually WAS a vice president of "miccrosoft" [sic]? Let this one go, there are bigger fish to fry... --Jayron32 06:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised that anyone of that demographic would want to pretend to be a vice-president of Microsoft. Not cool, dude. --NellieBly (talk) 06:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It's never been the best name for a company. I'm surprised any man would want to be associated with anything that was either micro or soft, and especially not both at the same time. Makes it difficult to score with the ladies... --Jayron32 07:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Must be true. How else could their products be explained? LeadSongDog come howl! 14:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed - see

Ravensfire (talk

) 15:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Or this Bob. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• Objectivist (talk · contribs) aka "V"
• Notified [100]

A month and a half ago,

.

Objectivist responded by trolling the RFC itself, first in his statement antagonizing NYyankees51 for being too thin-skinned to stand up to the "Truth" that Objectivist was sharing with him and the rest of us. A review of his contributions suggests this stirring the pot technique is standard, as he has met prior attempts to halt off-topic and irrelevant discussion at Talk:Abortion with accusations of cowardice and censorship of the "Truth" with the following indignant rant:

In discussions it is far worse to shut someone up by deleting what they say, than to shut someone up by proving what they do say isn't worth saying. The former is an act of cowardice, practiced by book-burners throughout history, who were afraid that a differing opinion would result in less control over other people. Truth always hurts liars and the deluded, but only those groups. Honorable people have nothing to fear from Truth. If you believe that a "pro-life" stand incorporates more Truth than a pro-abortion-rights stand, then you should be able to back it up in a Debate. If you can't back it up, then your so-called "truths" aren't necessarily what you think they are --that's a real Truth. You've thrown down the gauntlet by, apparently, not wanting others to see my willingness to directly Debate any "pro-lifer" into a kind of speechlessness on that topic (because just about anything you say can be used against you). Do you have the integrity to follow through? We shall see! V (talk) 2:07 am, 23 July 2011, Saturday (UTC−7)

I posted a statement to the RFC here describing Objectivist's behavior as patent trolling for adversarial debate, reminding him that talk pages (and ultimately, all pages outside the article namespace) are for coordinating efforts toward improving the encyclopedia, and asking him to limit his use of Wikipedia to means that serve that end. Several other editors weighed in.

Objectivist has since drawn Blackmane (talk · contribs) into a disruptive meta-debate at the RFC itself, ironically about whether his battlegrounding behavior is truly disruptive. Meanwhile, he shared on Talk:Cold fusion his opinions about what counts as a confirmation of cold fusion and what avenues researchers should be pursuing [103]. Yesterday, he posted a long statement on Talk:Conservatism in the United States proposing that a new section be added that incorporates novel arguments drawing a bizarre analogy between developmental psychology and conservative politics. He compares conservatives who support or enable industrial pollution to children whose parents failed to teach them to clean up their messes, and suggests the comparison should be made in the article. [104]. He then made the proposed changes immediately thereafter, posting a short and highly rhetorical POV essay to the article [105], but was reverted by NatGertler (talk · contribs) [106].

Evidently the RFC/U failed to reform his disruptive behavior, which has continued unabated since 2008. I'm inclined to indefinitely block him to prevent further disruption. causa sui (talk) 20:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I will object to having the [above] described as a "rant" of any sort. Look up the definition; the tone of the following is far more calm than vitriolic/ranting. Thus part of the problem here is that while the case has some truth to it, it also is overstated. V (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I should mention that the abortion-debate stuff served the purpose I had in mind for it, which was to enable the rapid gathering of a lot of Original Research arguments into one place. As such they are currently not useable in the encyclopedia, but in the long-term future, others will see them, and note the most-extremely-important fact that they are not copyrighted because they exist in the context of Wikipedia. Which means eventually they could be published in reliable sources, and no longer be disqualified per

WP:OR.... Therefore there is no incentive for me to do more with the topic of abortion until such sources for those arguments become available. If Wikipedia editors/admins only focus on the short term, then they only see the debate, and not the point. V (talk

) 02:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have described the long-term benefit/goal, for Wikipedia, of having an abortion debate? But then the debate would have been about that, instead of about abortion. V (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

My, my, note all the descriptions that overstate the case. "RFC" stands for "requests for comment", and if any comment disputes another, then the essence of a debate begins to exist. Do you expect anyone to believe that all comments in any RFC page should follow the party line of whoever started that page? So, to label part of the content of the particular RFC being discussed here as a "disruptive meta-debate" is to overstate the case.

Next, when does logic become opinion? It is a fact, not opinion, that the cold fusion debate in Science has two main components to it. The first component is the claim that certain experiments yield too much energy to be explained outside of nuclear processes. The second component involves the type of nuclear process. Logically, if the first claim is false, then the second component of the overall cold fusion debate is irrelevant. Therefore it is most logical, not mere opinion, that CF researchers should strive to prove (if it can be done) that, indeed, certain experiments can yield too much energy to be explained outside of nuclear processes. And, therefore, the quality of my remark to that effect, on the CF talk page, is being distorted here, from logic to opinion, as in "overstating the case".

Next, regarding "Conservatism in the United States": The time stamp of my proposal, on the talk page is 18:12, 27 November, and the time stamp of my edit to the main article was 23:46, 27 November --more than 5 hours later. That hardly qualifies as "immediately thereafter" --but then, as I am continuing to point out here, the case against me is being deliberately overstated. Even the actual text I wrote is being distorted here, to help overstate the case. I wrote "... do Conservatives teach their children to clean up the messes they make? Assuming they do, then why, as adults, have Conservatives who run polluting industries been so unwilling to clean up the messes they make?" --and I am accused of "compar[ing] conservatives who support or enable industrial pollution to children whose parents failed to teach them to clean up their messes". Tell, me, exactly how is "Assuming they do" equal to "failed to teach"??? Not to mention that I know full well that many arguments provided by Conservatives, supporting industrial pollution, involve "money". Therefore I also wrote on the talk page: 'The evidence suggests that "naked greed" is a major factor of Conservatism in America, yet the word "greed" isn't in the article even once! But then, greed is an Imperfection, see?' I was trying to show how greed logically belonged in an "Imperfections" section of the main article.

Next, regarding "posting a short and highly rhetorical POV essay to the article", I had intended to write much more --including sources-- but got interrupted by other commitments. Note that for me the process of writing for Wikipedia usually goes (1) write some clean text, and then (2) make sure you have sources that support it, because doing it the other way around increases the risk of posting copyrighted material. I ran out of time while looking for sources. So I did not dispute the reversion, and even posted an apology on the talk page (which makes the first part of the next paragraph below an outright lie). Next time I will write the entire thing off-line, making sure that every appropriate sentence is sourced, so that I don't get caught short again, during the posting of it to Wikipedia. V (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I figured this would make its way to AN/I from RfC/U eventually. Objectivist seems to have a misunderstanding of the point of Wikipedia, what an encyclopedia is, and what talk pages are for. Since the RfC/U didn't paint the picture any clearer for him/her, I would support an indef block until the user agrees to tone it down and to take a mentor with whom he'd have to get approval before posting to talk pages. N^oformation ^Talk 21:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I had hoped that the rather extended debate would have opened his eyes as to what he needed to reform with even some friendly suggestions. Also ironically my linking to

WP:IDHT ultimately proved prophetic. I would have to agree to a block of some sort. --Blackmane (talk

) 22:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

In his comments above, Objectivist has blatantly stated his purpose: to use Wikipedia to bootstrap his OR views into being published by a reliable source, so that he can then "legitimately" insert them into articles using citations from those RS's. That is a flagrant misuse of Wikipedia for his own POV purposes. For this alone, he deserves to be indef blocked, to prevent any further damage to the project. This is not a person who is here to add NPOV material to articles and improve the encyclopedia, and is not someone we need to have around, disrupting things for their own political purposed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

served the purpose I had in mind for it, which was to enable the rapid gathering of a lot of Original Research arguments into one place. As such they are currently not useable in the encyclopedia, but in the long-term future, others will see them, and note the most-extremely-important fact that they are not copyrighted because they exist in the context of Wikipedia. Which means eventually they could be published in reliable sources, and no longer be disqualified per WP:OR -

WP:NOTHERE. Indef, now. (I'd do it myself but I'm just about to go to bed and don't want to "block and run".)- The Bushranger _{One ping only}

07:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Also support an indefinite block/ban/whatever. Also, per Bushranger, I'd do it myself excepting it is past my bedtime too. But I don't think, based on the above cited comments, that this person has any business editing Wikipedia anymore, per

WP:POINT, etc. --Jayron32

07:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I blatantly stated here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Objectivist/Abortion_Debate ) that I was conducting an experiment. If you-all are so dead-set against such experimentation, then I can certainly promise to not do it again --and follow-through on that promise. After all, it is the only such experiment I've conducted in all my years here, which makes it an easy promise to keep. Meanwhile, I hope you are aware that just because something seems like Original Research, it isn't actually always so. Someone somewhere could have published it in a reliable source, before the Internet Age, and which simply hasn't been uploaded yet. Not being able to find it in an internet search doesn't mean it doesn't exist. For example, with respect to that taught-to-clean-up-their-messes stuff above, and children who become political conservatives operating polluting industries, I find it very hard to believe that nobody else has ever made that connection (and polluting industries have been around lots longer than the Internet). But I haven't found a reliable source for it yet.... V (talk) 10:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention,

gaming the system. Your comment above mine tells me that our rather tangential debate on your RFC has not made it any clearer what you are doing wrong here on Wiki and I would support an indef block on you. In fact, wasn't there a recent case of someone experimenting on Wiki for some obscure psychological study who wound up being indef blocked? --Blackmane (talk

) 12:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely. Thanks all. causa sui (talk) 17:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • This outcome seemed unavoidable after the torrent of
    WP:IDHT from User:Objectivist who still signs as "V". ASCIIn2Bme (talk
    ) 16:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Also, his belated attempt to actually edit an article was quickly reverted as basically just adding
    WP:OR to it. See Talk:Conservatism in the United States#Imperfections. ASCIIn2Bme (talk
    ) 17:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Requests for Page Protection

Is anyone able to take a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection? There appears to be a bit of a backlog. I have been trying to keep an eye on Jeremy Clarkson, and get it temporarily protected as there has been a bit of a backlash of IP vandalism after his controversial comments on television yesterday, but no one appears available to action/review. Thanks, _Will^Dow (Talk) 15:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

).

• He has previously been blocked for various personal attacks, including refering to good faith edits as vandalism (in that case, while reversing WP:BRD after I explained it to him elsewhere) and calling Dougweller an antisemite.
• Here he suggests that a 1938 occultist source is an appropriate source for to suggest that historians think that the
  Great Serpent Mound in Ohio is connected to the unrelated deities Kneph (more on that later) and Ahura Mazda
  , and unspecified "Japanese and Indian traditions."
• Even after his previous block, he shows contempt for anyone not supporting his edits, and makes up imaginary editors to support him.

The few good edits he's made (like this), do not begin to outway the amount of following after he is going to require, as he does not understand cooperative discussion in the slightest, and twists guidelines to his own ends (such as reversing WP:BRD to insist that other people discuss his edits without reversion, reinterpreting WP:RS so that outdated, unscholarly, or fringe sources have to be countered).

This is a highly uncooperative fringe-pushing editor, who one admin has considered blocking indefinately. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

 Question: Were you going to let us know who it is, or just keep us in suspense? (

BWilkins ←track

) 15:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

D'oh! Meant to put that in the beginning. Editted in. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE has steps for liberal blocking of longstanding pushing of fringe sources. Trying to link a mound in Ohio with Ahura Mazda is definitely way fringe. If the editor has been sufficiently warned and can be shown to have continued afterwards (diffs, please, if you have them) then escalating blocks are definitely called for, in my opinion. Just need an uninvolved admin to do it. (And what was the more on Kneph?) DreamGuy (talk

) 16:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion we have too much patience for this type of editor. There are obvious

WP:COMPETENCE issues, and that should be enough for a block. Hans Adler

16:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ack, forgot that (should really finish my morning Mt Dew before I do anything). At Kneph, Wheres Dan continued to push fringe and outdated material, taking a 19th century source (which should have been removed) that conflates Kneph, Osiris, Jesus, and Krishna and turning it into the primary source for the article, and citing a metaphysical text by René Guénon for historical information.

The histories for the articles Tribe of Dan, Kneph, and Serpent Mound show nothing but continued reversions after being asked to not use fringe and outdated sources.

Wheres Dan has just cited several outdated and fringe sources that were previously removed, claiming that Dougweller approved of all of them because Wheres Dan included two sources Doug suggested along with the fringe material.

He is also being a hypocritical when it comes to sourcing. This demonstrates that he understands that 19th century romantic, reductionist, and religious material are not reliable sources for historical claims, but when ignores this when it supports his point of view.

Even if it weren't for the fringe issues, that his concept of cooperation is a bit one-sided seems reason enough to not want him on this site. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

And now he's reported me for edit warring (even though I have yet to violate 3rr and have reverted no more than he has), where he accuses me of acting out of a religious bias by taking a comment out of context (at first, he tried to accuse me of an anti-Biblical bias, which prompted me to point out that I'm a Baptist). As I've stated over at

WP:3RRNB, I will no longer be nice about this, he is useless to this site and should be blocked. Ian.thomson (talk

) 17:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above statement that editors of this persuasion are given way too much leniency here. The user has shown, per this conversation at

18:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• Since they've been blocked before, I've just blocked for a week for edit-warring at
  WP:COMPETENCE. I've pointed out both in the block notice, and also noted how they can contribute to this discussion. But frankly, if anyone wants to up it to indef, be my guest. Black Kite (t)
  19:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

"conflates Kneph, Osiris, Jesus, and Krishna" — where have I seen that before — Caesarion and WillBildUnion (talk · contribs). Maybe.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, Wheres Dan is citing a lot of 19th century sources, and a lot of people (whatever their beliefs) who wrote about religion in the 19th century were kinda stupid (IMO more so than in eras before or after). He doesn't quite smell the same to me. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree that there are generally very serious, questions about the current reliability of sources from the era of the source in question. Having said that, I think that there probably is, to some degree, information of this type which is relevant to at least some article, maybe a spinoff, in wikipedia. We do rather often have child articles which might address or summarize previous opinions regarding a subject, and it rather often is the case that such older premises, for good or ill, are in some way foundational to current theories, of varying reliability. I think maybe confining the editor to relevant talk pages, until and unless there is obvious and poorly-defensible editing abuse there as well, might be the best alternative. John Carter (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

*Ahem* I'm thinking it's time for an indef. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

To be clearer about my previous remark, a sockpuppet of Wheres Dan has been found and indefed. The block on Wheres Dan is still for a week. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

More socks have been found. This guy knows what he's doing. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:COMPETENCE may not be the issue but that an elaborate trolling mission to insert inaccurate information into articles may be. One of the accounts (User:Sourced much) seemed to be overly drawn to articles on Nazis, specifically attempts to white wash their reputations(see here). I would like to ask for an indefinite block or possibly a community ban for this editor. Would there be any support for this? Heiro

03:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

If you can find evidence of him using the socks to votestack, vandalise or commit other offenses, then the block can be extended. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Ban proposal

• This is a bit of a hash, not that it matters too much in this case (per
  WP:SNOW). The block log says banned, the message on his talk pages says indef. blocked. A general discussion on user behaviour is not the same as a ban proposal, separate notifications should have been given, and due time allowed. It's good for the community to follow its own customs and rules where they may procedurally benefit the potential blockee, even in these cases. Rich Farmbrough
  , 17:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC).
  

The user User talk:Ostreicher has issued a threat of legal action in Talk:Dead by Dawn (YouTube Movie). reddogsix (talk) 03:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

User has been blocked. reddogsix (talk) 03:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Indef'd. Not a very credible threat (I don't think a lot of lawyers are willing to "sue this crap out of this wikipedia"), but combined with the recreation and attempt to remove the deletion tag, this doesn't look promising. Any other admin is welcome to unblock Ostreicher so long as xe retracts the legal threat, however, you may want to consider that the editor claims on the talk page to be the same person as the producer of this alleged forthcoming film, so some counseling might be needed there, too. I'll let someone else handle the speedy deletion for formality sake. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone with time trying to explain it to him might be productive and a kind thing to do... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I tried. All that resulted was more abuse, and User:Ostreicher has now had talk page access removed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Swarm has expressed concern that this was handled improperly on the user's talk page, and I believe that, at least in a little part, it was. After I indef'd, the user posted an unblock request, withdrawing the legal requests conditional on us agreeing to "to stop deleting every damn article i post. I am an actor and want to express this with the article about me and the article about our movie." jpgordon correctly declined that request as not a real withdrawl, but his comment was "We don't get to write about ourselves on Wikipedia. Period." This seemed to be a sub-optimal, as it's both wrong (no policy, not even

WP:COI, actually forbids writing about oneself), and it's not actually helpful to us or the editor in terms of what to do next. Unsurprisingly, Ostreicher responded with more abuse, at which point Wifone revoked talk page access. Swarm points out that we possibly could have avoided such a rapid escalation by using different terms. It's likely that the end result would still be the same, since the editor's primary goal seemed to be self-promotion, but that doesn't mean that we couldn't have tried to keep at least a modicum of good faith from the editor. I'm not suggesting any action needs to be taken, but I think that a different treatment in the future may result in better results for everyone. Qwyrxian (talk

) 23:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't have made any particular difference in this case. Admins can look at his deleted user page to see exactly what we were dealing with. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Take a gander at what he posted on my talk page after I deleted his autobiography. *shrugs* --Guerillero | My Talk 00:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Textbook newbie frustration (you handled it well, BTW). Swarm ^X 00:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd advise those who can to look at the deleted biography - according to Google, it started "Rhys Callum Jewkes (Born March 25, 1995) is a British film Actor, Director, Editor and producer". If he'd actually done all that by the age of sixteen, I'm sure we'd have heard of him... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

It probably would have been better to simply explain

WP:NOT to him, rather than giving an erroneous message about COI. But then, Guerillero tried that, and you can see the results. This isn't your typical COI editor, just a kid trying it on. He may have thought in "good faith", that Wikipedia was the place to further his current role-playing game, but once he found out it wasn't, he basically had a tantrum, several in fact. Have you seen the film on YouTube that he allegedly produced? Voceditenore (talk

) 01:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Likely sock

Does OakWoodDoor (talk · contribs) trigger any specific quack detectors? He's obviously a returning user (typical tactics of bluelinking their user and talk pages in their first edits; jumps right into project space discussions; comments reveal prior experience with Wikipedia disputes, e.g. [115][116]). Not sure I recognize a specific sockmaster; the interest in AfDs might suggest Rhinoselated (talk · contribs)/Latish redone (talk · contribs), whose latest sock was blocked a few hours before this one was created. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Obvious sock. Any checkusers around? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

No, but  Confirmed as Deterence (talk · contribs). –MuZemike 15:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• How embarrassing. JimSukwutput 20:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• Looking at his comments at ITN/C, it was pretty obviously him and I'm surprised no one had picked up on it. But now that we know he's inclined to sock, we need to be keeping an eye out for him. He should be easy to spot, though. Swarm ^X 00:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to report myself for breaches of

) 05:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Its on AfD now. Since you reported yourself, this is what I have to say : You've done your part. Calm down, and work on something else for now. -
  Mailer Diablo
  06:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

1 question. Why are you not trying to help write the article? Wouldn't that salve everything? 84.106.26.81 (talk) 06:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Why should I be interested in writing an article about a non-event? It is vacuous hype, and should be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Given the amount of stress this seems to be causing Andy, I'm extending his block (originally for 24 hours) to 72 hours. Of course, I'm also of the opinion that calling people "morionic [sic] POV-pushing turds" and telling them to fuck off is not acceptable behaviour, no matter how mad one is. Talk page access will be left enabled. m.o.p 06:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• The two blocks of AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs) are mindless bureaucracy. Yes, Andy is out of line, but when an excellent editor freaks out from an overdose of nonsense, they need help: remove the uncivil comments and leave a gentle note at Andy's talk. Johnuniq (talk) 07:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The extension is certainly a little eyebrow-raising. Why go from 24 to 72 like that for the same civility offenses but with no edits from Andy after the initial "cool-down" block was laid down? Really?! Doc talk 07:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Mailer Diablo
  11:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
• @Doc, extending the block was payback for Andy's strong criticism of a recent AFD close by MoP. This sort of personal point-scoring is unfortunate, but it's part of life on Wikipedia.
  talk
  ) 15:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Not acceptable if true. But

Assume good faith in general --Kim Bruning (talk

) 16:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Unblock considered

• I'm minded to unblock and just order Andy to stay away from the whole thing till the Afd finishes - I don't think that overall it was reasonable to extend the block after he had stopped, although m.o.p's decision is not in any way bad faith. m.o.p. should have known better I'll take consensus on this - thoughts?Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
• MasterOfPuppets' block extension doesn't seem to have any purpose. There's no explanation given for lengthening the block, there was no discussion with the original blocking admin, and the editor in question made no edits in the fifteen minutes between the original block and the lengthened block. What was it that required such an urgent override of the original blocking admin's judgement? There's a little paranoid part of my soul that thinks this looks like giving Andy rope ("Talk page access will be left enabled"), so that he might say something nasty in response to the block extension and thereby provide an ex post facto justification for the tripling of the original block's length. As admins, we should use great caution wherever we might appear – however inadvertently – to be making a bad situation worse through needlessly precipitous actions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
• I'd go along with the unblock as a good will gesture and a pragmatic way forward. No need to rub salt in any wounds. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
• unblock as per Elens conditions or as a minimum return to the original 24 hour block - Andy says the user Master of Puppets is carrying an "involved" position and the block extension is a result of as prior fall out in this previous recent ANI discussion-Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive726#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FEnergy_Catalyzer - I can't see another explanation - also I would block Master of Puppets for the same time as he extended Andy's block without a decent reason. Youreallycan (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support unblock as long as he stays away - extension of block was not justified -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support unblock, not prepared to endorse the although m.o.p's decision is not in any way bad faith part of EotR's post.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Meh! Andy posted his comment while I was typing this out and getting edit conflicted. I would have said that m.o.p should not have been the one to take action if I'd seen it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Unblocked I unblocked Andy per Elen's rationale and the support above.--v/r - TP 16:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Seriously? That's not even half my original block. Just because he's a good editor doesn't mean he can throw a tantrum when things don't go his way. I stand by my block, and I think there should have been a longer cooling off period. --Chris 16:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Blocks are preventative, not punitive. We'll see which one of you was right in due course. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
    • We don't do cooldown blocks, you know that. Besides, Andy hasn't edited since reporting here and it's obvious he's fairly done with the topic. As blocks are supposed to be preventative, I just can't fathom how Andy will continue to be disruptive. He knows he crossed a line, he's admitted to it here. Had you blocked before this thread and he admitted to the behavior in an unblock request, he would've been unblocked anyway. There isn't any reason to either extend nor continue the block.--v/r - TP 16:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

That's nonsense; of course we do "cooldown" blocks. The notion that we don't place cooldown blocks is a classic Wikipedia myth right up there with "blocks are preventive, not punitive" and "The ArbCom can't rule on content". What you and Chris are really arguing is that what he called a cooldown block is really supposed to be a "punitive" block, and that we therefore need to make sure that the full measure of punishment is properly meted out.

If it were just a cooldown block, after all, there's no question that Andy is sufficiently cool now. Despite having his block extended by an involved admin – without discussion and for no apparent reason, and accompanied by the condescending-bordering-on-insulting non-rationale of "Given the amount of stress this seems to be causing Andy..." – Andy responded calmly and civilly. Since Andy a) is now apparently quite cool, b) has agreed to stay out of the original area of conflict, and c) just responded patiently and maturely to a slap in the face from an admin who had no business taking action here, he's being let off with time served. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

In reality we do a lot of stupid things that we really shouldn't; we're human, after all. But the figure of speech is still "We don't do that" ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Even if we shouldn't do cooldown blocks normally, should we do them when the person seriously asked for one? I don't know if this has ever really been addressed and it's what happened here. Nil Einne (talk) 02:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

While master of puppets shouldn't have extended the block, the original 24 hours should have stayed in place. One of the core ideas of WP is that all editors - admins included - are equal. That someone is established (and Andy is certainly one of my favorite editors here) should not give them the ability to grossly violate policy. Unfortunately WP has gone from egalitarian to aristocratic, but I suppose this is the human condition and not specific to wikipedia. N^oformation ^Talk 22:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't give him any special treatment. Andy said he understands his behavior is wrong and won't continue to be disruptive. That is a valid unblock reason.--v/r - TP 22:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

TP Beat me to it. You can get unblocked once it is clear that the block is no longer needed. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

That is where I disagree, and get confused. Where did he say he understood his behavior was wrong "before" the unblock? The only edit he made while blocked was this, at no point while blocked did he acknowledged that his behavior was wrong (yes, he did post this ANI thread, however after he posted the thread he continued to be disruptive). Also, on a side note, my earlier comment was made before this edit, which I will agree, does indicate that he has calmed down and the block is no longer needed. Essentially what I'm trying to say is, unless I'm missing an edit somewhere, he was unblocked, and then apologized/admitted his behavior was wrong, which is imo the wrong order of proceedings. --Chris 02:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to toss in my voice; I extended the block because I found the insult grievous (no, I don't care if someone's a good editor - that doesn't give them the ability to fling curses without reprimand) and Andy's behaviour unapologetic. Now that he's apologized, everything's OK. The extension was made because I felt the violation necessitated it. And no, this isn't because there's a prior conflict. m.o.p 04:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Why the rush? The original blocking administrator (I assume) had felt that the block length he had imposed was appropriate for the circumstances; it's not clear why you urgently needed to overrule his judgement in order to triple the block's duration. If you wanted to change the block length, there was still 23 hours and 45 minutes left to run on the original 24-hour block—lots of time to consult the blocking admin, or even return to the discussion here. Not to put too fine a point on it, but it also would have helped a lot with the perception that you were involved and acting unilaterally against an editor who had challenged one of your other admin actions recently. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

A few editors were discussing this on IRC so I checked it out and went to block Andy for what I saw to be grossly inappropriate language. Upon going to block, I saw that Chris G had already issued one. We discussed it and I changed it to what I thought was appropriate. It's ironic that you see it as hasty when the very reason I took fifteen minutes to do it was because I was discussing with the blocking administrator. Of course, you're not expected to know this, but I hope that clears the air. m.o.p 05:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

"...when IRC discussions are cited as justification for an on-wiki action, the resulting atmosphere is very damaging to the project's collaborative relationships."[117] How could anyone be expected to know that such a discussion took place when it isn't here? Better yet: why did it have to be off-wiki? It seems like a pretty straightforward issue with no need to take it off-wiki. Doc talk 05:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Because we were both on IRC already and it was a much faster solution. The issue isn't even that I wheel-warred or anything, it's that my action was perceived to be retributive. Now that I've explained why it isn't, and that Andy has apologized, I'd say everything's wrapped up. Right? m.o.p 05:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Not really. There's your troubling violation of

WP:IRCADMIN. Of course, as an admin, you could get away with anything, but at least it should be noted for the record that you have done so. Hipocrite (talk

) 14:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Two things:

1. "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area." My prior 'involvement' with Andy was in a purely administrative role when I did something controversial that he disagreed with. He also disagreed with everybody else participating in the AfD. If this makes me involved, I'm also involved with half of the userbase by that standard.
2. I like that you created that redirect as if administrators need special treatment with IRC over other users. Being a sysop is no big deal. Everybody coordinates on IRC all the time. Using it to discuss pertinent issues is not a bad thing. If this troubles you, my deepest apologies; however, I'm not quite sure it's something I'm going to stop doing, as I do not come close to agreeing that it's a problem. m.o.p 21:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Disagreeing with someone at an AFD is far different than having someone challenge your administrative actions at ANI, and end with you saying that you "already used my one allotted rouge action for this month." That you couldn't find anyone else to extend the block further reinforces that you were involved. That this block is the only incivility block you've issued since, oh, 3 years ago (I checked!) further reinforces the judgment. You are directed to note that "when IRC discussions are cited as justification for an on-wiki action, the resulting atmosphere is very damaging to the project's collaborative relationships," and basically stop doing that. Hipocrite (talk) 21:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Further, don't you think that lumping yourself in with the other participants at the AFD makes it incredibly clear that as opposed to weighing the arguments, you actually supervoted? Hipocrite (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Sigh.

Am I going to have to start denoting every time I'm joking? Or is it not blatantly obvious? I mean, obviously you didn't catch on, but that's a joke. See

WP:ROUGE for the background. Maybe it's because I've been around for a while and it was more well-known in the old days, but yeah. Attempts at humour just make me more involved, I guess. As for the block - I've issued incivility blocks as recently as a month ago. Your research seems flawed

. And I appreciate your input regarding IRC, I really do - I just don't intend to change how I work.

Deeper sigh here. Again, being a sysop is no big deal. I'm lumping myself in with the other users because, aside from my administrative action, I am no different from them. Given that we've discussed this a thousand times before (see the previous ANI thread), I'll say again; I closed as I saw appropriate. Calling it a supervote is just absurd.

I don't have much intention of continuing this discussion, though. I am not involved. Andy's apologized. Case closed. I'm sure this dead horse has been beaten enough. Cheers, m.o.p 23:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Invoking discretionary sanctions

As both this article and

) 19:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

As I've stated I'm not going to get involved further with the article, at least until the AfD is closed, I'll do nothing about this myself, but I would like to point out that the same persistent SPA IP is still adding all sorts of badly-sourced and off-topic material into the article, with no regard to policy, or to talk-page discussions, Instead, we've had wild claims of a conspiracy, and attempts to justify ignoring policy on this basis:

Talk:CETI_Patterson_Power_Cell#Lets_clear_one_thing_up. Can I ask that uninvolved contributors try to restore a little common sense here, and at least attempt to restrict soapboxing to a more manageable level - though to be honest, I'm not entirely sure that the IP isn't just out to troll - I'd best leave that to others to look into, however. AndyTheGrump (talk

) 05:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Would a semi-protection be helpful? That IP certainly does not look like they are helpful out here, but I don't want to unnecessarily close down avenues of discussion if the editors working there don't think it would be helpful. NW (Talk) 14:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

A semi-protect on this article would certainly help. Mangoe (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

There is just one IP, apparently single purpose and disruptive, so I have blocked it. Should other IPs show up, let me know. Jehochman ^Talk 17:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Trouble brewing at the AfD

We now have multiple keep !votes at the AfD based on a wild conspiracy theory - that Wikipedia is involved in some sort of cold-fusion cover-up. Frankly, with crap like this being brought up, I'm glad I'm no longer participating. I think that maybe someone should point out that discretionary sanctions will apply to AfDs too, and that such bad-faith arguments are unlikely to do anyone any favours. Even better, delete them as personal attacks, and give the conspiracy-theorists something else to whine about. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

There's also a bunch of keep opinions due to the article having been improved, of course.

Single issue accounts etc can be discounted on closure. We only keep or delete based on common consensus on what is keep-able or deletable anyhow; and the closing admin will know that, as they invariably do.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 02:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC) (A common evil tactic: List an article for deletion, and watch the minions scurry to improve it! bwahahahaha! :-P)

Is there a better place to report these than AN/I?

User:Frosty Fields creating sock farm (Mascot guy). See log. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! They have joined their brethren. AIV might be the fastest track for future reports. Favonian (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the best place to report such childish activities really a daycare provider? (

BWilkins ←track

) 19:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It is annoying, but in a way it can also be strangely entertaining; my favorites are still Cloudy with a Chance of Mascots and Ships Ahoy, MascotGuy!. When I've reported him to AIV, all I usually need to say is "Get the accounts he created too"; a couple times I've just put his name there with nothing else and it gets dealt with in seconds. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Annoying kinda means we care. Childish means he keeps doing it, even though we don't care. (

BWilkins ←track

) 21:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

This set of accounts and the previous set should have been picked up by the edit filter and automatically reported to AIV. However, they were not for unknown reasons, even though the match when using the edit filter test interface. I'll drop a note over at Wikipedia talk:Edit filter. Maybe somebody can figured it out. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, I figured out the problem. I will make a tweak to the filter that may help. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Would it be possible to get a long-term block on IP account 58.6.36.95, which has been persistently used for vandalism puroposes, most recently here [118]. The IP's talk page is a long list of warnings and blocks [119]. Mattun0211 (talk) 05:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Probably not worth it. It is a fairly inactive IP address, editing only a few days each year. The last 50 edits take me back to 2008, so it's not all that active. Admittedly, there's lots of vandalism in those edits, but I can also find many good-faith edits mixed in. I'm not sure this is worth a block. I'd suggest archiving the talk page; this is clearly a shared IP address, likely used by a school or a library or something like that, and warnings from 4 1/2 years ago aren't all that useful to whoever happens to use it today. --Jayron32 05:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I've asked Cookiehead (talk · contribs) to come here so we can get some admin opinions, as I don't understand that guy's approach:

• I observed yesterday that a few days ago, he restored a Bernie Fine talk-page comment that had been made by a since-blocked user called CincyLost (talk · contribs).[120] I suspected he was another sock of that user (who had been posting anti-Jewish comments), though I wasn't sure, and said so in the AIV. Admins concluded not. So far so good.
• Rather more disturbing, earlier this evening he did a significant revert on the Bernie Fine article,[121] which resulted in the restoration of the same anti-Jewish junk that the blocked user had tried to post. I would say that his change of "was" to "is a former" was correct. It was the blind reversion that was incorrect.
• Ironically, when I have repeatedly tried to advise him to watch out what he's reverting, he responds (see edit summaries in the user link above) with insulting comments that I interpret to mean that he thinks I'm lying about the effect of his reversion to the Bernie Fine article.

So, I don't get it. Could an admin or someone with a different style than mine speak to that guy and give him some good advice? (And maybe give me some in the process. And unlike him, I won't respond with obscenities.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Note that IP's from various places have been posting various anti-Jewish stuff:
96.253.220.30 (talk · contribs)
108.21.15.221 (talk · contribs)
152.121.19.254 (talk · contribs)
158.143.166.60 (talk · contribs)
which I take to be BLP violations as well. I will ask for semi-protection of the article unless someone wants to do it from here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Bugs, apparently you should fuck off. I'm quoting, of course. ;) Drmies (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Yeh, I was duly impressed by the eloquence and originality of that comment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Looks like no one intends to do anything about it. But this at least gets it "on the record" for possible future reference. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, here's one for the Famous Quotes department: I'm now a "social climbing whack job", whatever that means.[122] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• Hey, at least you're climbing! (also, NPA warning dispensed for that). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you. The "wacko" part, I could maybe understand. But the "social climbing" part is going too far. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
    • At least you're not a Reichstag climbing whack job! --Blackmane (talk) 09:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
      • He came very close to calling me an "upstart". If he does that, then the gloves will come off, and the Cookie will crumble. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

.

On 26th, I politely requested xe be more cautious [123] but my advice was dismissed with the phrase "request denied" [124] and the user continued mistagging [125].

On 30th, I wrote a clearer "stop" message [126]. This was similarly dismissed, this time claiming IAR [127].

Today, another speedy-tag was deemed inappropriate [128] but the user undid the speedy-removal [129].  Chzz  ►  13:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

And another [130] twice [131]  Chzz  ►  13:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

As stated on my talkpage:

For your information:

User:Night of the Big Wind/CSD log

. I make mistakes, just like everybody else. And I prefer to be too harsh, then to be too soft. Better a CSD denied, then spam or promo into the encyclopedia!

_talk

13:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Not commenting on the particular situation, but I guess that the expectation is that the nominator has done at least a medium depth review of the situation at the article before nominating. North8000 (talk) 13:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

"Better a CSD denied, then spam or promo into the encyclopedia". Anyone taking this approach should not even be near NPP. Period. T. Canens (talk) 13:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) below. There is no reason for a CSD to need to be denied. Administrators and taggers work under the exact same CSD criteria. Don't create extra work for the admins. If you know it doesn't meet the criteria, like for a high school, then don't tag it. If a subject has a claim of significance, like founding a notable band, then don't tag it. It's simple as pie.--v/r - TP 14:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• Just a comment. One thing we need to be very wary of when doing NPP and CSD tagging is biting newcomers, and it really can scare well-meaning new editors away if we slap unwarranted CSD tags on their articles. We really should be giving new people the benefit of the doubt as far as possible - we need them more than they need us. I've been doing a lot of CSD review recently, and in general (not specifically this editor) I've been seeing too many articles being tagged as Promotional (G11) when they're really no more than Non-notable (A7) - being accused of advertising can hurt people more than being told their subject is non-notable, No context (A1) when it's blatantly obvious what the article is about (even if it needs expanding), Patent nonsense (G1) when the article is in plain English (though perhaps factually incorrect), and Test pages (G2) when they're blatantly not a test - some people seem to think G2 is a catch-all for "I want this deleted even though it doesn't match any CSD categories". We, the experienced editors, should be approaching newbies as leniently and helpfully as we can -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

  I think the best advice I can give (regarding tagging) is: if you think the article definitely meets the criteria, then tag. If you aren't sure, you could just...you know... wait a bit and see how it develops. It seems to be a misconception that speedy deletion == right now deletion, when really speedy deletion is more 'why waste a bunch of people's time when its clear the article doesn't belong here and can't be (easily) fixed and fits into pretty specific guidelines'. Even if something is the worst pile of advertising for a non notable product, its not going to hurt anyone if it happened to stay on the encyclopedia for a day or a week. Syrthiss (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

  One more thought on NPP - Some people approach it from the perspective of "weeding out the bad stuff", but I find that looking at it more as "helping with the good stuff" puts me in a more positive frame of mind and leads to my doing better work. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

  It is a pity that there is not an option to nominate articles as "this article is notable but that bad, that we are better off without it. Improve it, or it will be deleted" with a certain timeframe to improve it.

  There are loads of articles that are in my opinion totally non-notable, but from which I know that nobody is going to delete the. Like secondary schools, American politicians, seagoing vessels and more of those thing that are fiercely protected by Wikiprojects. It is a bad thing for Wikipedia that Wikiprojects are able to overrule the

  _talk

  18:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

  If the existing standards bother you, work to change the relevent policy and guideline pages, rather than imposing your own personal standards on what should, and should not be, speedily deleted. It should be noted that the GNG, nor any part of notability, is absolutely and completely not a criteria for speedy deletion, though many such articles which do not meet

  WP:CSD. --Jayron32

  18:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

  Yep, it's an important distinction but one which many people don't understand - Speedy Deletion is nothing to do with notability, and standards for notability, sourcing, etc don't need to be met to avoid CSD. The Speedy Deletion bar is deliberately set low, and all that is needed is for a plausible claim of importance to be made - and that claim does not have to satisfy

  WP:RS -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk

  ) 19:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

  This is a very interesting remark. So CSD has nothing to do with notability. Unfortunately, a reason like A7 (No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content) and A9 (No indication of importance (musical recordings)) contradict that. Can you explain that?

  _talk

  19:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

  As BsZ says, it's a subtle but critical difference: notability is an entirely different threshold from a mere assertion of importance. For example, an article about "an award winning actor" with an IMDB page may or may not meet our notability guidelines, but it's a credible assertion of importance, so an A7 tag is just a waste of time and an annoyance for the article creator. The point of A7 is to screen obviously inappropriate pages, like people writing about their pets or their 6th grade classmates, not grey areas that may require source hunts to determine whether the GNG is met. 28bytes (talk) 19:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

  (

  WP:CSD#A7 which directly and thoroughly explains that A7 is a lower standard than notability. --Jayron32

  19:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

  See also

  Wikipedia:Csd#Non-criteria note 5 -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk

  ) 19:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

  Okay. I was just counting my rejected CSDs. A7 isn't the biggest problem (6 out of 26) but G11 is by far (13 out of 26). I do have a rather strict (maybe even harsh) opinion about promotion and advertising. Clearly not in line with the common opinion. I promise to use a slightly different approach and use AfD's more often.

  _talk

  20:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks, I appreciate you agreeing to modify your approach. I know it's frustrating to encounter bad articles that probably should be deleted but don't fall squarely into any of the CSD criteria, but that's just one of the prices we have to pay to avoid needlessly antagonizing people. In many ways it's a tough line we force article creators to walk: you have to make very clear the importance of the article subject, or it fails A7, but if you play up their importance too much, it can sound overly promotional and risk falling afoul of G11. It's hard to do it right without some practice. 28bytes (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Not conclusive in any way (and the account I will mention is not only stale but also claims to be from another country), but this sounds like this response from Wuhwuzdat (talk · contribs), who stopped editing back in April. –MuZemike 16:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I am who I am, although I did change the name of my account from by full name to a nickname a few months ago. On my userpage you can see my background. I moved over from the Dutch Wikipedia to the English Wikipedia during the (here in Ireland non-existing) summer.

_talk

18:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, though I hold you in high esteem I think that this is largely a non-sequitur. If Wuhwuzdat had stopped in April, and Night started soon after then perhaps but both accounts are 'old' (well into 2008 I believe) and edited concurrently. If the common phrasing was more involved, then perhaps...but I'd need more to go on to draw any connection between the accounts. I've possibly even used 'request denied' in my edit summaries. There's something charmingly mechanical about it. :) Syrthiss (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I've whipped out the "request denied" myself a few times. It's a pretty standard response if you want to 1up somebody in condescension and superiority. Swarm ^X 18:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Night's SUL reveals that it is a very old account, with 20000+ edits on nl.wiki dating back to 2006. I don't think they are the same person. The only times I used "request denied" is when some banned user's sock tried to trick us into an unblock on unblock-en-l. T. Canens (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

He is a very well-known (ex)user on nl.wiki although I won't mention his old username as it is his full name like he said. I have never seen him associated with the name Wuhwuzdat. I also didn't realize who he was until a while ago.

(talk)_(contribs

) 04:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Not to make fun of a user or their username, but we recently had a

BWilkins ←track

) 14:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Claus M. blatant vandalism to several Eurovision-related articles.

Resolved

I am writing with regards to User:Claus M. who is clearly causing mass disruption across several Eurovision-related articles. There are that many diffs, that it may be easier for myself to include the Special Contributions link, so you may see for yourselves how many vandalism edits this user has created in a 24-hour period alone.

Several warnings have been issued to the user, and yet the vandalism is continuing to a serious level that is causing other editors to revert the vandalised articles, only to have the user add more disruption. The user even created a fabricated article under the title

talk

) 13:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Already blocked. Amalthea 14:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I was starting to get angry and upset at the stupidity of the vandalism. At first I thought the user was too new, and unaware of his/her actions. But then when more and more acts of vandalism where being done - this started to sound off alarm bells in my head. I respect the Wikipedia community, and will go out of my way to prevent and revert vandalism wherever possible.

talk

) 14:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Blocking Matador1234

Resolved

 – User blocked by RHaworth (talk · contribs) The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm writing about

talk

) 10:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79

Possibly compromised account

See

WP:GOTHACKED block be put in place? HurricaneFan25

15:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it's been compromised, myelf. (

BWilkins ←track

) 15:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Nothing drastic yet. I've asked the editor to confirm themselves here. Of course, if they don't have a verified email address and no cryptographic hash, there's no way of knowing. m.o.p 15:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

This is quite odd as is this. Note that

User:Gregory Heffley had moved his guest book to User:Gregory Heffley/Guestbook stating that it was his new user name. Gregory Heffley likewise edited during that period. Meanwhile look at the Log for Mike28968. (Mike28968 notified [133] on the off-chance they're not the same person.) Voceditenore (talk

) 16:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmation that Mike = Greg is here. HurricaneFan25 17:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Abuse of administrator privileges by User:Toddst1

Administrators providing additional information when their actions are challenged is not merely permitted, but strongly encouraged. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

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

---

Administrator User:Toddst1 has committed abuse of his blocking privileges as admin.

User:Latish redone was blocked by Toddst1, who gave a reason for the block. Latish redone decided to appeal the block by using the {{Unblock}} template. [134]

Toddst1 made additional comments on Latish redone's talk page in order to support his block of Latish redone. [135][136]

Latish redone, in accordance with user talk page policy, and because of the clear conflict of interest involved in having the blocking admin provide further comments, decided to remove those comments so that the reviewing admin would see only Toddst1's block reason and Latish redone's appeal reason. [137]

This is where the abuse occurs. Toddst1 proceeded to block Latish redone from editing his own talk page. But, while Latish redone was blocked from editing his own talk page, Toddst1 abused both his admin privileges and the conflict of interest by continuing to add comments to Latish redone's talk page to bolster his argument for the reviewing admin. [138][139][140][141]

So basically, Toddst1 blocked Latish redone from providing arguments to be unblocked, while continuing to provide arguments to support the block. This is clearly abuse of admin power, in addition to a conflict of interest violation. I think Toddst1 should be desysopped, or otherwise sanctioned, as appropriate.

--198.137.20.208 (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Why do you refer to yourself in the third person? Also, why don't you read the "Guide to appealing blocks" that was linked in the block notice where you would've found an email address (unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org) and you could've appealed there. Removing your talk page access isn't abuse. Don't blame your lack of attention to detail on abusive admins.--v/r - TP 14:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not referring to myself in the third person, I am not one of the involved editors, just an unregistered user. --198.137.20.208 (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, whose second edit was to this page. What an amazing coincidence. There are only a few things a blocked editor should be doing. One is to file a reasonable unblock request. Another is to engage in civil discussion. Deleting another editor's comments is NOT on that short list.[142] (Nor is socking.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I saw the unblock request this morning, and was quite surprised to look at the talkpage history: the blocked editor had removed "evidence" provided to whichever admin came by to judge the unblock merits. Really not appropriate, no matter what the talkpage guidelines say. If they insisted on removing commentary relavent to the block/unblock then page protection was inevitable. Now, where's the

BWilkins ←track

) 14:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, I only have a few edits because I only edit when necessary, in addition to editing from a site where my IP address is subject to change arbitrarily. --198.137.20.208 (talk) 14:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• This is complete nonsense. There is no "conflict of interest involved in having the blocking admin provide further comments". On the contrary, it can be very helpful to a reviewing administrator for a blocking administrator to provide clarification of the reasons for the block. Removing comments relating to a pending unblock request is not "in accordance with user talk page policy". When the user had abused their talk page access to try to suppress comments about the block, removing the user's talk page access was perfectly reasonable. There is no "abuse of admin power", nor any "conflict of interest violation".
  talk
  ) 14:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The IP is likely either a sock of the blocked user, or just has a grudge against Todd. In any case, the blocking admin leaving comments for other admins is standard procedure. I've seen it done hundreds of times. The IP's complaint is unwarranted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Heck, we even have an "unblock on hold" template for use when the original blocking admin is being specifically requested to provide additional information. Admins are required to explain blocks, and should provide additional info when unblocks are requested if things are not readily apparent. (

BWilkins ←track

) 15:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• • • • So why wasn't that used? --198.137.20.208 (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Clearly, the abuse comes from the blocking admin continuing to comment while the blocked user is blocked from being able to comment. --198.137.20.208 (talk) 15:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The editor was abusing their rights on their talkpage by removing the information. Like I said before, access removal was inevitable. Blocks are quite often discussed on a usertalkpage while the person is still blocked from editing it - there was, after all, still an open unblock request. (

BWilkins ←track

) 15:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• • • • There is no abuse, no rule violation. But keep talking. You're looking more like a sock every time you open your mouth. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't like that no warning was given before removing talk page access, but don't really think this goes so far as to be called abuse. Restore the comment, warn the user not to remove it while they are requesting an unblock, remove talk page access if they do it again. (EC: This comment was being added as the section was being archived, but I believe it's still worth adding. This could've been handled better. --Onorem♠Dil 15:16, 29 November 2011 (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.

Please add to that gray summary box at the top of this archived discussion that "Admins should give warning(s) to the blocked user before blocking the user from editing his/her talk page." --198.137.20.27 (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC) And/or add that "Blocked users should not remove admin comments from their talk page, but should instead provide their own comments in dispute of a block." --198.137.20.27 (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

A BOOMERANG addendum

I think the filer needs to be scrutinzed a bit more closely. 198.137.20.208 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)'s first edit was to remove the generic "there may not be a userpage" text from the page of Rhinoselated (talk · contribs), who was indef'ed as a vandaliam-only account, presumably because his last two pagemove vandalisms resembled that of Willyonwheels'. Rhinoselated once tried to add garbage to the Cam Newton article and once created a "Scam Newton" page, see User talk:Rhinoselated#Attacks in the article Scam Newton. also a curious redirect of Kelly Martin's user page to talk page. Tarc (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Rhinoselated is too stale for a checkuser, but the quacking is getting very loud around here. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

There's definitely a similar pattern of editing between User:Rhinoselated, User talk:Latish redone, and the "anonymous 3rd party" IP user in the above discussion - very few good faith edits, lots of "humorous" vandalism, and plenty of over-the-top melodramatic arguing about reverts and the inevitable blocks. This person has been here long enough to thoroughly understand policies and procedures, and he seems to enjoy playing the game of seeing how long he can string out his obnoxiousness before getting blocked. I would be absolutely shocked if he doesn't have more socks out there, perhaps even a truly useful user account. Zeng8r (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it's more than clear at this point that Rhinoselated has at least a few socks out there. I've tagged them, but I think it would be better if someone else issued the sock/block evasion blocks. Toddst1 (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not a "sock" and I resent such characterization. --198.137.20.27 (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Either I'm missing something really important here, or we need to a be a bit more careful with our sock tagging. Aside from the curious redirect, is there any evidence linking Kelly Martin to Rhinoselated? Kelly Martin was active from 2004 to 2007; Rhinoselated edited beginning in 2010, and I see no obvious links between the two editors. (I've now re-deleted what looks to have been the blanked userpage of a retired editor.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Did someone tag Kelly Martin as a sockpuppet of Rhinoselated? I can't see now their use page is deleted but it doesn't look like Rhinoselated was tagged as a sock of Kelly Martin. My guess from Zeng8r said on Rhinoselated's user page is perhaps Rhinoselated redirected Kelly Martin's page to theirs which someone AGFed (which they probably shouldn't have) as an accurate self declaration of Rhinoselated being a new account for Kelly Martin Nil Einne (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm don't know what to make of the Kelly Martin angle. While helping to deal with Rhinoselated's mischief a few months ago, I noticed that User:Kelly Martin was redirected to Rhinoselated's talk page. I asked about it and never got a reply. Looks like somebody has recently deleted the redirecting user page. Zeng8r (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, Kelly Martin's talk page was deleted in 2008 (three years ago). Today (29 November) Rhinoselated redirected the user page to Kelly Martin's talk page. About 12 hours later, Toddst1 replaced the redirect with a sockpuppet banner. I caught this on my watchlist, and redeleted Kelly Martin's userpage a little while later. As far as I can tell, there's no other link between the two accounts. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's this rather odd conversation: User_talk:All_in#I.27d_like_to_talk_to_you_in_private.... Zeng8r (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Which suggests they may have some history together even if there's a fair chance Kelly Martin herself doesn't remember. (I didn't remember removing the misleading info in Rhinoselated's user page.) Kelly Martin was also a fairly well known. I'm guessing Rhinoselated intentionally created the redirect to try to make the link as a form of vandalism and perhaps a subtle personal attack. And unfortunately Toddst1 while tagging sockpuppets and perhaps not being aware of Kelly Martin's history tagged her as well. BTW I presume the dates are wrong. Rhinoselated has been indef blocked since May so either someone else did the redirection or it happened earlier, possibly both if the IP reverted to the redirect (it sounds like it happened in January). Nil Einne (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I've applied a narrow rangeblock (198.137.20.0/24) for 48 hours try to put a lid on the IP. Whether it's a sock (and the duck is pretty loud here) or just a nuisance editor, he wasn't making beneficial contributions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

And I've blocked User:Latish redone indefinitely.Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Has nobody else noted that "Latish redone" is an anagram of "Rhinoselated"? RolandR (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Why do so many of our trolls think that they're low-grade Batman villains? (I don't mean the scary, creepy, eerie villains of the latest Batman films; I'm talking about the cartoonish 1960's villains in vividly-colored but hideous costumes.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

This comment wins ANI for today. Take a prize off the shelf. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Eh, it works - User:NoPuzzleStranger was here for four months before someone realized it was an anagram of User:Gzornenplatz. --Golbez (talk) 22:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave this link here for future reference. (Kidding... I think.) Zeng8r (talk) 23:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure The Riddler operated by Moscow Rules and the password to his lair was guarded with a bit more care than this user: [143] LoveUxoxo (talk) 03:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Check this out:[144] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Somebody wiped a large portion of the above discussion about Rhinoselated's possible sockpuppet accounts, both anagramed and IPs. Perhaps there was a good reason to do so, but I couldn't figure out who did it and I saw no explanation. Given the aforementioned user's propensity to delete discussions that he doesn't like, I restored the deleted posts. Somebody really needs to figure out who removed them, imo. Zeng8r (talk) 14:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring them. I can't find where they disappeared either, but it happens perfectly innocently sometimes on this page, though it was awhile since I last noticed it. Once (no, twice), a good friend of mine "removed" posts of mine together with several others, without being aware of it. He's an extremely careful editor and I simply do not believe that he had accidentally highlighted the posts or anything slapdash like that. The ANI bug strikes again? Bishonen | talk 22:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

Admiral A. Cybergnomi, reporting for duty, sah! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm I can't find any sign they disappeared or were restored by Zeng8r. Looking thru the edit history Zeng8r notes the restoration here, but no sign of anything happened other then the note. Looking thru Zeng8r's contrib history no sign of them adding anything back either. Or anyone else in the 20 or so edits before Zeng8r left their message. Perhaps some strange error where it temporarily appeared to that the content was missing, but it wasn't, and when Zeng8r tried to add it back it somehow fixed it self, and didn't add the content since it was already there? Nil Einne (talk) 09:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Um, ok, now I see the same thing as you, Nil. All I know is, when I checked this conversation for updates yesterday, all the posts below Elen of the Roads' mentioning the block were gone. I went back to an older version of the page, from where I retrieved the posts and copied and pasted them back in place, leaving a note to that effect at the bottom. Now, neither the removal nor the restoration seem to be in the page history. Software glitch? Or perhaps I needed more coffee?.... Zeng8r (talk) 11:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Why is User:Latish redone indef-blocked? I thought he or she was a good contributor based on his or her contributions.--198.137.20.91 (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course you would. - The Bushranger _{One ping only}

18:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Subtle vandalism campaign?

Hi, I've been mostly inactive lately, but came across this, as a link posted by one of the anti-Wikipedia trolls over at Yahoo! Answers. I followed the (thankfully decent) reference and made the obvious fix in the short run, but as for the long run…

I went to look up when the vandalism was added, and noticed that it was added by a

⚡

}} 15:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

That editor didn't add the "Emperor Palpatine", it was already there, and he just seems to have overlooked it when he added more material. It was probably a misspelling/typo of "

Palatine". By the way, you should have notified the editor that you're mentioning him here. I've done that for you. Voceditenore (talk

) 17:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "already there"? The editor in question created the page. And the Palatine explanation doesn't make much sense in that context. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

His other edits seem fine to me despite his somewhat acerbic approach on talk pages at times. Voceditenore (talk) 18:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Ooops, sorry! I didn't look far enough back in the edit history. But I still think that it might have been a typo. The connection is that Emperor Palatine was a title for the Holy Emperor. Maria Theresa was married to Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor. Presumably, the St. Francis Mass was in honour of his name day. Voceditenore (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that there was such a thing as an "Emperor Palatine".

Count Palatine (Imperial) was the title for an official in the Holy Roman Emperor, not the emperor himself. However, this is of course irrelevant to the matter of this thread. It was probably an honest mistake, at least there is no evidence in the edits I looked at that James470 has done similar things in the past. --Saddhiyama (talk

) 20:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It could easily have been finger-memory. Connect the "Palatine" title with the Emperor, and the brain sends to the fingers "Palpatine". (And one wonders if that might be where Lucas got the name to start with himself!) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I suppose I could be wrong; I'd prefer to be! There are a few things that could be coincidences; it just smells slightly fishy to me. I'll put this down as an apophenic moment for now and revisit it later. {{

⚡

}} 02:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Bushranger: As I have pointed out above, there is no such thing as an "Emperor Palatine". The emperor and palatine was titles referring to two different persons. He could perhaps have meant "imperial palatine", but it gets a bit far fetched, especially since the palatine apparently had nothing to do with the commissioning of the musical piece in question. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's an example of the use of "Emperor Palatine", albeit in an 1853 biography of

Schiller. – Voceditenore (talk

) 11:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's probably what he had in mind. Please. Sorry about the sarcasm, now back to seriousness: I guess this is the only hit you got on "Emperor Palatine" that was not a typo or redirect of something Star Wars related, right? I am asking this because I sure didn't get anything else. --Saddhiyama (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

(←) While an absurdly obscure position, or person, called "Emperor Palatine" may have existed, and this may just have been a harmless (and highly coincidental) misspelling, I think it's probably a more likely scenario that this is a bit of vandalism or a joke embedded in the article. Swarm ^X 19:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Suicide methods

Resolved

 – Long-term semiprotection. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Could we please have some more eyes on this page? Some IP's have been slow edit-warring to keep a discussion there of "how would you kill yourself if you had to?" on the page. After earlier versions were removed, it's been thinly veiled as an attempt to improve the article, though I think that's balogna. I had most recently removed it and semi-protected for three days. I don't feel like I can do anything else at this point without warring myself. Nor do I have the mental energy tonight to do anything but ask that others deal with the reposting of the thread today. LadyofShalott 23:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Semiprotected for six months based on the history of the page, which basically suggests that IP edits are either misguided or trolls. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm seeing selective and arbitrary enforcement of

WP:NOTHOW here. If I tried to write an article called X methods, it would be nominated for deletion in a matter of minutes to days. Yet, this one is allowed. Why? Viriditas (talk

) 00:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This article is a troubling breach of NOTHOW. --FormerIP (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the general idea is that it catalogs what people do, rather than giving specific instructions on how to do so. It's a murky area. Don't look to me to justify it - I've very mixed feelings about the article's existence. LadyofShalott 00:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Recommend passing it to WikiProject

expert-subject}} and awaiting proper attention, from people with the right sources/reliable research to hand, rather than letting OR drive it to AfD. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF}

] 00:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Marcus, if I created an informative food history timeline like

timeline of the burrito, or a culinary how-to like list of burrito-making methods (grilled, steamed, baked, folded, etc.) it would be deleted and redirected. Yet a list of suicide methods is appropriate. Why? IMO, what we are seeing here is a deeply embedded systemic bias on Wikipedia, where a youthful demographic is interested and fascinated by suicide but has little to no interest in culinary history and preparation methods. Viriditas (talk

) 01:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't meaning to criticise you personally, Shalott. But I think some serious consideration needs to be given to the article. I don't mean to sound over-dramatic, but it's undoubtedly the case that people have consulted this article before killing themselves. Or, since the reliability of WP articles is far from guaranteed, quite possibly paralysing themselves or giving themselves severe non-fatal injuries. I'm pretty sure there's no particular policy that we have a responsibility in this regard, but I think we do.

Plus I think there's some subtle pro-killing yourself messages in the article. --FormerIP (talk) 01:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Simply comes down to notability. Category:Suicides How many famous people have taken their own lives over the years? Hundreds.. or thousands? Each one had a method. You can't say "500 pop stars overdosed, 200 hanged themselves, 100 asphyxiated themselves" and deny the notability of the practice existing. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Histories-Suicide-International-Self-Destruction-ebook/dp/B005DB7JMS is just one of various titles on Amazon under a "Suicide". It's a diverse subject: historical, social, psychological, criminal, etc. Discussing each individual who takes their own life is one thing, but I think the subject is not one to be ignored, and written about objectively. Such an article should not promote suicide, nor should it oppose it, per NPOV. Simply to recognise that certain methods exist. That would make it encyclopedic, rather than a list of ways to die and seem pro-suicide. References to studies, such as that link, might help give the article credibility rather than make it an attraction for "Saw" and "Hostel" gore-seekers. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 01:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, it's not been immune from deletion attempts; per the talk page, it's survived AFD seven different times. Nyttend (talk) 01:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and each nomination seems to follow a similar line of reasoning, which really boils down to the tone of the article, is it too pro-suicide, does it explain methods like a cookbook, does it come across as offering painless methods to those considering suicide? We should remember that Wiki does not censor. Foreplay is akin to Suicide and Suicide methods is to each article found on Category:Sexual acts. Is creating articles about each form of foreplay any better or worse than each method of self-harm? Bearing in mind that suicide is just as controversial in some cultures, religions and laws, as some sexual practices commonly accepted in some societies, but which can get you hanged in others. Double-standards can't be applied here just because "sex is good, suicide is bad" by most standards. There has to be a balance, and neutral way that someone can shape the article, remove any OR and hints at one method being better than another, etc and reference reliable studies. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 01:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Since we do it so very badly, no creating an article on each and every type of sexual act is not a good idea, IMO. If we remove hints about the comparative merits of various suicide methods (actually, what we are talking about is success-rate statistics and information about what can go wrong) there will be not much point left to the article. --FormerIP (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

That seems likely. But why not consider that there is room to write about suicide methods practised in certain cultures, eg

Hitler's Suicide. That, at least, masks any unacceptable promotion of methods and instead looks at who has committed suicide in notable ways, rather than how you can kill yourself painlessly type data. No one could suggest that suicide methods pertaining to notable suicides is promotional, given that it's just history. But as it stands now. could better address the wider scope of methods without making them seem "nice" ways out. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF}

] 02:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying that we should keep the probably dangerous ugly duckling in case it one day turns into a swan?--FormerIP (talk) 02:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

"No one could suggest that suicide methods pertaining to notable suicides is promotional, given that it's just history." Sure they could. See copycat suicide for why. LadyofShalott 02:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

If someone wants to kill themselves, with 100% intent of succeeding, they won't be looking on Wiki for "best offers". They'll have some instinctive idea of what "way out" suits them. It's a subjective opinion, I submit, but the internet is huge. There are websites more dedicated to suicide than Wiki. We would be irresponsible to whitewash the subject completely. But a decent rewrite would perhaps make the page less "informative" to those looking for ideas, compared to those looking for notable facts. Anyone could just as easily use Wiki for info on how to take drugs, build bombs, commit arson, riot, with enough synthesis across a few articles. The problem with this article is its focus is too much on "how to die" rather than the "who has and how?", imo. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 02:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, if somewhat dry article, LadyofShalott. There is no reason to believe people will search Wiki for a way to die based on how other people have achieved it. And there are far more videos on YouTube to give people a visual idea of how to do it, with less context than Wiki can offer. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 02:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course there are other places on the Internet that do things we don't. That's not normally a good argument for us doing something, though. And what do you think comes up top if you google "suicide methods"? --FormerIP (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's be honest, Wiki came up top from searching "shit" and most other trivial searches. That doesn't make it more reliable than everything else, which I only just tried to prove a point. Google is commercial and imbalanced, Wiki is well crawled by bots, new articles get shown on Google in hours, compared with some sites taking months to be listed. Anyway, I don't want to get bogged down in this convo. I simply think that this article could be better written and shaped to be more objective. My stance is history and an approach based on methods used notable, similar to notable executions, or notable torture victims and the methods applies. Some might prefer a more psychological, or social approach, to give a different academic perspective. Any might do it, I'm good either way as I don't intend to do it myself. If this were an AfD, "as it stands" I think I'd be a "weak keep" at best. I should stress, that I'm not a pro-suicide supporter, not pro-euthanasia of people or even animals in most cases, nor pro-abortion. You get the drift... I have no experience with suicide, have never contemplated it, nor do I know anyone personally or close who has taken their life to be affected and COI my views here. I simply accept that Wiki is about knowledge, not about promoting anything. The implications of such an article only relates to the way it's written, not the subject, but the context and tone. An article on abortion could just as easily give pregnant women ideas with success and risk analysis stats with the undertone that "it works". I haven't looked at any wiki abortion articles, by the way, just making comparison that Wiki articles can often be controversial, but where there is room to tone down unacceptable content rather than ditch the lot I support the a rewrite. Hopefully someone will find a way to deal with it that benefits the encyclopaedia, without losing a potentially important subject to censorship. All I say, is keep an open mind about approaches to de-editorialising the subject, rather than consequences which are highly unlikely. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 03:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Suicide methodology is a field of study in pathology, forensic science, anthropology, history, and even political science. (Two bullet wounds and no gun: was he killed? Maybe not: guns tend to wander (not everyone is afraid to steal a gun from a dead guy) and there are many instances of suicide by multiple bullet wound.) --NellieBly (talk) 06:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, I don't get Marcus' argument. If an abortion article quotes statistics, it's somehow being unencyclopedic in tone by implying to women that "it works"? That's a big stretch of

WP:UNDUE. It's ridiculous, and the tags he is putting on the article are also ridiculous. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free

) 13:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Tagging

Having tagged the article for cleanup, and various issues, due to the concerns raised here, they were reverted twice and I was accused of having an agenda, which is somewhat not AGF and uncivil. [145] On her talk page and revert summaries she made ownership-like remarks, disputed the tags, without giving the tags or this topic due consideration. One person's views do not override a larger number on ANI. [146]. The article needs work. Everyone but LGDP agrees to that. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 13:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

That's your assertion, which I dispute. People were talking about the talk page content, and as far as I know, there aren't a lot of people on here who have said the article is need of severe cleanup -- I say "severe" because you put 5 tags on that article, many of which were irrelevant.

I made no ownership-like remarks; in fact, it seems to me that it is Marcus who thinks he

WP:OWNs the article. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free

) 13:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Removing tags to maintain the version only you are happy with, to avoid cleanup or recognition for development is pure-OWN. Bulldozing you own views over the handful of people above who object to the tone is OWN. Refusing to discuss the topic above but instead commenting on another editors concerns is OWN. Need I go on? Articles don't develop if people freely remove tags without giving them a chance to be acted upon. Again, OWN, on in your case

WP:IJDLI. And leave the Tagging sub-header above, thank-you, it's a sub-topic and people don't need to have too load the entire topic to comment. Again, silly pointless reversions like this point to your own agenda. My points have been discussed in detail above. Either comment on them, or don't. Do not disrupt other editors wishes to see an article made safer and more academic for your own limited views and then speak of consensus. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF}

] 13:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Marcus; tag bombing like that because you have issues with the article is wholly inappropriate. Firstly because tags are not supposed to be a "badge of shame" or to make a point about the article. They are intended to alert people to possible issues - dropping a million tags on the article is not useful to that purpose. The other issue is that for most of those tags you are specifically required to raise the issues on the talk page in tandem and attempt to resolve them, removing the tags when consensus is reached. You're being very combative again, and that creates an environment poisonous to collaboration. Rather than ranting in various places can I suggest you take this discussion to the talk page and actively discuss ways to improve the material. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh here we go, accusations galore! A million tags, hyperbole. It was like 5, and TW has a compact option to make them shorter. Nothing to do with bloody badge of shame. Tags invite improvement. Where is your AGF instead of coming on strong with the rhetoric? The discussion is above - see it? The Talk page is hardly a productive environment given that this topic was opened due to the pro-suicide sentiment expressed there. What good would discussion do there? Walk into a lions cage then tell them meat is off the menu, see who they attack. As for ranting in various places, another hyperbolical remark. I've made it clear the discussion is here. Respect that, and cut out the falsehoods. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 14:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Give over. You can't just throw tags like that on the page to register your objections and then refuse to discuss it. Why? Because many of the tags require a talk page discussion. This discussion is not here - this is a page for discussing incidents needing admin intervention. To develop content you need the talk page, please. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• This article has long been a pro-suicide how to article. But enough editors like it that these problems have been shouted down in AFDs, Edison (talk) 19:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • How do we overcome that though? If an article escaped 6 AfDs, it gives them strong determination to reject contribs that aim to change the nature of the article from what it currently is to a more encyclopedic study of suicide methods from a different angle, of a non-promotional nature. I was thinking of perhaps opening a dialogue on Jimbo's page, as any topics there often get a lot of ideas from all types of editors, and therefore would be able to ascertain what the general feeling is from lots more people, other than those who support the article as is and have contrib'd, and those who don't find it appropriate here. Would that be too much drama though, or a good means to getting ideas, even some thoughts from Jimbo how to approach the matter sensibly and then putting a few ideas down in the article talk page, where the pro-suicide people won't overwhelm the argument? Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 22:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

AfD

Would an Admin please Speedy Keep close Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Suicide_methods_(7th_nomination)#Suicide_methods which was inappropriately "opened in my name" without consent because LGDP does not wish to see this article edited, and a 7th AfD Keep would just giver her leverage to claim it can't be rewritten either, again uncivil use of my name, bad faith, OWN and borderline battleground behaviour. Unbelievable... smh! Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 14:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, closed. But come on both of you need to stop approaching this like a battleground. I think, Marcus, your objection is now well noted :) and the next step is to constructively (and calmly) discuss material on the talk pages. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

That AfD was entirely inappropriate. Errant is correct; further discussion should occur on the article talk page. LadyofShalott 18:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Block Hysteria18

United States House of Representatives elections in Indiana, 2012

Repeatedly, a user named Hysteria18 has blanked information in the above article in the 2nd district section. He deletes references and then uses the lack of references to delete content. It is long past time the Hysteria18 person was blocked.--98.213.3.48 (talk) 02:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

You appear to have a significant problem related to this content dispute. It looks fairly clear to me that you are

conflict and may have problems with sock puppetry as well.--Bbb23 (talk

) 02:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:UP#PROMO, a bit? He just copied the information from his campaign website. Complete with the phone number of his campaign manager. Yeeks... Doc talk

03:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The offending user page is moved to a sandbox under that account's name. I've left a note on the IP's talk page and on the talk page of Andrew Straw User:Andrewudstraw. I hope that that settles this useless complaint. Andrew and all his IPs are urged to stay away from articles they are involved in. Oh, IP 98, there is still time to apologize to Bbb23 for that hypocritical cry for help on their talk page. And FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, MAN, if you're going to use Wikipedia to further your political goals, at least learn and follow the rules. Sheesh! Drmies (talk) 04:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

And I'll give you one more piece of advice, entirely free of charge (we're all volunteers here...): after looking at this, I'd say you may want to look at this,

WP:TLDNR. You need flashy pictures, not so many words. No one read words anyway. For more advice I refer you to my campaign manager, User:Baseball Bugs. Good luck, Drmies (talk

) 04:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

If Bugs is your campaign manager, I don't think you'll win many elections, but you'll likely have fun losing. --Jayron32 05:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

This is why I seldom vote in RFA's. My support vote would probably be the kiss of death. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Heh, the count could be 200/0/0 and you could vote support, and within hours it would fail 36/476/0 ? (

BWilkins ←track

) 14:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess 98.213.3.48 missed the big orange "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion" sign. Tut. I've advised Hysteria 18 of this thread, though I admit the people above seem to be handling the matter well enough without him/her. :-) Bishonen | talk 21:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC).

That is "Hysteria18", not "the Hysteria18 person". Even a political candidate has tons more tact than that. Your current attitude here is not going to reflect well in your bid for office. –MuZemike 22:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

RPP Backlog

Is it possible for an admin who reads this to take care of some of the

RPP backlog? Vandalism to some pages is continuing. Calabe1992

21:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism, sockpuppetry, edit warring & legal threats at Bay FM 99.3

Resolved

 – Apparently, the result of a disgruntled employee. Who has now been simply dis-sed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Two IPs are actively vandalising Bay FM 99.3. I've requested page protection and reported one of the IPs to AIV but since legal threats have also been made,[147][148] I'm reporting that matter here, per Wikipedia:No legal threats. There are indications that both of the IPs involved are one person, so we have some sockpuppetry thrown in.[149][150] The IP that I reported to AIV has threatened "Through our network we have acces to over 200 IP addresses and will continiue to delete information until this page is removed in its entirity"[sic], and has stood by his word, removing valid sourced content.[151] --AussieLegend (talk) 09:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Does the editor make valid complaints about the article? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

None of the complaints seem valid. In fact, some are completely ridiculous, like this one, claiming to have "deleted unverifiable information". The owner's name and original frequency were sourced directly from the station's own website.[152] The IPs have also been vandalising disambiguation pages to remove records of the article,[153] or to remove links to the article.[154] --AussieLegend (talk) 09:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked

WP:NLT. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk)

10:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

As noted by the OP and by the "owner" himself, they have endless IP's. 165.228.61.164 (talk · contribs) has currently taken over for 203.45.50.147 (talk · contribs). You need to semi-protect the page, and that will fend them off. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Semi'd 2 weeks. T. Canens (talk) 10:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, blocked User:165.228.61.164 for 24 hours for disruptive editing. Some of their posts are nearly illiterate and I'm not sure how seriously I take their threats of being able to manipulate IP addresses. But meh, it's semi'd, thanks Tim C. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Both IP's emanate from Sydney, for what it's worth. The one item about an employee supposedly being fired because he couldn't get the article deleted needs to be added to the list of socking excuses. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

This looks like a blatant troll to me and so it is probably better to ignore, but I still think

_berate

10:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I went right through the article and checked it to make sure it was all fine. I ended up fixing several extremely minor errors, mainly in the infobox.[155] Most of the content is actually sourced from the Australian government's public register of radiocommunication licences. Only a small amount has been sourced from the station's website but there's nothing in there that is a copyvio. There never was. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

They have also taken their grievance to their Twitter account, which sticks out like a sore thumb among what is usually a humdrum rolling community calendar feed. As an editor experienced in mass media station articles there's absolutely nothing wrong here at all; all of the information is sourced to Australia's radio regulator except for the format, which is the only thing that could be argued out, however unlikely it is. The clipart station logo is also inarguable with all public domain characters and drawings.

chatter

) 13:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Rather oddly, that tweet has disappeared, along with the 'Bay993FM' account that posted it. Curiouser and curiouser. Is there some weird dispute going on here which we aren't aware of? —Tom Morris (talk) 13:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The dispute is very weird. The 165.228.61.164 IP is making some rather strange claims on their talk page, such as saying that the domain that is registered to the station owners and which has been the official website of the station for years, and which is the website identified by several sources including google as the station's website, is not the official website. He's also questioning the credibility of the stations website in reporting content about the station and so on. He has even

accused me of being associated with one of the station's competitors,[156] which is rather silly given that a competitor would be more likely to be trying to have the article deleted, or filled with incorrect information, than trying to stop that happening. --AussieLegend (talk

) 23:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Tom Morris (talk · contribs) proposed deletion [157]. An elegant solution if it goes through. causa sui (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, my mistake: I should probably have checked the history of the article before proposing deletion. Without disclosing anything, I'd suggest that an admin with OTRS access handle this case from here with reference to VRTS ticket # 2011112910012043. I would find an admin to handle it but I will be very busy for the next twelve hours or so. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

  I've picked up the ticket on OTRS and am attempting to handle it from there. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

  I'm starting to think that the email accounts and website of Bay FM 99.3 may have been compromised. User:165.228.61.164 has been making some pretty strange claims on his/her talk page and these, as well as demonstrated actions, just don't make sense. The IP claims to be the owner of the station and says he has fired the person who created the article.[158] Changing the station's url, then taking down both of the station's websites as well as the Twitter feed don't seem logical, as the website included advertising for the station, and the station has consistently been known as Bay FM (I live and work in the area) for the past 13 years. The comments made by the IP seem contradictory. The station's website now displays only the name "Coast 'n Country FM", yet when this name was in the article the IP removed it, along with other content,[159] and subsequently argued that that "Radio Bay FM" is the name of the station.[160] The IPs have complained about their logo being used here but, with this change to "Coast 'n Country FM", that really shouldn't be an issue. Given the circumstances surrounding all of this, I suspect that the person who was sacked may still be in control of the websites and other IT assets, possibly without the owner's consent, and that all of this is just a ruse to to destroy the article in retaliation for being fired. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

  As if to confirm the above suspicions, the websites and Twitter account are now back online. Tweets indicates that they lost control of their servers.[161][162] --AussieLegend (talk) 02:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

  Should I send them a tweet checking on what they really feel about the article possibly? If there was a hack attack them I'm darned sure they're just as concerned about their Wiki presence being mangled as they are their website and social channels. Though to note it seems like their Facebook presence was never affected (I checked yesterday when I posted here and it was still just community calendar and station events on the feed, so they kept that locked down at least).

  chatter

  ) 05:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

  It probably wouldn't hurt to do so. I note that the IP seems to have gone quiet shortly before they reported being back online so they may not be aware of the full extent of what's happened. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

  Not exactly. The IP socks continue to post comments on the article talk page. I've been zapping them as being from a blocked user. If an admin thinks I was wrong to do that, I can put them back. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

  Actually, the IP went quiet a few hours after you deleted its last post on Talk:Bay FM 99.3. The post you deleted today was actually a legitimate post, or at least appears to be. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

  It is, I did ask them to post on talk via Twitter when they were able to in order to assert they were back in control.

  chatter

  ) 01:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

  Twitter account has been informed and encouraged to check in on the talk page. Also to note, I thought it was fishy that a Sydney-based IP would be chiming in about a station well north and unable to be received anywhere near Sydney metro.

  chatter

  ) 16:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

  It's not unusual for IPs in Australia to appear to be from a capital city, especially when it's one of the larger ISPs. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

  I guess that makes sense then if it came out of Sydney; I thought the traceroute would've shown a subnode address though locating to Port Stevens or another nearby place such as Gold Coast or Brisbane (for instance my location is actually on a

  chatter

  ) 01:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

  Reponse from my message says they know about the Wikibreach and their IT dept. is investigating further. I think we can consider this closed and they're back to just being a normal old oldies outlet for a small Aussie vacation burg.

  chatter

  ) 22:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

  And one more addendum; in my Twitter thread they requested their streaming link be removed as their provider only allows the link through their website for contractual reasons, so I have removed that with a note saying not to re-add.

  chatter

  ) 05:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Makes a lot more sense now we know it wasn't actually someone who acting on behalf of the radio station. Their behaviour was rather confusing even early on, particularly the claim about lawyers advising them fair use does not apply under international copyright agreements. Nil Einne (talk) 11:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

This has been resolved, at least on the OTRS end, with no changes to the article. I'm unable to comment either way on the identity of the IP or the sender of the OTRS ticket. Not sure if the OTRS resolution means we can close this thread up or not. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Adarsh9896

Why were my, and another User's, comments deleted from the edit history of

talk

) 04:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It appears something was oversighted. You'll have to ask an oversighter why. --Jayron32 05:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

How do I find out who the oversighter was?

talk

) 07:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I was the oversighter, but I couldn't email you as you have not registered your email address. I could not discuss the matter on wiki because as non-public personal information the material qualified for suppression and I could not republish it. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I see you have added the information that the user is 13 years old back into your post. That is the information that was oversighted, a self-disclosure by a minor of their age, which is oversightable. Please do not put such information back into Wikipedia if it has been removed. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It is too late now to remove it or to try to mitigate any harm done. 13 is a bit below the boundary line the oversighters usually draw. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Oversighters are busy people. Perhaps they made a mistake, or perhaps they had a good reason. Does it matter? Johnuniq (talk) 07:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I see you have added the information that the user is 13 years old back into your post. I did not.

talk

) 06:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't really understand why TMOTB is making such a big fuss on the oversight thing but I have to agree with them on the revert. The user's talk page has not been touched since Fred edited and while FB removed the link to the user from ANI, they did not remove the age [163]. As FB has noted this question shouldn't have been asked here anyway although it appears TMOTB was originally not aware suppression was used. If information has been suppressed, the whole point is this is considered sensitive enough that it generally shouldn't be discussed publicly here. Also please remember that is with most of wikipedia, the audit subcommittee is composed of volunteers so it's resonable to expect to wait a while for a response. (Even when I'm paying for a service it's rare that I would expect a guaranteed response within a day.) Nil Einne (talk) 10:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

It's common for a revision to be hidden if its contents contain things that shouldn't be visible. This doesn't imply there's a problem with your edits, it just means that particular revision happened to still contain problematic material. There's a similar situation on the user page of the same user - I contacted oversight because there were things there that needed not to be there. I don't know what the problems were on the talk page. --

talk

) 07:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Hello, this is that "another User". From memory, it was contact and personal details of a younger editor. There's nothing further needs be discussed here. --Shirt58 (talk) 07:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It was not contact and personal details. The edit summary merely pointed him to the discussion above on this page. And yes, it does matter, because it puts it out there that I made an inappropriate edit, which I did not do.

talk

) 18:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

See the history of the userpage; an edit summary by Demiurge1000 was also deleted. I can only think of two possible situations in which an edit summary is oversighted: either it's a problem with the user who wrote the summary, in which case s/he should receive sanctions, or s/he is quite innocent, in which case s/he should be told that s/he didn't do anything wrong. I see no reason that either of these things was done. Moreover, for a reason that I can't understand, your original comments about this user were redacted editorially with no edit summary, making them incomprehensible. This situation is inexusably opaque: when information is made unavailable to all but 35 people, explanations need to be given so we can understand why it was removed. Nyttend (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• The appropriate venue for challenging the use of the Oversight (suppression) tool is to e-mail the
  [•]
  20:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Please bear in mind the following: If edit 1 to a page introduces inappropriate material that requires revision-deletion or oversighting, and edit 10 removes that material, then edits 2-10 will also need to be rev-deleted or oversighted. This does not reflect adversely in any way on the editors involved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Three edits were oversighted. Mine was the first. And I repeat, only the edit summaries were redacted, the information added is still there. If an oversighter thinks there is something that needs to be discussed with me, then if you don't want to address it here, please send me an email. Otherwise I will assume my edit is somehow inappropriate, but nobody wants to tell me what it is.

talk

) 00:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

You have not registered your email with Wikipedia; we can't email you. Please do not simply revert removed edits in the future even if we can't notify you. This example was not terrible serious, but next time it might be. And please don't post personal information on Administrator's noticeboards. The effect is to broadcast the information widely. User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I haven't reverted anything. I am getting more and more frustrated here, as I'm apparently being accused of something that I don't understand. I sent a request to the audit subcommittee. But I'm getting really upset about this, why should I be accused of things that I haven't done?

talk

) 01:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Because we have no oversight log and the oversighter didn't get around to telling you what was going on. This is unacceptable: when an edit is oversighted without any wrongdoing by the editor, the oversighter has the responsibility to tell the editor that s/he didn't do anything wrong. Nyttend (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The effect of your editing was to associate a 13 year old child with his user name. Not the end of the world, but not good. There is no way to communicate confidential information to someone who has not registered their email address. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if someone's edits are changed it would be best to find a way to tell them they are not doing something wrong, but in fact posting on this noticeboard about a 13 year old is wrong. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I give up. OK, I guess I'm a horrible person.

talk

) 06:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Just something you apparently had not thought about. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hold on -- we're not prohibiting self-disclosure from 13 year olds about their age, are we? I mean I self-disclosed when I was 14. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 08:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

It is a matter of judgement. Perhaps you were a mature 14 year old who fully understood the risks. Under 13 we oversight self-disclosure. After that, it is a matter of judgement with the apparent maturity of the user taken into consideration. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Funnily enough I hadn't read your comment and aren't involved in such matters but I was thinking the same. It may be Lgdp demonstrated enough maturity that people trusted their judgement on what personal information they should disclose. On the other hand with a user who left their birthdate and claims to be the something (can't remember, was it president? CEO?) of Microsoft, this probably doesn't apply. Nil Einne (talk) 04:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• And lo', the discussion did continue... Mark of the Beast, we received your e-mail and will respond privately, in due course.
  [•]
  11:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and legal threat by User:FantageJapanRox

The user has repeatedly placed the same Speedy Deletion tag on Fantage.

I declined the first one explaining that it did not meet the given criteria. When they did it a second time, I asked them to stop the disruptive editing or they might be blocked from editing. I also suggested AfD as a venue if they still felt deletion was the correct thing.

They're reverted the decline edit with the summary "Getting in trouble… don't block me or I'll sue(FOR REAL!!!)"

I am here because I am involved and want other admins to deal with this (also, I'm at work using my mobile phone, so I'm not using my main - admin - account)

There's the legal threat and the disruptive editing - if I was not involved, and came across this, I'd block the editor - but I am involved. I will notify the editor of this thread after I post this.

Regards, --

alternative account of Phantomsteve

] 00:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Note: User has been notified about this discussion--
  alternative account of Phantomsteve
  ] 00:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I have left a message on the user's talk page inviting them to retract the apparent threat and discuss the situation on their user talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 01:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

And with a couple hours w/no response... blocked. Skier Dude (talk) 04:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

User:M1$CR3ANT

This user has created a 'strange' userpage: here and is edit warring to retain it. Surely this is not allowed? --220 of ^Borg 03:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The page was created with their first edit. They have been reverted by at least three editors and removed a CSD tag. HERE--220 of ^Borg 03:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

This is pure spam and porn. Why start a discussion string instead of just removing the moron?

talk

) 03:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I concur, but 'removing' the editor, if necessary requires an Admistrator. --220 of ^Borg 03:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Trolling more likely. The user has made three reasonable edits, and a porn user page, and no doubt will laugh while Wikipedia's processes grind long into the night. Vaguely reminiscent of an indef blocked user recently mentioned on one of the wikidrama boards. Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to also draw attention to the actions of

talk

) 04:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I am discussing it with him in a calm manner. I have only talked to him on his talk page about it, so I honestly have no clue what he is finding abusive about "my actions". The only actions I have taken are leaving a few messages on his talk page, and one warning template previously after he incorrectly and somewhat abusively blanked the userpage and replaced it with "Block this user you call an editor" instead of placing a speedy delete template. --

Report a Vandal

) 04:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure there was any

Mtking ^(edits)

04:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I have deleted the image from the user's page under the criteria spelled out atWP:User pages#images: Content clearly intended as sexually provocative (images and in some cases text) or to cause distress and shock that appears to have little or no project benefit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

User has been warned. m.o.p 05:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism-Only User

67.3.64.70 appears to be a vandalism-only user. It only has four contributions right now, but they are all vandalism. Alphius (talk) 04:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Report to
  WP:AIV, please. Drmies (talk
  ) 05:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
• No, on second thought, don't--give them vandalism warnings. Then report them. Drmies (talk) 05:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Potential blocking of user repeatedly violating

WP:COPYVIO

I'm writing in to report a user for repeated copyright violations. It's

talk

) 06:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)TOKYOGIRL79

Vandalism, sockpuppetry, edit warring & legal threats at Bay FM 99.3

Resolved

 – Apparently, the result of a disgruntled employee. Who has now been simply dis-sed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Two IPs are actively vandalising Bay FM 99.3. I've requested page protection and reported one of the IPs to AIV but since legal threats have also been made,[164][165] I'm reporting that matter here, per Wikipedia:No legal threats. There are indications that both of the IPs involved are one person, so we have some sockpuppetry thrown in.[166][167] The IP that I reported to AIV has threatened "Through our network we have acces to over 200 IP addresses and will continiue to delete information until this page is removed in its entirity"[sic], and has stood by his word, removing valid sourced content.[168] --AussieLegend (talk) 09:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Does the editor make valid complaints about the article? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

None of the complaints seem valid. In fact, some are completely ridiculous, like this one, claiming to have "deleted unverifiable information". The owner's name and original frequency were sourced directly from the station's own website.[169] The IPs have also been vandalising disambiguation pages to remove records of the article,[170] or to remove links to the article.[171] --AussieLegend (talk) 09:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked

WP:NLT. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk)

10:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

As noted by the OP and by the "owner" himself, they have endless IP's. 165.228.61.164 (talk · contribs) has currently taken over for 203.45.50.147 (talk · contribs). You need to semi-protect the page, and that will fend them off. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Semi'd 2 weeks. T. Canens (talk) 10:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, blocked User:165.228.61.164 for 24 hours for disruptive editing. Some of their posts are nearly illiterate and I'm not sure how seriously I take their threats of being able to manipulate IP addresses. But meh, it's semi'd, thanks Tim C. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Both IP's emanate from Sydney, for what it's worth. The one item about an employee supposedly being fired because he couldn't get the article deleted needs to be added to the list of socking excuses. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

This looks like a blatant troll to me and so it is probably better to ignore, but I still think

_berate

10:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I went right through the article and checked it to make sure it was all fine. I ended up fixing several extremely minor errors, mainly in the infobox.[172] Most of the content is actually sourced from the Australian government's public register of radiocommunication licences. Only a small amount has been sourced from the station's website but there's nothing in there that is a copyvio. There never was. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

They have also taken their grievance to their Twitter account, which sticks out like a sore thumb among what is usually a humdrum rolling community calendar feed. As an editor experienced in mass media station articles there's absolutely nothing wrong here at all; all of the information is sourced to Australia's radio regulator except for the format, which is the only thing that could be argued out, however unlikely it is. The clipart station logo is also inarguable with all public domain characters and drawings.

chatter

) 13:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Rather oddly, that tweet has disappeared, along with the 'Bay993FM' account that posted it. Curiouser and curiouser. Is there some weird dispute going on here which we aren't aware of? —Tom Morris (talk) 13:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The dispute is very weird. The 165.228.61.164 IP is making some rather strange claims on their talk page, such as saying that the domain that is registered to the station owners and which has been the official website of the station for years, and which is the website identified by several sources including google as the station's website, is not the official website. He's also questioning the credibility of the stations website in reporting content about the station and so on. He has even

accused me of being associated with one of the station's competitors,[173] which is rather silly given that a competitor would be more likely to be trying to have the article deleted, or filled with incorrect information, than trying to stop that happening. --AussieLegend (talk

) 23:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Tom Morris (talk · contribs) proposed deletion [174]. An elegant solution if it goes through. causa sui (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, my mistake: I should probably have checked the history of the article before proposing deletion. Without disclosing anything, I'd suggest that an admin with OTRS access handle this case from here with reference to VRTS ticket # 2011112910012043. I would find an admin to handle it but I will be very busy for the next twelve hours or so. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

  I've picked up the ticket on OTRS and am attempting to handle it from there. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

  I'm starting to think that the email accounts and website of Bay FM 99.3 may have been compromised. User:165.228.61.164 has been making some pretty strange claims on his/her talk page and these, as well as demonstrated actions, just don't make sense. The IP claims to be the owner of the station and says he has fired the person who created the article.[175] Changing the station's url, then taking down both of the station's websites as well as the Twitter feed don't seem logical, as the website included advertising for the station, and the station has consistently been known as Bay FM (I live and work in the area) for the past 13 years. The comments made by the IP seem contradictory. The station's website now displays only the name "Coast 'n Country FM", yet when this name was in the article the IP removed it, along with other content,[176] and subsequently argued that that "Radio Bay FM" is the name of the station.[177] The IPs have complained about their logo being used here but, with this change to "Coast 'n Country FM", that really shouldn't be an issue. Given the circumstances surrounding all of this, I suspect that the person who was sacked may still be in control of the websites and other IT assets, possibly without the owner's consent, and that all of this is just a ruse to to destroy the article in retaliation for being fired. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

  As if to confirm the above suspicions, the websites and Twitter account are now back online. Tweets indicates that they lost control of their servers.[178][179] --AussieLegend (talk) 02:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

  Should I send them a tweet checking on what they really feel about the article possibly? If there was a hack attack them I'm darned sure they're just as concerned about their Wiki presence being mangled as they are their website and social channels. Though to note it seems like their Facebook presence was never affected (I checked yesterday when I posted here and it was still just community calendar and station events on the feed, so they kept that locked down at least).

  chatter

  ) 05:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

  It probably wouldn't hurt to do so. I note that the IP seems to have gone quiet shortly before they reported being back online so they may not be aware of the full extent of what's happened. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

  Not exactly. The IP socks continue to post comments on the article talk page. I've been zapping them as being from a blocked user. If an admin thinks I was wrong to do that, I can put them back. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

  Actually, the IP went quiet a few hours after you deleted its last post on Talk:Bay FM 99.3. The post you deleted today was actually a legitimate post, or at least appears to be. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

  It is, I did ask them to post on talk via Twitter when they were able to in order to assert they were back in control.

  chatter

  ) 01:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

  Twitter account has been informed and encouraged to check in on the talk page. Also to note, I thought it was fishy that a Sydney-based IP would be chiming in about a station well north and unable to be received anywhere near Sydney metro.

  chatter

  ) 16:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

  It's not unusual for IPs in Australia to appear to be from a capital city, especially when it's one of the larger ISPs. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

  I guess that makes sense then if it came out of Sydney; I thought the traceroute would've shown a subnode address though locating to Port Stevens or another nearby place such as Gold Coast or Brisbane (for instance my location is actually on a

  chatter

  ) 01:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

  Reponse from my message says they know about the Wikibreach and their IT dept. is investigating further. I think we can consider this closed and they're back to just being a normal old oldies outlet for a small Aussie vacation burg.

  chatter

  ) 22:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

  And one more addendum; in my Twitter thread they requested their streaming link be removed as their provider only allows the link through their website for contractual reasons, so I have removed that with a note saying not to re-add.

  chatter

  ) 05:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Makes a lot more sense now we know it wasn't actually someone who acting on behalf of the radio station. Their behaviour was rather confusing even early on, particularly the claim about lawyers advising them fair use does not apply under international copyright agreements. Nil Einne (talk) 11:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

This has been resolved, at least on the OTRS end, with no changes to the article. I'm unable to comment either way on the identity of the IP or the sender of the OTRS ticket. Not sure if the OTRS resolution means we can close this thread up or not. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Adarsh9896

Why were my, and another User's, comments deleted from the edit history of

talk

) 04:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It appears something was oversighted. You'll have to ask an oversighter why. --Jayron32 05:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

How do I find out who the oversighter was?

talk

) 07:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I was the oversighter, but I couldn't email you as you have not registered your email address. I could not discuss the matter on wiki because as non-public personal information the material qualified for suppression and I could not republish it. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I see you have added the information that the user is 13 years old back into your post. That is the information that was oversighted, a self-disclosure by a minor of their age, which is oversightable. Please do not put such information back into Wikipedia if it has been removed. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It is too late now to remove it or to try to mitigate any harm done. 13 is a bit below the boundary line the oversighters usually draw. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Oversighters are busy people. Perhaps they made a mistake, or perhaps they had a good reason. Does it matter? Johnuniq (talk) 07:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I see you have added the information that the user is 13 years old back into your post. I did not.

talk

) 06:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't really understand why TMOTB is making such a big fuss on the oversight thing but I have to agree with them on the revert. The user's talk page has not been touched since Fred edited and while FB removed the link to the user from ANI, they did not remove the age [180]. As FB has noted this question shouldn't have been asked here anyway although it appears TMOTB was originally not aware suppression was used. If information has been suppressed, the whole point is this is considered sensitive enough that it generally shouldn't be discussed publicly here. Also please remember that is with most of wikipedia, the audit subcommittee is composed of volunteers so it's resonable to expect to wait a while for a response. (Even when I'm paying for a service it's rare that I would expect a guaranteed response within a day.) Nil Einne (talk) 10:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

It's common for a revision to be hidden if its contents contain things that shouldn't be visible. This doesn't imply there's a problem with your edits, it just means that particular revision happened to still contain problematic material. There's a similar situation on the user page of the same user - I contacted oversight because there were things there that needed not to be there. I don't know what the problems were on the talk page. --

talk

) 07:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Hello, this is that "another User". From memory, it was contact and personal details of a younger editor. There's nothing further needs be discussed here. --Shirt58 (talk) 07:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It was not contact and personal details. The edit summary merely pointed him to the discussion above on this page. And yes, it does matter, because it puts it out there that I made an inappropriate edit, which I did not do.

talk

) 18:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

See the history of the userpage; an edit summary by Demiurge1000 was also deleted. I can only think of two possible situations in which an edit summary is oversighted: either it's a problem with the user who wrote the summary, in which case s/he should receive sanctions, or s/he is quite innocent, in which case s/he should be told that s/he didn't do anything wrong. I see no reason that either of these things was done. Moreover, for a reason that I can't understand, your original comments about this user were redacted editorially with no edit summary, making them incomprehensible. This situation is inexusably opaque: when information is made unavailable to all but 35 people, explanations need to be given so we can understand why it was removed. Nyttend (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• The appropriate venue for challenging the use of the Oversight (suppression) tool is to e-mail the
  [•]
  20:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Please bear in mind the following: If edit 1 to a page introduces inappropriate material that requires revision-deletion or oversighting, and edit 10 removes that material, then edits 2-10 will also need to be rev-deleted or oversighted. This does not reflect adversely in any way on the editors involved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Three edits were oversighted. Mine was the first. And I repeat, only the edit summaries were redacted, the information added is still there. If an oversighter thinks there is something that needs to be discussed with me, then if you don't want to address it here, please send me an email. Otherwise I will assume my edit is somehow inappropriate, but nobody wants to tell me what it is.

talk

) 00:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

You have not registered your email with Wikipedia; we can't email you. Please do not simply revert removed edits in the future even if we can't notify you. This example was not terrible serious, but next time it might be. And please don't post personal information on Administrator's noticeboards. The effect is to broadcast the information widely. User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I haven't reverted anything. I am getting more and more frustrated here, as I'm apparently being accused of something that I don't understand. I sent a request to the audit subcommittee. But I'm getting really upset about this, why should I be accused of things that I haven't done?

talk

) 01:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Because we have no oversight log and the oversighter didn't get around to telling you what was going on. This is unacceptable: when an edit is oversighted without any wrongdoing by the editor, the oversighter has the responsibility to tell the editor that s/he didn't do anything wrong. Nyttend (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The effect of your editing was to associate a 13 year old child with his user name. Not the end of the world, but not good. There is no way to communicate confidential information to someone who has not registered their email address. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if someone's edits are changed it would be best to find a way to tell them they are not doing something wrong, but in fact posting on this noticeboard about a 13 year old is wrong. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I give up. OK, I guess I'm a horrible person.

talk

) 06:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Just something you apparently had not thought about. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hold on -- we're not prohibiting self-disclosure from 13 year olds about their age, are we? I mean I self-disclosed when I was 14. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 08:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

It is a matter of judgement. Perhaps you were a mature 14 year old who fully understood the risks. Under 13 we oversight self-disclosure. After that, it is a matter of judgement with the apparent maturity of the user taken into consideration. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Funnily enough I hadn't read your comment and aren't involved in such matters but I was thinking the same. It may be Lgdp demonstrated enough maturity that people trusted their judgement on what personal information they should disclose. On the other hand with a user who left their birthdate and claims to be the something (can't remember, was it president? CEO?) of Microsoft, this probably doesn't apply. Nil Einne (talk) 04:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• And lo', the discussion did continue... Mark of the Beast, we received your e-mail and will respond privately, in due course.
  [•]
  11:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and legal threat by User:FantageJapanRox

The user has repeatedly placed the same Speedy Deletion tag on Fantage.

I declined the first one explaining that it did not meet the given criteria. When they did it a second time, I asked them to stop the disruptive editing or they might be blocked from editing. I also suggested AfD as a venue if they still felt deletion was the correct thing.

They're reverted the decline edit with the summary "Getting in trouble… don't block me or I'll sue(FOR REAL!!!)"

I am here because I am involved and want other admins to deal with this (also, I'm at work using my mobile phone, so I'm not using my main - admin - account)

There's the legal threat and the disruptive editing - if I was not involved, and came across this, I'd block the editor - but I am involved. I will notify the editor of this thread after I post this.

Regards, --

alternative account of Phantomsteve

] 00:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Note: User has been notified about this discussion--
  alternative account of Phantomsteve
  ] 00:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I have left a message on the user's talk page inviting them to retract the apparent threat and discuss the situation on their user talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 01:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

And with a couple hours w/no response... blocked. Skier Dude (talk) 04:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

User:M1$CR3ANT

This user has created a 'strange' userpage: here and is edit warring to retain it. Surely this is not allowed? --220 of ^Borg 03:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The page was created with their first edit. They have been reverted by at least three editors and removed a CSD tag. HERE--220 of ^Borg 03:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

This is pure spam and porn. Why start a discussion string instead of just removing the moron?

talk

) 03:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I concur, but 'removing' the editor, if necessary requires an Admistrator. --220 of ^Borg 03:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Trolling more likely. The user has made three reasonable edits, and a porn user page, and no doubt will laugh while Wikipedia's processes grind long into the night. Vaguely reminiscent of an indef blocked user recently mentioned on one of the wikidrama boards. Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to also draw attention to the actions of

talk

) 04:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I am discussing it with him in a calm manner. I have only talked to him on his talk page about it, so I honestly have no clue what he is finding abusive about "my actions". The only actions I have taken are leaving a few messages on his talk page, and one warning template previously after he incorrectly and somewhat abusively blanked the userpage and replaced it with "Block this user you call an editor" instead of placing a speedy delete template. --

Report a Vandal

) 04:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure there was any

Mtking ^(edits)

04:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I have deleted the image from the user's page under the criteria spelled out atWP:User pages#images: Content clearly intended as sexually provocative (images and in some cases text) or to cause distress and shock that appears to have little or no project benefit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

User has been warned. m.o.p 05:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism-Only User

67.3.64.70 appears to be a vandalism-only user. It only has four contributions right now, but they are all vandalism. Alphius (talk) 04:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Report to
  WP:AIV, please. Drmies (talk
  ) 05:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
• No, on second thought, don't--give them vandalism warnings. Then report them. Drmies (talk) 05:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Potential blocking of user repeatedly violating

WP:COPYVIO

I'm writing in to report a user for repeated copyright violations. It's

talk

) 06:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)TOKYOGIRL79

Block Evasion

Can an admin look at

Mtking ^(edits)

02:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Obvious duck. Blocked. Elockid ^(Talk) 02:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this also a clear case of conflict of interest, with the editor having a fairly blatant connection with the University of Edinburgh School of GeoSciences and somehow seeing the very existence of the G5 article as against the interests of the University of Edinburgh.Rangoon11 (talk) 02:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the page

Mtking ^(edits)

02:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

This user is still at it; two more socks overnight.

Mtking ^(edits)

20:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• I've blocked a couple of ranges for a bit, so that should stem the abuse of multiple accounts. I definitely think the nominator has an axe to grind, but it's incongruent to speedily close the discussion when you have posted a good faith !vote. WilliamH (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Block Duke of Mantua

Resolved

 – Indeffed as vandalism-only account by User:Smalljim.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Please block this user; their history shows a number of vandalisms done to the wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Duke_of_Mantua Rucha58 16:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI, reports like this should go to

WP:AIV instead, but thanks for bringing the user to our attention. ​—DoRD (talk

)​ 16:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Adult supervision needed on Talk:Fisting

There is a rather heated discussion occurring at Talk:Fisting#Image of Guy Getting Fisted following an edit war in the now-protected article. The issue is about whether or not to include a photographic image of a man with a gloved hand inserted into his anus. The two main participants have strong words and the discussion has now attracted trolling well-meaning IP editors. Can someone with a strong but gentle hand try to settle things down? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I think "strong but gentle hand" is an unfortunate phrase choice. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Just a heads up, a banned sockpuppeteer is also there. I've blocked the account. Elockid ^(Talk) 18:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Please tell me we haven't violated

BWilkins ←track

) 19:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, parts of the article violate the policy (the Techniques section, for example). But I admit to being biased as I hate these sorts of articles and I hate reading them - it's hard to see what encyclopedic purpose they serve, except at the very outer margins.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I've removed an unverified paragraph, and a paragraph advocating Crisco but not based on reliable sources. I guess I could have added a cn-tag for the lubrication sentence, but at least I hope I won't be accused of OR by not having tagged it. I haven't looked at the list of editors but I did note that Carlos Sanchez was seriously overstepping some boundaries on the talk page; Bbb23, thank you for having warned them--it seems to have worked. Drmies (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Punitive Block

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

Closing per TopGun's request. 28bytes (talk) 02:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

---

I was subjected to

WP:COOLDOWN

.

Two of my review appeals went this way with only (debatable) explanation of a part of the appeal while still not explaining how my block was preventive. Infact all the explanations (to the editwar part) given by the administrators are clearly pointing out that it was a punitive block. A third appeal was left unreviewed till the block expired.

Further more, the block archive has proofs given that I pointed out some of the obvious vandalism (on other pages) during my block (from my watchlist) and that was the only thing the block prevented me from reverting (as well as my first revert after the block was previously noted vandalism to pages). I don't see how by any means was this block preventive?

Archive page: User talk:TopGun/Punitive Block
Permanent link: [181]
Permanent link of

WP:AN3 report: [182]

Involved adminstrators:

Blocking:

User:Bwilkins

(blocked on basis of editwar to which I had made clear I would not participate anymore)
1st review: User:Boing! said Zebedee (gave a one liner decline reason only addressing editwar)
2nd review:

User:JamesBWatson

(gave a similar reason as the 1st review but later acknowledged that I had a case for the block being punitive)
3rd review: (left un-answered)

(Incase I shouldn't be filing on this noticeboard, then please give me the right link.)

Users notified. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Has there ever been a time when it turned out well for a user whose first action after being blocked is to come onto

WP:ANI and complain of admin abuse? Especially when 3 different admins were involved? Qwyrxian (talk

) 15:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. There's always a first time. I don't think there has been a time some one did this before. And my reasons are very clear and obvious. 3 admins vs 1 user should still not involve prejudice as far as I know. Actually, my first action was to revert obvious vandalism after the block expired, which I couldn't due to the block though I still pointed out some on my talk page. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Having never given a punitive (or even cooldown) block in my life, I'm not sure how to answer.

I responded to an AN3 report. Both editors had been equal partners in an edit-war, one claiming they had the right to do it, because of past consensus. As both parties were equally involved in the edit war, in complete fairness I blocked both for the identical period of time: 48hrs. Those who report at AN, ANI or even AN3 know full well that their own actions in the incident will always be taken into account. I revisited Top Gun's page once or twice afterwards due to my monitoring of unblock requests. While there - although I did not obviously action the unblocks - I corrected some of his misbeliefs surrounding the

BWilkins ←track

) 15:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Let me add that clearly I have no issue with the editor. This past AN3 filing that involved him was closed rather differently. I have no need/desire/background in "punishing" this editor, and the previous AN3 handling pretty much shows how level-handed and fair I have been on these regarding Top Gun (

BWilkins ←track

) 16:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Bwilkins on that and his previous fairness. Although the fact that he was lenient with the case above which included trivial personal attacks but not where I declared of not continuing before any hint of block does not help me be any less indignant. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreeing that I should have reported at page protection instead of AN3 (which I cleared that I indicated protection in AN3 report - which you replied to as this one clearing your side on that - fine) but after I already made it clear (with proof that I did not revert again with the other user further escalating) how was this block preventive is the fact I have not been made clear to. Not then, not during any of the appeals, not now. The point you made about me being too late to report at AN3 since I was already in an edit war, is itself an indication of the block being punitive, I did get your point of RFPP which you clearly explained but that couldn'tt be undone then and there was no reason of blocking on those basis. To be more simple, I edit war (claiming a violation of consensus - which is not the topic of discussion here) and then I report to AN3 saying that I won't edit now, and I get a block. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• The OP seems to have a misunderstanding of what constitutes an edit war. Looking at the article history I can see how
  JamesBWatson's review is seriously over-simplified. Tiderolls
  15:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The meaning of edit war has been made clear to me by the three admins now, and that's something I would be more careful about in the future even if I do have consensus, maybe I was confusing it with "revert, warn & report" which was due to the violation of consensus I claimed (to be neutral here). But all that is not what I filed for, I've not simplified the admin's review discussion (since I added the link to the original piece), rather I included only the part relevant to this report. Which is, no explanation given, the block giving impression of a cooldown block and obviously being (with proof) a punitive block. I don't know if I can include the fact that it was accepted as a punitive block by the blocking admin after expiry. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Bwilkins explains how the block was not punitive above. I do not see where the acceptance to which you allude is stated. Another misunderstanding perhaps? Tiderolls

17:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually no, he didn't explain it and he didn't state how it was preventive even in the replies below. Here is the acceptance after expiry "accept reason here (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)" on this page. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The edit summary explains that

Bwilkins was simply closing an expired unblock request. "accept reason here" is an unblock template parameter. So you see, a misunderstanding. Tiderolls

18:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

So that is the default text after accepting an unblock? If not, his text contradicts edit summary. Incase what you say is the case, it stands cleared that he didn't accept it and we can continue with the rest. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

There was no unblock; the block had expired. Tiderolls 18:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I got it, he didn't replace the default parameter while removing the request. Probably should have been careful since this report was already filed when he accepted and it was to be taken as text by me or any unaware readers. But no harm done. Refer to my bottom comments for the rest. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Note: To be clear, my report here is not about the editwar itself, but rather on the blocking being punitive/non-preventive and unexplained on that after repeatedly asking for it till the block finally expired. In short, how did the block prevent me from doing something I had declared not to do before getting a surprise block? --lTopGunl (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

But, it becomes about the edit war itself - the block and the edit war do not exist as separate entities. Just like your own actions in the EW became important to the the whole AN3 report, your actions in that edit war are the true antecedent to this ANI filing. They will always be looked at in toto. You're not the first person who was blocked similarly at AN3 - indeed, there's a template that states "both users blocked" - it happens a few times a week. When two independent admins both decline your unblock, you've already got your answer. After all, what exactly are you hoping to get from this report - the block is expired, you've learned a few things, nobody is going to be desysopped ... all you've gained is additional eyes on your edits for awhile. Not sure it's worth it. (

BWilkins ←track

) 17:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

As a reference, yes sure it can be related to that edit war and I'm sure it happens every week. The fact that three admins decided to keep me blocked for 48 hours is not a justification of block itself. You have to come up with a real explanation somewhat less equal to "I was edit warring because I was being reverted" from a user side. Let me quote

this

:

"Blocking is a serious matter. The community expects that blocks will be made with good reasons only, based upon reviewable evidence and reasonable judgment, and that all factors that support a block are subject to independent peer review if requested."

I hope you take blocking as seriously as I do. This is not a vandalism only account that I wont mind being blocked at any time. I've been using wikipedia from this account only since 5 years (probably reading more than editing) and I took the unfair block seriously. Why is it that after the block itself and 3 appeals (two attended) and this report with a wider attention, I've not been told how did the block 'prevent' me? Is it the fact that people usually quit or leave so as not to mess with admins? Seems a bit oppressive to me. I've been answerable to all my edits at wikipedia and I think so should be others, even the admins. I have no problem with additional people reviewing my edits as far as they are not wikihounders, so that's fine by me. My point here is the block was disruptive itself and what was that worth? You accepted my block reason after the expiry, so the block was wrongful. I don't know whether this ends up into desysoping or just an appology (so I have no specific motives here), this has to be corrected. I do want a record in my block log that this was not correct. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Your block was was wholly and fully as per policy. I didn't accept your unblock after its expiry, I merely actionned it because the block was expired, and the unblock request was therefore invalid...it was also not on your talkpage, it was in a subpage - and was therefore showing up oddly in the list of unblocks requests. When 2 or 3 additional, unrelated admins review the same actions and decline your unblocks, you honestly have your answer. I anticipate not needing to say any more on this matter, as others have also said the same thing. Move forward with the positives you have learned from this. (

BWilkins ←track

) 18:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

TopGun, I'm not an admin and so maybe you will not consider me qualified to answer, but as a completely uninvolved editor I'll try to and say it as I see it, and maybe that'll help.

By your own admission you were edit warring, and wikipedia policy indicates that those engaging in edit warring should be subject to a block to prevent further disruptive editing from damaging the encyclopaedia. If, after this has been established, the guilty editor claims "sorry I definitely won't edit war anymore lol", that does not make them exempt from the block. If this were the case, then any editor could use this method to avoid a block for just a little longer, and then continue edit warring against their promise. Though you made a statement that you would discontinue edit warring, no admin can be sure you are being truthful – they can only consider the facts. In this case, the fact is that you had been edit warring and this warrants a block per policy, in order to prevent you from edit warring further, particularly in light of the fact that you've been warned for such behaviour in the past. I can appreciate your frustration; we've all had to deal with idiot editors who refuse to get the

_berate

18:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

BWilkins, I cleared that with Tiderolls above that you merely added the default parameter so it seemed that you 'accepted' the block (refer to comments above), but that still doesn't tell how the block was preventive. You have just repeated your reason here to which I objected. It is no justification that my block was kept by three admins so I don't deserve a proper explanation of the block which inherently doesn't seem to prevent me from anything. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Basalisk, I appreciate your input in this. I admit editwarring by defination (and I also pointed out that wikilawyering applies both ways since my intention was not to editwar - even in that case to I do admit that I reverted three times and I explained why). If I say that I won't revert here again, I file at AN3, and I don't revert while the other editor still makes top on edits, it means that I wont revert. The "lol I won't edit war" case doesn't apply here. At worst the admin didn't assume

WP:POINT and the block was wrong and amends should be made, that's all I asked here. They're telling the newbies to assume good faith and not ready to take the word of an old editor for not reverting again, that is not preventive in anyway. --lTopGunl (talk

) 19:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I know I said I wouldn't respond further...but if we followed your argument, since you supposedly weren't going to revert again, then the editor you reported wouldn't need to revert again either, and therefore neither block would be needed, and indeed your AN3 report was completely unnecessary. Either that or you were asking someone to punish one edit-warrior but not the other. (

BWilkins ←track

) 19:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Now, you are talking on it. No, the other editor still continued to make edits. That was the purpose of the report, and I did indicate protection along with it. So I was only asking for, whichever, preventive measures. And I'd make the point yet again, it was not 'supposedly' I showed it by not reverting him during the report's own processing. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so as you say they kept editing not reverting therefore although you expect good faith that you had stopped edit-warring/reverting, you were not extending the same good faith to the other editor. Got it. (

BWilkins ←track

) 19:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, editing after a warning in the edit summary (which I explained I didn't make at talk for given reasons - another debate since the editor saw it). This only proves that he would still revert me because he reverted me then while I stopped after that and said that I wont. There's difference between loss of good faith and assuming good faith. Even so, I left the decision making on you clearly pointing out that protection was an option so it is not that I really still lost good faith in the other editor (although he was editwarring after consensus). Please don't wikilawyer on it just as you wouldn't expect me to wikilawyer to claim my self clear of an editwar. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

TopGun, I understand your frustration. You did the right thing by (1) agreeing to stop edit-warring and (2) reporting the edit-warring to an admin noticeboard, and you got blocked anyway. It seems punitive to you because you cannot see any preventative aspect, since you agreed to stop reverting. But that's not really what's meant by "blocks should not be punitive." Punitive, in that context, means retaliatory, disparaging, etc., as in the blocking admin "had it in for you" or wanted to make you look bad. From my perspective, the blocking admin simply wanted to ensure that the edit war did not restart, thus from their perspective, the block was preventative, e.g. preventing additional edit-warring. Sometimes the blocking admin will take into account statements that the edit-warring parties won't resume or continue the edit war; sometimes they discount such statements. In either case, an edit-warring block is not to punish you. You may disagree that the block was necessary to prevent additional edit-warring, but that doesn't make it a bad block according to policy. Again, I understand your frustration, but please consider that the reason for blocking might appear very different to the blocking admin as it does to you. 28bytes (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Being one of the few persons who are actually reasoning here, I accept your reason, but even by doing so the admin did not assume good faith on my part. Lets assume that everything was done right. What about my next two appeals. The block was stale, a discussion at the article talk page was started (which is almost at its conclusion hours after the blocks expired - along with our participation). There was no point in keeping the block in the next two appeals. It's not like I asked to desysop them. I only asked to make amends at the least that could be done is to correct my block log for the wrongful block. And the blocking admin has actually helped me once before so this is not at all personal. But in the previous case he was quite lenient with the editor who was making personal attacks on me, no hard feelings - it actually settled, but comparing that to this - this block comes out to be non preventive. I hope you understand my point like you understood the rest of my arguments. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I do understand your point. I don't agree that it was a wrongful block, though. Blocks are a standard admin response to edit-warring, sometimes even if the edit-warring party or parties say they'll stop, or even have (recently) stopped. Does that mean that sometimes good-faith editors such as yourself get a block log entry even if they are completely sincere about stopping the edit war? Unfortunately, yes. But it's not the end of the world. Many well-respected editors have an EW block or two over the course of their careers here; it's not the end of the world. All it means is they happened to be caught up in an edit war. It happens. Heck, one of our current RfA candidates has a block log, and he's overwhelmingly passing his RfA. But to your other point: realistically, we don't typically "correct" block logs except in the most extreme of circumstances. Realistically, I think the most you can ask for here is an acknowledgement that your concerns have been heard and understood, and I hope I have done that for you. 28bytes (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

28bytes, I didn't take it as end of the world. I only meant it on the basis of fairness. You got the rest of my argument right. About the block log, the blocking policy that I cited gave me an impression of such practice when an editor gets a wrongful block. However, I don't think the involved administrators (except probably JamesBWatson) even gave the acknowledgement of understanding the point which you have given. From whatever I got from the blocking policy, blocking is a serious matter, but it's only taken seriously while implementing it. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I can see TopGun's point of view, and I do fully understand why they think the block was punitive. I thought long and hard about whether to accept an unblock request, for that reason. However, I decided against doing so. The block was stated to be for edit warring, and TopGun did indeed say that they would not continue to make the same reverts. If that were all there was to the case, then I would agree that the block was punitive, and would have unblocked. However, that was not all there was to the case. In fact had I made the block I would have given the reason as something like "disruptive editing, including edit warring". There were other problems before the block too, such as abuse of claims of "consensus" which might well have been included in the block reason. Also, TopGun's comments following the block included denying that they had been edit warring. How much faith can we have in a user's assurance that they will not edit war if at the same time they deny that something is edit warring when it plainly is? If someone says that they will not edit war, but makes it clear that their concept of what "edit war" means is at odds with the way the term is used on Wikipedia, then it seems reasonable to give less weight to their assurance than would otherwise be the case. Another point is that I have seen cases where an editor deliberately and knowlingly edit wars up to the point where they think they can go without being blocked. (Usually they stop at 3 reverts, because for some reason there is a very widespread belief that it doesn't count as edit warring if you don't break the 3 revert rule.) Often such people get away with it, but sometimes they don't. Time and again I have seen them complain that they were unfairly blocked, because they didn't edit war, and sometimes they also say "even though I didn't edit war, I won't continue to do what you wrongly call edit warring if you unblock me", which is what TopGun wa saying in this case. Alas, however, my experience is that such people very often do go on to do the same again, perhaps not in the same dispute, but later in other disputes. It is perfectly clear from TopGun's comments, both at

talk

) 20:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

JamesBWatson, the real mistake I apparently seem to have made here is warned the user in edit summary, a revert solely purposed to give the warning and not on the talk page. I explained this on my talk page unblock discussion and I'll explain it again with more clarification here. I edit articles which are most likely to get disputes and contentious editing by users most of which act weirdly since they are editing with a nationalistic agenda. I've yet been told by 5 editors who quoted TPG that I can not delete comments from my talk page and would edit war and start to flame till I would quote back the opposite from the same page only to be later on hounded by the same or

explained? No, only the label of editwar. About the "repeated denials of editwarring", since you do acknowledge that these were good faith misunderstandings your text could have made that clear too. Actually as per that statement itself, that I was editing in good faith but mistaken, to correct a mistake giving a block is by definition punitive. --lTopGunl (talk

) 23:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec) In the last two months, you've had two blocks for edit warring, and one more close call (where Bwilkins could have blocked you, but instead cut you some slack when you were in a fight over a talk page's archive settings). In both of your blocks, you've been insistent that everything is the other party's fault. Warning another editor about edit warring when you're in the process of edit warring yourself ([184]) seems to demonstrate a certain lack of self-awareness. Using your third revert to warn another editor about edit warring demonstrates chutzpah, but not a firm grasp of why Wikipedia has a policy against edit warring in the first place.

The block here was earned, and letting it run to its full length seems quite justified. If nothing else, the full-length block was preventive because it might encourage you to consider alternatives to edit warring when you're on your first revert rather than your third. It's to prevent the next edit war, not necessarily the resumption of the current one. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades, you just checked my block log but failed to contrast my editing history to it. All my major edits started after that block. Most of the constructive work I've done is in these two months (it was just typo corrections probably most of the time without logging in before July). So I never even understood the meaning of edit war back then and I would not count that to it. But this time I knew what I was doing and the only complication was the consensus which got me mistaken along with my assumption that giving a warning in the edit summary instead of a talk page would probably prevent a flamewar. And have you even seen the talk page archiving scenario? The user was deliberately trying to get the slow discussion archived by giving it a time of 5 days to archive which I properly warned and reverted and instead the user started to make personal attacks. Bwilkins, was not going to block me on that but him. So thanks but no thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I declined an unblock request that claimed the user had stopped edit-warring. When I checked the article history, I saw that TopGun had been ahead in the war at the time - so I didn't feel I could have a lot of confidence there (everyone stops when they are in the lead). I also saw there was a previous 3RR block, which meant TopGun should by now have been familiar with

WP:EW. I felt the continued block was necessary not just to make sure the current war really was stopped, but also to get over to TopGun that if you edit-war you get blocked, period, and thus prevent future repeats of edit-warring. I'm happy to accept the edit-warring was done as a good-faith mistake, and I hope TopGun now properly understands that 3RR is not a right, and that you can't edit-war up to the 3RR brink, then report the other guy, and escape yourself with no comeback. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk

) 21:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee, I think you would get your answer from the above replies. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Dang, really? ... ok, here's a real life example: TopGun, you and I are in a bar. I pick up a barstool and smack you across the back of the head with it. I have no intention of hitting you again. You pummel me with your fists 4 or 5 times. Which one of us is the barkeep going to throw out? BOTH. He wants to prevent additional fighting in his establishment...doesn't matter if I argue that I was done hitting anyone. (

BWilkins ←track

) 23:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly why I said this is (1)Punitive, because real life anger of a bar keeper doesn't apply to the admins who like us are supposed to assume good faith. (2)You would then just stick to the letter of rules punishing/preventing-from-stale-case a good faith editor who has backed out of editing;wikilawyering. And as I made it clear, you were actually really helpful to me in a previous conflict of personal attacks and I don't want anything other than acceptance that I was wrongly blocked (preferably which would constitute a block log). You did understand that I was not going to edit again after that, didn't you? --lTopGunl (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

You PERSONALLY forced the other editor to edit-war, reported him, and have the further belief that you could get away with it by claiming you weren't going to do it anymore? Are you listening to yourself here? YOU BOTH GOT BLOCKED for your edit-war. Don't do it again ... easy as that. Your complete lack of understanding of

BWilkins ←track

) 00:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I did not force him, I removed a contentious edit, he reverted. That did constitute an edit war (for both of us). But I did stop. And I proved it that I wouldn't revert. I wanted preventive measures, uninvolved parties have already pointed that out. I indicated protection (yeah too late?). I do get what you say, but do you hear what I explained? Didn't I accept I was editwarring just now? If you had only blocked me, that would have been a case of bad judgement. I didn't know that we had to send in written statements to prove that we were making a good faith revert or that we wouldn't make a revert again. "Don't do it again or you would get blocked" is preventive, blocking and saying "you got blocked because you did it" is punitive. And I can read without the

WP:SHOUT here, even I didn't resort to that when I was under a block for 48 hours. Now would that constitute a 'preventive' block? --lTopGunl (talk

) 00:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Administrators are trusted by the community to exercise their judgement and impose blocks when necessary. Users can appeal these blocks and even have them reviewed, yes, but this is turning into a whine-fest. You were blocked. Two admins reviewed the block and declined the appeals. The involved admins have tried to explain themselves in detail here, and other users have tried to sympathize with you while explaining how it was a legitimate block. This was clearly an appropriate block, and there is no agreement, or even debate, over whether it wasn't. Most users would start to "get it" by now. We're getting to the point where you're just beating a dead horse. Drop the

stick and move on. Swarm ^X

01:44, 4 December 2011

TopGun, again, I believe you misunderstand the word "punitive" here. Bwilkins and the admins who declined to unblock have clearly stated they blocked and declined to unblock to prevent a continuing edit war. That you believe the block was unnecessary to achieve that purpose does not turn it into a punitive block. A punitive block is something else entirely. 28bytes (talk) 01:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The reason that is frustrating here is that just because three admins decided to keep my block and explain it now that too starting with "because you were declined by two other admins that's a good reason". Well since there is no use of wasting everyone's time here and I've made my point, and you've made yours (and yes I did get your point the first time, explaining mine doesn't mean that I didn't). I'll end it here myself. Thanks to those who did understand my side. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:55, 4 December 2011 (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:Truthkeeper88

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

No action - this is to everybody's advantage. All heat no light. We are building an encyclopedia here - don't look that focus. Everybody behave better in the future or I will get really angry. Behaving nice means talk nice to and about each other. If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.

---

are edit waring with me over my own talk page. Ceoil has been making vicious attacks on me for weeks. Someone please help. Alarbus (talk) 15:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I gave you an olive branch. You threw it away. I tried to strike. That's all. Let it go please.

talk

) 15:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not all by a long shot. You, meh; Ceoil should be removed. Alarbus (talk) 15:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Alarbus, you're not innocent in this. I would suggest both you and Ceoil

drop the stick and back away from both the horse carcass and each other. This is counterproductive. Nikkimaria (talk

) 15:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I've disagreed, expressed myself in a civil manner. Ceoil, along with Modernist, and Moni3, have relentlessly insulted me, edit warred with me. Pages to see would be Template talk: Ernest Hemingway, Talk: Ernest Hemingway, User talk:Ceoil, User talk:Kafka Liz, User talk:Diannaa; my talk. Enough. Alarbus (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Alarbus, calling someone a "rolling barrel of bile" (for example) is not civil; Ceoil has also been uncivil, agreed. Now, based on what I see on those pages, I could justifiably block both you and Ceoil. I would prefer that that not become necessary. Can you both not just back off? Your involvement in the Hemingway article is at this point not helping anything. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this particular "discussion" is futile and echo Nikkimaria's suggestion. This thing is bad enough on its own, and more than a little discouraging to the bystanders. For the record, I don't see any attacks on Truthkeeper's part. There's a lot of tension here, but from what I see, she is trying to de-escalate things. Kafka Liz (talk) 15:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

He said far-worse, and many, many more times. Truthkeeper only edit warred with me on my talk. Alarbus (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to strike the comment and said as much in the edit summary.

talk

) 16:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

What do you want an admin to do, Alarbus? I would start with warning you to make your comments on Talk:Ernest Hemingway about the content instead of the contributors. Your passive aggressive commentary as what I saw last night on Truthkeeper's page is problematic. You encourage an editor who worked very hard to leave Wikipedia and insult her. Then you include something else about content in the middle of all your bluster about Truthkeeper's role in writing the article. It looks to me that your primary objective is insulting another editor and you mask it with minor mentions of minor article issues. Truthkeeper88's behavior is not problematic here. --Moni3 (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Ban Ceoil would be a start; admonish you for calling everything I said 'Asshole-language'. You people gang-up like flies on shit. Alarbus (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The Asshole language referred to the person who wrote about me on an external website, calling me a neo-nazi, premenopausal nun and linked to pornographic images.

talk

) 16:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

And to handle your behavior what would you suggest? --Moni3 (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't do this stuff. I can diffs about your behaviour but I won't. If the ani crowd decide to block me and Ceoil and back you then we know where we are.

talk

) 15:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, Moni3, an admin could block both Truthkeeper and Ceoil for edit warring on Alarbus's talk page. If Alarbus wants to remove comments, that's his right, per

WP:TPG. Alternatively, an admin could block Ceoil for disruptive editing (see this edit summary) and incivility (see previous edit summary and this comment). At a minimum, everybody needs to back away from each other and stop the edit warring and attacks. Qwyrxian (talk

) 15:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Clarification: I don't mean to say that Alarbus doesn't also have poor behavior that's blockworthy; I've only looked at what's happend on Ceoil and Alarbus's talk page so far. What actually started this mess? Qwyrxian (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It started here. This began over TK reverting structural changes done per

WP:HLIST over a colour preference. She and the others have been all over me ever since if I comment anywhere about anything they think related. Like the navbox talk on Liz's page. Too many edit conflicts on this page, and I have to go. Alarbus (talk

) 15:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, he's also removed comments from other pages, not just his own. I would strongly disagree with blocking TK here, and would suggest that if anyone is to be blocked, it would be both Alarbus and Ceoil. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I remove Ceoil's trolling, that's all. Alarbus (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

"Remove me"; thats lovely, but will it be a gentle bullet to the head or a loving stab in the shower?. Get a grip. If we followed your reasoning to its logical conclusion all wiki editors should be "taken care of" because they dont know mark up as well as you, and are thus "a problem". Ceoil (talk) 15:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I started putting stuff together; it's incomplete.

• User talk:Kafka Liz, 05:14, 3 December 2011

  Alarbus: proper structure: new section

• Long post to Kafka Liz that makes no reference to Ceoil

• User talk:Kafka Liz, 05:37, 3 December 2011

• Ceoil: proper structure: lord jesus the work you could have done in the time it took to type that
• GET.A.LIFE.

• User talk:Kafka Liz, 05:45, 3 December 2011

  Alarbus: remove trolling

• removed prior post

• User talk:Kafka Liz, 05:47, 3 December 2011

• Ceoil: i beg your pardon

• restores "GET.A.LIFE."

• User talk:Kafka Liz, 05:52, 3 December 2011

  Alarbus: Yes, I called you a troll and removed your personal attack

• removed prior post

• User talk:Kafka Liz, 11:30, 3 December 2011

• Ceoil: re lith; O and dont worry about the tool below; it takes all sorts to make the world spin.

• 'tool'

• User talk:Kafka Liz, 11:32, 3 December 2011

• Alarbus: 'tool'; tool yourself. You're just a rolling barrel of bile.

• nibbles at the bait

• User talk:Kafka Liz, 11:37, 3 December 2011

• Ceoil: zz; I can go worse than tool if you wish, prick.

• 'prick'

• User talk:Kafka Liz, 11:38, 3 December 2011

• Ceoil: s; No, I'm just exhausted by agressive but essentially simple people like you.

• 'simple people like you'

Kafka Liz makes an alternative offer to calm things to Ceoil on his talk:

• User talk:Ceoil, 12:11, 3 December 2011

  Kafka Liz: Past noon: new section; ... so beer for you. Darker or lighter is available, of course.

• beer for you

• User talk:Ceoil, 12:14, 3 December 2011

  Ceoil: Past noon: not enough; Coffey would suit me better at the moment. I was robbed blind by childhood friends and their wives at a poker table last night. Strong black coffey, a plan and a gun is what I need. Do you have any of these.

• a plan and a gun is what I need

• User talk:Ceoil, 12:14, 3 December 2011

  Kafka Liz: Past noon: don't bring your guns to town, son; Ask and ye shall receive. Coffee is available chez Liz. As for the other two... I don't know if it's the plan you had in mind, but it's a plan. ;)

• don't bring your guns to town

• User talk:Ceoil, 12:14, 3 December 2011

  Ceoil: Past noon: bonny and clyde; This my plan: we'll go in and shoot everybody. We can figure it out after.

• we'll go in and shoot everybody

Alarbus (talk) 15:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I will explain what started the mess but can't because of edit conflicts. Will come back later when things calm down. Alarbus has been extremely uncivil to me since before Thanksgiving.

talk

) 15:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec again) For instance, I note that Alarbus was removing comments on User Talk:Kafka Liz, which xe should not have been doing (for the same reason that Truthkeeper and Ceoil shouldn't have been trying to make edits "stick" on Alarbus's talk page). Maybe all 3 or 4 or whatever of you need to spend some time away from each other for awhile. If you can do that voluntarily, then there's no need to make any of you involuntarily spend time away from wikipedia completely. Anyone willing to just back away? Qwyrxian (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really willing to back away; Alarbus is dangerously stupid and a problem. At the very least I'd like to make a big deal to wave a flag for others unfortunate enough to come across him. Ceoil (talk) 16:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

He won't discuss. Twice I've offered olive branches and which have been reverted. It's about the

talk

) 16:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Discuss Hemingway? I gave up on that; drop it. I made two minor edits to the article. But I don't agree with you, so you can't drop it. Alarbus (talk) 16:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

And yet this morning the first thing I see when I log into Wikipedia is a disparaging remark on the Hemingway talkpage. Please discuss your issues in a substantive manner instead of going around saying that editors, who by the way have made over a thousand edits to a core article, have ruined it. Please. If you can't discuss and you want me to be blocked for a single revert with a very clear edit summary then something's very wrong here.

talk

) 16:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I just said, I have to go. Question is, really, why should I stay? This place is awful. Alarbus (talk) 16:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I notice how most of your quotes are out of context, and were examples of friends just flirting/bantering. Game often, liar. Ceoil (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• (several ecs). I concur here - I've been trying to say that I don't think anyone here needs an enforced break. Kafka Liz (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Ceoil does; he's been pure troll to me. Alarbus (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

TCO you must be so proud! Ceoil (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Diff of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Ceoil, I know the words, too. Alarbus (talk) 16:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking a rather enforced wikibreak for at least 2 of these editors. For Ceoil to actually state "Alarbus is dangerously stupid and a problem" right here on ANI when they have a block history as long as my ... erm ... for exactly the same behaviour? Alarbus should realize that although someone else's incivility may explain your own behaviour, it never excuses it! (

BWilkins ←track

) 16:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I may have said a few rash things, but nothing compares to Ceoil's invective. Alarbus (talk) 16:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Bwilkins you obvuosly havn't read the half of it and dont know what the fuck you are talking about. But here's re cap for your plesure. Alarbus is a troll with a small amount of knowledge of html and java script. And nothing else. He has balooned the fact that he know html, in his mind, to degree that code trumps content. And anybody who says actually, I'm he's a troll that needs to be taken to the internet hell of wiki/ani, policed by mostly mornic idiotios just above the complaint's iq level, needs to think. Ceoil (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

That would explain why my most edited page is

WP:HLISTs. And all the template edits. Just my misfortune to step into your group around Hemingway. I only like a few of his stories, anyway. Alarbus (talk

) 16:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Yet somehow, what you did that set all of this off well before Thanksgiving-- which was more uncivil and damaging to editors and articles than any "invective" used by anyone-- hasn't even come up. hmmmmmm ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Background. Alarbus has been consistently aggressive and refuses to discuss. Now, because of him, two weeks of work by four editors has been wiped out. Please consider the reasons for why people are upset. Because of him, I have no interest of being part of this project anymore.
  talk
  ) 16:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
• Just to add - I could have brought this to ANI myself much earlier. I can find many diffs of Alarbus' incivility and aggressive behaviour but have never resorted to AN/I and won't start now. That Alarbus believed he needed to bring this here when I left an olive branch on his page to try to open a discussion astounds me. And the bottom line is that this is all about TCO's "report" and what Alarbus perceives to be the "attitude" of FAC writers. I'm willing to meet him half-way and hear his point-of-view, but he has to understand that people can only take so much.
  talk
  ) 16:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thats a good summary. Its iornic that the edit war that brough us here was a post on his talk titled "Olive brach". Ceoil (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I had not realized that Alarbus was a relatively new user, when he started making his conspiratorial claims about fiefdoms, etc. (only caught this now based on a statement above). Strange conclusions for a new user who mostly works on templates. Should we be looking at meatpuppetry with TCO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), returning user, or some other such thing that admins deal with? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Ceoil's behaviour pre-dates the release of TCO's report. Here are seven diffs from 19-21 November:

• diff of Template talk: Ernest Hemingway
• diff of Template talk: Ernest Hemingway
• diff of Template talk: Ernest Hemingway
• diff of Template talk: Ernest Hemingway
• diff of Template talk: Ernest Hemingway
• Diff of User talk:Diannaa
• Diff of User talk:Diannaa

--Dianna (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I can give as many or more diff regarding Alarbus, but that's a timesink. And you Diannaa are very much involved here. Just fucking block me and put me out of my misery. This place just sucks.

talk

) 16:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I am posting merely as a victim of Ceoil's bile, not as an administrator. --Dianna (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Opportunist; my dismissal of you, and your bad faith trawling for ref incosisenticy in the Hemmingway article SO YOU COULD SPITE TK, is a worse thing. At the end of the day I called you on substance and formed the opention that you are a petty, no interest in content, motivated by the small things tool. And here you are now capitalising. Nice. Hang me so. Ceoil (talk) 17:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It looks like we've got a pretty toxic situation when experienced editors are asking to be blocked because they're so sick of what they've had to put up with here. This just highlights the problem that editors who are not collegial or collaborative can do far more damage here than any "invective" or foul language employed after tempers have boiled. And that some offenders are likely to get off with not even a warning, in spite of block logs as long as Ceoil's and equally offensive language,[185] edit warring and name calling,[186] and misogyny and personalization.[187] The same ole same ole at ANI-- if you have a block log already, it's used against you, only depending on who you are and how many people are watching you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• This is a
  Pot calling the kettle black and should be ignored or handled per WP:BOOMERANG. Alarbus initiated a conflict with Truthkeeper, who was attempting to improve one of our important articles hassling her with irrelevant objections condescension. This behavior is the most detrimental to the project since it is what causes productive editors to leave. Alarbus should have supported Truthkeeper's efforts but chose confrontation from the start. Ceoil stepped in to support Truthkeepers efforts against Alarbus' aggressive approach. He should be commended for this. I am not going to defend the way in which Ceoil supported Truthkeeper88, but it is immensely important that he did it. Alarbus's behavior here represents the most problematic aspect of wikipedia: Some editors apparently derive pleasure from harassing working people, and when they get back in kind what they stash out, they run to ANI to start a debacle. This shouldn't be encouraged. There are only two sensible options for proceeding here: Either no action is taken, or Alarbus and Ceoil are told to find a better form of interacting. If anyone is to be blocked it would fall back on the original poster - who has caused damage to the project by disrupting on going article work, and continues to do so by wasting our time here. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·
  17:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Maunus, you can't seriously think Ceoil should be commended for this kind of behaviour. --Dianna (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I heartily commend his intentions which may have prevented wikipedia form loosing a valuable editor, although I don't condone the way in which he acted on those intentions. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

No, let's commend TCO and Alarbus instead. Nice work! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Bad language is one thing, but incivility takes many forms. Some examples in the past week:

• Over consensus Diannaa lectures that there's so much work to be done on Wikipedia
• Diannaa decides to do a mini review of citations and refuses to engage in discussion
• Diannaa tells me to practice a Buddhist sense of zen after challenging citations on a Featured article
• Alarbus incivilty about me on another talk
• Alarbus blanks an attempt to engage in discussion
• Alarbus blanks an olive branch message repeatedly
• Uncivil and unnecessary comments from Alarbus to my talk
• Continued incivility from Alarbus on Ernest Hemingway talk

I think Alarbus and Diannaa need to understand what they've done here before casting aspersions.

talk

) 17:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Although I can't claim to have examined all these diffs carefully, in principle I agree with Maunus. (To Dianaa, I would point out that Maunus specifially said I am not going to defend the way in which Ceoil supported Truthkeeper88.) Might I propose (as a minimum diffusing of the situation) that TK and Ceoil agree not to post to Alarbus's talk page; that Alarbus agree not to post to the talk pages of TK and Ceoil; and that TK and Ceoil further agree not to discuss Alarbus on their own or each other's talk page. Again, I agree with Maunus's overall assessment (and while I thank Ceoil for introducing me to the word fuckwit, I think I shall practice using it offsite). Cynwolfe (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

As I read Maunus's comment, he is concentrating on substance rather than style. As an aside, I sincerely wish that Maunus or some other admin would put this topic out of its misery, take action or no action, and close. I also wish Maunus would use different colors on his userpage (very hard to read). :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 17:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I would go further TK and say that admins like Diannaa are the problem, and waste the time peoples with content to add with games. Lokk at her "contibus" to the EH talk and wonder, what the fuck? I see only spite and I'll get ya, which is even even too kind a view. Here today you have her nursing trolls, who even a fool could see through, for spite. I respect Cynwolfe, but to say that the timeline is such that the troll reverted multiple times on our talks before we brought it to him. But yeah, I'll back off, with gravy. Ceoil (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2011 (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 thought this was hatted. Since Ceoil has been blocked I'd like to be blocked to. Any admin willing to do that? Thanks.

talk

) 20:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh and talk page revoked too. Let's just shut up the troublemakers. Seriously, if no one on who read this thread is will to mete out the same judgment to all parties involved, I'll find someone who will.

talk

) 20:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

If you want to take a wikibreak, don't request a block, blocks are not handed out on request. You can use the wikibreak enforcer if you really need to, tho I'd advise finding some other solution. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't need a wikibreak - I need the wiki hypocrisy to stop now. I'm willing to take my first block for it. If there are any admins here who have enough brain to read the thread above, that was hatted, and stand by Ceoil's block, then I want to be blocked. If you can't figure out the logic, then none of you deserve to be admins.

talk

) 20:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little confused about that "blocks are not handed out on request"; they sure were for TCO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (revolving block and RTV door there, returning to launch this whole matter, why not for others who request an enforced break from the lunacy?) Perhaps someone can help me understand the different applications of the tools by different admins. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... maybe someone kicked the plug out on the Wikipedia Hive Mind Generator and every admin is using her or his own personal temperment, intelligence and experience to interpret the rules as best they can? Or perhaps they're not clones of the WikiMaster Admin after all? I dunno, it's hard to figure out just what might be going on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)