Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive788

FYI

 – and just in case we get accused of not trying to help inexperienced editors, I'm also going to bookmark this. :)

— Ched :  ?  19:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I have been a member of Wikipedia since 2010, and I have made hundreds of edits for articles, such as corrections and to add additional information. However, until recently, I had never participated in any of the Talk or Afd sections. Wikipedia wasn't my hobby, but I used it regularly for reading.

Recently I received some messages via a Yahoo group that told about an individual who had a Wikipedia article written about him, Steve Cottle, and that a close personal friend had decided to see to it that it be deleted. This seemed odd, and I wondered about possible jealousy and a likely conflict of interest. Seeing others respond to Mr. Cottle with a sense of floundering, I posted a message at the Yahoo group about the problem.

I didn't know Mr. Cottle personally, but I knew very well who he was. I'd read many messages of his, had visited his archive of newspaper comic strips and found it invaluable, and had even independently discovered the article about him, had downloaded it on Jan. 9th and found it interesting and informative. Since I knew who he was and why he was notable, I thought I'd look into the matter.

I interviewed him extensively using a text chat with transcripts saved, and discovered he was actually text chatting with his friend at the very time that he (samrolken) had initiated an Articles for deletion (Afd) action at Wikipedia. A chat transcript confirmed samrolken's explanations for this action (the Afd) and the nature of the interaction, which seemed quite antagonistic towards Mr. Cottle, his friend, ridiculing him and calling him names.

I did some research and found this: "'You should not create or edit articles about ... your close friends.... You should also not write about people with whom you could reasonably be said to have an antagonistic relationship in real life.'" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest and this "Wikipedia:Vandalism "Abuse of tags "Bad-faith placing of non-content tags such as {afd} ... or other tags on pages that do not meet such criteria." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism

This seemed like a serious Conflict of Interest which samrolken should not have engaged in according to the guidelines I read, which are designed to ensure editing is done with neutrality and impartiality, which under the circumstances I described, is highly suspect. Deleting is a form of editing. I entered a Keep comment, which an editor MrX, suppressed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Steve_Cottle

MrX also criticized me substantially and declined to do anything about this reported COI. Since things went so adversely, I declined to participate any further in the Afd and cancelled my plans to enter more Keep comments. samrolken eventually posted on my Talk page, and I tried to engage with him, but he refused to acknowledge or discuss the COI, though he admitted they were close personal friends.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Drhankh#Steve_Cottle

I suggested withdrawing the Afd and continuing the discussion on my talk page, but he was adamant on getting things his way, which I felt was highly improper. In a 2nd post on my talk page, he closed with "... I'll not be interacting with you any more."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Drhankh#samrolken_Quits_the_Discussion

Later, he sent an email letter to Mr. Cottle, then invaded the chat room where Mr. Cottle and I had a chat scheduled. samrolken parked himself and refused to leave, preventing me from talking privately with Mr. Cottle. When we were alone, samrolken, insulted me repeatedly, taunted me, called me names, and dared me to do anything.

He soon invaded a Yahoo group by joining it and posting a lengthy message there, which annoying the owner, who revoked Mr. Cottle's moderator rights as a result.

At another Yahoo group, a member alerted me that samrolken was trying to delete articles that I had simply edited. And I discovered that samrolken had indeed initiated an Afd for the article Russell R. Winterbotham, a published science fiction author.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Russell_R._Winterbotham

This seemed like harassment and retaliation.

My sense is there is a clique of people and samrolken feels untouchable, and he could care less what certain people think about the ethics of his actions. He has repeatedly spoken very arrogantly at the chat room. He has a displayed a clearcut malevolence, and based on how I've been treated, have no interest in either intervening in these two Afds, nor doing any more article editing for Wikipedia. Please note that I have documented two published articles about author Russell R. Winterbotham on my Talk page; they are from physical books called encyclopedias. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Drhankh#samrolken_Tries_to_Retaliate_by_Deleting_Article_Edited_by_Drhankh

I would also note that samrolken seems to be reading all this material (based on comments he makes to me at the chat room), yet he hasn't taken any initiative to note that these printed articles in books are available, which an objective person might do, more evidence that he's simply being malevolent. In my opinion, samrolken is simply engaging in vandalism, and that seems unethical to me. He has also been seemingly stalking me, using Mr. Cottle's chat room to post taunting remarks, tracking what I am doing and ridiculing me.

For example, samrolken knew about the reply from Shaun9876 long before I became aware of it (and of course taunting me about it).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Shaun9876#Conflict_of_Interest.2C_Harrassment_and_Vandalism

Despite samrolken's taunts (transcript kept), I do hope there is at least one honest person within the Wikipedia community that might be concerned and want to do something about it. Drhankh (talk) 04:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Reformatted to convert this from a ton of little lines. The original version is here, if you care. Nyttend (talk) 05:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Nice wall of text and what a wonderful way to become endeared at Wikipedia with a passive aggressive accusation of dishonest editors. You seem to have missed the main part of what a conflict of interest is at Wikipedia "When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.". This seems to apply to you more than anyone else as you have taken a private conversation (an outside interest) with the subject to advanced it, and it seems to be more important to you than the spirit, policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. You seem to have a become a bull in a china shop here over this. This may have a boomerang effect. Mr. Cottle appears to have made himself pretty clear:

Steven Cottle Response

I Lilreader (talk) never thought the actions happening would happen. All I hoped for was the chance to save the page created about me, and not an overall attack on others. I thought it would be a good idea to get a 3rd party involved for a clean viewpoint. All I really wanted was help saving the article regardless of why it was up for deletion. It seems everyone is on the attack side right now.

This should be noted for everyone involved in the matter

• Personal misunderstandings between longtime high school friends (Samrolken (talk) & Lilreader (talk)), and private conversations, should have been kept private and not shared with others.
• Samrolken(talk) nominated the article out of a good faith belief that there were problems with its verifiability and notability.
• This should not be personal, and any discussion should be about the content and verifiability of the article itself, and not of any people involved.
  talk) 05:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  Hello Amadscientist,

  Please don't accuse me of making arguments or statements that I never made nor make snap judgments about a situation of significant complexity. You wrote: "... what a wonderful way to become endeared at Wikipedia ..." I am NOT here to become endeared. I explained that since 2010 I make corrections -- to articles I am reading for my own education and interests. This is what I did with the Steve Cottle article. I explained that I had never participated in the talk sections or other areas, and that unlike samrolken, this is not my hobby.

  I came across a problem, which is now a series of problems. You wrote: "... dishonest editors." I never made any such statement. Why don't you quote me rather than falsely characterize me in your words? This notice is almost entirely about one individual samrolken. I am not at all attempting to "advance any outside interest." In fact, I have no outside interests. My only interest is to attempt to seek justice. I became aware of a problem through a message that came in my email. I received messages from other people, all commenting on this reported situation concerning samrolken's attempt to get the Steve Cottle article deleted.

  Are you saying that because I learned of a problem pertaining to a Wikipedia article via email messages that were posted to a Yahoo group, that I was obligated to ignore the matter based on what you perceive as certain Wikipedia rules? With all due respect, I think that is sheer nonsense. I have seen, from MrX, samrolken, and yourself, that certain principles or rules can be manipulated to make anyone's actions appear suspect. An important element of fairness is to examine all of the facts in an impartial and neutral manner and not jump to conclusions, especially not regarding someone who is obviously new to this type of venue.

  You talk about "... the spirit, policies and guidelines of Wikipedia." There is a voluminous amount of material and your allegation is very vague, but I strongly disagree. I can't say I've read everything, but I have certainly read a lot of material, have downloaded everything I've read, and tried conscientiously to take all these different principles into account. I also got the feedback of another user, who read essentially what I posted here, and he suggested this as one of two places to post my material.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Shaun9876#Conflict_of_Interest. 2C_Harrassment_and_Vandalism.

  Regarding your quote from Mr. Cottle, I am aware of that, but two things to keep in mind. First of all, I am not representing him, I am an independent Wikipedia user who wants to see justice done. Second, I have interviewed him previously, and I have many statements by him which contradict what you quote. The statement he made was based on the undue influence of samrolken. Now if all you want to do is to make snap judgments and not get all the facts, then why don't you just move along? Because I don't think such an approach is helpful to anyone. If you even paid attention, I stated in my piece, before it got reformatted, that samrolken invaded the chat room of Mr. Cottle and refused to leave, preventing me from communicating with Mr. Cottle.

  In fact, samrolken has been doing that since Saturday afternoon. He also uses it to taunt me, which at least borders on stalking. This isn't just about what samrolken did regarding Mr.Cottle and that Steve Cottle article, it's also, what he's done to me, and an article I edited, which he is trying to delete. And trying to delete an article just because I had worked on it, affects everyone. The article is for Wikipedia and anyone who wants to read it. For samrolken to initiate an Afd as retaliation when I wouldn't agree to his demands, affects the community and is plain wrong. Rather than deflect attention from what I wrote, if someone wishes to comment constructively, I suggest someone respond to the reported conflict of interest between samrolken editing an article about his close personal friend, especially during an angry discussion. From my reading of the Wikipedia guidelines, and I do provide a specific quote, samrolken should not engage in this, regardless of whether he might think he's being fair, or whether he can lobby his friend to convince of this for the moment. The guidelines are for him to recuse himself, because any close friendship or angry relationship is very likely to affect a person's judgment, and at the very least give an appearance of a conflict of interest.

  An editor should only be editing, changing or deleting articles in which he can do so in a neutral and impartial manner. Isn't this true? Isn't this important? Is is this to be simply ignored as if it doesn't exist? If you think it's unimportant, I seriously question your judgement and commitment. It's very important. Unless you address this point, I cannot give your arguments any credence.-- Drhankh (talk) 06:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  Never thought I would ever use this but.......

  talk) 06:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  If you REFORMAT it as you have done at least twice, into a single long paragraph, then yes, it will be too long. You certainly don't have to read it. But please stop reformatting my text. It makes it hard to read and seems very unfair to me. I am quite capable of editing my own copy. -- Drhankh (talk) 06:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  I did it once. The first time was done by another editor. You could try looking at the history. About the only thing I can think of to say here is:

  talk) 06:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  Call to close this thread. No admin intervention required unless a temp block to the OP for disruption, COI and battleground mentality.--

  talk) 07:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  Seems like you should give others a chance to read this and form their own conclusions, esp. since I've criticized you. Drhankh (talk) 07:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  Not really. Since you have not made it at all clear what admin intervention is being asked for in this thread, it is just soupboxing. This noticeboard isn't for editors to post diatribes.--

  talk) 07:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  As far as I know, I am not an editor. And regardless of your opinions, they are not facts, and so far, you are the only person who has posted substantive comments. Please allow others to read and comments to form a consensus, not get your own way out of spite. Others can read the material, ignore it, or comment if they want, but they need time to notice it. Drhankh (talk) 07:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  I don't think it's my place to recommend specific kinds of intervention, since I hope that Admins are more experienced than me, but I think the Afd on the Cottle article should be withdrawn. Drhankh (talk) 07:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  This noticeboard is for requesting admin intervention for incidents on the English Wikipedia. What is the incident you are reporting that took place on Wikipedia and what intervention are you requesting?--

  talk) 07:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I did try to read through a lot of this, although with "walls of text" along these lines I sometimes loose focus. I get the impression that much of the problem lies outside the Wikipedia jurisdiction (Yahoo, Facebook conversations, private chats etc.), so could you please explain exactly what administrative action you're looking for in regards to users/policy, etc. — Ched :  ?  07:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  • OK, I've read this twice, and I can't see any request for admin action either. The two AfDs are proceeding properly (although one does have a couple of suspicious looking SPA votes) and the rest appears to be vague claims of off-wiki disputes. I think this can probably be closed. Black Kite (talk) 08:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks for your comments, Ched. I am trying to explain that samrolken has been harassing me, trying to delete a second article simply because I had edited it, tracking everything I do on Wikipedia, and then posting disparaging comments to me using Mr. Cottle's chatroom (with just samrolken and myself in the room). As I tried to explain, someone at a Yahoo group noticed that samrolken had initiated another Afd on this article (Russell R. Winterbotham) I had edited, and it seems like a Conflict of Interest for samrolken to be trying to delete an article edited by someone who's told me repeatedly that he dislikes me intensely.

  I was hoping that someone would understand that samrolken shouldn't be trying to edit or delete articles about a close personal friend or someone he dislikes (Conflict of Interest) and should stop trying to harass me. I had hoped someone would understand what he's doing and talk to him. I tried, and those were the steps suggested by MrX, and this was the next step according to both him and Shaun9876. Two experienced editors sent me here. (This is all in writing.)

  samrolken refuses to accept that being involved with his friend's article is a blatant conflict of interest, and so far, not one person has even addressed it. -- Drhankh (talk) 08:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Close and warn OP.--
    talk) 08:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  Ched asked me questions, Amadscientist. Don't you think the fair thing to do is give him time to read my reply to what he asked me? Please stop trying to control the discussion. You've had your time to make your points, let others participate. Thank you. -- Drhankh (talk) 08:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I truly think the best thing to do is discourage you from further disruption. You have brought an off-wiki discussion on a Yahoo group to this project and bullied a number of editors. You show clear signs of battleground mentality, conflict of interest and have created enough drama, both on Wiki and off that another editor felt the need to out themselves to stop you, and it is possible that you are guilty of
    talk) 08:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  • (
    WP:HARASS on Wikipedia, can you provide links to those particular posts? If not, I'm sorry, but I don't see anything we can do here. — Ched :  ?  08:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Addendum. While I detest the cherry-picking of sentences from the (spirit of) Policy, and I mention this only as a word of caution: this section also says: "You should also not write about people with whom you could reasonably be said to have an antagonistic relationship in real life. Just thought I'd mention that. — Ched :  ?  09:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  (note: I'm about done for tonight, but will look back tomorrow) — Ched :  ?  08:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  I really don't view myself as an "editor" (though I have edited a lot of articles). I am not trying to get especially involved in Wikipedia activities. I tried to rectify a problem, but some people seem unwilling to consider what I've actually written but rather come to subjective interpretations. I do think some people think about what I've written. Anyone who isn't interested this thread doesn't have to read it or post comments. Thanks for your additional comments, Ched. I don't think anything needs to be done immediately. Time to reflect on what different people have mentioned would be helpful. -- Drhankh (talk) 09:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  The moment that you clicked "Save page" the very first time, you became an editor. As you've clicked "save page" at least a half-dozen times right here at ANI, you're now an "experienced editor". (

  BWilkins←✎) 09:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  I tried to explain, but I can see probably not well enough, so apologies if it wasn't clear, but since 2009 or so, I've simply been editing articles that I read and saw corrections were needed or information was missing. Until late Friday evening, I had never had ANY interaction with anyone at Wikipedia. I saw myself as a reader, a user, and a member, someone who made conscientious edits, which were mostly corrections, fixing mistakes I noticed. I never thought of myself as an editor. I had visited some Talk pages and read some of the discussions. I had read policy material. But I wasn't an editor like the rest of you. I got here because it seemed necessary. I haven't been looking to do it regularly. -- Drhankh (talk) 09:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  Anyone who edits here is an editor.. It's not the same meaning as in the book publishing business, where it implies a position of authority (albeit one to be argued with by the 'client'...). Nor is it the same as in the newspaper/magazine world, where it definitely implies a position of authority (who isn't usually argued with by underlings...). We use a more basic meaning 'one who edits'. We don't have people like the publishing world does. Admins are often more experienced than many of the 'ordinary' editors (but many of the top by numbers and quality editors are not and do not wish to be admins). I was a reader for years until I discovered a silly edit in an article and signed up to correct it. And now I'm an admin (didn't run fast enough...). On content matters, I have opinions. You have opinions. Both of us are part of what makes up consensus. There is room for many different types of work. I cart out the garbage and nitpick on textual matters. Others create loads of articles. Yet others spend time in policy and procedure discussions. We're all here to keep things running and build the encyclopaedia. (Yes, there are vandals and spammers too - that's why we have admins...) Stick around and really get to know the place. Or just pop in and nitpick over wording. All helps. Peridon (talk) 11:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  Hi BWilkins, many thanks for your comments! I smiled when I read them. "The moment that you clicked 'Save page' the very first time, you became an editor."

  I still remember my first time. That was back in 2009, when I edited the Buster Crabbe article to add the material "Crabbe starred in the television series, Captain Gallant of the Foreign Legion (1955 to 1957) as Captain Michael Gallant; the adventure series aired on NBC. His real-life son, Cullen Crabbe, appeared in this show as the character 'Cuffy Sanders'."

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buster_Crabbe#Television

  Apparently the original author of the article hadn't been aware that Crabbe had even starred in a TV series.

  I knew he had, because I remembered watching it; I had reference books with the details (articles about the TV show, there was none in Wikipedia at that time), so I figured I'd help out by adding information on the show. I didn't even have a Wikipedia account at the time. It wasn't until 2010 that I created an account.

  I had the impression that there was a heirarchy of Wikipedia members with at least three levels, users, editors and administrators, and that I was just a user. One reason for that thought was that in my profile page, it says:

  "Member of groups: Autoconfirmed users, Users"

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences

  Since I'd never applied to become an editor, I never thought I was one. :-)

  You know samrolken actually told me something very similiar Saturday evening, "Everyone is an editor." He was talking more about himself, but I wasn't sure whether I believed him.

  But in my Talk page, I quipped "Then I suppose I have been promoted. :)"

  "... you're now an experienced editor". Ok, thanks.

  But there's still a lot of things that are very new to me. The only time I really read much in a talk page was one of the articles on Tom Swift where a person I was acquainted with, Scott, was embroiled in some kind of controversy; apparently he wanted the article to mention his fan fiction, while someone more experienced didn't. So I read up on it. That's when I learned about sockpuppets. But I never wrote anything in any talk page.

  I can see there appears to be a lot of customs, ways certain people are used to doing things. This doesn't mean I didn't try to read up on things, I did, but the material is voluminous, and it's difficult to just read and absorb completely if you're not using it.

  It's something like learning a foreign language; just taking a course (to me) was a lot harder than going to a foreign country and speaking the language; it came much quicker to me that way.

  Ched's been very helpful in his responses, but there's so much material (contentwise) as far as concepts, that I'm still having trouble completely grasping all of it, maybe even a lot of it. And that's not even counting the references.

  I think some people (not him or you) may simply be expecting too much and simply not understand that I can't absorb it all in only 48 hours.

  And a lot of the stuff I've encountered for the very first time is since I entered this section, which is only about 2 hours ago (when I had drafte his reply). I was hesitant to even come here. It appeared very daunting and complicated before I started.

  Anyhow, I hope people will have some patience with me, as I am trying to learn as fast as I can. I realize there is at least one person who feels I rubbed at least him the wrong way, but I feel like he did it to me first. I don't think he appreciates how experienced he is compared to me and how fast he can do things compared to me as well. I could barely keep up with him (and couldn't really). I'd be typing a reply to him, and when I tried to update the section, I couldn't because he'd already changed it with new comments. ;-) -- Drhankh (talk) 13:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  
  

  Too-Long, Didn't Read. Drhankh, rather than novellas of content explaining, how about short bulletized lists (or some other synopsis mechanisim). Also your very short lines are really disruptive. Hasteur (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  Hi Peridon, many thanks for your comments. Very helpful. Yes, I'd actually worked as an editor, and I did actual editing work. So yes, I did think of it as a title, and was sure I wasn't one, because I had never applied. So you signed up for a silly edit. Well as you can see from previous remarks, I did a whole partial paragraph and still didn't sign up. :) Well the screen said I didn't have to. It said I could just edit. Of course later I regretted not having created the account back then, because I probably missed out on some bonus points or something. :)

  "I cart out the garbage and nitpick on textual matters."

  Well I fix almost every mistake I see, from spelling and punctuation to grammar. Even of the proposed to be deleted Steve Cottle article, I still went ahead and added a missing end quotes symbol. :)

  Hey it doesn't hurt to be a perfectionist at sorts, and you never know, perhaps that article won't actually get deleted. :)

  "On content matters, I have opinions. You have opinions." Thanks, that's good to hear. As I mentioned earlier in this section, until perhaps 3 days ago, I had simply never interacted with any editors, with no one at Wikipedia. I think there were times I actually wanted to, to get someone else's opinion or how to handle an article. Now that I think about it, yes, I remember this thought came up several times. But quite frankly, I could never figure out how to do it. I'm not saying that I hadn't been really persistent, I might not have been able to figure it out, but I suppose I was looking for an email address or a private messages system, and this is totally different.

  Does that help explain things? So if I felt really unsure, then I just didn't edit something. My thought was to leave it alone unless I was sure I knew what I was doing.

  "Both of us are part of what makes up consensus." That's true. Initially I had asked MrX how to post a Keep comment on the Afd for the Steve Cottle article. I had looked at it, I was pretty sure I understood how it was done. But it looked very unintuitive; I was expecting a form with fields. However, I didn't want to mess things up. Anyhow, he answered my question just fine. But then after I posted my comments, he was highly critical of me, acted like I had commited great offenses, and I felt I had do nothing in the least wrong. I think part of the problem was that he perceived me as an obvious newbie. Another part of the problem was that he came across to me as condescending, as if he knew everything, and I knew nothing, and I didn't cotten to it at all. Two other editors treated me that way, one of them being samrolken, though was very demeaning, calling me names. Anyhow, to reach consensus, there has to be mutual respect, and true communication, and just because another editor may be more experienced, even if a lot more, that doesn't (I think) give them any right to be disrespectful to me, to be demanding as if I have to take orders from them (which happened earlier in this section), or to act as if or pretend that they know everything, that I know nothing, and that by default they have to right and to imply that I should kiss there ring or other anatomy lest they banish me. I really was not going to tolerate that. It's not like this is my job or that I'm getting paid or that I really need Wikipedia or the aggravation. :) Hence, I stood my ground with three editors.

  "There is room for many different types of work." I agree completely. That was another thing that irked me. Just because certain editors were doing certain kinds of work, and I hadn't been, they had no right to be demanding that I had to get involved to the same extent as them in order to in effect pass an initiation test. It felt like hazing.

  "We're all here to keep things running and build the encyclopaedia." This is one of the things that annoyed me in my dealings with samrolken. He told me that this is his hobby, how many hours he spend editing, and sure lately I've been spend a LOT of time, but I never considered it my hobby. It was simply one of the places I regularly devoted time to making corrections, because I thought the articles deserved it. After all, somebody else might not spot the mistakes, make the corrections, or have the information I did. However, with samrolken, he acted extremely condenscending, calling such bad names, and I really didn't accept most of what he said as being the truth.

  Sure, he could snow his friend, Steve Cottle, but I wasn't samrolken's friend, and I wasn't so naive. There was a big difference in educational levels and general experience, and his explanations of the 'inner' workings of Wikipedia seemed very hard to believe. I will say from actual experience, that yes, there was indeed SOME truth to what he told me, but it was just a slice of what goes on here.

  I can see that for sure now. It does exist, but how big or small it is, I don't have enough experience to gage for sure.

  "Stick around and really get to know the place." Thank you very much for such a warm welcome and encouragement, Peridon. I greatly appreciate it. I will have to admit, after some repeated interaction with one individual in this section, I was looking forward to finishing up this section and leaving. But I am feeling better now, thanks to Ched, BWilkins, and then you, Peridon. So thanks a million

  And with that, I will take a break and rest. -- Drhankh (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  Just for reference: Reader means wanders in from Google, reads, wanders out again. Only lasting thing is a click on a counter. User = editor = someone who does something. Confirmed or autoconfirmed can do a bit more than totally new or IP editors. Rollback and Filemover are rights that editors can apply for when they've been around a bit. Admins have more buttons to play with, including Block and Delete. They have no more say in policy matters or discussions than anyone else with the same experience level. Then there are bureaucrats and stewards, who do things that only they really understand. Like admins, chosen in discussions (not elections). And there are developers who do things that no-one really understands (or knows about until it goes wrong and everyone else gets angry...). Wikipedia is an argumentative anarchy with rules. Like in children's games, the rules can change if enough people get together (and no-one else notices...). Do try to keep the length of posts down - I worry about the length of mine at times. (Most of the time, I don't.) Peridon (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  BWilkins←✎) 15:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  Hi Hasteur,

  Thanks for your comments. Yes, it was somewhat lengthy. In my original post, there were smaller paragraphs. But another editor undid all my paragraphs and turned it into one overly large blog. So I had to redo it, and to pacify him, I made the paragraphs bigger, so there were fewer of them. The same thing happened with my reply to another editor, who modified my text twice. Again, I made the paragraphs bigger. I will be happy to consider changes like you suggested ("short bulletized lists") but please keep in my mind, this is the first time I've attempted anything like this, so I really don't know how it's done and had never thought of doing it. I tend to not use 'bullets' since they are not on my keyboard. I use dashes instead. Would that suffice?

  "Also your very short lines are really disruptive." Not sure what you mean. Can you give me a specific example or two? And add an example of it changed the way you think would be better? Then I would understand and could give it a try. Just please leave my original comments as is. Thanks again. -- Drhankh (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks for all the comments, Peridon. Interesting and helpful insights. And thanks for your comment too, BWilkins. "Wikipedia is an argumentative anarchy with rules. Like in children's games, the rules can change if enough people get together (and no-one else notices...)." Good comment. Seems to hit the nail on the head with what I had been observing. :-) "Do try to keep the length of posts down ..." Understood, and I am trying. -- Drhankh (talk) 17:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Drhankh, I'm not even going to pretend I read every word of that, but neither you or Mr Cottle come off very well here. Cottle seems to be trying to use Wikipedia to promote himself ("All I hoped for was the chance to save the page created about me"), which is very strongly discouraged around here. And you, Drhankh, are tossing around accusations, pasting walls of text, coming very close to
    OUTing another editor you're in a dispute with, and trying to bring off-wiki internet drama to Wikipedia, all of which is completely unacceptable. You may (or may not) have a point that samrolken might have been better to let someone else nominate the article, but regardless of who pressed the button, he's right that the article can't stay--myself or any of thousands of other editors would have nominated it too if we'd happen to stumble upon it first. The best thing you and Cottle can do at this point is let it go and avoid making yourselves look worse. (Cue enormous wall-of-text reply) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  I agree that Steve Cottle doesn't come off well here. However, that wasn't my idea, and I had nothing at all to do with it. I thought what he posted reflected extremely poor judgment. However, as far as I can tell, this was due to tampering by his friend, samrolken, who wrote Mr. Cottle a long email letter. That part was completely out of my hands. Its appearance here in this section was solely due to the adverse action of another person. I certainly didn't post it and would not have done so. You are entitled to your opinions, and just because you have a perception doesn't make it accurate. I had stopped writing in this section, you chose to continue it with your comments. I am not going to reply to everything, but I did read what you wrote.

  At any rate, you interrupted me from other work, so I must be going. However, I hope this helps. -- Drhankh (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Now I'm going to ask for some administrator intervention. Drhankh has added more than 17,000 bytes of meandering screed to
    WP:CIR. - MrX 21:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  I agree. I ask that an uninvolved Administrator collapse the text and warn the user against further disruption and attempts to control the discussions. I also can't help but wonder if a topic ban on all BLPs is now necessary to avoid any further issues involving living persons. Clearly the editor does not understand policy and guidelines in this regard and the issue is too important to allow any editor to run rough shot over these matters.--

  talk) 21:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  I've collapsed the content. A cursory reading of it leads me to the conclusion that it is an irrelevant screed. From what I see, I have to agree with X about this being a

  WP:CIR issue. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  I also agree that this is a

  talk) 06:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I would like to further ask for administrator intervention in this matter. Beyond the AfD, Drhankh has posted extremely lengthy diatribes here and on his own talk page. This content has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. Most of it is about me and consists of personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, outing, and harassment. I disengaged from dealing with this user early on, but it doesn't seem to have slowed him down. At all. I don't know what the proper policies and procedures are with regard to blanking/removing these rants, but they are definitely a menace to me and I'd very much appreciate some help and advice. samrolken (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  Actually I had finished writing everything I had to say on Wikipedia before the three editors posted their latest comments. And clearly all three of them do not like me. I haven't written anything on my Talk page since yesterday; there's no need to. I was finished and the above three people can move along to do other things. I would just point out that I've been hearing from samrolken all day long via text chat, which he's initiated (transcript saved) and the tail end of it was actually cordial, with him helping me. -- Drhankh (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  A few short additional comments. I do listen to everyone. I do read the comments of everyone who has posted anything directed my way or anyone I have replied to. That's the way I do things, as it seems fair. And I do think about what people say, including criticism.

  samrolken mentioned the link to Failure or refusal to "get the point" in our text chat this afternoon, which he initiated.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Failure_or_r efusal_to_.22get_the_point.22

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Competence_is_required

  I do read this material when people point me to it, as I have time to read and digest it. Please rest assured I've downloaded both of the above articles mentioned by MrX and samrolken. I will certainly be reading them carefully.

  But like I said, I really had finished. However, if someone posts something pertaining to me, I certainly don't want anyone to think I would ignore the material. -- Drhankh (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  User:Biala Gwiazda - increasing belligerency, disruptive editing, 3RR, ad-hominem attacks.
  talk) 22:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  ColonelHenry, your posting at

  WP:AN3 and explain the actual content matters that are in dispute. Neither side gives any references or even says what they are arguing about. EdJohnston (talk) 02:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  • My intent is not forum shopping, it's was largely the result of unclear instructions. I provided more than enough references on the talk page at
    talk) 08:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I recommended it be brought here, simply based on the personal attacks that Biala has made. Accusations of racism without any evidence:[5]. Claims of ColonelHenry having mental problems:[6]. Other rather marginal comments: [7]. This user needs a cool-off block, hopefully that'll sort out the issue - considering Biala admits their move was in error, I fail to see why the attacks have continued. ColonelHenry hasn't been the most neutral of editors in this dispute, and they had no right to make the comment "If you don't know anything about Rutgers, you shouldn't be spreading disinformation on the Rutgers-Newark article." I have seen information about Henry's remark about Biala being Polish - it was perhaps ill-advised, but it was in NO way racist, or harassment. I found this dispute after going to
    WP:3O. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  The edit warring complaint is now closed with full protection of the article and with warnings to both parties for the personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  Hoax/vandalism/promo only account
  Closing without prejudice. Shirt58 is trying to have a conversation with him on his talk page (the step before ANI), so blocking is a bit premature. Let's give him more than 3 edits before we slam the ban hammer on him. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:14, 5 March 2013 (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.

  ---

  Can someone block this [8] account before dealing with it becomes a time sink, or someone shows up and insists that I am required to have a good faithed discussion with it before reverting? It's nonsense edits - as best as I can tell he's putting in somebody's surname (maybe their own, maybe not) in for historical figures so it's either hoax, vandalism, self promo or d) all of the above.Volunteer Marek 02:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  Sweet Snow Covered Peaks of the South Eastern Carpathian Mountains (to steal one of your best lines) Volunteer Marek, it's just someone messing around. I'm willing to bet they've had their fun, and will never edit again. "Keep calm and carry thongs", as we say down here. --Shirt58 (talk) 04:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

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

  Mayasutra's talk page behavior

  Mayasutra (talk · contribs) has recently hurled wrong accusations against me, in the talk page of Iyengar. See below.
  
  

  • Mayasutra's offensive comments - [9], [10] - Here, Mayasutra accused me of POV pushing and says "According to you (and not according to Monier Williams), the Vadakalis have nothing to do with the Prabandhams", addressing me. And he also says(according to the second diff) "It is apparent Hari7478 is pushing a POV such that Thenkalais are associated only with Tamil and Vadakalai with Sanskrit, and by doing so, somehow wants to portray an ethnic difference".

  But, according to these sources, including the one authored by Monier Williams - [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], Vadagalai(Northerners/Northern school) accept the sanskrit vedas while Tengalai(southerners/southern) have compiled a veda of their own(4000 prabandhams - in tamil). Despite providing these sources, Mayasutra accuses me of POV pushing. Also, i didn't mention a word on ethnicity.
  
  

  • Mayasutra's false comment - [16] - Here Mayasutra has shown a diff of my edit summary and accuses me of wanting to push an ethnic difference.

  This was my edit summary - [17] according to which i simply changed the section's title from "Common Origin" to "Philosophical Origin" because the section was all about philosophical origins, hence i thought this title would be apt. I wonder how Mayasutra took it for "pushing an ethnic difference". Clearly a false and vengeful accusation.
  
  

  • Here's a list of Mayasutra's past accusations and abusive behavior in the article's talk page - for admin's knowledge of Mayasutra's long term attacks. See below.

  [18], [19](this one's a communal attack on Vadakalais), [20](edit summary vandalism/accusations of racism in edit summaries - removed by admin).
  
  

  Due to Mayasutra's "accusations of racism", an admin had previously warned him, here - [21].
  

  The Iyengar page has been under general sanstions for quite some time. I haven't abused other users in discussions, and i don't know how Mayasutra keeps getting away with this behavior. Hari7478 (talk) 13:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  I'm not really seeing anything other than a content dispute here. Some of the diffs above are really old but, regardless, none of them are attacks. Mayasutra suggested mediation in this diff], did you try that? If not, perhaps that's the way to go. --regentspark (comment) 17:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  It is fundamentally a content dispute but there seems to be a multitude of underlying problems relating to behavioural issues. Both the parties were blocked recently for warring, both appealed to me for support of their position and things certainly have been fraught. I've suggested

  IDHT and an inability to keep the discussion on a single talk page. If there is blame, it is certainly not reasonable to apportion it entirely to one party. However, I'd like to think that the fundamental dispute can be resolved, even though it will certainly not be to the satisfaction of both people. It seems at heart to be related to issues of ethnicity, which is a messy subject area anyway. More eyes might be helpful but not immediate admin action. - Sitush (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  Sitush, Am open to

  WP:DR will be on the current sources which Hari7478 has mentioned in this report above.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  Mayasutra

  The dispute ranges much more widely than just the sources that you mention. Let's deal with the issues - including any move to

  WP:DR - via the article talk page. They really are not a concern for this forum. - Sitush (talk) 07:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  Original research at "Computus"
  WP:DRN is thataway. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:33, 6 March 2013 (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.

  ---

  In this edit to

  Computus user Q5968661 has reintroduced a table over my demand for a source. The editor has insisted on other unsourced material, such as with this edit and I have placed templates about sources on his talk page; (s)he asserts

  (s)he has read the appropriate policy.

  I request appropriate steps be take to get the user to follow the

  Verifiablity policy (unless I'm wrong, and the edits are so obviously true that no source is required). Jc3s5h (talk) 14:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  Issues of this type are generally better handled by a WikiProject than by ANI -- in this case WikiProject Christianity seems like the right place to ask for attention. Looie496 (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  This is more of a dispute resolution issue. Article talk page, then

  WP:DRN if that fails. Also, calmly discussing the issue with them on their talk page and helping educate them might be useful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

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

  Edit lock of Next United Kingdom general election

  The page concerned: Next United Kingdom general election has been edit locked without good reason. Please see the edit log for 04-05/03/2012. The individual concerned did not even see fit to raise the subject on the talk page. The editor in question doktorbuk admits to having a certain political affiliation and the editors comments in the edit log show a clear intent. This has been discussed on the talk page. I started the discussion on the talk page as doktorbuk kept reverting edits without seeing fit to leave comments on the talk page. I'd be grateful to have this looked into by someone who is impartial. doktorbuk has made no attempt to engage with other editors in a courteous and polite manner, nor has he assumed that other editors act within good faith. doktorbuk has acted preemptively, without justification and refuses to lift the edit lock. Please see full discussion on talk page and the comments on the [log] for the full story. Many Thanks.213.120.148.60 (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  I would also like to recommend that doktorbuk is excluded from editing the politics section of Wikipedia because this is not the first time this sort of thing has happened and he does seem to be a man on a mission to politicise Wikipedia!213.120.148.60 (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  The article should remain locked. If I recall correctly, some IPs kept creating problems a few months ago. GoodDay (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  That response tells me that you have not looked into this issue as that is something that has been addressed in our discussions on the talk page! I am not the only person who thinks this is a valid complaint, it was Bondegezou who suggested that I raise this issue on here. Bondegezou seems to agree that this person has failed to assume good faith. There has been no edit warring, no attempts do repeat the same edits as last time there were problems on this page so that argument is simply not valid. Can someone please have the courtesy to actually look into this issue instead of fobbing me off! I have raised this issue for a reason, I would appreciate it if someone could take this seriously! Thank you!213.120.148.60 (talk) 19:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  Perhaps it should be changed to semi-protection. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  If you give me half a chance to respond I will. I had actually moved away from my computer for a bit and shall be doing so again in a moment. I can not see any need or justification for this article to be edit locked. The whole argument seems to hinge on something that happened a number of months ago, that is not a sensible justification! I would also like a second opinion from another editor, no offence intended towards yourself of course!213.120.148.60 (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  Ok, I'm another editor, not involved in the article in any way. The protection is completely justified, and is based on several dubious IP-edits this week, not on something that happened months ago. Nothing wrong here.Jeppiz (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  What dubious edits? The edits were reversed and the reasons given. The reasons were accepted. I started dialogue on the talk page, when ever an edit was reverted, the other editors did not engage and simply edit warred. In the end a good justification was given but the article was the locked. That is a major over reaction! Especially after the event! And yes it is why this has been done. The person who did it has said that this is the reason, therefore that is the reason they did it! You seem to be partial to the same opinion of the editor in question!213.120.148.60 (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  So every user who disagrees with you is partial, no matter if it's in the article or here at ANI? Are you aware that accusations against other users can lead to a block under

  WP:PA. I don't have a particular opinion about the article, I don't know which editor you refer to and I haven't read the whole article. I looked at its recent history, saw a lot of recent IP activity that involved removing valid tags, and that's already a reasonable reason for semi-protection.Jeppiz (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  No that isn't a fair comment! I am not saying that disagreeing with people makes them partial! How dare you cast such judgement without actually looking into this properly as requested! As you say all you have done is looked at the tags, great brilliant job! NOT! Can someone actually come on here and look into this properly. I'm not interested in hearing from another armature who can't be bothered to look into the problem properly. I specifically asked that all the comments were read on both the talk page and the edit feed, if you are not prepared to do that, you will not understand the issue. If you are not prepared to do that please go away and give a lazy response to someone else!81.149.185.174 (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  Why have you changed IPs? Anyways, the article should remain protected. GoodDay (talk) 03:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  I really think you need to

  BB 07:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  Hi everyone. I stumbled across this thread by chance, but I would have appreciated being notified, as I'm the user who placed the protection. Actually, even better would have been to bring this up on my talk page first, as we might all have been saved a trip to Drama Central. :) As to the protection, my intention wasn't to endorse any particular version of the article, but rather to stop the edit warring that was going on. I didn't think that the content was particularly objectionable, and it seemed like something that could be discussed at

  dispute resolution
  if necessary.

  Now, if the page was being edited by a static IP, then I probably would have opted for full protection to stop the edit warring, as admins aren't allowed to discriminate between IP editors and registered editors in content disputes. However, in the case of an editor or editors who are hopping between IPs, we have no real way of knowing whether they are the same person or not. This puts registered editors at a disadvantage with respect to the

  protection policy
  allows administrators to use semi-protection in such cases.

  Note that I am not saying that the IP editor was intending to be disruptive - on the contrary, I see an honest intent to improve the article - but it is the unfortunate reality that content disputes from IP-hopping editors have the effect of being disruptive, whether that is intended or not. The best solution for this problem, in my opinion, is for the IP editor or editors at the article to register accounts, as unregistered editors are put at a disadantage in content disputes on Wikipedia, in practice if not in theory. Hopefully this explains why I protected the article, but please do feel free to ask on

  ♪ talk ♪ 05:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  Excuse me, you've missed the whole point. Your intervention came after the "Edit warring" was over. If you look very carefully at the talk page and at the edit log you will notice that I used fake edits (removing unnecessary gaps between paragraphs in the article), not reverting edits of others. The reason I did this was so that my comments could appear on the edit log page! I have done nothing wrong, this can not be considered edit warring as nothing was reverted! You have based your reasoning for locking this article on factual inaccuracies. However in any case you acted after a clear end had been put to the matter. Closing the gate after the horse has bolted rings a bell! Although in this case the horse didn't intend to bolt! You were not assuming good faith and have over reacted! Please remove this protection! 213.120.148.60 (talk) 07:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  You should be aware of the

  WP:REVTALK policy. Nasnema  Chat  07:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  The article should have semi-protection until after the election. It's a high-profile article and attracts way too many disruptive IPs; simple as that. –

  BB 07:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  To correct a misapprehension above, I have no issue with doktorbuk's edits and think the article benefits from protection. Bondegezou (talk) 08:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  User page vandalism and talk page incivility

  An IP user vandalized my user page starting here, then undid the vandalism. I warned him that he need to stop. Today I get this message on my talk page here. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 19:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Short block issued just to express how their attitude and name calling isn't appropriate here. I usually just ignore the previous test edits to avoid confrontation, but your adding the template on his talk page certainly didn't warrant that kind of abuse. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  Not sure how they could be called "test" edits, but I appreciate the fast action on this. I wasn't pursuing it anymore until he left me the message. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 19:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  I'm using the word "test" loosely, to mean anything that is quickly reverted. Wiki-speak. Bad habit when you become an admin, I suppose. But clearly he needed to be blocked due to a cranial-rectal inversion issue he was suffering from. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  The IP shows a bizarre obsession. As I look through

  Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace, I don't see a template recommending that the user seek psychiatric help. Perhaps there should be one. -- Hoary (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  WP:NOTTHERAPY might be the relvant link there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  I doubt that such a template would be a good idea — misuse would probably be much more common than appropriate use. Nyttend (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  Strebe

  Hello, I am a new editor and I would appreciate it if an administrator would tell Strebe not to make personal attacks against me. We have a disagreement about the content of the Map projection page. I have put up a disputed template and made an RFC, which I think are prudent steps. He, however, on the Talk Page, has said about me:

  (1) "The reader simply does not understand English or the topic well enough" (I'm a native English speaker and mathematician) (2) "That makes you a troll." (3) "You are wasting everyone’s time, including your own. Go away."

  He is clearly not following the guidance of WP:BITE

  I am attempting to make good-faith improvements to the page and am getting insulted. I am a Wikipedia newbie but I still think my views, which are informed, should be considered respectfully. Thank you. 184.186.8.148 (talk) 07:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I've left a note on his talk page. Like I said there, I have no idea who is right on the merits, but his overall tone is a bit stronger than what is best for reaching consensus. I don't see any need for anything else except my request at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  Editor with an apparent grudge against a reporter
  Usefulness of the thread exhausted, a short bit of rope extended, Wondering55 might consider asking for a mentor to help prevent any future issues regarding the removing of citations. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:10, 6 March 2013 (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.

  ---

  The Record (Bergen County) who writes a column under the moniker "Road Warrior" about transportation issues. This edit to Pulaski Skyway, this edit regarding New Jersey Route 495 and this edit for the Port Authority Bus Terminal are examples of edits where the ONLY changes are to remove sources written by Cichowski and replace them with other sources. This practice came to my attention with this edit and this edit to the article for Chatham Borough, New Jersey, where Wondering55 removed a source written by Cichowski that was there solely to support Leanna Brown as a resident. After a series of talk page discussions, Wondering55 disclosed an apparent connection to Eye on the Record (see here), a web site dedicated to uncovering bad reporting at the newspaper, at which Cichowski is a frequent target. Subsequent edits by Wondering55 provided "explanations" for removing Cichowski-written sources, some of which might appear reasonable if you weren't seeing the entire edit history. After reviewing and reinserting many of the sources -- as they were indeed relevant -- Wondering55 ran through them again to delete any Cichowski reference, including this edit, with the bizarre insistence that the source is wrong, despite rather clear wording in the source, along with edit warring at Pulaski Skyway about this one source. The sources I see all appear legitimate, reliable and relevant, and another editor chimed in on my talk page to agree on this. How do you deal with an editor whose entire Wikipedia experience consists of an apparent crusade against one reporter, from someone who has some obvious background as an editor yet insists he is new to Wikipedia, and who has used any excuse to delete a source, now matter how clearly relevant it is, as long as it's written by John Cichowski? Alansohn (talk) 05:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I believe the relevant dose of alphabet soup is
    WP:NOTHERE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
    • (Non-administrator comment) ...and
      WP:SPA, though in a somewhat different way than usual. Because this is about a source's reliability, isn't it reasonable that editors interested in this little berg should have a discussion about the charges made by the website? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I'll be indefinitely blocking if this continues as obvious SPA. Disclosure: I am a member of the U.S. roads project, but I feel comfortable taking action as the disruption is extending outside the roads articles to geography articles and I personally don't care about the articles at stake (all New Jersey, and it's been a few years since I've been editing or reviewing anything from there). If people still think that's too close to take admin action, feel free to let me know and/or take action yourself. Meanwhile, I will be giving a warning. --Rschen7754 07:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Less inclined to take action now that other admins have indicated a willingness to do so. --Rschen7754 17:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • User just posted some out-of-format rant @3RRNB. Apparently insists that no-one is allowed to undo his changes w/o notifying him personally and discussing it with him personally. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  I never stated that no one is allowed to undo my changes w/o notifying me personally and discussing it with me personally. If you are going to address the issues that I have raised, it is best to present arguments based on the facts of what I have stated. Please also be civil and do not refer to my calm rational presentations as "rants".

  Wondering55 (talk) 06:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, Alansohn continues to publicize false, unsubstantiated, accusations about my intentions. I have no grudges against anyone.

  Please check out(Alanson talk page)that includes his bizarre history of false, unsubstantiated claims against me and my responses with facts, rational explanations, and good faith attempts for resolution with him, along with putting him on notice that he would suffer consequences if I brought my complaints to the attention of Wikipedia administrators.

  I also am frequently involved with advocating for customers and various uses of NJ Transit and NJ DOT services. NO ONE at NJ Transit, NJ DOT, NJ State police, or at the offices of my NJ state senator, assemblymen, US Congressman, or US Senator is coming up with any crazy claim about grudges against NJ Transit or NJ DOT or bizarre theories that I only seem to focus on anything that they do and not on anything else. In fact, NJ Transit, NJ DOT, and many others are more than happy to assist me and work with me to make needed corrections and then THANK me.

  I do have a more complex life beyond this nitpicking about a false unsubstantiated claim by Alansohn, who seems to be the only who is obsessed with Cichowski.

  So far, it appears that it is Alansohn, who has a particular grudge against me, who is creating rants and false claims without any substantiated facts and is recklessly trying to Undo all of my changes without any explanations or valid justification, even when he has absolutely no previous involvement with articles that I am editing.

  I updated articles when a cited article by Cichowski contradicts facts, which can be substantiated by more reliable sources, or is superceded by more complete, more accurate, and more up-to-date references.

  Alansohn appears to be violating multiple Wikipedia policies in repeatedly undoing my updates, which are based on the facts, and not accepting my good faith efforts for accurate information.

  Alansohn should be blocked from continuing his unsubstantiated, biased, public media campaign against me

  It should be apparent that Alansohn, and not me, is the cause of all of this unnecessary disruption, which has grown exponentially based on his unsubstantiated biased claims and not the relevant facts.

  Rather than accept my changes in good faith as Wikipedia policy requires and rather than NOT making denigrating comments about me as Wikipedia policy requires, Alansohn has chosen to harass me, make denigrating comments about me, and not accept anything that I do in good faith.

  No reputable encyclopedia would continually reinsert wrong, unsubstantiated, or out-of-date sources when it can be proven the needed changes are correct.

  Instead of accepting the facts and good faith efforts that I have made for these changes, Alansohn has chosen to spread his biased, misleading opinions about me in order to get his own way.

  1. Alansohn cites misleading "examples of edits where the ONLY changes are to remove sources written by Cichowski and replace them with other sources."

  The Key correct facts that he conveniently omits is that any examples that he cites are examples of edits where the ONLY changes were to remove "mistaken, misleading, incomplete, irrelevant, or out-of-date" sources written by Cichowski and replaced them with "accurate, more complete, more relevant, or more up-to-date" sources, which should be one of the primary requirements of Wikipedia.

  2. Alansohn misstates that I "removed a source written by Cichowski that was there solely to support Leanna Brown as a resident."

  The key fact that he conveniently omits is that all sources for "Notable People", that I checked in the Chatham Borough article were NOT to solely support showing the listed person as a resident, but also needed to show the valuable contributions or accomplishments that notable person made.

  Another key fact that he conveniently omits is that he retained the 2 new sources that I added about Leanna Brown because I showed how these sources had more complete, more accurate, and more up-to-date info than the Cichowski article.

  Another key fact that he conveniently omits is that I did not Undo his reinstatement of Cichowski after he added him back in, even after I explained that the Cichowski source should be superceded by the 2 sources that I added and which he kept.

  Another key fact that he omitted is the communications that I had with him in his Talk section where I pointed out the fallacy of his wild claims about me and the rationale explanations and facts I provided for my changes.

  3. After a series of talk page discussions, Wondering55 disclosed an apparent connection to Eye on the Record (see here), a web site dedicated to uncovering bad reporting at the newspaper, at which Cichowski is a frequent target.

  The key fact is that I have NO connection to the Eye on the Record page. I am simply a reader of that website, as I am a reader of The Record. Being a reader of a website or a newspaper does not imply any connection or any bias. It simply implies I try to be an informed reader and it does not mean I believe everything I read in The Record or in the Eye on the Record. I am able to do my own independent investigation to check other sources to verify information and if it is accurate.

  The key fact is that it should give pause to any concerned editor of Wikipedia about the reliability of Cichowki as a regular source, since the Eye on the Record reports so frequently on the mistakes of Cichowski reporting.

  4. Alansohn make a wild claim about "How do you deal with an editor whose entire Wikipedia experience consists of an apparent crusade against one reporter."

  The key fact is that there is NO apparent crusade against one reporter. As I have repeatedly explained to Alansohn, I have repeatedly checked many other published citations in articles that I have reviewed and all of them have proved to be accurate.

  The key fact is that I have an apparent crusade for accurate, up-to-date facts, which must also substantiate the referenced statement. If any citation fails that test, they need to be revised.

  The key fact, which Alansohn fails to mention, is that I pointed out other citations, which have nothing to do with Cichowski or The Record, for Notable People in the Chatham Borough article that I indicated to him needed to changed or updated.

  The key fact, which Alansohn fails to mentions is that there are articles with Cichowski citations, which I did NOT change because these citations were correct.

  The key fact is that I have not seen the level of detail for substantiating every single change someone makes that is being asked of me by Alansohn for relatively small changes. This is an UNFAIR practice.

  5. Alansohn concocts the false theory that cannot be substantiated that "Subsequent edits by Wondering55 provided "explanations" for removing Cichowski-written sources, some of which might appear reasonable if you weren't seeing the entire edit history."

  The key facts are that every one of my "explanations" for removing Cichowski-written sources do NOT just appear to be reasonable, but are completely reasonable based on the actual facts. These factual explanation cannot be overturned by his wild, unsubstantiated edit history conspiracy theory.

  6. Alansohn once again raised his wild conspiracy claims about "someone who has some obvious background as an editor yet insists he is new to Wikipedia" in trying to raise more unsubstantiated doubt about me to try and make his failed biased case against me.

  The key fact is that I am new to editing Wikipedia since only February. I an NOT an editor. I have an engineering degree and am not in the business of publishing reports.

  7. Alansohn makes the misleading claim that "The sources I see all appear legitimate, reliable and relevant, and another editor chimed in on my talk page to agree on this."

  The key fact is that Alansohn has provided NO facts to verify anything that "appears legitimate, reliable, and relevant" and the other editor, who commented about the Pulaski Skyway article, has NOT seen the facts that I have that prove that many portions of the cited Cichowski article are NOT legitimate, reliable, or relevant.

  8. Alansohn makes the false claim that I have "used any excuse to delete a source, now matter how clearly relevant it is, as long as it's written by John Cichowski?"

  The key fact is how do you deal with someone (Alansohn), who uses any unsubstantiated excuses and false claims that are not based on any facts to Undo any changes that a legitimate user, such as I make, no matter how correct or relevant my changes are for improving the accuracy and relevancy of a Wikipedia article, as long as the change has been made by me.

  The key facts are that I have only deleted sources, which are clearly NOT relevant, NOT correct, NOT up-to-date, or that are already covered by more complete, more accurate, and more up-to-date sources that are already mentioned in the article or that need to be added.

  The key facts are that I have NOT deleted every Cichowski source.

  Bizarrely, Alansohn took a simple dispute about a a single correction I made to Chatham Borough of New Jersey that I thought was a significant improvement to the article and started to repeatedly make unsubstantiated, wild false claims about my intentions, about my identity, about my integrity, and about my hidden reasons.

  He became so obsessive about this single change that I made to that one article that he had to investigate my entire history of editing. He then began to make more unsubstantiated, wild false claims about my intentions, about my identity, about my integrity, and about my hidden reasons.

  I have filed a complaint against him in the Edit Warring section about his harassment of my efforts and his repeated unjustified Undo changes, which is against Wikipedia policy, that need to be addressed.

  As I already explained to Alansohn, it is time to move on to more important issues, like working together and improving Wikipedia articles, rather than create a false crusade against me that is beginning to waste the time of more and more contributors to Wikipedia, who have better and more productive issues to address.

  Thanks for your consideration and I hope that I can continue to make positive contributions to Wikipedia based on relevant facts and not having to continually argue with Alansohn and his false claims.

  It is very clear that I was ready to move on after the Chatham Borough article and let Alansohn proceed with his own efforts, including keeping Cichowski article, while even giving him support in identifying other changes that needed to be made that had NOTHING to do with Cichowski.

  It seems to be very clear that Alansohn wants to continue his bizarre investigation and false claims of my efforts and will engage anyone who will listen to his false claims without the facts.

  I hope we can resolve this matter while respecting my rights

  Wondering55 (talk) 11:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  You don't have rights. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Enough.
    WP:COI wrt Cichowski; if they have any concerns about such references they should raise them on the article talk pages and let others do the editing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  I note that "Road Warrior" contradicts the NJDOT on some factual claims. I suspect the NJDOT is a more reliable source for such claims, though this does not make RW an unusable source, just not the best source to use for such conflicting claims. This should be discussed on the article talk page - not really here. An "incorrect fact" (that is, one which appears in conflict with what would normally be considered a strong source) does not have any special purpose in being in a Wikipedia article - and I do not see any animus against a reporter at all here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  I hope that other readers on this page will heed your fair and balanced advice based on the presented facts. I will continue to be constructive and add value based on fair and balanced accurate contributions to Wikipedia. I have also found useful references from others about Wikipedia policies that I will be guided by. I hope that others will not be so quick to judgement.

  Wondering55 (talk) 06:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  I agree with Alansohn and BrownHairedGirl and most everybody else here, excepting Wondering55.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Yes, BrownHairedGirl is spot on here. The editor needs to either get a bit more clue about what Wikipedia is and isn't, and participate based on those facts, or we accept they aren't here to build an encyclopedia. A bit of rope is warranted, but only a short length. I would note that Seb is also correct, no one has "rights" here. Wikipedia isn't a government, it is a privately owned website. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  Of course, Wikipedia users have rights that are governed by Wikipedia policies. All users have the right to be treated with respect, civility, and to present their disputes for resolution, among many other rights that are outlined in Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia user rights seem to be a guiding principle in many of the dispute resolutions I have read. No one has raised any rights similar to government rights.

  Wondering55 (talk) 06:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  Those are not "rights". Those are privileges extended by WMF and/or the community. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  Rather than throwing more sticks and stones around, I think a number of points need to be made to Wondering55.

  1. In the course of editing, removal of one source and replacing with another, which has gained consensus is better than the previous one is a good thing. Removal of a whole lot of sources across a whole lot of articles is not a good thing, particularly when all the sources removed happen to derive from a particular source, in this case articles by one journalist. Wondering55, the point that various admins and editors are trying to get across is that what you think you are doing and what you appear to be doing are 2 totally different things. You think you are adding in better sources but the appearance of how you are doing it is viewed as being disruptive.
  2. Removal of citations from an article without discussion is generally frowned upon. If you want to replace a source, open a discussion first. Editors will tolerate
     bold, Alansohn reverted and now it's time to discuss
     .
  3. Sometimes, it is better to just acknowledge that there have been misunderstandings between editors and that bringing it to a wider forum has meant that others see what you do is not as expected here. At such a point, it would be less stressful to graciously accept that perhaps what you're doing is not a community norm and back down. Too often, I've seen editors getting riled up and it all ends in flames when one side is blocked. It's too easy to view it as the experienced editors piling onto a newbie.
  4. Final note: I'm sure I speak for everyone here that it would be entirely in your favour if you condensed your posts. Excessive detail causes people's eyes to glaze over. (I've probably written too much as it is)) Blackmane (talk) 12:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks. I will keep your helpful suggestions in mind. Speaking as a new user and for other users, when issues are raised for discussion, it would be helpful in the future if there were more constructive insights and suggestions, similar to yours and from "Collect", rather than snap judgements, without hearing from both sides of a dispute, and fending off sticks and stones that I am seeing from other responses. Any consensus should be based on the facts and issues that various sides raise.

  Wondering55 (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  Alansohn Editor Grudge Against Wondering 55

  Alansohn (talk) seems to be obsessed with investigating all of my changes and Undoing my changes without providing me any explanations, even after I explained the reasons for various changes, which contain mistaken citations. I even requested that he address with me any concerns with my changes prior to reversing any changes. He ignored my requests. This is a violation of Wikipedia policies.

  Alansohn has chosen to ignore my requests and repeatedly Undid my changes without any justification.

  Alansohn also seems to be obsessed to make false unsubstantiated claims about my intentions, my integrity, and my focus on needed changes, and raises false conspiracy theories about my focus on Cichowski articles.

  Alansohn and others may be entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own unsubstantiated facts or to ignore facts that I present that clearly contradict their opinions. That is a violation of Wikipedia policies.

  Instead of accepting my facts and valid reasons for making a single change in a Chatham Borough of New Jersey article, Alansohn became obsessed with my entire Editing history and began making wild unsubstantiated claims about my reasons for this one minor change.

  Even though I did not agree with Alansohn on including the cited Cichowski article in a Chatham Borough of New Jersey article since there were better sources that I added that provide better, more accurate, and more complete info, which superseded the Cichowski article, I did NOT then become obsessed with all of Alansohn’s editing history or Undo his change in the Chatham article after he explained his reasons.

  Alansohn even admits that if he did not consider his theories (Note: He cannot substantiate any of them) about why I was making the changes, many of the changes that I made “might appear reasonable”.

  I am a novice and recently started editing Wikipedia articles starting in February of this year to revise/update/improve various Wikipedia articles. I originally thought my initial changes were so minor and clearly so evident that I did not need to provide an explanation. I did not realize that even for minor changes that explanations needed to be provided. Once I found out about my oversight, I have subsequently been providing clear reasons for various changes.

  Alansohn continues to ignore these valid reasons based on substantiated facts and simply Undid my changes in multiple articles without any explanation. This is against Wikipedia policies.

  I have been cross checking multiple cited sources in various articles in my attempts to ensure Wikipedia articles are accurate and look to see where I might add some additional information and corrections directly to the articles. I have made some minor correction and provided additional information for inclusion in the text of some Wikipedia articles.

  Instead of welcoming me and accepting my good faith efforts to make legitimate changes and deletions based on my thorough investigation of multiple source information, which includes government websites, technical reports, and many newspaper articles, incl. The Record, prior to including it in various Wikipedia articles, Alansohn seems to be going out of his way to make a concerted effort to repeatedly undo legitimate changes that I have made to various articles, even after I have repeatedly explained the basis and justifications for these changes.

  He has repeatedly made false, illegitimate accusations against me about my intentions and character and refuses to accept any of my explanations based on verifiable facts for all of my changes.

  So far Alansohn is the ONLY Wikipedia user that has been obsessed with every single change that I have made. He is the only one that has harassed me with grossly, illegitimate claims about my identity and intentions and would repeatedly Undo my legitimate changes without any notifications or explanations to me, even after I clearly explained the reasons for these changes.

  I repeatedly asked him to stop making false accusations against me without substantiation of facts or I would bring it up for dispute resolution since his actions are against Wikipedia policies.

  I have repeatedly asked Alansohn to stop undoing my changes without notifying me and without addressing the issues with me in response to previous explanations that I have given him. Yet, he repeatedly continues to ignore me and continues to undo my changes without any explanations. That is against Wikipedia policies.

  Please reference Alansohn's Talk page (talk) for my futile attempts to try and work with him and explain the basis for all my changes.

  Please see my 2 communications with him talk about "Illegitimate Edit Warring" and "Changing References for Leanna Brown in Chatham Borough Article" in his Talk page.

  He disregarded my repeated pleas to try and work with him and explanations for justifying all my changes.

  He ignored my repeated requests to let me know in advance if he wanted to undo my changes or use cited Record articles by Cichowski that I previously deleted since I explained to him that they were unreliable based on the content of these specific citations for specific Wikipedia statements and I replaced them with more complete, more accurate, more relevant, or more up-to-date articles.

  Instead, he undid previous changes that I made to the articles below without any notification to me. I went back in and put my changes back in with clear explanations and valid reasons for keeping these changes.

  You can check the Edit History for each article to see my original changes, his unsubstantiated "Undo" of my changes without any notification to me and my reinstatement of my changes with clear explanations.

  1. Pulaski Skyway 2. International High School (New Jersey) 3. New Jersey Route 495 4. Reversible lane 5. Bus rapid transit in New Jersey 6. Port Authority Bus Terminal 7. Garden State Parkway 8. New Jersey Route 55 9. New Jersey Route 208 10. Interstate 195 (New Jersey)

  Yet, Alansohn still continues to relentlessly undo my changes; he will not accept my clear updated reasons for reinstating my changes; and he continues to harass me and make official false accusations in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

  Scroll to: "Editor with an apparent grudge against a reporter"

  This is UNACCEPTABLE and I want Alansohn to be reprimanded and prevented from harassing me; prevent his undoing my changes without any communication with me, and reusing cited articles, which I have shown Alansohn to be unreliable, mistaken, outdated, incomplete, or irrelevant sources for specific referenced statements in various Wikipedia articles.

  I have also responded to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents in "Editor with an apparent grudge against a reporter" that I am waiting for resolution.

  I also notified Alansohn talk of an additional mistaken citation in a NY Times article that does NOT even mention the Notable Person for which the citation was included in the Chatham Borough article. I notified him that many of the Internet links for citations for the listed Notable People no longer open up to any valid web sites. Let us see if Alansohn takes any need action or if he is just obsessed to Undo all my changes.

  I never initiated these disputes. I am simply responding to all of the false unsubstantiated claims by Alansohn and would look forward to good faith efforts to work with me and accept my changes without tryting to find unsubstantiated hidden agendas.

  I hope that you can help resolve this matter with me and Alansohn.

  Wondering55 (talk) 19:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  Can I suggest that this be closed and consolidated with "Editor with an apparent grudge against a reporter" above. Alansohn (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

   Done Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

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

  64.134.184.251
  Editor blocked, and as Bugs points out,

  WP:RFPP is available if they return. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:51, 6 March 2013 (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.

  ---

  I would appreciate it if an admin would deal with

  MattyBraps. And if you could semiprotect my talk page that would be great because this person seems to be able to IP hop. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  NativeForeigner has kindly done the job. -- Hoary (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks. Was my talk page semi'd? Cresix (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  Look at your talk page history and you will see it was not semi'd. However, if that bozo pops up again under another guise, take it to

  WP:RFPP, as that page typically gets pretty quick response. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

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

  71.60.29.41

  Please review the edits of the 71.60.29.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and consider blocking the IP. I came across edits today where he wrote that Paul Bearer died from "being a fat motherfucker," Ronda Rousey's submission was "butthole," and Frank Gore was "aka FAG."

  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Bearer&diff=prev&oldid=542323772

  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ronda_Rousey&diff=prev&oldid=540016461

  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_Gore&diff=prev&oldid=541767171

  I suspect that, if you dig deeper into the diff log, you will find more.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.60.29.41

  • Block for a week, vandalism only account. Normally, you need to notify the party using the template above, or actually just report this to
    WP:AIV, but I saw no need to be overly bureaucratic here as he is obviously not here to build an encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  Copyright problems in unsubmitted AFCs

  I wasn't sure if I could tag these for speedy deletion, because they aren't actually articles yet, but they are all pasted directly from other sites, and I think potential copyright violations are considered problematic even in drafts:

  • Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sino-American Culture & Arts Foundation - http://www.sacaf.org/aboutus.html
  • Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chinese American Business Development Center - http://www.chinesebusinessdevelopment.com/aboutus_detail.html
  • Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sino-American Friendship Association - http://www.safaus.org/aboutus.html

  Apologies if this is the wrong venue for this, I just thought someone should see them. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  Someone tagged one of them for speedy deletion, so I went ahead and tagged the other two. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  The someone was me. :) Yes, blatant copyvio anywhere where the entire article is copied from the source should be tagged for speedy deletion. All three of the websites copied were clearly marked "Copyright ©". It happens all the time at AfC. Voceditenore (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  Good to know. Thanks, Voceditenore! Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  I've deleted them, even if the contributor secured the appropriate permissions from the sources, they would need fundamental re-writes to bring them in line with our standards on neutrality and sourcing. Monty₈₄₅ 17:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  Danjel: For the last time
  Nothing to be done at this time. LadyofShalott 19:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC) Danjel has been annoying. Annoying ≠ sanctionable. LadyofShalott 20:32, 6 March 2013 (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.

  ---

  doesn't like the result.--v/r - TP 14:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  The username is new to me and the disputes are new to me. Whether or not it's regrettable, it's normal (i) for people who are defeated in AN/I disputes and so on to complain about their opponents, about alleged supervotes, etc., (ii) to have lists of grievances on one's user or user talk page, and (iii) to announce that you've retired but not to retire. When you ask Could we please help him 'retire?', well, I have the technical ability to block him, if that's what you're after, but what block rationale should I cite? As it is, I don't see that what he's doing is particularly noxious; why not just ignore him? -- Hoary (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  There's nothing legally (or wikipedially) binding about a non-blocked user posting a "retired" banner. A user's actions have to be judged as they are, in reference to wikipedia policy, not in reference to a phony "retired" banner. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  (

  WP:IDHT.--v/r - TP 14:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  I'm kind of in the same camp as Hoary here. It is easy to see that it is annoying, but I don't know the policy violation taking place that justifies an indef block here. Perhaps it is just a lack of imagination on my part, or I'm maybe I'm too lenient when it comes to venting that doesn't interfere with the articles themselves, however, drawing more attention to his actions may just be rewarding them. WP:DE is more about articles, and I'm not sure that expressing an opinion that a close was a supervote really breaches WP:NPA, or even qualifies as ad hominem. I understand your frustration, I just don't see a clear path of action as defined by policy here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  Dennis, I think we spoke about

  WP:CIV once, or rather were part of the same discussion (Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#3RR_blocks on down), where the topic of how incivility wears on editors. This is the kind of 'just below the line' incivility that is much more dangerous than the run of the mill "get the fuck off my talk page" that folks have been talking about. I'd anticipated that recent discussions had made this more obvious but I suppose it hasn't.--v/r - TP 15:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  The editor's primary recent activity seems to be hassling various users. However, the main question should be, "Is he interfering with your efforts to edit?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I personally would prefer the "fuck off my talk page" since there's no misunderstandings. Quite frankly, if danjel wants to sulk like a child while hiding behind the retired banner like their mother's apron then let him. After a while, he'll either realise how petty and small minded all the whinging makes him seem or he'll do something stupid and get himself blocked. Hey Bugs, how about Wikipegally? Blackmane (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  And TParis, again, I completely understand your frustration and have found myself on the same side of the fence you are on, asking other admin to review and see if there is a reason to block. If another admin feels like there is, I won't be jumping on them about it, I just can't see a reason for me to block and stay consistent with my previous actions and statements, as well as my personal understanding of our civility policy. I accept that we all have slightly different interpretations, and mine isn't "more right" than anyone else's. This is just one of those borderline cases, to which I (and others, it seems) default on the side of no action. If I thought a personal discussion with him would be beneficial, I would have already started it. I'm more afraid that it will only embolden him. I don't know of a solution here except wait and see, expecting it will get better or worse, to which action can be taken. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I happen to be one of the editors Danjel has directed his ire at. When I saw the "list of grievances" or whatever on Danjel's talk page, I was mortified. The grievances are exaggerations at best; personal attacks at worse, and a couple of them I think are of me. The blatantly obvious thing here is that Danjel can't let it go when he gets the short straw. He couldn't let the Middle Harbour AfD go; he brought it up nearly a year after it closed. Then he couldn't let Chili burger being kept alone. Now he can't let Epeefleche go.
  • Should there be an indef? Probably not. But I think, and continue to think, that 1-3 months of forced retirement is the solution here. And there need to be sanctions that tell Danjel that discussion on the matter by him is closed, such as:

  1. Interaction bans with me, Epeefleche, and probably several other people
  2. Danjel be topic-banned from anything related to Epeefleche, and face blocks if he violates that ban
  3. Since the real problems are stemming from Danjel's interactions at AfD with other editors, he probably should be topic-banned from that, too.
  4. The list of grievances needs to come down. Now.

  That's my 2 cents

  p 16:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  The list is harmless, doesn't mention anyone by name. Best to ignore it. NE Ent 16:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)Looks like they're on their way out, best to just let the go peacefully. NE Ent 16:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Monty Python have the answer. Warden (talk) 17:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  I saw this before any replies but was lazy to reply. But looking at the above, I stick to my original conclusion which is I agree with NE Ent and Blackmane and Dennis Brown about just letting this go for now. The spamming was silly but was about 5 days ago now. The stuff on their talk page while not ideal doesn't name names and while it's not the sort of stuff we should encourage, it's the sort of stuff that you do see on occasion, and while yes

  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS ultimately you have to consider whether there's any benefit to the community getting in to a long discussion about whether it should be deleted. The snipe on Pass a Method mentioned above appears to be a follow up to a comment and again while it's somewhat uncivil and could be considered as a personal attack, it's the sort of mild thing which will generally be let be, particularly as again no one was named. As for the supervote accusation, well these sort of accusations aren't exactly uncommon and DGG themselves also disagreed with the decision although didn't suggest it was a supervote. Again, the sort of mild thing which is generally best left be. While I have sympathy to those like Purplebackpack89 above who feel they are one of the targets, even taken together I don't feel these justify a block. And as established in the previous ANI discussion, people are not forbidden from commenting or editing even if their talk page says they are retired although we obviously don't allow poor behaviour just because someone says they are retired. In other words, rather then forcing a retirement, let's just hope Danjel either stops these sort of actions and starts editing beneficially again or stops commenting. If weeks from now Danjel is continuing to do nothing but criticise other editors, we can reconsider. Nil Einne (talk) 17:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  Involved in a few previous attempts to ameliorate the situation. I'm not an admin, but I try to conduct myself as one I endorse the request for "Forced Retirement" (indef-blocking) for danjel. We have one editor who has been pulling every bureaucratic trick in the book to force their significantly minority viewpoint to be accepted as prefered. This same editor has announced their retirement already once before since January of this year and still continued to cause disruption of some of the community members. This editor has, in the face of policy based arguments, cited canvassed editors/cabals/harassment against themselves when challenged on specific policy arguments. On the other hand we have multiple members of the community who are being hampered in their enjoyment of wikipedia by danjel's badmouthing, flinging of accusations, and general battleground mentality. If danjel wants to acknowledge that their behavior is significantly below the expected behavior for editors then a restoration of privileges would be in order. Hasteur (talk) 17:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  Hasteur, you do a much better job describing the situation than I. Perhaps I should've contacted you about my concerns.--v/r - TP 17:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I don't see a reason for an indef. Not even close. I do see a reason for a month-long block, based on dodgy accusations, but there's nothing wrong with a bit of moaning (or even a lot of moaning) about their RFC/U failing - if it's just on their supporters' pages, then what's the issue, and why do you care, to be blunt? Same with a "list of grievances" - sure, it's a bit petty, but nothing against the rules, as it doesn't mention anyone by name. And why do we still have this ridiculous debate about the "Retired" template? It was laughable at first, it's still laughable now. In addition, most of the moaning was several days ago, and the user hasn't edited mainspace since they announced their retirement, so I do believe they HAVE retired - all they've done is finished their existing discussions off, be it at ANI, RFC/U or talk pages. Bringing this back to ANI is just as much a waste of time as the user's complaining, to be honest - in fact, it is basically EXACTLY the same thing. Maybe I'm guilty of being too uninvolved, I don't know. (Yes, I did comment at the retirement ANI, simply because it was a joke of an ANI) Lukeno94 (talk) 17:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  "The user hasn't edited mainspace since they announced their retirement". Yeah, that's part of the problem. Danjel really hadn't done anything productive in mainspace since the Epeefleche RfC was still going on; all he did was complain about it in various forums. If Danjel had, say, created a couple articles or fixed a couple dozen errors on existing articles, then I could see a case for him coming back whenever, no questions asked. But, no, there's little indication that he has any intent of being productive in mainspace

  p 19:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  • That's your reasoning for an indef? Completely and utterly unjust. As I said before, Danjel is evidently finishing their existing discussions (posting comments on their RCF/U supporters' talks counts as this, albeit also lengthening the process) before leaving. If you want Danjel gone so badly, leave them alone and stop opening baseless ANIs. The ONLY valid grounds for a block here is Danjel's accusation comments. None of the other complaints here have any remote justification for any action whatsoever. You've won your argument, leave them alone unless they come to you. I don't have any issue with interaction bans, but they need to be two-way, the constant filing of ANIs on both sides has shown that to be a requirement. Lukeno94 (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  • As long as he continues to throw out accusations, concerns about those accusations are valid. If he stops, the ANI threads stop too. There is no need for a two sided interaction ban, then. It is justifiably reasonable and right that someone, like me, would complain when someone else is spamming lies and accusations around. If you can convince him to stop, then everything is peachy. You seem to be friendly with him, why don't you give it a shot? He doesn't have to apologize, he doesn't have to admit guilt, all he has to do is stop. Manage that, and I'll have nothing to be upset about.--v/r - TP 19:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

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

  Vandalizing IP Making Threats
  Whacked and tagged Toddst1 (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2013 (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.

  ---

  A persistent IP vandal, 151.40.36.33, made this remark on his talk page: [31].

  Probably calls for a block and an edit deletion, but I'll leave it up to y'all. -

  talk) 18:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

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

  93.65.126.6

  I don't know if this is necessaly an incident report, but I would appreciate it if an admin would deal with an user with this IP adress 93.65.126.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He's been doing disruptive editing on film infoboxes on various films, including Olympus Has Fallen, Ted, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, The Hobbit (film series), Man of Steel, etc. I gave him a warning, but he still keeps on doing this to the film infoboxes on whatever films he does edit at. his contributions should tell you about that, so you can go over it and see for yourself. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  • It would be helpful if you provided more info and some diffs. I sampled several of his edits, which were removing html and wikifying and seemed in good faith. Whether they are right or wrong, I don't know, but I didn't see any effort to undermine Wikipedia with them. Perhaps some diffs would shed more light on the problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • And I added the {{subst:ANI-notice}} template on his page, notifying him that there was an ANI discussion about him. You must do that when reporting someone at ANI, it shows the template at the top of this page. I'm assuming it was an innocent oversight, but just keep that in mind if you report someone again, it is only fair to them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Here's some differences to shed more light on this. This is one diffs on Olympus Has Fallen - [32]. These are two diffs on Spring Breakers set in two different dates - [33] and [34]. one from Ted - [35] and one from The Hobbit (film series) - [36]. This guy hasn't see the instructions on how to Template:Infobox film work. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Ok, that is more of what I saw before. He doesn't seem to be intentionally trying to screw anything up. As a matter of fact, it looks like he is trying to improve the boxes. Before you file at ANI, you need to start a discussion on his talk page, point him to that doc page, and try to help get learn how to do it properly. Since you know more about the docs for the info box, you would be the proper person to do that. And keep in mind, that while we prefer everyone edit in a similar style and such, the infobox docs aren't policy, so we serve ourselves best by persuading others to adopt the generally accepted guidelines, not swing the admin bat at them. The guy seems to be acting in good faith, just a not preferred form so try and help him a bit via his talk page. You get more flies with honey, and all that. I went ahead and left a message on his talk page, assuming the best of faith, pointing him towards that template doc. If you are so inclined, you could go behind me and offer your talk page if he has questions. IMHO, this is how we convert a newb into a productive contributor. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
        • Right. I'll be sure to do what you say about something like you said above next time when something like this happens again. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
          • And to note, if they won't respond, or respond in a negative fashion, then do ping us here and someone will try it again, or take action if it is needed. We aren't trying to chase people off ANI, we just need it to be the last resort, not the first. People get hurt over here, its a bad neighborhood. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  174.227.5.213

  174.227.5.213 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) aka Colton Cosmic (not outing, claim was made on-wiki in this diff you silly oversight blockers) is in the middle of some block evasion. Please block promptly. I feel I am too involved since part of their complaints is about a system I helped develop.--v/r - TP 22:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  Also 50.75.14.182 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) per this diff.--v/r - TP 22:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  It think it obvious that any reasonable administrator would probably come to the same conclusion the ip should be blocked. NE Ent 22:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  I have blocked the block-evading sock. Colton: until you get

  BWilkins←✎) 22:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  Um, where is Bwilkins getting this add a month stuff? NE Ent 22:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  BWilkins←✎) 22:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  FWIW, Involved or not, I don't think anyone would have a problem with you blocking first when they are an admitted banned editor, then just pinging us here or better yet at WP:AN afterward. That falls under the "on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion." exception to WP:involved since it is almost law that we DO block them on sight. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  81.159.235.1

  81.159.235.1 (talk · contribs)

  I'm a bit concerned about 81.159.235.1. They seem to be on some sort of crusade to remove countries within the UK and replace them with UK or Britain. They don't use edit summaries; their rather scattershot approach has led to things which I find astonishing, such as changing There'll always be an England from English to British and changing Flower of Scotland from Scottish to British. With the greatest of respect to this editor I see this is a bit of a single-person campaign rather than a careful and consensus-driven approach. I don't know what to do, I don't want to get involved, and no I have not discussed it with them. But I am about to notify them of this, here, so that's one thing I did right, eh? I'd very much appreciate a look at this user's edits from an admin. Goodnight and thank you DBaK (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC) 

  I note that your first edit to their talk page was to notify them of this discussion. It would have been better for all involved had you first left a personal, handcrafted (not templated) note explaining your concerns and inviting him to discuss the matter with you. ANI should not be the first place you go when you have a concern, it should be several steps down the line. The first step should be to engage the person in direct conversation. --Jayron32 03:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  Thank you for the lecture. As noted above, I have no interest in engaging in any way with this person and I did the minimum I could to try to bring them to some competent person's attention. Obviously I have failed, but you have taught me an important lesson, which is not to bother at all in future. Please forget I was every here, as I will now try to do. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 07:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  I agree with DBaK that the IP edits were unhelpful. I also agree with Jayron that meaningful discussion with an editor should precede bringing them to AN/I. If you're not disposed to discuss an editor's behaviour with them, then frankly I'd say it is indeed better if you don't bother reporting them here. WP is a collaborative enterprise and that includes trying to engage with and steer new editors towards more helpful ways of working. I have left a message on their talk page to this effect. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  Suggestion: a search of talk and WP talk for "british" "english" "welsh" "scottish" turns up many discussions on the subject, demonstrating a lack of consensus (except for when it is necessary to copy a source or be specific). These would be good places to refer such users. Somewhere, there's a summary of such common controversial issues and the current consensus. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  The essay

  WP:UKNATIONALS may be what AlanM1 is referring to. Deor (talk) 11:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  Resurfacing of Josh Gutmaker page

  User:Gutmaker has repeatedly recreated the page Josh Gutmaker after a warning and deletion notices. smileguy91^talk 02:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  User notified.--ukexpat (talk) 02:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  Deleted and salted Josh gutmaker as well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  Maybe COI? Username vs article name. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  It could be a playful autobiography, or it could be intended to mess with someone else's head. Recommend the user page be deleted and the user indef'd, just to be on BLP-safe grounds. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  Deleted userpage on

  WP:NOTMYSPACE grounds. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  Harassment and incivility from User:Till

  Till (talk · contribs) This user has been incivil towards myself and others. I normally wouldn't have filed this, but after the ANI and hounding, I feel compelled. I also know it's not only me as User:IndianBio spoke to Till about patronizing editors earlier today, and in the last 6 months this editor has had two other ANI's filled against them: at this ANI/continued ANI and this one too with in the past 6 months. It appears much of the same problems arise.

  As I said at the other ANI, I was in the midst of filing an ANI against his incivility when an ANI was filed against me for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hummingbird Heartbeat. Even the title, abuse of "authoritative status" shows a lack of respect and good faith.

  I noted some incivility, in particular against User:IndianBio at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hummingbird Heartbeat such as this and this. Then I closed it and Till made this statement on my talk. Specifically, "You are absolutely incorrect and have interpreted the discussion in poor fashion... If you can't see that, then you have no business of making NACs in the first place" Till. When the ANI was closed, the editor was still making changes to the discussion. I think this statement, "...objective comment because you were acting dictatoral" is a good summary of how Till positions his comment as civil, but it's clearly incivil calling someone a dictator.

  This edit made in between edits at the ANI filed against me on one of my AfD nominations. I feel this is a clear case of

  WP:WIKIHOUNDING
  .

  It appears this editor habitually uses a condescending tone with other editors, assumes they are as another person put it, an idiot, with their statements like "Obviously it's your first time", or "You obviously didn't bother to read" or "interpreted the discussion in poor fashion" instead of assuming they have and their position is simply in opposition to that of Till's. There is a pattern of Till being scolded at the other ANI's where he promises good behaviour but finds himself back at an ANI again and again, and a third time now. Mkdw^talk 02:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  I noticed that one hour after opening an ANI thread about you, and immediately after the thread was closed, he went and voted keep in an Afd you had opened (

  WP:RFC/U if he continues to do this type of thing. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  I'm open to anything. I noticed that in the last ANI it was closed after he said this statement but we're back here for a third time. The hounding issue is one thing, but the incivility is another for me. Mkdw^talk 03:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  It's uncivil, not 'incivil', and none of what I posted today is. "You are absolutely incorrect and have interpreted the discussion in poor fashion" → How is this uncivil? It's objective information, disagreeing or not liking it doesn't make it uncivil. "If you can't see that, then you have no business of making NACs in the first place" → Indeed, if somebody does not know the relevant policies they should not be doing NACs. The first time I posted on your talk page I greeted you and even said thank you, and I felt that your response was condescending, dismissive and unfair. My query was treated like it was nothing, so that was my reaction. I spoke freely and openly, but I wasn't uncivil. And Mark, I don't think you of all people should be suggesting to open an RFC against someone (remember that unforgettable email to Malleus)? Till 05:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  I don't see anything wrong with the word incivil and neither does the dictionary. Perhaps you could show where exactly in my initial reply I was anything but civil? I offered you the option of

  WP:DRV right off the bat. I know the relevant guidelines and it's only your disagreement of how they were applied. Enough editors thought you had not properly applied the notability guideline, but that does not mean you did not know it. There is a very strong difference between disagreeing and calling people ignorant. Mkdw^talk 05:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  You made an NAC and when I questioned you about it, it was dismissed like a piece of paper and directed to DRV. What was wrong with a simple 'revert' and 'relist'? That's all I asked for, but at the end of the day, my concerns were still not addressed and the nature of your response worsened the problem (for me). So if you feel that my response was rude, it was my natural response, although I didn't intend on having to visit ANI twice today for it. And I don't consider voting on an Afd to be 'wikihounding' Till 05:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  How did you want me to take the AfD other than how I handled it? My close was measured, formal, and procedural. I stood behind my position. I didn't take you to ANI or say anything rude to you because you didn't change your mind after I tried to convince you otherwise. So why would you expect me, if I was not convinced by your reply, to change my action? You didn't. DRV would have been the neutral and unemotional path to see if there was consensus over my closure. It would have taken no different amount of effort or time than the ANI. Lastly, you have a history of incivility and it should be addressed. When people disagree with you, which will happen again, you should not come back with them about statements and fairly large assumptions like 'obviously you haven't [done] this or that'. I never said, "you obviously don't know English or have read a dictionary because incivil is an English word and in the dictionary, and you have no business using the English language because you convey a poor understanding of it". See the difference? Mkdw^talk 06:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  Your close failed to address the lack of policy-based votes. This could have been easily fixed if you reverted it and relisted it in the logs. When an NAC is challenged, especially if proven to be incorrect, there is an expectation for the closer to (at least) reconsider their actions. In this particular Afd there was 1 outstanding nomination complaint which wasn't addressed, 1 valid merge vote, and 4 weightless keep votes. Afd is not a headcount, and NAC is reserved for non-controversial closures. This should have been relisted at the least, but instead you acted dictatoral and caused a response which you perceive as 'uncivil'. What you are accusing me of ("history of incivility") is not true. You may have become irritated by a comment of mine, but that doesn't make it uncivil. Till 06:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  Those are only your opinions. I did not fail nor was proven wrong on anything and in fact, you are, so far, alone in that assumption. Even the above ANI had admins which voiced opinions that it was a close that most admins would have done (as I said earlier) and that there was nothing wrong with my closure. Technically speaking, this is the 3rd ANI in 6 months, and one 7 day block in there. It's clear we don't agree on much so I'd rather not spend more time going back and forth over the same issue over and over. What has been said has been said and I await further admin input. Mkdw^talk 06:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  No, it's entirely objective. It seems as though you have a tendency to make bad NACs and then argue with people who confront you about it and accuse them of incivility ([37]). That is all I have to say on this issue. Till 06:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  Ironically, if anyone reads through the diffs of the discussion between Till and Mkdw, the only failure of civility is on Till's part. Asking an editor to reconsider their close of an AfD is one thing, but then badgering them to relist it when they should know that it is generally not looked upon well to have an AfD that was closed as keep relisted straight away for yet another discussion, is beyond the pale. It is not the closer's responsibility to list at DRV when their close at an AfD is questioned. Till, Mkdw laid out their reason for their close, if you had a problem with it you could have listed it yourself rather than whinging. Instead of digging too far back for incivility and having noted Till's previous appearances at ANI, one might consider this diff for one of Till's customary responses to people who disagree with them. Blackmane (talk) 10:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  If you look at the previous diffs for that page you will see that the user told me to "stop being an ass", so no, I wasn't the one who began the "incivility". Clearly, it's okay for someone to call another person a "pain in the ass" and get away with it, but when the second person responses to this, it is deemed uncivil. Till 13:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  I also note that IndianBio chose to redact it, not strike through which would have left it there, but removed it completely even though it is left in the history. The redaction was prior to your reply to their post and as such is generally considered an acknowledgement that their comment was inappropriate. And if you want to argue about being a responder, your comment prior to the redacted 'pain in the ass' would certainly be considered the trigger for any following incivility, so yes, in this case you are the one who began the incivility. Also, having mentioned IndianBio, I will go and leave a notification on their talk page. Blackmane (talk) 13:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Till, you have a long standing habit of reverting NACs. Why you despise them, I have no idea, as admin aren't magically more right than an NAC. NACs are allowed under policy, and the remedy is usually to have them reviewed, not to revert them except in cases of abuse. If you would simply stop reversing NACs, your life would be a lot less complicated. I don't want to see you topic banned, and prefer you just stop reverting NACs voluntarily. If an admin decides it needs reversing, they can. If you think it it needs reversing, ask an admin to review it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't despise NACs, I have made dozens of them in my Wikilife. This however, was a poor interpretation of policy. If somebody does not understand that
      WP:V#Notability is a policy-based requirement for articles and cannot differentiate between a vote with weight and one without weight then they shouldn't be doing NACs. But you are right. Next time instead of arguing I will consult an admin. Till 15:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Will you also refrain from casting Afd votes to spite people who close discussions, like you did at Craig McMorris? Mark Arsten (talk) 15:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
        • To add to this, I always refrain from commenting on an AFD or other process when it is initiated by someone whom I've had a strong disagreement with unless I have something truly remarkable to bring to the discussion. Being part of the community, I depend on the common sense of others and recognize that my more mundane opinions aren't required at every discussion, even if I have an opinion. Not voicing an opinion where it can cause drama is often in the best interest of the encyclopedia. Trust the rest of the community to deal with those cases. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
          • I feel like most of this was addressed above at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Incorrect_Afd_reading_and_abuse_of_authoritative_status and not the matters of incivility and harassment that this ANI is focused at. What strikes me is that Till does not see himself as having both been incivil against multiple editors and subsequently hounded me. I'm not seeking 'justice' but several editors/admins have noted the incivility and it should be addressed. Mkdw^talk 20:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
            • I'm not prone to blocking Till (or anyone, for that matter) for incivility that doesn't breach WP:DE, WP:TE or WP:NPA, and I think that discussing it has made the point fairly clear, what the expectations are. What we seek are solutions, and if Till will follow the advice given here (and he has indicated he will), it will go a long way toward resolving future issues. If simple incivility becomes a pattern, RFC/U is the proper venue. Till isn't a bad guy and does a fair amount of good work, but he gets a bit emotionally involved in what he does and doesn't pull back when he should, hence the tips above. I'm familiar with his methods (and I've blocked him for them previously), and feel that guidance is more likely to produce the desired result than blocking in this circumstance. Of course, I'm just one voice and another admin may feel differently, but I do think a little rope is appropriate here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  Till told me that he scrambled his password and won't ever be back.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 23:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  That is unfortunate to hear but not surprising after the activity on his talk page. I guess the problem is moot if he's gone. Do we say the provisions set up Mark and Dennis are active should Till return? (in the case of password/account recovery/he decides to come back?) Mkdw^talk 16:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  Repeated unexplained re-addition of interwiki links on an article where such links are handled by Wikidata

  User NAKFANS has over the past few days repeatedly re-added interwikilinks ([38], [39], [40]} without any edit summary or other explanation for it, in spite of being equally repeatedly [41] told that such links are now handled by Wikidata and should not be added back to the article (the user in question does BTW never add an edit summary to his/her edits). The user has sofar not broken the three-revert rule but I would like to know if such re-additions should be treated as ordinary edit-warring, generally disruptive editing or vandalism (there might be some guidelines somewhere, but if there are I haven't seen them, so feel free to point me to them...). Thomas.W (talk) 11:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  They have stopped after your warning. If they continue, a block may be in order. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  That does however not answer my main question. So should that kind of behavior be treated as ordinary edit-warring, and handled more gently, or vandalism, with a lower level of tolerance? Thomas.W (talk) 11:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  The

  BWilkins←✎) 11:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  Not all pages will show interwiki links on mobile even with Wikidata - as late as yesterday I was unable to get the Japanese link to

  Romeo x Juliet on mobile site. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 14:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  I believe that the best template to use for this circumstance is Template:Uw-wikidata-add. It is not a warning, and is instead educational and lets people know that Wikidata is now live. This template needs to be more widely popularised along with its sister template Template:Uw-wikidata-revert. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 14:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks, that's useful info. That template would have been better than my first "free text"-warning on the user's talk page, which I added instead of a level 1-warning efter his/her first readdition of the interwiki links. But I wish there were more levels, that is level 2, 3 and 4, for those users who, like NAKFANS, totally ignore all attempts to communicate with them. Thomas.W (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  Violetcries
  disruptive. A secondary account (not reported as it was not abused) is Violetcries1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  It's hard for me as I am not an administrator to determine any validity of Keaton Henson with it deleted and no ability to review deleted pages. Please leave the page in question the next time it is posted so it may be reviewed. Thank you. — Technical 13   ( Contributions • Message ) 20:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  Uh, that's why it's called the administrators' noticeboard... Writ Keeper (t + c) 20:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  It's a clearcut case: the claim to importance is that he is self releasing recordings on iTunes. It's the equivalent of vanity publishing.—Kww(talk) 20:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  I've dropped a warning on the page, and will block if this continues.—Kww(talk) 20:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Kww deleted Keaton henson and I was about to do it again but TexasAndroid beat me to it. I also deleted Wolf Alice, which was also recreated immediately after its first deletion. Drmies (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  Violetcries made a legitimate complaint that we were deleting the article so fast that he had no time to fix it. In response to this I have userified the article into his user space. Whether he can bring it up to a state that meets notability requirements is now up to him. I also restored the WP:SALT at the two article names. Any admin who believes that Violetcries has gotten the article to a state where it should be immune to A7 deletion, let alone if they think it would survive AFD, is welcome to move it back and override my Salting. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  The user knows how to create good articles, and bad articles. With respect, I don't buy the speed thing. That's what the sandbox is for. They know they'll never be able to get past the relevant notability guidelines, so the response is to just keep creating the stuff to see what sticks. AGF, but this is not someone who just got here. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  I make a standard offer to people when I delete their pages on notability grounds- give me three newspaper or magazine articles about the person, and I'll undelete it with bonus correctly formatted references. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  I think that's fine, after all that pretty much eliminates the A7 to begin with. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  64.134.184.251 again

  For background, see

  MattyBraps. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 01:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  I have blocked the IP for a week and protected your talk page for ten days. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks. Cresix (talk) 02:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  Uninvolved admin needed at Wikipedia talk:Signatures
  No admin action needed, discussion continuing at

  WT:SIG. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2013 (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.

  ---

  There seems to be administrators that feel they are above any guidelines and that this rule wiki as a dictatorship and not a democracy. They have objected to my signature as being annoying, and have changed the guideline regarding it so that my character is must not exist in a personal signature. In the process of doing this, their own signatures are in violation of the guideline and they refuse to change theirs but insist I change mine or be blocked.
  I have offered many alternative solutions for them to remove their perception of an annoyance from their screens. I've gone so far as to submit a feature request that can be found at T47757.
  I believe that an editor's signature should allow them to show some uniqueness and they should be allowed to represent that however they see fit, as long as they do so with moderation and due regard for others.
  I have been more than happy to fix my link to my login name instead of my nickname, which although not specifically requested was reasonably suggested by one of the guidelines. I have also been more than happy to fix my link to my link to my talk page, which used to go to my home wiki talk page that I watch like a hawk, to be an internal link on this wiki as it was also reasonably suggested by one of the guidelines.
  In regards to the inconveniences and annoyances of the signatures of the administrators involved, I would be happy to let them go as I feel they have the right to have as annoying of a signature as they want; I am willing to modify my .css and .js to remove their annoyances from my screen. However, they would have to be willing to do the same.
  From my research, personalization of signatures seems to be a recurring nuisance on this wiki, and I would be very happy to be on a committee to revamp the guidelines (and perhaps make them policy or even better, regulation). I have had discussions and debates before, and some have had an undesired outcome; however, I consider myself fair and have mostly successfully built a reputation as such on my home wiki of an MMORPG wiki called "DDOwiki," where I am a top administrator and bureaucrat, the main template creation specialist, and an editor with >15k edits.
  Thank you for your time and consideration. — Technical 13   ( Contributions • Message ) 16:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  Just as a very quick aside regarding your first sentence,

  BB 16:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  OR: just get over yourself and take the damn blinking out. It's annoying, explicitly against policy, and utterly unworthy of a dramafest. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  This reminds me of my long-shelved project to write an Onion-style scoop on Wikipedia entitled "New User Explains Wikipedia to Community, Finds Long-Sought Correct Answers to Perennial Disputes". It only we'd realised for ourselves that any annoyance caused by editors having blinking pink dots in their signatures was due to our own stupid, wrong guidelines! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  Technical 13, you have it right when you assert that "From my research, personalization of signatures seems to be a recurring nuisance on this wiki". It does indeed. Please don't add to the nuisance - just change your sig to remove the blink element. There is no swell of opinion to move in the opposite direction. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  (

  stick and move on. Furthermore, linking to your activity on another wiki is entirely irrelevant. Blackmane (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  Blackmane: I believe that it only blinks on Firefox. I'm currently using Chrome and it doesn't blink for me: I tried IE and it was the same, but then I tried Firefox and found the (rather irritating) blink. –

  BB 16:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  Richard, are you implying that it is indeed a dictatorship? If that is the case, then why allow custom signatures at all??

  Writ, I have no idea what unicode character ⚇ is suppose to be; however it does not render and shows as a box with "2684" in it. Please remove it from your signature it's annoying, explicitly against policy, and utterly unworthy of a dramafest.

  Chris, that is an interesting thought. However, I don't see how it adds to the discussion.

  Kim, you seem to be the most unbiased and reasonable out of those that have commented so far. It is not my intent to add to the nuisances, and I am willing to change my signature as my original disposition has said. This being said, I don't feel that I am the only one that should have to do so. Being as it is such a recurring nuisance, why not create a committee to formulate a reasonable and fair to all set of rules. My point is that it is not the use of any element, but the use of it in wikt:moderation that utterly my debate here.

  Blackmane, as you mention, .gif images are not static. This alone defeats most of your comment when you claim it is "a single moving element." The heading is "Blinking and Other Signature Customizations" because it is NOT just about my blinking element. It is about ALL potentially inconveniencing or annoying customizations. Unicode that fails to render is extremely disruptive and inconveniencing. The purpose of my linking my work on my home wiki was not intended to have any relevancy to this discussion other than to provide a reference towards my character and the fact that I'm am a fair and reasonable person.

  — Technical 13   ( Contributions • Message ) 16:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  You appear to be labouring under the impression that our existing signature guidelines sprang forth fully grown from the head of Zeus, rather than having been developed using precisely the iterative community discussion approach that you're generously offering to host for us. You also seem to believe for whatever reason that the "committee" in charge of the new guidelines would come up with new rules that differ from the expectations of literally every person who has responded to you thus far (namely, that blinking text belongs in a deep hole somewhere in the 1990s). It is surprising to me that you have these opinions, what with your extensive experience of consensus-based debate on the Dungeons & Dragons Online project at Wikia. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  No, I'm not saying it's a dictatorship. If you read the article I linked, it explicitly states that this is not an experiment in any political ideology: including democracy. Furthermore, I think your patronising comments towards Writ do not help your case. His signature is not against policy and is not causing a dramafest. Do not lie about this sort of thing. I feel by mimicking other editors simply for the sake of making a

  BB 17:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  Of course, I think your counter-request is utterly ridiculous (for one, it's not explicitly against policy, as there's nowhere in

  the policy that says or even suggests that Unicode characters can't be used; you can't say the same for blink tags). But nevertheless, I've changed my sig, because it's not a big deal. See how easy that was? No squashing of individual expression necessary. Writ Keeper (t + c) 17:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  Maybe Hello Link (talk · contribs) can do the same. I can't even read that stupid, annoying signature unless I hover over it. Drmies (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  Consider it done I guess (~.~) I don't even know why this conversation is still going. ハロー☆リンク 18:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) T13, this unnecessarily wastes power by causing the display to be continually updated and preventing mobile devices from using sleep states. I feel that is is not an optimal use of your time, nor of others' time to have this escalated, and I can easily see above which way it'll go if it does. You'll earn far more credibility working with, and towards, a consensus than dragging something out unnecessarily. Please carefully consider removing the flashing middot; there are many editors around who will be happy to give you a hand with the cleanup. —Sladen (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Unacceptable waste of editors' time. I've left a message. --John (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  Sladen, I have not found such a mobile device yet that has blinking text enabled by default and I have used many different

  RIM, iPhone, and Android

  compatible mobile devices. Please tell me what make and model it is that you claim can't go into sleep mode because of a blinking dot.

  Thank you Writ, I appreciate your compliance. Your signature must not blink, scroll, or otherwise inconvenience or annoy other editors. is the policy. Your unicode was an inconvenience and an annoyance to me, and since I am an "other editor" they were against policy. Therefore, Richard, I did not lie about anything and accusing me of such a thing

  WP:VULGAR

  .

  Furthermore, I will temporarily modify my signature to not blink. However, I feel the

  Borg collective attitude on this wiki is counterproductive, and I will strive to better the guideline that is in question. — Technical 13   ( Contributions • Message ) 17:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  You lied about it causing a dramafest. –

  BB 18:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  I think you should strive to make article edits and stop whining. Drmies (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  Thank you Technical 13. —Sladen (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  Drmies, I think you should strive to quit being so

  WP:VULGAR

   ;)

  Sladen, I would still like to know what make and model of mobile device shows the "blink" text-decoration.

  — Technical 13   ( Contributions • Message ) 17:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  Because yes, accusing us of all having a hive mind and uniting to crush your freedom of expression (because "the blink tag is widely regarded as annoying by many people" isn't a plausible reason for us to just agree on this) is civil, but telling you to stop whining isn't? Hm. Writ Keeper (t + c) 18:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  T13: Ubuntu 12.04 LTS, Firefox 17.0.1. The batteries are recharged from bigger batteries (the boat's domestic battery banks), which are primarily fed by photovoltaic solar panels. If the sun doesn't shine enough to cover the amount used, then it means burning diesel oil to make more. This is unecological, noisy, expensive and creates unnecessary wear. See: butterfly effect. —Sladen (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  • BWilkins←✎) 18:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)Technical 13, the issue is very simple. There is a consensus that your blinking signature breaks the spirit, if not the letter, of the policy. This means that if you wish to participate, you conform to this one simple expectation. Otherwise, we have to assume that you don't want to participate. And yes, we are a benevolent dictatorship at Wikipedia, long live Jimbo and all that. More importantly, we are a community guided by consensus, which appears to have formed here. I strongly suggest you just avoid the blinking sig and go edit articles, to prevent any further drama. Or in other words, what Drmies said. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  I notice, Technical, that you said that you will temporarily alter your signature. Why are you being so obstinate about this? –

  BB 18:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  • T13 has removed the blink effect from his/her signature. I infer that the 'temporary' nature of this is pending a change in consensus which T13 hopes to influence. Many people come here with a complaint, get a boomerang response and waltz off in a huff. T13 has not done so; could we all make
    the usual assumption, applaud T13 for bowing to consensus and go about our business? I don't think this thread will achieve anything by being left open further and would ask the next uninvolved editor who agrees with me to close it. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 18:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  How am I obstinate? The blink is gone from my signature. That being said, there are a few more unicodes in this conversation that are in violation of

  WP:SIG in which I quote: Your signature must not blink, scroll, or otherwise inconvenience or annoy other editors. -- Again, I ask you to please remove them. — Technical 13   ( Contributions • Message ) 18:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  Every signature I see here looks pretty much acceptable by what's listed in the signature guidelines. At this point all you're doing is being a nuisance and just causing unnecessary drama (even more so since you did what was asked of you to begin with). Just chill, stop replying and move on; I'm pretty sure everyone else in this thread has much better things to do. ハロー☆リンク 18:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)A box in the middle of a signature inconveniences nobody, under any reasonable definition of the term, and is of minimal annoyance, unlike a blinking effect which immediately draws attention away from the rest of the page. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  File:SarekSig.png, on the other hand is a good example of problematic Unicode -- it made it harder to find me in a discussion, so I changed it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  The reason the these non-rendering little blocks are inconvenient is they make the signature illegible. When the character does not load, it requires extra work to find out what it is. A visitor should be able to clearly define a link. Unicode that fails to load (and even some of it that DOES load) should represent the link that it leads to as BWilkins has done with his talk link of "✉→". However, "ハロー☆リンク" as an example is in noway close to "Hello_Link" and is misrepresenting, inconvenient, and annoying. "If" perchance that is the representation of "Hello_Link" in some other language, please use it on that languages wikipedia site and not on en.wikipedia as it is a violation of

  WP:SIG#NL

  .

  FYI, it transliterates to "Haroo [star] Rinku", or, cleaned up, Hello Link. Curiously, WP:SIG#NL only talks about non-Latin usernames, it doesn't talk about Latin usernames using non-Latin signatures. --Golbez (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  It's in Japanese Katakana. That's the Japanese alphabet that is used, among other things, to express words and concepts in other languages. So as Golbez details, it actually does effectively say "Hello Link", just not in the Roman alphabet. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  Thank you for the translation, however, it still is not in accordance with

  Wikipedia:CUSTOMSIG#Dealing_with_problem_signatures. Perhaps that section of the guideline needs to be modified as well. — Technical 13   ( Contributions • Message ) 19:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  Actually it is. Nothing says foreign characters aren't allowed in signatures in any form. That, and my user name is present, thus all in all acceptable. Also, to John: definitely should close this and move it over to the original thread, since what was needed from this one to begin with is done.ハロー☆リンク-Hello Link- 20:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  As you can see, I'm NOT saying all unicode is bad. I'm just saying that unicode that fails to load or does not represent the destination of the link is confusing as

  Wikipedia:CUSTOMSIG#Dealing_with_problem_signatures specifies. — Technical 13   ( Contributions • Message ) 19:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  I almost missed it upon the sea, Sladen, thank you for that information. — Technical 13   ( Contributions • Message ) 19:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  • • Can I propose the closure of this thread on the Admin Noticeboards (Incidents), as User:Kim Dent-Brown has already suggested, and continuation at Wikipedia talk:Signatures? I've made the offer to use technical measures should the user again use a sig that multiple users have said was distracting, and no one has yelled ZOMG ADMIN ABUSE, and the OP has modified the sig in question. Unless I'm mistaken, we are done here for now. --John (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  Not at this time John, the other signature customization complaints of mine have not been rectified. — Technical 13   ( Contributions • Message ) 20:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

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

  (Non-administrator comment) I'm sorry. I should, but can't, avoid commenting that User:Technical 13 has made just 34 contributions to the main article space in the 683 days since they registered. @T13: How would you feel if someone with these stats stirred up this level of trouble on your wiki, regardless of right or wrong? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  Editor

  WP:BLPCAT
  Editor in question has agreed to be more careful re:

  WP:BLPCAT in future, so I believe we're done here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:27, 8 March 2013 (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.

  ---

  Per WP:BLPCAT, "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources."

  Despite this, and against various warnings not to do so, And we drown has consistently added living people (dead ones as well) to such categories, especially to

  LGBT categories, without any verification that they identify as such. As seen in the "various warnings" diff-link, I am one of the editors who warned And we drown against this before and that warning concerned the Janice Dickinson article. Today (actually March 7th, not March 8th), And we drown added Dickinson to the categories again and I reverted. I then left And we drown another warning about such behavior. And we drown's response was this.

  I have already informed And we drown that I'd be bringing this matter to this noticeboard. But I'll also inform the editor now that a thread about it has been posted here. As can be seen from past discussions, and by my reporting this here, non-administrative warnings and discussions with the editor about this has not kept the editor from disregarding this policy.

  talk) 03:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  No one has explained to me how it is violating the policy when the article talks about Dickinson identifying her past lovers as including two women, namely Grace Jones and Kelly LeBrock. I'm not categorizing her as bisexual or lesbian because of this, just LGBT, because she herself has talked about sleeping with women. This means she's LGBT, but since she's not given a specific label, she can just be categorized under LGBT like other people who don't identify with a label but have talked about being with the same sex (cf. Frank Ocean, Amber Heard, Sarah Paulson, Nell Carter). And we drown (talk) 04:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  Nathan Johnson (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  Amber Heard, while not specifying whether or not she identifies as lesbian or bisexual (though some sources state that she did identify as lesbian), identifies as part of the LGBT community. She made it explicitly clear that she came out as part of the LGBT community because she felt that she had a responsibility to do so. This was extensively discussed. I'm not sure about the others.

  Just because a person has engaged in sexual activity with both sexes does not mean that the person is bisexual or should be categorized as LGBT.

  talk) 04:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  Yeah, I don't need a lesson in that postmodern claptrap about "heteronormativity" (which even as someone who is bisexual, but closer to gay than straight, I find to be a muddled term. Heterosexuality, and to a perhaps lesser extent, bisexuality, is the statistically "normal" sexuality. Being completely gay is not "normal" in the sense of biostatistics), but while we're at it, what about "bisexual erasure", which though kind of a douchey term in its own right, is actually a thing? Regardless, I now understand what you're both saying about the policy, and it won't happen again, so let's not make a federal case out of it, ok? My bad. And we drown (talk) 04:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  Further, as noted above, applying LGBT categories to biographies of living people without any verification that those people identify as LGBT is not the only way that you have been violating WP:BLPCAT.

  talk) 04:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  I'm well aware of

  talk) 04:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  Well, believe it or not, I honestly haven't meant to disregard it. I've just been confused at times about its application, especially in cases such as Dickinson's. Now I have a better understanding, and will be more aware next time. I will try not to screw up again, but please know that I have not meant any harm, and this was never done in a willfully harmful manner, but in all good faith. And I definitely haven't been trying to vandalize anyone's page contrary to what anyone may think. And we drown (talk) 05:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  I understand, and I do

  talk) 05:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

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

  Global Gateway Logistics City and Global Gateway Logistics City Philippines

  A user (

  Global Gateway Logistics City at least once (and possibly the other three times it was deleted) seems to be attempting to evade the article creation block that was placed on that page, by creating Global Gateway Logistics City Philippines. This also appears to contain have contained the same copyvios as the previous article they created. I would include diffs but, well, the pages were deleted. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 04:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  There is also discussion at

  WP:COIN#Global Gateway Logistics City about the previous article, and some of their other edits which might be problematic. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 04:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  New article deleted and title salted, user warned with {{uw-advert3}}. JohnCD (talk) 10:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  Moving comments in talk
  Duke it out on your talk pages. ANI is not a first resort for every tiny bit of wikidrama someone invents on a given day. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:15, 8 March 2013 (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.

  ---

  talk) 06:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  What I'm attempting to do is keep that RfC from becoming completely disorganized. Amad's comments and my own were moved intact and unaltered from an RfC section to a non-RfC section devoted to the topic in question. Amad actually managed to delete some of my comments (repeatedly), but that might have been an accident. The thread with Amad's moved comments and my ex-deleted comments is now in a new sub-section separate from the RfC.

  Amad, if you think I misinterpreted you, go to the talk page and say what you really meant. I'm doing my best to treat both sides of this issue fairly. Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  Frog, please do not move my replies and comments to your RFC about my edits, which in itsef is rather innacurate as you are making claims about sources I did not use on the MOS. I feel that RFC is a disruption in itself and badly worded. An uninvolved admin should probably speedy close it as malformed.--

  talk) 06:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  And yes, when frog moved the comments I did not notice they had also commented with the same edit. I have apologised for that and even returned the edit.[44]--

  talk) 06:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  That wasn't the only one you deleted, though, was it Amad?

  Amad, you posted those sources on the talk page. Once I was outside of the RfC tag, I was under zero obligation to present your side of the issue at all, and I invited you to modify said presentation as you saw fit in the original edit summary. It's not my fault if you decide not to do it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  Frog, this is not a contiuation of the discussion there. As I said you are claiming sources were used to support the prose on the MOS. That is simply not correct. Talkpage is not the article or page. I may have brought those to that discussion but did not use them at all when editing the article. They do not belong on the RFC at all let alone you claiming these are my sources to support anything. As I said, this is a very malformed RFC and should just be closed allowing the editor to resubmit a clearer request.--

  talk) 06:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  They are referred to as "Sources offered in support of 'theater' and 'theatre' having different meanings," which is exactly what they are. The question in the RfC is whether WP:Spelling should refer to "theater" and "theatre" as having different meanings, and these are the sources you posted when you were arguing that it should. You should thank me for putting the clearest of your arguments where people could see them.

  I can't read your mind and don't know what you were and weren't thinking about when you designed the text that you put in the article, and I did not claim to. I can read your posts and do know what sources you used to support your arguments on the talk page, so I presented them for the RfC, neatly and in the same format as my own. Darkfrog24 (talk) 07:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  No, but you do know what you are doing. None of those sources have anything to do with the edits I made and, while you are moving my comments out of the RFC to reply to your assertions about my edits, you seemed perfectly fine with moving sources that were not used to support the material into it. The RFC is simply malformed and you are simply being disruptive and trying to control the discussions. As I said, I think the RFC should be closed or it could just be made into a regular talkpage discussion allowing you to resubmit an RFC with a clearly defined question that editors can support or oppose. This RFC is not condusive to that.--

  talk) 07:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  Yes they do. These are the sources you used to argue that "theater" and "theatre" mean different things and the edits you placed were to the effect of "theater" and "theatre" meaning different things. Why would it be unreasonable for an observer to think that those edits had been based on those sources? Not every source has to be cited every time. And even if you didn't use them, they supported your position. Showing them doesn't hurt you. It helps you. And if you thought otherwise, you had an open invitation to take them away.

  The RfC tag does have a clearly defined question. You even complimented me on it. You said "I would like to thank you for the civil back and forth and the RFC."[45] Darkfrog24 (talk) 07:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, it was nice of you to start the RFC, but that doesn't mean I had even read it at the time and the compliment was not about any clearly defined question. You are using sources that were not being argued for the material I added because I used different references. This just is not an accurate RFC nor are your claims here. You stretch evrything to fit what you want and I find that rather disturbing and concerning.--

  talk) 08:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  "Duke it out on your talk pages. ANI is not a first resort for every tiny bit of wikidrama someone invents on a given day." Please explain what this means.--

  talk) 11:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  I am not clear on this. Did Chris just tell us to "fight" and blow off this filing as being "invented drama"?--

  talk) 11:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  It was abundantly clear (based on the fact that it was only the two of you having a discussion above) that this was waaaaaayyyy too premature for ANI. You needed to have the discussion above somewhere else first, ensuring you linked to proper policy, etc. If the disruptive behaviour continued after that discussion was done, then YES, you could have come to ANI (

  BWilkins←✎) 11:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  We did have the discussion elswhere. On the article talkpage and on the editor's talkpage. At what point does disruption need to be intervened upon? That much is certainly subjective and the editor has at least stopped moving comments (although still very disruptive), but I am unclear what was meant by "wikidrama someone invents".--

  talk) 11:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  I will say that the two of us using the filing to just discuss was not appropriate. I made the comment myself but just didn't follow through with the suggestion. I don't know if that demonstrates that is was too soon to file, but think I get where you are coming from there. Thanks for trying to adress my questions.--

  talk) 11:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  It means, Amad, when someone does something on a talk page that you don't like, say you don't like it and suggest an alternative. An AN/I is not the place for you to claim that I misrepresented you or that I did the RfC in a way that you don't think is fair. Go to the talk page and say what you think should be different about it. After all, when your comments were in the wrong place, I fixed the problem by moving them. When you complained about that, I moved them to a place that I thought you'd find less objectionable. That is how one deals with flaws in an RfC. We triangulate toward something that everyone finds tolerable. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  Thats not what that means and you were not attempting to fix anything. Nothing from that closing indicates that your were in the right. You were just being rude and combative. You are welcome to the last word which is undoubtably what you wish.--

  talk) 14:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

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

  93.65.126.6

  As I mentioned before the user 93.65.126.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is messing up the infoboxes and he's still doing it, even with the warning we gave him. Here are the diffs from the movies Rush Hour - [46] and it's sequels, 2 - [47] and 3 - [48]. I don't think he responded to the message we sent to him about Template:Infobox film. Someone needs to keep an eye on him because I can't be the one to do that and revert his edits. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  You should have notified them about this discussion; I have now done that. Apart from that, I agree with your assessment that this editor is merely trying to improve Wikipedia. Judging from their edit history though I'd say this is quickly approaching the point of becoming disruptive, so we might have to block them. De728631 (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  I know. This editor has been doing disruptive editing on film infoboxes as you saw. Although I know it's based on good faith, but how he's doing on the film infoboxes is inconistant at best. Although I know there's no policy for film infoboxes, there is a peference on how the style of them works and this editor doesn't seem to get it. I have to tell you if he doesn't stop this disruptive editing on film infoboxes in various movies, they have to be blocked as you said. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  redirect request

  In AfC a request was made [49] for a redirect containing homoglyphs in the name. It looks like a legitimate request. I don't have permission to do this. The message I get is

  The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism.

  The title of the page I was trying to make is ᴀʙᴄᴅᴇꜰɢʜɪᴊᴋʟᴍɴᴏᴘʀꜱᴛᴜᴠᴡʏᴢ and it was to be a redirect to small caps. —rybec 22:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  I would decline it as not a valid search term. The difficulty in actually getting those characters (you'd have to know unicode or cut and paste them in), combined with the lack of likelyhood that someone will put the whole alphabet in looking for "small caps" makes me think that there's no loss in delinting that. (not an admin, but a frequent contributor there).

  Wha? 23:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  FYI

   – {{smallcaps}} can be used to show small caps.

  Auric talk 23:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  Paul venter - issue with reliable sources

  Hi, folks.

  WP:NOR. As he's clearly hostile to me (see the "stalking" accusations) I am open to suggestions on how to proceed. Thanks, Rkitko ^(talk) 00:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  Yeah, I don't think some of these sources are helping the articles much.

  talk) 01:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  TCO and RfAs
  No admin action needed now that Mark has acted. —

  ²¹ 03:12, 9 March 2013 (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.

  ---

  TCO and I do not have a pleasant history; I readily admit that I view him as a detriment to the project because of issues like the one I am raising here, so this should by no means be considered a neutral posting, however I believe that this RfA vote is entirely inappropriate. TCO has a history of over overly-aggressive, borderline personal attacks (I would argue that this is past borderline) on RfA candidates that do not have what TCO views as sufficient content creation. I found one in 2011 (this) that was also particularly bad, and another (this) which isn't as bad but still isn't good. The thing is, TCO has demonstrated that he is perfectly capable of opposing for the same reason that he did in these three, but in a straightforward and civil manner (see, for example, this non-aggressively worded oppose).

  I'm not asking for a block or topic ban at this point, but I asking if an uninvolved admin could over to his talk page and leave him a strongly worded note saying that opposes like the one he made today are completely unacceptable, and that further comments of that kind will result in his either being blocked or barred from the RfA process.

  Thanks,

  Wha? 21:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  I agree. People like TCO are what's wrong with RFA.

  AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  Yes and no. When he's not going after people, he's fine. I disagree with his philosophy on the importance of content contributions to having the admin tools, and I disagree with most of the suggestions he makes on RfA related and other forums (to the point that we occasionally joke about how often we're on separate sides of issues), but most of the time he's bringing up valid viewpoints. The issue is that TCO has a tendency to take his viewpoints to the extreme, and when it makes the jump from observation to crusade, it becomes problematic. If TCO can avoid attacking people in his comments there, I see no objective reason why he can't continue to participate in the RfA process.

  Wha? 22:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  I have to agree that comment was wholly inappropriate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Seconded. I stay away from RFAs usually (it's rare that I have anything to contribute to an RFA, after all), but here, that comment is entirely inappropriate and should be redacted at least, and probably removed wholly. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Did anyone attempt to discuss this with TCO before opening this thread? He's usually amenable to a reasonable discussion. Really, he's not the devil-incarnate his critics make him out to be. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I think that would have been by far the wiser course. And while I'm biased since I'm a bit of a fan of his, I really don't see it as a personal attack, or even close. He's expressing his views in a provocative way, and I have no doubt the closing crat will take the views into consideration.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure how "entirely inappropriate" the comment is, but I certainly don't see TCO as a detriment to the project. While the oppose is forcefully written, that is part of the gauntlet that is RfA. And to say that "TCO" is what's wrong with RfA; .. well let's just say that some may be of the opinion that people getting passed at RfA who then go on to act like total tools are what's wrong with RfA. Many people want a strong editing background in RfA, Some want a sign of clue in dispute resolution, others want clean deletion experience. I don't see this as an "attack", but rather as a strongly worded piece of advice. I'm sorry that your history has been difficult, but agree with Mark A. above as well, sometimes to get respect, you have to give it and earn it first. I'm not seeing anything actionable here. — Ched :  ?  01:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
    • "Seriously, if you lack the work ethic or brains or just balls guts to do a simple GA" is an attack. It doesn't matter who is saying it or what the context is, it's an attack. The reason I don't get along with TCO, and the reason why I think he's a detriment to the project, is because this is the way he goes about communicating with people on a somewhat regular basis. It's the same way I feel about other people that have a similar communication style, it's not TCO specific. I agree that TCO is not what's wrong with RfA, I said as much above, but I do think that if you (the general you as opposed to the specific you) don't see his statement as an attack, or at least see how it can be reasonably viewed as an attack by others, that is a problem, because it shows how little we are phased by over-the-top, bordering-on-hostility communication now.
      Wha? 02:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
      • So why didn't you attempt to discuss the issue with him instead of immediately opening an ANI thread to complain? Unnecessary ANI threads are part of what's wrong with Wikipedia. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  • As Sven requested when he opened the thread, I've just left a note advising TCO to change the way he expresses his opinions at RFAs. I think this thread can be closed with no further admin action now. And we can always revisit the issue if there are more problematic !votes in the future. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

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

  Unauthorized deletion of speedy-deletion template
  Problem resolved by speedy deleting the article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:37, 9 March 2013 (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.

  ---

  User:Sruva1 continually has deleted the speedy-deletion template on Kurio ko uddah le jana (Just Dance) after a warning. smileguy91^talk 23:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  Problem is solved. smileguy91^talk 23:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

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

  IP messing with Succession to Muhammad

  It's not quite vandalism, but a tenacious IP,

  IDIDNTHEARTHAT for sure. --BDD (talk) 07:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
  • It seems to have died down, if I am reading my time stamps correctly. Another user issued a final warning, which was more than appropriate; future disruption (it clearly is disruptive behavior) should result in a temporary block. Drmies (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  Please block vandal 2.67.27.80

  Please block the reocurring problem user 2.67.27.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for what I believe would be obvious reasons. - Tournesol (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Tournesol, you should use proper, templated warnings, instead of a rather assholish comment, "What is your problem?" Then, report them to
    WP:AIV. In this case, those edits were disruptive enough to warrant a block, but come on, start using standard procedure please. Drmies (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks for your feedback. Is the tone typical for how you normally respond to requests, or were you just trying to make a point?

  I'm not a frequent contributor to ENWP (I just came over here after we blocked this guy at SVWP) so I'm rather unlikely to ever to learn the standard procedure here by heart. The next time, I guess the best thing I can do is to just stay out of the way and not get involved at all. - Tournesol (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I call 'em as I see 'em, Tournesol. There is no Wikipedia in the world where "What is your problem?" is a proper way to go about it. There are, no doubt, Wikipedias where such comments warrant a warning. If you don't wish to play nice, don't feel the need to comment any further. In the meantime, thank you for having reverted that disruptive editor, and I accept your apology. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Tournesol, I would recommend activating Twinkle if you feel like reverting vandals here. It's a helpful tool that generates a lot of warning and welcome templates automatically, as well as a lot of other stuff. That way a repeat of this can be avoided. –TCN7JM 15:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  Thank you, that was a helpful piece of advice. - Tournesol (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  User:Richardbrason

  I think it's time he's just blocked indefinitely and we kill his sockpuppets on sight, which some admins have already picked up on. He constantly re-creates overly-promotional articles (

  Suleman Malik - AFD
  ), and actually re-created both of them immediately after his block for sock-puppetry expired. His talk page is repeatedly blanked by him to flush the warnings that he racks up, but are still visible in the page's history.

  He's down to 13 contributions with all of the deleted contributions that he's racked up, and just got off a 72 hour block. We need to stop entertaining him and just block him and all of his sockpuppets as they appear. Alan^(E) 18:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  Keithstanton after being blocked

  Keithstanton (talk · contribs), after second block expired continues with nationalistic editing, in violation of NPOV. He started new AfD, only per article subject, and PLEASE, just read that explanation why it should be deleted. Then, he obviously canvassed only INVOLVED editors, while this one was purposlly added to the "opposing side" in conflict, so he can do revert of canvassing with this edit summary:

  • OOPS I forgot. You're now allowed to edit there are you! Oh well, it's what you deserve for being a naughty editor! So long.
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Serb sentiment This should also be fixed, as all invited editors voted per same attitude, and i am afraid, per national interest. Not to mention IP's and SPA brand new account who quack "Delete".

  Therefor, i ask for instant reaction, as this is obvious violation of WP:ARBMAC final decision, and he is also obviously NOTHERE, and he barely missed block for this sockpuppet investigation. --WhiteWriter^speaks 17:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  His activities were unacceptable but your conduct hasn't been appropriate too. Accusing users that he notified about the AfD that they "vote per national interest" is plainly disruptive given that bobrayner, whom you've systematically accused of sockpuppetry without any shred of evidence[50] left him a very reasonable message discouraging him from canvassing as did I[51] and from the conclusion of that discussion I think that he realized the gross flaws of his conduct. If you want ARBMAC enforcement, report him on

  WP:AE, where both your decorum and editing will be judged. Btw you should mention that you and him are involved in the same edit-wars and that you just recreated a deleted article[52], which you failed to restore on DRV[53] as a redirect to an article that he listed on AfD[54], which itself is disruptive action. --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  Well, i never mention anyone by name, and your wast comment about me is, as usually, totally out of place and time. I dont see any real reason for now to report anyone at WP:AE, but your comment speak for your self. At the end, i may expect vast attacks on me, with 6 months + old edits, but this user, Keithstanton, is not here to edit normally and neutrally. For a user that is obviously not new user, as concluded at SPI, i am sure that he knows what canvassing is. --WhiteWriter^speaks 18:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  Bobrayner and I had a very reasonable discussion with him and he agreed to stop[55]. After the conclusion of that discussion you started this thread and made some very disruptive

  WP:BATTLEGROUND edits.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  I may imagine that this user may be "useful", but lets see what admins think about it. We maybe will not canvass anymore onwiki, but what about the attitude? Also, lets face it. He is quite involved in sockpuppetry, among other things, so... --WhiteWriter^speaks 18:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  (unindent)Well, the AfD was speedily closed as it was very badly written and he realized the issue of canvassing.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  Which AFD? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Serb sentiment is still running, although the last two people to comment have asked for a speedy close. Nyttend (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  Oh right, it's still open. I thought that it was formally closed too.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  I wish to state that this contribution is highly disruptive and consistent with the accusation of this thread. Looking at the full catalogue of this new user, it is evident that he is

  argue) 18:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, his edit was disruptive as his conduct for which he was notified and warned.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  Not considering any of the source complaints

  Arbitration Remedy Enforcement is over there. If the user has already recieved their ARBMAC warning it should be easy. If not, procedurally we're supposed to give them a warning prior to applying sanctions. If it can be domestrated outside the AE route, that's something different... Hasteur (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I've issued a
    WP:ARBMAC warning, though after considering the contribution history I believe an indefinite block may well be appropriate even now.  Sandstein  22:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment It might be relevant to note that at least 10-20 of Keithstanton's most disruptive diffs no longer show up in his edit history as the article was since deleted. Keithstanton is a user who is
    WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but only to push his relentless nationalist POV, he constantly vandalizes articles, is disruptive and downright rude to other editors. This is the third or fourth time in less than a month that he is discussed here. Already in the first discussion, it was suggested that he is a sock. Whatever the case, Keithstanton should not edit any article related to Balkans. Ever.Jeppiz (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Yes, yes, and yes. That was my reason for this request. Thank you. --WhiteWriter^speaks 00:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  So, Sandstein, what is final conclusion? --WhiteWriter^speaks 13:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  I really hope this one doesn't go archived unclosed, as Keithstanton is one of the most disruptive users I've ever seen broght to ANI. It's "unfortunate" that 80% of his vandalism before his block was at a now deleted article, but the diffs provided here shows he has not changed. This is a user with a strong POV and here only to push that POV, usually through extensive vandalism and in flagrant breach of

  WP:ARBMAC. That is why I think a topic ban on him is needed. (I've never had any conflict with him myself, my opinion is based solely on seeing him on ANI).Jeppiz (talk) 11:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  The conclusion is that he has been warned, and has not edited since. In the event of continued topic-related problems, please report them to

  WP:AE.  Sandstein  20:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  User:Evlekis
  Mutual agreement to close. Props to both editors. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:55, 9 March 2013 (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.

  ---

  1. User:Evlekis removed 9 valid references from the article on Bajram Curri. To further make fun of the contributors of that page, he placed on the top that the article is not referenced, when it was himself removing those references. When I reverted that, he edit warred and brought it to where it was. When I warned him, he said he'd get to it later, meaning that he'd leave the references out for the moment. This is the typical laziness of someone who has little care for the readers of wikipedia.

  2. He insists in placing Serbian names to Albanian individuals who were born in Yugoslavia.

  Miss Albania, according to him should have the name in Serbian. I don't know why he says that this mediation

  had such conclusion: he fails to point to the conclusion itself. He is doing the same for other Albanians who were born in Yugoslavia and they all seem as if they are Serbian people now, which they aren't. On top of that he is edit-warring.

  • First revert
  • Second revert
  • Third revert

  3. He uses racist comments such as this pointing to the fact that Bardhyl Caushi's parents decided to give birth to their son in Yugoslavia, when they were living in their own land. When I point that out instead of apologizing, he is ironic [56]. On top of that he is calling me a rat, pointing out to whatever user he has had frictions in the past. I am a new user in the English wikipedia, but I've had lots of experience in the Albanian wikipedia. Guzhinjeri (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  4. He follows every single contribution of mine. User:IJA had questioned the tags on the article Behgjet Pacolli a month ago, and when I removed them and explained that in the talk page, he comes in and undoes my edit with no explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guzhinjeri (talk • contribs) 21:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  I don't know what to do. Please help. This individual is all over the place and is not letting me fix wikipedia. Guzhinjeri (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  I've notified the user for you. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  I recommend a speedy closure to this discussion whilst a

  argue) 21:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  Checkuser may be used on me, although I find it harassing. I know wiki policies because I have translated many of the into the Albanian wikipedia. If Evlekis thinks I know the policies better than the admins, he is welcome to nominate me for admin work, but I have to accept that nomination first. The comparison of former Yugoslavia with an Arab state is completely irrelevant for the naming of people in Wikipedia. This is a content issue, I came to this board for the behavior of Evlekis who is offensive and also an edit warrior. I saw no comments of him about edit-warring, by the way. Guzhinjeri (talk) 21:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  Stick to the subject, this is AN/I. You assert that my English is poor yet claim "racism" without citing the nation which is the supposed target of the accusation and something has given you the impression that I nominate you as an admin. I have not made (yet) made a formal request for a CHECKUSER but you certainly know a lot about harassment given that 50% of your contributions have targeted my edits and you also introduced this inquiry. As for the remark, The comparison of former Yugoslavia with an Arab state is completely irrelevant for the naming of people in Wikipedia, perhaps you would like to throw light on what makes people in one culture different from another - and by that I refer to the article talk pages where we have spoken, NOT here.

  argue) 21:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  I apologize if I offended you, but in English this sentence "Albanian in 1936 has no status in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and Serbo-Croat was the official language" doesn't make sense, so I could not follow your logic. After discussing with you, I realized that your English is probably better than mine, but at the moment I was frustrated (and I still am), because you point to several things, but never to the wikipolicies, so I don't know what you are talking about. For the naming of Albanian ethnics in Serbian you name a slew of reasons behind which they should be written in Serbian, but the mediation had no conclusion, and there is no wikipolicy that you can point to to support your assertions of those names in Serbian. Guzhinjeri (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  I forgive you, why don't we come away from here and start discussing the whole thing from top to bottom in a calm manner on a separate page. My own talk page for example, I'd be more than happy. Agreed?

  argue) 21:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  Ok, we have an agreement. This request can be closed. Guzhinjeri (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

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

  Uninvolved admin needed at SPI,

  PROUT

  .

  1) There's been a bit of a backlog at SPI, and while it's getting better this one is still awaiting resolution. The canvassing has started up again. I'd appreciate an admin taking a look. SPI closed by NativeForeigner. Thanks! Garamond Lethet
  c 07:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Reopened by NativeForeigner. Discussion continuing there. Garamond Lethet
  c 17:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  SPI closed, this portion now resolved. NativeForeigner ^Talk 01:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  2) The same group of editors discussed an RFC at the

  PROUT article here
  . Would an admin drop by to close it officially?

  3) Finally, I think we're ready to have the page protection lifted on the

  PROUT
  article (although there's no harm in letting the protection expire as scheduled on the 18th).

  Thanks,

  Garamond Lethet
  c 08:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  Not Canvassing but asking other's opinions: As I've already said in my talk page your assertion is not correct. I never ask support to anybody. I ask users previously involved in the same topic to express their opinions on a talk. Abhidevananda f.e. didn't support my opinion, you and CK had already expressed your views. Sorry but it seems to me you're trying to find the "casus belli" to then turn to an administrator all your possible complaints. Please try to be more constructive. I have already expressed my strong complaints on the same page of this SPI. On this regard I have compiled a table to show the persistence of a group of users in requesting the deletion (with tens of AFDS) of all articles related with the same topic. I never claimed any SPI for those users but I have my suspicions.--Cornelius383 (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  No. You know that's not true; I know that's not true; but I have to point out some facts here just in case any uninvolved editor believes what Cornelius383 says. Cornelius383 has clearly contacted people who had previously agreed on related issues. [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] Most of those accounts are sockpuppets anyway. Cornelius383 did not contact people who had opposed, even though there are more of them. That is

  WP:CANVAS despite it being explained, repeatedly, on multiple pages; sadly these policies are obstacles to Cornelius383's crusade. bobrayner (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Seriously, though; it would be helpful if we could get some admin help to stem the torrent of socks, the canvassing, the misuse of sources, the walls of text &c. bobrayner (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  Though I know the problems I can't be the admin you need, as what I intend to do is edit the article. It wouldn't be fair to others if I did it through full protection. DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I agree with the OP. The background here is that a concern was raised in an Rfc on WP:FTN that the article has an overabundance of primary and/or proponent sources, previously uninvolved editors responded to the Rfc, and three proposals were eventually presented by various editors to address this concern (see
    Location (talk) 05:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, the SPI was overrun by socks, and got closed, but... no socks (or sock-owners) blocked. No action at all. That's not entirely helpful. Just another day in the Sarkarverse, alas. bobrayner (talk) 09:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  OK, I just went through all the history on PROUT stuff, all the accounts. There is sock or meat going on of some sort, it's hard to tell exactly what. The reason I closed was because discussion was straying significantly from the sock issue to issues about PROUT well outside the scope of SPI. If people can focus the debate and clarify evidence we can probably get it dealt with. I went ahead and re-opened on the basis there is extremely suspicious sock/meat, but those fighting the socks need to keep on topic: to socks and meat rather than content. NativeForeigner ^Talk 12:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  The problem is that the over-expansion and defense of this and related articles is being done in a way that is highly promotional for the movement and serves no informative or encyclopedic purpose. It's not a particularly effective way or promoting it, but that's clearly the intent, and I think it might be time to consider sanctions about the editor on that basis. Of course, if we can deal with some or all of the editor's incarnations first by SPI that is always helpful. DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  I would tend to agree. It would be appreciated if we kept that discussion out of SPI though. NativeForeigner ^Talk 00:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  Sorry NativeForeigner but I had to put my complaints again in the SPI talk. My gripes against some of these editors are strong and I had to answer somehow. Please thake a look. Tanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 00:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  You have provided your gripes and complaints, at length, on multiple pages. Having derailed an SPI agains another editor with walls of text, you're trying again...? I'm beginning to think that this is a deliberate tactic. If you can't explain why several new accounts suddenly appear to !vote "Keep" on AfDs of articles that you wrote, stand back. bobrayner (talk) 08:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  Don't switch the narrative bobrayner. Your behaviours are under review. Now my suspicions are more strong. Please keep a more constructive behavior. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 11:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  If you can't explain why several new accounts suddenly appear to !vote "Keep" on AfDs of articles that you wrote, stand back. bobrayner (talk) 11:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  I changed my mind and kept open on the hope things would stay focused on SPI, but Cornelius383 has continued to add walls of text which are distracting from the key issue. It's not a good position for me to be policing an SPI, but SPI is not grounds for a content dispute or the raising of extraordinarily complex and verbose concerns that seem to have a tenuous connection at best to SPI. There are key issues with how the series of articles is being expanded, and I would agree with DGG that sanctions might be a possibility. It would be ideal to get the SPI sorted first, but it's so long, convoluted, and oftentimes irrelevant to the sockpuppetry at hand, as somebody who has significant experience with SPI I can't make heads or tails of it, despite the fact there are clearly either sock or meat issues. I'm not sure of the best way to proceed. I am not confident in the ability of the current SPI to be processed effectively (evidence has been obfuscated in walls of text, and I don't want to spend the next 3-4 hours picking through it, and still not be sure of what has occurred.) I'm not sure if this is the best way, but I am inclined to deal with the clear issue in the way that the subject is being edited, and then come back to SPI once those other NPOV/expansion issues have been addressed and debate can be focused. Then again, I am not sure this will actually focus debate, and potential socking would have a large impact on the outcome and type of any sanctions applied.

  Specific to the topic of the SPI, there is something highly fishy. Something is being hidden, you just don't get accounts this similar editing in ways that would so well mask their editing behaviors at random. Knight of Infinity and Soroboro specifically have really odd editing habits, and would seem to be related, but I'm not sure enough to block, and any evidence that would lead me to do so has been obfuscated. While I am trying to AGF with all users involved, there is something really fishy going on, and my gut would tell me that Cornelius has some role to play, even if the socks are not directly his. Any assistance from anybody on how to resolve this issue would be appreciated. NativeForeigner ^Talk 17:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  Sorry NativeForeigner but I never partecipate on a SPI talk: 1)Although I knew that the discussion should be focused on SPI I realized that the user Garamond Lethe accused me of canvassing on that SPI talk. I thought that I could defend myself there because the accusations were there. But I didn't. 2)I noted after that a "keep table" was published on that SPI talk quoting me Abhidevananda, Universal Life and some new users voting keep on all the 21 AfDs on the same topic launced from bobrayner/Garamond Lethe (almost all the AfDs were won and the articles have been deleted..). 3)At this point I simply decided to defend myself and I created my tables to show that, on the contrary, there was another interesting "delete table" were I pointed out that there was one group of publishers who only moved to delete all the articles related with the same topic. Since this table was significantly larger than the "keep table", and since my complaints against this users were a lot, I have been accused of doing "walls of text". Of course I understand and I agree that the text was much. But what I do not understand is: why all the users that voted keep on my articles (loosing quite all the AfDs) have to be accused of canvassing, meatpuppets, sockpupetts etc while those who voted "delete" are not? I do not consider this right.--Cornelius383 (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  The SPI has concluded. You were however mentioned in the SPI. The other side did all tend to vote in tandem, and with the majority. The other users were established, edited outside of this specific topic area, and were all drawn to the AfDs via a noticeboard, not unknown other factors. The SPI aspect has been resolved. Some users that !voted against deletion used arguments that required some familiarity with wikipedia on their first edits: definitely not something that was relevant to the other group. NativeForeigner ^Talk 21:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  "used arguments that required some familiarity with wikipedia on their first edits": Sorry I do not want to create a controversy about that, but can you please tell me exactly what you mean?--Cornelius383 (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  DezDeMona (but not you) cited Assume Good Faith, and posted in a article for deletion discussion on their first edit. NativeForeigner ^Talk 22:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  That makes sense for me too, although it certainly is not a proof. F.e. it could be just an old editor who has returned to write after a certain period. But what if somebody (a very clever and presumably old editor) is doing this to create problems to some articles? I'm not a "single-verse" editor. I started to edit on the en-WP on June 2011 and I contributed to many articles on various topics without ever having had any particular problem. When I started editing articles related with the indian philosopher Shrii Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar came a lot of problems. This is a fact.--Cornelius383 (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  The SPI has been resolved. There were odd patterns, but no point arguing now. NativeForeigner ^Talk 22:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  Ok. Thank you.--Cornelius383 (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  Vandal account
  Editor blocked, in the future, please report at the

  what's up) 01:51, 10 March 2013 (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.

  ---

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

  Appears to be a vandalism-only account, making edits every 60 seconds causing damage. They're up to 30 or so at this point. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  They're indefinitely blocked now, by JohnCD -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

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

  Blatantly reversion by User:The tampan

  The tampan (talk · contribs) blatantly revert the fixes i had made during the past few days without any reasons. [65][66][67][68][69]. Is this consider as uncivil and already crossed the 3RR rule? --Aleenf1 02:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, this is a problem; new account (January), editing against consensus, 2000 edits, only one to article talk, needs to use the preview button (but I'm not sure we really enforce that particular guideline very much). Probably need big scary warning from admin or temporary block to get them to start talking. NE Ent 14:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  I've provided that big scary warning, cause it's Saturday morning and I'm in a fairly nice mood. This editor should be blocked the moment they continue their edit war, but note that I've listed some additional offenses in the big scary warning. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  Aleen, while you're at it, you can also remove all those flags: this is not the Olympics, this isn't national representation in that sense. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  There's an IP editor at work there as well, whom I suspect of being the same editor. Drmies (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  OK, the IP (111.68.25.66) and Tampan are the same--look at how they dis-disambiguate Robert Blair (badminton) here and here. I'm going to block the account temporarily for ongoing unexplained editing to the point of (past) disruption and evading scrutiny by editing while not being logged in. Note also how the IP edits on 9 March between 14:23 and 16:35, while Tampan is logged out. The general charge is ongoing edits that disrupt the articles they're working on and refusal to communicate. Drmies (talk) 21:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  I saw, anyway i will tidy it. --Aleenf1 03:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  can we use wikipedia to promote self intesest groups like school hospital
  Spam removed, in the future, please

  randley ^(review) 04:38, 10 March 2013 (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.

  ---

  i have seen schools like Watson madhubani school. rose public school promoting their school. i thought i should report to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.22.116.101 (talk) 23:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  I have reverted the blatantly promotional content added to

  Rose Public School, Madhubani (although I have redirected the latter to the former as they seem to be about the same subject)--Jac16888 ^Talk 23:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

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

  Semi-protecting user talk pages

  I am not sure whether or not this is a problem, so please consider this to be raising a question, not making a complaint.

  I was under the impression that semi-protection of user talk pages is used only in cases of ongoing vandalism by IP editors, and even then usually not indefinitely. I noticed that

  User:Yworo is not protected, which seems unusual. Also, I am having trouble finding any significant IP vandalism in the period leading up to either of the semis. Is any of this a problem? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  Have you had a word with the responsible admin? He will presumably be able to throw some light on his decision. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  Maybe it's just a quirk of mine, but when I have no idea whether something is a problem or not, confronting the person who made the decision seems really premature, and asking him whether the decision was a problem is also problematical; of course he will say it was a good decision. Otherwise he wouldn't have made it. I realize that nobody wants to step on another admin's toes, but this has to be balanced against the many times where the answer is telling me "Guy, you misunderstood the policy" without any unneeded drama or confrontation. I was going to say "maybe I am weird", but of course we all know that I am weird... --Guy Macon (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  I've yet to encounter an admin who would take issue with a polite inquiry about a page protection over a year old. The question isn't whether it was a good decision, the question is whether protection is still necessary. In fact, I can't recall any polite statement I've made inquiring about an admin's action that received a "confrontational" response. NE Ent 00:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  The claim in the log is persistent vandalism. That is acceptable. Not allowing IP editors to comment because they're IP editors is, in my opinion, not acceptable--but I'm willing to bet that the protection preceded the particular phrasing of that notification on the top of Yworo's talk page. I think Guy Macon has a valid point here, but let's wait and see what HJMitchell has to say--have they been invited to comment? Drmies (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  Notified they are. NE Ent 22:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  I had a

  talk) 22:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  Wow. Looks like you really got put through the wringer. You have my sympathy; that shouldn't happen to anyone. Is the abuse still going on, or would lifting the semiprotection be appropriate? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  I'd rather keep the protection on my user talk page, but I'd be willing to make a subpage for IPs to comment on. Would that be satisfactory? I've seen other editors do it that way.

  talk) 23:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  Has the harassment continued since it was protected? NE Ent 00:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  I'd assume not, as the protection had a reason... The real question is: Is there still a risk of the harassment resuming if protection is lifted? gwickwire^talk_editing 00:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  It's seems possible that the harassment could have continued on other pages that Yworo edited, which is why I'm asking. NE Ent 00:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  Not in any obvious way lately, though my watchlist changes a lot, and I'm no longer watching a lot of the articles on which it occurred. Having my talk page protected diminished it quite a bit, I feel that unprotecting it would likely make me a target again.

  talk) 00:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  Given the difficulties newbies have in getting around the site -- they're lucky to find an editor's talk page, let alone understand semi protection, I'd encourage you to support trying unprotection -- I'm sure a friendly neighborhood admin would instantly put it back to semi if the harassment resumed. NE Ent 00:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  IP editors != newbies in my experience. At least the ones likely to post on my talk page have a much higher probability of being IP socks or banned users, or both.

  talk) 00:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  Having a separate, non-protected page is the way to go. In fact, it might be a rule, or at least a recommendation, if your regular talk page is protected. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  It's right there in

  WP:PP#User talk pages: "Users whose talk page regularly must be semi-protected should have an unprotected user talk subpage linked conspicuously from their main talk page to allow good faith comments from non-autoconfirmed users". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  Gutting an article while AfD is underway

  Article in question:

  Bush Derangement Syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Question: is it okay for people !voting delete to gut the article while an AfD is in progress? I'm not asking for anyone to be sanctioned or reprimanded. But it seems at least potentially like an inappropriate tactic designed to slant the AfD: someone looking at the article in its current state might think, hmm not many references there, only a brief paragraph or two, doesn't look all that notable, think I'll !vote delete. The editors doing the deletion of text no doubt think their editing is proper -- but there is room for good faith disagreement on that, and it just seems wrong to have an article chopped down like that (with a whole host of references removed) during an AfD. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  If there's massive problems with NPOV/Copyvio/advertising that are the reason that it's up for AfD, then I'm all for (and the template says) they may edit it while it's in progress. If it slants it to keep, then maybe it should've been kept, just gutted, even before the gutting. If it's not notable, go ahead and still !vote delete, but imo there's nothing wrong with making an article fit policy before it's deleted, as it's more work to go through DelRev to get it undeleted than it is to just gut it and build it up after an AfD. gwickwire^talk_editing 22:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Compare this to this -- the latter version resulting from cuts by an editor who wants the article itself deleted. Removal of sources from the "Derivatives" section (and addition of CN tags) then led another editor to delete that section for being "unreferenced". This sort of editing during an AfD seems shady to me. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Meh. Those edits are perfectly alright. If an article will be kept on the basis of a list of fairly trivial mentions of when the term was applied, whether in earnest or not, that's a pretty sad situation. There is nothing wrong with normal editing while an AfD is going on and Yworo notes on the talk page, "it's a coatrack for political name-calling and mudslinging"--I think they're right. Drmies (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  Without commenting on the particulars of this specific article, I've seen lots of articles at AFD where they appear at first glance to be extensively sourced and thus notable because there is an extensive list of footnotes. Then, you look at what the footnotes actually consist of and they turn out to be exclusively self-published sources, blogs, internet forums, newsgroups, wikis and the like. I've got no problem whatsoever with someone commenting at the AFD that none of the sources qualify as Reliable Sources and then demonstrating the pitiful unsourced and unsourceable excuse for an article is left when you remove the non-compliant references. It actually tends to focus the discussion, and makes the process cleaner and faster, in my opinion.

  Fladrif (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  Fixing

  WP:BOMBARDMENT is always a good thing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  • If there's junk in an article, it can go at any time. If people wanna go back and see what junk used to be in an article, they can do that with relative ease
    p 01:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Is the contrary, true, then, that if someone is removing "non-junk" from an article during an AfD, then that is inherently disruptive, perhaps
      WP:BATTLEGROUND, behavior? Jclemens (talk) 06:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
      • The exception proves the rule there. Obviously blanking of valid content is not in the interests of the encyclopedia whether there is an ongoing AfD or not. But this comes up far more often in the form of Deletionist Boogeyman strawmen than in practice. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I would say that most, perhaps all, of the deleted stuff was compliant with Wikipedia rules and useful in explaining the topic. (See the talk page for one possible exception.) Could editors have behaved better? Yes (as always). Has anyone done anything worth formal disciplinary procedures? Not as far as I can see. CWC 10:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC) who has more to say immediately below
  • A little investigation before opining is always a good idea. IIRC, the article did get
    "bombarded" several years ago, but I fixed that ... as anyone who bothered to look at the talk page archive would know. The recently-deleted "junk" was picked with the aim of both illustrating the meaning of the term and linking to prominent usages of it. For instance, the fact that the term is used on both sides of politics says something important about it.
    In fact, I say the article no longer provides enough context for new readers to understand the meaning or significance of the term (as can be seen in many of the recent on-WP comments about the article.)
    Yworo's complaint about "name-calling and mudslinging" is deeply, sadly ironic: BDS is precisely about over-the-top name-calling and mudslinging. (The term is in fact a tongue-in-cheek explanation of that over-the-top stuff). Nevertheless, the article was not a coatrack for "mudslinging": it simply reported a few uses of the term by prominent journalists on both sides of US politics.
    PS: I have been very disappointed to see so many people editing and/or criticising the article without bothering to understand what it is about. CWC 10:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  User:CsDix

  Hello, this isn't a major issue but one that seems to be growing in scale of changes being made. CsDix (talk · contribs) has been making wholesale changes to multiple templates today. Several users have brought up issues regarding the changes he has made, and I have one as well. My main issue is in regards to this is regarding the categories he has been creating. I seem to recall a change to the categories names from Xxx navbox templates to Xxx navigational templates some time ago; CsDix has been going around redirecting said categories from the former form and redirecting to newly created categories in the latter form.

  There is no detectable malicious intent that I can detect, but the scale of changes he has made could make this difficult to correct, if he is in error that is. Input would be nice, thanks. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I don't think I was here if / when there was a change from "X navbox templates" to "X navigational templates" (or is it "X navigational boxes"?), but the rationale is to maintain a consistent naming format across the the three most common kinds of (relatively large and/or not-inline) templates that appear in articles: navboxes, sidebars and infoboxes. Any templates in the category "X templates" are then unsorted (i.e. "X templates" is a holding category) until they are put in "X navbox templates", "X sidebar templates" or "X infobox templates", otherwise "X [type] templates" (e.g. "X inline templates", "X timeline templates" – see Template:Template category) if they aren't one of the three most common types. A bit wordy, but I hope that clarifies the clarification I'm trying to make. CsDix (talk) 09:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  The first time someone asks you to stop, you need to stop and discuss before doing any more.

  BWilkins←✎) 10:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I agree – which is what I've done here even without request (apologies if I've missed it) and done previously elsewhere. CsDix (talk) 10:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  In other words, please stop, and see

  BWilkins←✎) 10:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Please be reassured that I have stopped (see Special:Contributions/CsDix). What am I looking for at Requested moves..? CsDix (talk) 11:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  • RM isn't the right place.
    WP:CFDS is, if "navigational templates" really is the standard then you can nominate them for renaming under C2C. It should also save you a fair bit of work as once you've nominated (assuming no one objects) admins and bots will do the rest. Jenks24 (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Thank you for this pointer – I've now just added this to the discussions there. CsDix (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  • In the future please discuss an issue on the editor's talk page before starting ANI discussion. NE Ent 14:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  User:ExclusiveAgent

  Ted Cruz Talk Page-- I posted a comment on the Ted Cruz article talk page earlier today calling into question an view that was being presented. I only did so to raise the point that the issue is not clear cut. One of the editors User:ExclusiveAgent immediately attacked me, suggesting that I was attempting to insert POV into the article. I only raised a question, never inserting the questioned material in the actual article. Since then he has continued to hurl accusations at me and other editors accusing me of vandalism. He is clearly confusing my posts with those of an IP editor, yet he won't take the time to review the posts. I invite an Admin to read the history at Talk:Ted Cruz, User talk:ExclusiveAgent and User talk:Revmqo to see the history of comments. I have asked User:ExclusiveAgent to take a step back, but he continues to post accusations of vandalism and other offenses. I bring the issue here because he has a clear history of failing to assume good faith. Revmqo (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  Revmqo has been vandalizing my talk page. So let's begin there. He has become upset that I have asked him to provide a reliable source to support his wild speculations about what will happen if Ted Cruz someday might run for President. I stated over and over again that he needed to provide a reliable source. He did not like that apparently, so he started to vandalize my talk page. Now, he is bring the topic here. I have not attacked him. That is a falsehood. Please ask him to provide an example of where I attacked him. I have only asked him, repeatedly, to provide a reliable source for his wild speculation. I invite an admin to tell him to stop vandalizing my talk page and I would invite an admin to ask him provide a reliable source for his wild speculation about a situation that has not happened yet and might not even happen.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  Immediately after my first post, I provided a source. And yet ExclusiveAgent replied with a personal attack saying that I was introducing POV and "unsupported wild speculation." I placed a good faith warning on his page and asked him to reread my posts. It seems that he is upset with IP User 197.136.42.3, but is replying to me. When I attempted to calmly discuss this with him via his talk page rather than in the open space, he is now making the claim that I am vandalizing him. If you read his history of interactions with 197.136.42.3 and now with me, he is bullying rather than attempting to build consensus. He is arguably exhibiting ownership of the Ted Cruz page, and seems to be interested in pushing his own political agenda. He has been challenged on this before, as evidenced on his talk page. I have asked him to stop, take a deep breath and re-read my comments. If he does, then he will see that his issues were with 197.136.42.3 not me. Revmqo (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  @ ExclusiveAgent: There's been no WP:vandalism of your talk page. Here on Wikipedia vandalism has a specific meaning, and these posts do not meet the definition. The point at which the talk page discussion started to deteriorate is when the phrase "wild speculation" was used. Revmqo replied with an assertion that perhaps you did not know how to do a simple Google search, and things deteriorated from there. Here's some suggestions:

  • tone down the language a bit, even when talking about the content. For example, instead of saying "you have not provided a reliable source for any of your wild speculation" just say simply "you have not provided a reliable source".
  • Keep the discussion on the talk page of the article and keep it focused on the content, not on your assumptions of the motives or intelligence level of any other editors on the page.
  • Quit throwing templated warnings on one another's talk pages; that's not helping the discussion move forward in a civil collegial manner. You've both been editing here long enough not to need the information contained in a templated warning.
  • @ Revmqo: If someone removes a post from their own user talk post, please don't re-post it. People can manage their own talk page however they see fit. If a post has been removed, we assume it has been read, and it is always available in the page history for future reference if it's needed later. -- Dianna (talk) 15:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  User:CsDix

  Hello, this isn't a major issue but one that seems to be growing in scale of changes being made. CsDix (talk · contribs) has been making wholesale changes to multiple templates today. Several users have brought up issues regarding the changes he has made, and I have one as well. My main issue is in regards to this is regarding the categories he has been creating. I seem to recall a change to the categories names from Xxx navbox templates to Xxx navigational templates some time ago; CsDix has been going around redirecting said categories from the former form and redirecting to newly created categories in the latter form.

  There is no detectable malicious intent that I can detect, but the scale of changes he has made could make this difficult to correct, if he is in error that is. Input would be nice, thanks. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I don't think I was here if / when there was a change from "X navbox templates" to "X navigational templates" (or is it "X navigational boxes"?), but the rationale is to maintain a consistent naming format across the the three most common kinds of (relatively large and/or not-inline) templates that appear in articles: navboxes, sidebars and infoboxes. Any templates in the category "X templates" are then unsorted (i.e. "X templates" is a holding category) until they are put in "X navbox templates", "X sidebar templates" or "X infobox templates", otherwise "X [type] templates" (e.g. "X inline templates", "X timeline templates" – see Template:Template category) if they aren't one of the three most common types. A bit wordy, but I hope that clarifies the clarification I'm trying to make. CsDix (talk) 09:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  The first time someone asks you to stop, you need to stop and discuss before doing any more.

  BWilkins←✎) 10:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I agree – which is what I've done here even without request (apologies if I've missed it) and done previously elsewhere. CsDix (talk) 10:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  In other words, please stop, and see

  BWilkins←✎) 10:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Please be reassured that I have stopped (see Special:Contributions/CsDix). What am I looking for at Requested moves..? CsDix (talk) 11:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  • RM isn't the right place.
    WP:CFDS is, if "navigational templates" really is the standard then you can nominate them for renaming under C2C. It should also save you a fair bit of work as once you've nominated (assuming no one objects) admins and bots will do the rest. Jenks24 (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Thank you for this pointer – I've now just added this to the discussions there. CsDix (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  • In the future please discuss an issue on the editor's talk page before starting ANI discussion. NE Ent 14:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  User:ExclusiveAgent

  Ted Cruz Talk Page-- I posted a comment on the Ted Cruz article talk page earlier today calling into question an view that was being presented. I only did so to raise the point that the issue is not clear cut. One of the editors User:ExclusiveAgent immediately attacked me, suggesting that I was attempting to insert POV into the article. I only raised a question, never inserting the questioned material in the actual article. Since then he has continued to hurl accusations at me and other editors accusing me of vandalism. He is clearly confusing my posts with those of an IP editor, yet he won't take the time to review the posts. I invite an Admin to read the history at Talk:Ted Cruz, User talk:ExclusiveAgent and User talk:Revmqo to see the history of comments. I have asked User:ExclusiveAgent to take a step back, but he continues to post accusations of vandalism and other offenses. I bring the issue here because he has a clear history of failing to assume good faith. Revmqo (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  Revmqo has been vandalizing my talk page. So let's begin there. He has become upset that I have asked him to provide a reliable source to support his wild speculations about what will happen if Ted Cruz someday might run for President. I stated over and over again that he needed to provide a reliable source. He did not like that apparently, so he started to vandalize my talk page. Now, he is bring the topic here. I have not attacked him. That is a falsehood. Please ask him to provide an example of where I attacked him. I have only asked him, repeatedly, to provide a reliable source for his wild speculation. I invite an admin to tell him to stop vandalizing my talk page and I would invite an admin to ask him provide a reliable source for his wild speculation about a situation that has not happened yet and might not even happen.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  Immediately after my first post, I provided a source. And yet ExclusiveAgent replied with a personal attack saying that I was introducing POV and "unsupported wild speculation." I placed a good faith warning on his page and asked him to reread my posts. It seems that he is upset with IP User 197.136.42.3, but is replying to me. When I attempted to calmly discuss this with him via his talk page rather than in the open space, he is now making the claim that I am vandalizing him. If you read his history of interactions with 197.136.42.3 and now with me, he is bullying rather than attempting to build consensus. He is arguably exhibiting ownership of the Ted Cruz page, and seems to be interested in pushing his own political agenda. He has been challenged on this before, as evidenced on his talk page. I have asked him to stop, take a deep breath and re-read my comments. If he does, then he will see that his issues were with 197.136.42.3 not me. Revmqo (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  @ ExclusiveAgent: There's been no WP:vandalism of your talk page. Here on Wikipedia vandalism has a specific meaning, and these posts do not meet the definition. The point at which the talk page discussion started to deteriorate is when the phrase "wild speculation" was used. Revmqo replied with an assertion that perhaps you did not know how to do a simple Google search, and things deteriorated from there. Here's some suggestions:

  • tone down the language a bit, even when talking about the content. For example, instead of saying "you have not provided a reliable source for any of your wild speculation" just say simply "you have not provided a reliable source".
  • Keep the discussion on the talk page of the article and keep it focused on the content, not on your assumptions of the motives or intelligence level of any other editors on the page.
  • Quit throwing templated warnings on one another's talk pages; that's not helping the discussion move forward in a civil collegial manner. You've both been editing here long enough not to need the information contained in a templated warning.
  • @ Revmqo: If someone removes a post from their own user talk post, please don't re-post it. People can manage their own talk page however they see fit. If a post has been removed, we assume it has been read, and it is always available in the page history for future reference if it's needed later. -- Dianna (talk) 15:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  It's those Armenians again"!
  The unregistered editor in question has been blocked for a day.

  TALK 21:30, 10 March 2013 (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.

  ---

  Can we stop the Armenian rampage of Special:Contributions/62.235.191.110 who is adding the same sentence to numerous articles without any regard for context (viz: "The Armenian Apostolic Church is the world's oldest and the most ancient Christian communities. Armenia was the world's first country to adopt Christianity as its official religion in AD 301.")? Paul B (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  I've rolled back several of the edits, as has

  TALK 20:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  He's still at it! [70] Paul B (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  Some people just don't stop, do they? A block sounds fine given his persistence.

  TALK 20:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  Blocked for 24 hours. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

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

  Inappropriate article feedback
  • Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Nitrogen/69291
  • Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Nitrogen/69292
  • Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Nitrogen/69293
  • Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Nitrogen/69294

  The feedback is unrelated to the article and may be an attack against a person. Normally, I would tag something like this with {{

  Stefan2 (talk) 23:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • You can flag it and ask for oversight. I suppressed them all and gave the IP a level-3 warning for the stupid vandalism you just reverted. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  Remove "Fewer than 30 watchers" limit

  See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Remove "Fewer than 30 watchers" limit. — Dispenser 02:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Reporting myself, R-41, for extreme uncivil and vulgar personal attacks on N-HH
  Aaaand we're done here. Warnings issued, tea being brewed. Blackmane (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2013 (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.

  ---

  This is R-41, I am reporting myself for extremely uncivil and vulgar personal attacks against the N-HH. This is the last diff of editing addition where I deliberately stated such vulgar material here [71]. I was and remain extremely angry at N-HH for comments he has made involving me. I am not sure that I can apologize for what I said because I am extremely angry at N-HH and am still in an uncivil attitude towards him.

  I am a veteran user on Wikipedia who has been here for many years, there is no excuse for my conduct on Wikipedia.

  I am guilty of gross violation of

  WP:NPA

  .

  Indefinate blocking of me for this behaviour would be a standard procedure. I would accept an administrator deciding to ban me from Wikipedia for this. I am not averse to this not only because what I did grossly violated Wikipedia's principles but also because I have been attempting to quit editing Wikipedia anyway, but I have found that it has become an addiction alike smoking to me that I am having difficulty quitting because of a habit of editing here.--R-41 (talk) 03:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Consider yourself warned. If you want one of those fancy template stop-sign thingies, let me know. — Ched :  ?  04:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Apologies, but this is not resolved. It all derives from a kerfuffle over at Fascism and its talk page, where there's a dispute about the content of the lead (and where, broadly as it happens, R-41 find themselves pretty much alone). The attacks, which included describing me as "a jerk" an "asshole", a "disgrace and a coward" and a "hypocrite" etc – in edit summaries, on the fascism talk page and in posts to my own talk page – took place around a week ago now, spread over several days, and were said, seemingly, as some sort of retirement flame-out. I more or less brushed them off, and only raised them again when R-41 suddenly started editing, on the fascism page and elsewhere (they still are) as if nothing had happened and in particular when they suddenly declared that they would not talk to me about the issues there. Since then, they have left a huge screed on that talk page that had nothing to do with the topic but was a list of further accusations, eg that I had a "bloodthirsty urge for retribution" etc etc (despite having been remarkably equanimous, if I say so myself, in the face of increasingly bizarre and abusive behavior, which, furthermore, is totally distracting and diverting on a WP topic page that is, one would have thought, controversial and difficult enough as it is). It's got to the point where something a bit more concrete needs to be done. As anyone who can face perusing the talk page will also see, there's also a broader issue with R-41's looseness with sources, which could affect content in multiple WP pages (my pointing this out seems to one of the reasons for the flame-out, even though they have, eventually, accepted pretty much every example I have highlighted). N-HH talk/edits 09:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Obviously a clear-and-present danger warning has been issued. Based exactly on what you just posted above. So yes, this is resolved. There will be no additional action other than what can be considered to be a 4im warning. (

  BWilkins←✎) 11:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  OK, so I can abuse another editor over a course of days, call them an "asshole" and a "lying hypocrite" on multiple occasions. Then, to forestall any form of action against me, file an ANI complaint against myself, citing only one diff. A wiki-friend of mine can then come along, jokingly say, "OK, here's a warning notice on your talk page!" and mark the issue as closed (and here is that notice by the way, complimenting R-41 on their "great work" and saying how "impressed" they are with them). The actual target of the abuse then gets their first sight of the thread and their first chance to comment, adding more diffs of abuse – which are not exhaustive btw and which by definition were not considered by the first responder; so no, not "exactly what I just posted above" – as well as explaining the problematic context and how I am utterly disrupting an already difficult talk page. And that's it? I get off scot-free? Thanks for the explanation as to how to get away with shitty conduct and disrupting WP pages in future. It's also good to know how ANI works if a personally acquainted and sympathetic admin gets in with the first reaction. N-HH talk/edits 11:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Did you leave your

  BWilkins←✎) 11:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  It's nothing to do with AGF, in respect of R-41, Ched or yourself; I've never suggested any of you are acting in bad faith. However, pace your admonition above, no proper warning of any sort has been issued. In addition, R-41 explicitly says above that they will not apologise to me (did you miss that bit?). R-41 did not post all the diffs of their conduct, nor flagged up their explicit claim, days later, that they will ignore anything I say on a talk page in future and not discuss article content with me (even though I might be more entitled to take that stance against them), which still stands and is pretty manifest declaration of an intent to not edit collegially, which I always thought was a pretty basic principle at WP. And I'm acting the dick and getting slagged off by you for questioning the initial flippant reaction to that? WTF indeed. N-HH talk/edits 12:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  R-41 has admitted he was in the wrong, and his reason for not apologising is explained as a personal failing. Even editors who have been disruptive should be given a chance to change: in this case, an anti-burnout pep-talk may be better for the project in the long run. For now, if he's going to take some time off the project voluntarily (perhaps aided by the WikiBreak Enforcer, should he choose), then that stops the disruption just as effectively as any block would, and the incident has been recorded at both ANI and R-41's user talk so that if it happens again we can take it from there. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks. I'm not particularly demanding a block, or even an apology; I wasn't even that enthused about bringing the issue here (I had no intention of doing so when it first happened – not least because they made a break/retirement pledge then, which didn't last long – although I wavered a little once they returned to editing and came up with the "I'm not talking to you now" days later). All I was asking for is that now it is here, it is taken a bit more seriously than it seemed to have been, and an acknowledgement that the situation was a bit more expansive than the self-report indicated. N-HH talk/edits 13:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  I think it is being taken seriously. It started with his admitting he screwed up, accepting responsibility, and Ched giving him a formal warning on his talk page. When someone admits they are in the wrong from the get-go, it pretty much removes all need for drama and finger wagging. Like others have said above, if he repeats, it will likely result in an insta-block. Bludgeoning him with admin threats or comments won't make him more sorry. Best to just let things cool down, maybe he will take a break, and move on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

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

  Page protection needed ASAP

  At Douglas Adams. I don't know if this is being coordinated off-site or what, but it's been coming in non-stop for hours. RPP hasn't been in touched by anyone other than me in almost as long. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  • PC applied, as this article doesn't get enough traffic to require semi. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Uhm...check Google. Its his birthday. Gonna get a lot of traffic today but should slack off when the Google image changes.--

  talk) 06:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Reporting myself, R-41, for extreme uncivil and vulgar personal attacks on N-HH
  Aaaand we're done here. Warnings issued, tea being brewed. Blackmane (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2013 (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.

  ---

  This is R-41, I am reporting myself for extremely uncivil and vulgar personal attacks against the N-HH. This is the last diff of editing addition where I deliberately stated such vulgar material here [72]. I was and remain extremely angry at N-HH for comments he has made involving me. I am not sure that I can apologize for what I said because I am extremely angry at N-HH and am still in an uncivil attitude towards him.

  I am a veteran user on Wikipedia who has been here for many years, there is no excuse for my conduct on Wikipedia.

  I am guilty of gross violation of

  WP:NPA

  .

  Indefinate blocking of me for this behaviour would be a standard procedure. I would accept an administrator deciding to ban me from Wikipedia for this. I am not averse to this not only because what I did grossly violated Wikipedia's principles but also because I have been attempting to quit editing Wikipedia anyway, but I have found that it has become an addiction alike smoking to me that I am having difficulty quitting because of a habit of editing here.--R-41 (talk) 03:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Consider yourself warned. If you want one of those fancy template stop-sign thingies, let me know. — Ched :  ?  04:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Apologies, but this is not resolved. It all derives from a kerfuffle over at Fascism and its talk page, where there's a dispute about the content of the lead (and where, broadly as it happens, R-41 find themselves pretty much alone). The attacks, which included describing me as "a jerk" an "asshole", a "disgrace and a coward" and a "hypocrite" etc – in edit summaries, on the fascism talk page and in posts to my own talk page – took place around a week ago now, spread over several days, and were said, seemingly, as some sort of retirement flame-out. I more or less brushed them off, and only raised them again when R-41 suddenly started editing, on the fascism page and elsewhere (they still are) as if nothing had happened and in particular when they suddenly declared that they would not talk to me about the issues there. Since then, they have left a huge screed on that talk page that had nothing to do with the topic but was a list of further accusations, eg that I had a "bloodthirsty urge for retribution" etc etc (despite having been remarkably equanimous, if I say so myself, in the face of increasingly bizarre and abusive behavior, which, furthermore, is totally distracting and diverting on a WP topic page that is, one would have thought, controversial and difficult enough as it is). It's got to the point where something a bit more concrete needs to be done. As anyone who can face perusing the talk page will also see, there's also a broader issue with R-41's looseness with sources, which could affect content in multiple WP pages (my pointing this out seems to one of the reasons for the flame-out, even though they have, eventually, accepted pretty much every example I have highlighted). N-HH talk/edits 09:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Obviously a clear-and-present danger warning has been issued. Based exactly on what you just posted above. So yes, this is resolved. There will be no additional action other than what can be considered to be a 4im warning. (

  BWilkins←✎) 11:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  OK, so I can abuse another editor over a course of days, call them an "asshole" and a "lying hypocrite" on multiple occasions. Then, to forestall any form of action against me, file an ANI complaint against myself, citing only one diff. A wiki-friend of mine can then come along, jokingly say, "OK, here's a warning notice on your talk page!" and mark the issue as closed (and here is that notice by the way, complimenting R-41 on their "great work" and saying how "impressed" they are with them). The actual target of the abuse then gets their first sight of the thread and their first chance to comment, adding more diffs of abuse – which are not exhaustive btw and which by definition were not considered by the first responder; so no, not "exactly what I just posted above" – as well as explaining the problematic context and how I am utterly disrupting an already difficult talk page. And that's it? I get off scot-free? Thanks for the explanation as to how to get away with shitty conduct and disrupting WP pages in future. It's also good to know how ANI works if a personally acquainted and sympathetic admin gets in with the first reaction. N-HH talk/edits 11:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Did you leave your

  BWilkins←✎) 11:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  It's nothing to do with AGF, in respect of R-41, Ched or yourself; I've never suggested any of you are acting in bad faith. However, pace your admonition above, no proper warning of any sort has been issued. In addition, R-41 explicitly says above that they will not apologise to me (did you miss that bit?). R-41 did not post all the diffs of their conduct, nor flagged up their explicit claim, days later, that they will ignore anything I say on a talk page in future and not discuss article content with me (even though I might be more entitled to take that stance against them), which still stands and is pretty manifest declaration of an intent to not edit collegially, which I always thought was a pretty basic principle at WP. And I'm acting the dick and getting slagged off by you for questioning the initial flippant reaction to that? WTF indeed. N-HH talk/edits 12:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  R-41 has admitted he was in the wrong, and his reason for not apologising is explained as a personal failing. Even editors who have been disruptive should be given a chance to change: in this case, an anti-burnout pep-talk may be better for the project in the long run. For now, if he's going to take some time off the project voluntarily (perhaps aided by the WikiBreak Enforcer, should he choose), then that stops the disruption just as effectively as any block would, and the incident has been recorded at both ANI and R-41's user talk so that if it happens again we can take it from there. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks. I'm not particularly demanding a block, or even an apology; I wasn't even that enthused about bringing the issue here (I had no intention of doing so when it first happened – not least because they made a break/retirement pledge then, which didn't last long – although I wavered a little once they returned to editing and came up with the "I'm not talking to you now" days later). All I was asking for is that now it is here, it is taken a bit more seriously than it seemed to have been, and an acknowledgement that the situation was a bit more expansive than the self-report indicated. N-HH talk/edits 13:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  I think it is being taken seriously. It started with his admitting he screwed up, accepting responsibility, and Ched giving him a formal warning on his talk page. When someone admits they are in the wrong from the get-go, it pretty much removes all need for drama and finger wagging. Like others have said above, if he repeats, it will likely result in an insta-block. Bludgeoning him with admin threats or comments won't make him more sorry. Best to just let things cool down, maybe he will take a break, and move on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

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

  Page protection needed ASAP

  At Douglas Adams. I don't know if this is being coordinated off-site or what, but it's been coming in non-stop for hours. RPP hasn't been in touched by anyone other than me in almost as long. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  • PC applied, as this article doesn't get enough traffic to require semi. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Uhm...check Google. Its his birthday. Gonna get a lot of traffic today but should slack off when the Google image changes.--

  talk) 06:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Reporting myself, R-41, for extreme uncivil and vulgar personal attacks on N-HH
  Aaaand we're done here. Warnings issued, tea being brewed. Blackmane (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2013 (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.

  ---

  This is R-41, I am reporting myself for extremely uncivil and vulgar personal attacks against the N-HH. This is the last diff of editing addition where I deliberately stated such vulgar material here [73]. I was and remain extremely angry at N-HH for comments he has made involving me. I am not sure that I can apologize for what I said because I am extremely angry at N-HH and am still in an uncivil attitude towards him.

  I am a veteran user on Wikipedia who has been here for many years, there is no excuse for my conduct on Wikipedia.

  I am guilty of gross violation of

  WP:NPA

  .

  Indefinate blocking of me for this behaviour would be a standard procedure. I would accept an administrator deciding to ban me from Wikipedia for this. I am not averse to this not only because what I did grossly violated Wikipedia's principles but also because I have been attempting to quit editing Wikipedia anyway, but I have found that it has become an addiction alike smoking to me that I am having difficulty quitting because of a habit of editing here.--R-41 (talk) 03:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Consider yourself warned. If you want one of those fancy template stop-sign thingies, let me know. — Ched :  ?  04:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Apologies, but this is not resolved. It all derives from a kerfuffle over at Fascism and its talk page, where there's a dispute about the content of the lead (and where, broadly as it happens, R-41 find themselves pretty much alone). The attacks, which included describing me as "a jerk" an "asshole", a "disgrace and a coward" and a "hypocrite" etc – in edit summaries, on the fascism talk page and in posts to my own talk page – took place around a week ago now, spread over several days, and were said, seemingly, as some sort of retirement flame-out. I more or less brushed them off, and only raised them again when R-41 suddenly started editing, on the fascism page and elsewhere (they still are) as if nothing had happened and in particular when they suddenly declared that they would not talk to me about the issues there. Since then, they have left a huge screed on that talk page that had nothing to do with the topic but was a list of further accusations, eg that I had a "bloodthirsty urge for retribution" etc etc (despite having been remarkably equanimous, if I say so myself, in the face of increasingly bizarre and abusive behavior, which, furthermore, is totally distracting and diverting on a WP topic page that is, one would have thought, controversial and difficult enough as it is). It's got to the point where something a bit more concrete needs to be done. As anyone who can face perusing the talk page will also see, there's also a broader issue with R-41's looseness with sources, which could affect content in multiple WP pages (my pointing this out seems to one of the reasons for the flame-out, even though they have, eventually, accepted pretty much every example I have highlighted). N-HH talk/edits 09:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Obviously a clear-and-present danger warning has been issued. Based exactly on what you just posted above. So yes, this is resolved. There will be no additional action other than what can be considered to be a 4im warning. (

  BWilkins←✎) 11:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  OK, so I can abuse another editor over a course of days, call them an "asshole" and a "lying hypocrite" on multiple occasions. Then, to forestall any form of action against me, file an ANI complaint against myself, citing only one diff. A wiki-friend of mine can then come along, jokingly say, "OK, here's a warning notice on your talk page!" and mark the issue as closed (and here is that notice by the way, complimenting R-41 on their "great work" and saying how "impressed" they are with them). The actual target of the abuse then gets their first sight of the thread and their first chance to comment, adding more diffs of abuse – which are not exhaustive btw and which by definition were not considered by the first responder; so no, not "exactly what I just posted above" – as well as explaining the problematic context and how I am utterly disrupting an already difficult talk page. And that's it? I get off scot-free? Thanks for the explanation as to how to get away with shitty conduct and disrupting WP pages in future. It's also good to know how ANI works if a personally acquainted and sympathetic admin gets in with the first reaction. N-HH talk/edits 11:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Did you leave your

  BWilkins←✎) 11:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  It's nothing to do with AGF, in respect of R-41, Ched or yourself; I've never suggested any of you are acting in bad faith. However, pace your admonition above, no proper warning of any sort has been issued. In addition, R-41 explicitly says above that they will not apologise to me (did you miss that bit?). R-41 did not post all the diffs of their conduct, nor flagged up their explicit claim, days later, that they will ignore anything I say on a talk page in future and not discuss article content with me (even though I might be more entitled to take that stance against them), which still stands and is pretty manifest declaration of an intent to not edit collegially, which I always thought was a pretty basic principle at WP. And I'm acting the dick and getting slagged off by you for questioning the initial flippant reaction to that? WTF indeed. N-HH talk/edits 12:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  R-41 has admitted he was in the wrong, and his reason for not apologising is explained as a personal failing. Even editors who have been disruptive should be given a chance to change: in this case, an anti-burnout pep-talk may be better for the project in the long run. For now, if he's going to take some time off the project voluntarily (perhaps aided by the WikiBreak Enforcer, should he choose), then that stops the disruption just as effectively as any block would, and the incident has been recorded at both ANI and R-41's user talk so that if it happens again we can take it from there. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks. I'm not particularly demanding a block, or even an apology; I wasn't even that enthused about bringing the issue here (I had no intention of doing so when it first happened – not least because they made a break/retirement pledge then, which didn't last long – although I wavered a little once they returned to editing and came up with the "I'm not talking to you now" days later). All I was asking for is that now it is here, it is taken a bit more seriously than it seemed to have been, and an acknowledgement that the situation was a bit more expansive than the self-report indicated. N-HH talk/edits 13:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  I think it is being taken seriously. It started with his admitting he screwed up, accepting responsibility, and Ched giving him a formal warning on his talk page. When someone admits they are in the wrong from the get-go, it pretty much removes all need for drama and finger wagging. Like others have said above, if he repeats, it will likely result in an insta-block. Bludgeoning him with admin threats or comments won't make him more sorry. Best to just let things cool down, maybe he will take a break, and move on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

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

  Page protection needed ASAP

  At Douglas Adams. I don't know if this is being coordinated off-site or what, but it's been coming in non-stop for hours. RPP hasn't been in touched by anyone other than me in almost as long. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  • PC applied, as this article doesn't get enough traffic to require semi. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Uhm...check Google. Its his birthday. Gonna get a lot of traffic today but should slack off when the Google image changes.--

  talk) 06:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  User:Canoe1967

  After a string of personal attacks and incivility Canoe1967 was blocked by Riana. He proceeded to edit war to call her a cunt history revdelete log. His talk page access was revoked, so he chose to continue slinging personal attacks at her from a different project where he stated that "she acted like a total cunt". This is completely unacceptable, and I would like to see Canoe banned from this project, but am willing to take suggestions. Ryan Vesey 06:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  Strong Support indef community

  ban for continued incivility, rudeness, and revert wars of block notices (!!). More to follow in the morning maybe. gwickwire^talk_editing 06:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, Commons is commons not enwiki, and we cannot use actions outside of enwiki to enforce anything. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 08:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  Are you sure? Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki harassment says "As is the case with on-wiki harassment, off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning." --Guy Macon (talk) 15:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  Eh - there are good arguments on both side of that coin. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 16:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Hi, my talkpage protection seems to have been somewhat controversial. Old habits die hard and I wasn't aware of the blocking with talkpage access removed option, it wasn't around when I was last here. I'm absolutely fine with anyone who wants to reblock with talkpage access removed instead of the full prot I've placed, although it seems much of a muchness to me. For what it's worth, the talkpage prot is 3 days long and the block is 1 week, so he'll be able to edit again once he's in a calmer frame of mind (one hopes).
  • No comment as to the above proposal from me as of yet, I haven't reviewed the user's contributions sufficiently to make a judgement call - I was blocking based on most immediate recent behaviour.
  • Any admin should feel free to undo my protection/block for a different duration/unblock if deemed necessary. ~ Riana ⁂ 11:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

    I see Jayron32 has changed the terms of the block anyway, so I'm cool with that. ~ Riana ⁂ 11:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

    Protecting the page instead of following current practice of removing talk page access due to being a bit admin rusty isn't a big deal, but there's no legitimate reason for keeping it protected now, so Riana should remove the protection. NE Ent 8:01 am, Today (UTC−4)

    Fair call. Unprotected [74] ~ Riana ⁂ 13:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Extend block to indef. Need a commitment from editor not to repeat this behavior (personal attacks on other editors). NE Ent 12:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - this editor has been brought to ANI (at least) three times before - in July 2012 for disruptive editing; in February 2013 for incivilty, which resulted in a block; and later in February 2013, again for incivility. I have had my own interactions with this editor, both positive and negative, and feel that it is time the Wikipedia community started taking incivility seriously. "They do good work" is never an excuse for a crummy attitude and attacking other editors. I would therefore support an indefinite block. GiantSnowman 12:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm fine with indefinite. As I noted at the time, my own 48hr block was lenient in the extreme (especially for me), and Canoe was extremely fortunate not to have had it extended for his response at the time (messing with the block notice). I've pinged Jayron with a note to this thread. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  Do not ban or indef. I don't like how little groups here permaban people. It is railroading with less time and consideration than an RFC. And with a pretty self-selected (and odd) group of people. So he sounded off. Big deal. He's firey. But he also does a lot to help people. Give him a week or two off and then move on. That is what normal places do and it works way better than this nest of intrigue.TCO (talk) 15:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  The legendary hypothetical beachside pub aside, "normal places" would have readily instituted a lifetime ban over Canoe over his post-block actions. Contrary to the assertions of some ANI bleeding hearts, there is no statutory immunity afforded editors for post-block meltdowns, especially repeat events. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  Calling other editors bleeding hearts isn't appropriate, either. NE Ent 17:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  The consequences at many of the normal places I've observed over the years for calling someone a cunt would range to firing to more immediate, physical feedback. NE Ent 17:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Support Indefinite block for personal attacks, harassment, and disruptive editing in the past as well.
    randley ^(review) 16:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment In regards to the other actions of this user, in my experience I've found a majority of his helpful edits at least mildly disruptive. I've also seen him go on a number of these tirades, but you'd have to take my word for it or limit yourself to the three ANI incidents because I can't remember them. Even for those who do take a stance that people who do good work are allowed to repeatedly call other editors a cunt, Canoe couldn't possibly be in that category of editors. In addition, the action preceeding the most recent block was certainly inappropriate. He created User:Gwickwire, threatened to have Gwickwire put into a "deep, brown hole", called him a "gutless, whining piece of shit" while pretending that he wasn't by stating that he new better, called him a coward, asked "why the fuck can't you clue in", and said "Clue in before your balls are in a place where you can't extract them". This is all at User talk:Canoe1967#Warning. Examining the rest of his talk page in its current state shows a lot of battleground behavior. Ryan Vesey 17:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support indef block. This isn't the first time he's been blocked for this, and if he's going to act like this any time he doesn't get his way, then he shouldn't be welcome here. Wizardman 17:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose After his last outburst, Canoe did express a desire to play by the rules: [75]. Clearly he's having trouble with that. He does seem to be drawn to controversy, and not able to comport himself very well once he's found it. This is pretty much his third strike, but - let's give him one last chance to repent. I'm biased here, indeffing him would reduce the editors in my subject area by about one third ;(. And I think we should discuss these behavioural indefs with the user a bit before dropping the guillotine, isn't his talk page blocked? The Interior (Talk) 18:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Perhaps an RFC/U would be a better alternative here? I don't have the time to open it or collect all of the necessary evidence or anything. Ryan Vesey 18:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I believe an RFC/U was the missing element in the case of our other famous resident C-word aficionado. We chose not to indef that editor until that step had been taken. The Interior (Talk) 18:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  It's a rush to judgment. Give him a day or two to settle down. It's almost like you all are trying to speed things up so you can get your way. First you take a short ban, then the guy mouths off and then you spin it into forever. Seen this done to other people. Nasty, nasty business. Before you know it, you can delete his talk page and just flush him like a turd. Chill out and see how he does after the week sabbatical. He's not posting on Wiki right now, so you have nothing to complain about.TCO (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  • A rush to judgement? He was calling an editor a cunt and continued doing it after his talk page access was revoked. (He eventually had to be blocked without talk page access on commons as well). Ryan Vesey 18:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, it is a rush. The fellow is not even a couple days into his original week long timeout and you all are trying to spin it into an indef (with a very tiny group of self selected people who would even want to be at this board...blech...and the criminal not being able to defend himself). OK, so he mouthed off after getting the block...but is that really so uncommon? And his talk page access is removed so there is no imminent danger. The Commons stuff happened in the same time as the immediate reaction to the block and besides has been handled and besides is not our concern. There is no preventative reason for making an indef out of a week and for having to decide all that after a fellow got mad at the block in the first day or so.TCO (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  •  Comment: Having made a review of Canoe1967's contributions, I am uncomfortable with the idea of an indefinite block at this stage. It seems he is given to largely productive editing, with the occasional lapse into mouthing off when stressed. I would at least like him to be able to return to plead his case, make amends if necessary, and let the current block (much longer than any of his previous blocks) act as a reasonable cooling-off period for him to consider the consequences of failing to play well with others. An indefinite block will only serve to embitter someone who has been mostly helpful. I would seriously caution him to watch his language; the knee-jerk reaction of any admin would be to block for a long period. I'm really not bothered by his comments directed at me as I'm sure they were delivered in the heat of the moment, but he needs to be able to get along with people he's editing alongside. ~ Riana ⁂ 20:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • For info, I note he has been blocked for 24hrs at Commons [76], and has announced his intention to retire. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  • @Riana: Unblock then. Since comments before your block did not merit indef and you've admitted it is now serving solely as a
    Nathan Johnson (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Hi Nathan, I knew the moment I used the words "cooling-off" that someone would say that. I don't think this is a cool-down block, as his behaviour that led up to the block was incredibly disruptive - it was definitely a disruption-minimising block. I have no evidence that he will not continue to be disruptive if I (or anyone else) unblocks him at this moment in time, so I have no inclination to immediately unblock. I do not support indefinitely blocking him without some sort of input from him, but that's not the same thing as wanting him back as soon as possible to rage and devour. If he signals his contrition and intent to act appropriately (via
    WP:UTRS or email to me or another admin) then I'm happy to unblock. Until that time, this remains a preventative block, not for cooling down. ~ Riana ⁂ 01:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Indefinite does not reduce the number of editors because it's, you know, for an unspecified length of time. It's until the editor makes a commitment to stop the behavior they were blocked for. 01:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  A fair point, but semantic given the current length of my block, I think. A block that holds for one week (and isn't removed) is enough time to serve as a warning, a disruption management tactic, and an indication that the community does not approve of his actions. Can't see how changing this to an indefinite block and possibly lifting it in 5 days is any different. But we may agree to disagree here. ~ Riana ⁂ 01:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  shhhhhh .... you're not supposed to give away secrets like that. — Ched :  ?  05:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Keep to the unwrritten incremental block policy Other than in exceptional circumstances, an established editor should be given blocks lasting 1 day, 3 days, 1 week, 1 month, 4 months, 1 year, and 5 years, in that order. This maximizes the chances that the editor will stop the behavior that is leading to the blocks. It also minimizes the chances that another editor will reverse the block. There is nothing about this case that makes it special. The above sequence should be used. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  I've thought about this for a day or two, and it just feels too soon for an indef. If he keeps getting blocks for his behavior, then it would be time, but it doesn't seem like he's been given enough chances compared to other editors. --Rschen7754 09:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  • The solution to uneven enforcement of the civility policy is not to reduce it to the lowest common denominator. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Well, what I'm getting at is that escalating from 1 week to indef seems a bit much. --Rschen7754 10:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
      • In isolation of any facts about the behaviour, perhaps. When examining the history, one could notice that a) Canoe's recent 48hr block was long overdue, b) it was noted at the time that it was very lenient, c) there was misbehaviour during the block which could very well have gotten it extended, and d) the recent behaviour was a series of heinous and deeply offensive attacks which warranted both summary blanking and a week's block on a sister project. Treating this as if it were another couple of points on one's driving license sends out absolutely the wrong message. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment The problem with Canoe1967 is that while he generally makes good edits and has a passion about making BLPs conform to policy, his downfall is he doesn't seem to be able to strongly disagree with someone without it getting abusive. The blocks so far seem to be of the pattern : "Fuck, you're an asshole." "Don't call me an asshole." "Fuck it, you are one." "Call me an asshole again and I'll block you". "Fuck you, asshole." And block. Mind you, I would consider this edit to be borderline vandalism, though given it's in direct response to all this Wikipediocracy dramah, I can assume it was made with a good faith (but futile) attempt to knock the back and forth on the head. I wouldn't support an indef at this stage, but I would support increasing the blocks each time as has already happened, making it as clear and polite as possible that he needs to comment on what people are doing and why it's (in his view) wrong without it going to name calling. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • This is about more than just incivility; see the evidence at the ANI discussion I started in February 2013. Canoe also has a nasty habit of editing the comments of editors he is in conflict with, and he also POINTily edited the block notice that was issued at this time. GiantSnowman 13:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • An indef or community ban may be premature, but the fact that Canoe1967 continued on with the attacks until their talk access was removed then went to Commons to continue there indicates that extending the block beyond one week may have been an appropriate action at the time. Resolute 13:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure I commented on the previous ANI, or one of them, but I would support an indef - cross-wiki hounding is absolutely inexcusable and if that doesn't warrant an indef, what does? Indef is not infinite, if they convince people they have changed, a couple of months down the line, then they're more than welcome to come back - right now, no. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Before we add cross-wiki

  hounding to his rap sheet, is there something I'm missing? Did he follow the blocking admin, or anyone else, across wikis? Yes, he spouted off about the admin on his own talkpage on another project, but hounding is another level. I'll support indef too if that's the case, but I haven't seen evidence of this yet. The Interior (Talk) 20:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I would count the spouting off about the admin at another project as hounding, although it's probably not the common definition of the term. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Administrator Toddst1 refusing to deal with vandalism
  No admin action is necessary and, in fact, any sanctions against Toddst1 for choosing to not block an account, which didn't need blocking anyway, would be entirely inappropriate. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:57, 10 March 2013 (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.

  ---

  Toddst1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  For whatever reason Kristijh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blanked this user page[77] three times[78][79][80] in less than one hour. Either using his main account, or from an IP with a long history[81] of edits that confirm that it is the same editor. Editor User:Anna Frodesiak posted warnings, here[82] and here[83], after both the first and second blankings of Renzoy16's user page. Kristijh then blanked[84] the Anna's two warnings BEFORE doing the third blanking[85] of Renzoy16's user page.

  The IP of Kristijh has blanked a user page[86] in the past. So the behavior is not a one-time happening.

  Anna Frodesiak made a report[87] to The Administrator intervention against vandalism board. Toddst1 responded[88] less than 1 hour later.

  No vandalism since final warning. Re-report if this user resumes vandalising.

  This is a clear cut case of vandalism and Toddst1 refusal to do anything in response to it I think is a serious violation of his duties as an administrator....William 15:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  So you are complaining that 5 days ago he didn't block someone who last blanked the page 5 days ago. Anna made the report to AIV at 13:46, 5 March 2013 and the last time anyone blanked that page was 13:35, 5 March 2013‎ or 11 minutes before Anna reported it. The person stopped before Anna reported it, how would blocking have protected the encyclopedia? GB fan 15:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  I'm an uninvolved editor who just came aware of this. AGF for a minute, ok?

  Kristijh's third blanking came after two warnings had been issued by Anna. That's the important part, and Kristijh went ahead and did it a 3rd. Toddst1 couldn't be bothered to block Kristijh in response to his disruptive behavior. Editors have been blocked for past harm to the encyclopedia and based on the presumption they may do it again....William 15:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  The important point is that the blanking stopped and 5 days later hasn't started back up. A block was not needed to stop the disruption from continuing. Toddst1 made the right call at the time. GB fan 15:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  No administrator is under any obligation to take any administrative or editorial action at any time.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  Serisously a administrator can't be sanctioned[89] for serious violations and lesser problems see the posts closed almost immediately....William 16:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  William, no admin action was required to stop Kristijh's blanking of Renzoy16's user page, Kristijh did it all on their own. Toddst1 did nothing wrong at the time and you should assume good faith about that. GB fan 17:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  He did it 3 times, twice after warnings, and nothing is done and you're advocating that action was correct. Vandals can get away with the behavior without penalty in other words and doing nothing about it is ok. That's a fine and dandy policy but tell that the next time to a editor appeals a block for vandalism and why he shouldn't be unblocked when here a no block is fine....William 17:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  Dude. Chill out. Read

  this page. The standard operating procedure for dealing with vandals is to give them a series of escalating warnings, one fore each time they vandalize. The warnings go from level 1 to level 4. If they vandalize after getting the 4th level warning, that's usually when blocks usually start happening. Yes, sometimes this sequence is overruled, but what Toddst1 decided was that this wasn't bad enough to warrant overruling the sequence. That was a perfectly reasonable decision to make, and nothing to take umbrage at. Writ Keeper (t + c) 17:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  The goal is to build an encyclopedia, not run a justice system. (See

  no justice). Toddst1 made a decision that a block wasn't necessary -- history since that decision has validated it. Had he been "wrong" -- I'm sure he or another admin would have corrected the situation. NE Ent 18:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

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

  Is it just me?

  

  Since this isn't directly related, I'll break it off a bit from the above. Am I the only one that has been sensing a "youngish" sort of drama theme lately? From blinking sigs., to "I'm being harassed by xyz website", to "Admin. ABC won't block this guy". There just seems to be an awfully lot of "Everybody's just picking on me/him/her/us" with a side of

  WP:IDHT added in type of thing going on lately. Kinda smacks of some old 4chan style tactics, although I'd think by now that those particular ones would have outgrown this type of thing. I'm just asking - am I the only one seeing this? — Ched :  ?  18:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  There does seem to be an acceleration lately, of that kind of stuff. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  I've just recently, I think two days ago, watchlisted this noticeboard and I've seen a lot of this childish drama you're talking about. –TCN7JM 18:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  It's just you.

  WP:WQA to act a drama sink (see heat sink) to suck some of the lower level stuff off ANI, but "the community" made the boneheaded move to shut that down because it "didn't work." NE Ent 18:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  I'd have to agree. It's always been like this! Deb (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  Yes it has. But the crud-level has got slightly worse since

  WP:WQA closed. DeCausa (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  As a 7 years (I guess) non-admin, I must agree that admins are too much involved in doing "the right thing" and don't differentiate between the editor who is trying to disrupt the project and the editor who is trying to save the project just that he did it in an unlucky way. If you get my point... Debresser (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  I've noticed an increase in strange behavior, too. New users showing up with weird questions and attitudes, existing users flaming out, even some strange stuff out there in the real world, and in my own head. Must be the spring thaw in the northern hemisphere, tax time approaching in the US, maybe radiation from the recent comets. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Perhaps time for a WP:AN\NAUGHTYCORNER? Blackmane (talk) 13:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  I think it's happening because Toddst1 is consistently such a prick. Toddst1 (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Now there's a conundrum, should I template warn you for an NPA and that you should be nicer to yourself? Blackmane (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Nah, it's happening because Wikipedia is the most dangerousist place like ever and deserves to be explodified. Or something. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Disruptive behaviour by

  User:ConnorLax101
  Amsterdam Schiphol Airport. Primarily, he has added KLM as an operator of flights between the two airports many times in a few different ways, despite being asked for sources many times. He has added references a few times, but the references have never actually stated that KLM serves Boston-Amsterdam (because they don't). He seemed to understand that this is a problem at one point (his talk page
  ), but then resumed similar disruptive behaviour. He has added this similar content well more than 10 times, by my count. Here are a subset of the diffs:
  • diff 1
  • diff 2
  • diff 3
  • diff 4
  • diff 5
  • diff 6 (added a source which doesn't support the claim made).

  He has also been warned on his talk page to cease this pattern of behaviour several times and acknowledged the warnings both by responding at the talk page and by deleting them from his talk page (saying "stop trying to destroy my account").

  • talk page version 1
  • talk page version 2
  • talk page version 3

  He has also twice added copyrighted images, claiming they're in the public domain: File:Logan Airport Terminal E at night.jpg (talk page warning; I'll flag the image itself shortly if someone doesn't beat me to it) and File:Air France A380 Boston.jpg (talk page warning).

  He is editing these pages, particularly

  Logan Airport
  , fast enough that it is quite difficult at times, including right now, to keep up with all of his unsourced and unencyclopedic edits.

  —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 20:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  I apologize for distruptive editing. I was only trying to help. I'm sorry, ASHill. But, I am kind of new to Wikipedia and am not 100% aware of the guidelines.

  -Connor (

  User:ConnorLax101) —Preceding undated comment added 20:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Connor, I'm going to
    reliable source to back up your edit, and that this source shows exactly what your edits say. If you would like a hand with your edits, or for someone to keep a metaphorical eye over your shoulder (assuming I'm online at any point), I would be willing to help you. Alternatively, you could find an editor whom runs adoption programs (like User:Go Phightins!, for example), to help you with your edits. A little off-topic, but it is a requirement to have a link to your talk page in your signature, and as you clearly have altered your signature, please re-add one. (also, you should sign your post with 4 tildes, not 3, to include the timestamp.) Lukeno94 (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  uncivility from ryulong
  Nothing actionable here. I'm closing this since no one is going warn, let alone block, Ryulong for these supposed slurs. Editors are free, of course, to slap their own (templated) warning on someone's talk page. Drmies (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2013 (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.

  ---

  The uncivility is getting a little old in wikipedia as constant passive aggresive tone and actions are given and where editors can deny such incivility quite easily but with this situation, this is just wrong. Ryulong makes no effort in even hiding such incivility. You could see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ryulong&diff=543385091&oldid=543373029 (The edit difference is only a fraction of the whole conversation, so please read full discussion) and in my talkpage here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lucia_Black&diff=543343206&oldid=543342688. There is not even a little effort to keep conversation profesional. The worst part is most of the uncivility is uncalled for and i have not provoked Ryulong to be uncivil to that level.Lucia Black (talk) 11:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Personally, I don't see much of anything in the differences you provided nor do I see any notification to Ryulong about this discussion. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  I stand corrected. I see your notification here, which was deleted. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  I was notified. I just reverted it.

  IP edits in December to an article and template put in what I believe is incorrect information and I remove it. Lucia Black says I am wrong and shows me one single source to back up her claim. I refute it (talk page). After some consideration, I compromise and believe that's it. Lucia Black mentions the self-imposed exile, which I saw on

  WT:ANIME as well, and I believe it's not necessary for her to bring it up, to which it is cited my "uncivility". After another response, I deem nothing else can be gained from the discussion and delete the thread from my user talk as Lucia has done on theirs. However, now we're here for reasons I don't understand other than more drama that Lucia Black was so wont to avoid.—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  I suppose that "fucking" and "dramamongering" aren't exactly the most civil terms, but that's not even worthy of a response, much less bringing to ANI for. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  I merely stated why i wasnt going to be the to edit. Lets not forget the aggresive tone mixed with slurs. The differences are just to show you the conversations as they have been removed and the only way to show it by going through the revisions. He's clearly being uncivil even now as he says im "self-imposed exile" when i stated im taking a break.

  Should we allow these acts unnotice just because the one being uncivil loses interest? Im reporting this because its obvious he meant harm and succeeded. Now you use this formal tone as if youre trying to game the system. Its not just the "word" in a sentence. Its the entire comment trying to fight and belittle me. Come on Jauerback, surely you read all of his comments within that revision. Its like if someone stepped on someones foot with high heels intentionally and the one suppose to keep track of that action lets it slip just because if it happened to they wont feel it.Lucia Black (talk) 12:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  What slurs?—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  I did read the whole thing. If you took out the two words I mentioned above, then you probably wouldn't even be here. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  That was intemperate, but not actionably so. You weren't actually the target of the more colourful language, with the exception of "dramamongering", and we permit editors a degree of leeway on their own user talk pages. If you think that addressing Ryulong's professed lack of collegiality is worth pursuing in detail, start an RFC/U. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I also agree that, while not the nicest conversation, its certainly not actionable, or even worth bringing to ANI. From what I've experienced with Lucia, I believe she needs to re-draw her line for "unacceptable incivility". That really wasn't that bad... Sergecross73 msg me 12:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Any form of incivility should not be ignored especially when intended harm. "What slurs?" Seriously? Sergecross what are you talking about? Im not gonna redraw that. Theres a level of incivility where editors can get away and say "it wasnt my intent" but this right here is the type that cant be swept under the rug but this kind proves it will happen again. You are looking to much on the words in the sentence, not so much in the sentence. I got offended and no one can deny this without lying that the intention wasnt there. Ive seen one editor talk like that one time and get suspended for at least 2 weeks. Its definitely actionable. Ive seen another get suspended for 6 months and again for one comment (granted there was no ANI report on that editor because he was an admin).

  I dont want anyone to talk to me like that and definitely not insult me when its none of his business. Yes, i brought it up, but not to talk about it. I merely tried to explain why i wasnt the one going to edit.Lucia Black (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Well, no one can force you to do anything, but if you don't "redraw your line", then you'll likely just be ignored when you take things like this to ANI. I've seen people get warnings on their talk pages for the way Ryulong has spoken to you, and I think that's fine, but I've never seen anyone get blocked for it. I'm guessing I'm not alone, considering there's three people now who have said no action is warranted at this point. Sergecross73 msg me 17:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Who says i want "block"? The least i expect is a warning and the most i expect is a 3 day suspension so that he actually knows he did was wrong. I just want action in any form that lets Ryulong know that behaviour in anyway. Otherwise if we ignore it, its like a get out of jail free card. He'll do it again next time a discussion comes up and he'll know when to get away with it. Serge if treated you that way i know youll go to ANI so my line was once where yours was serge, but you dont deal with difficult editors at a daily basis that constantly make things personal and make no effort to say constructive comments. I've ignored plenty in the past, and many stated just take it to ANI if the issue doesnt get resolved. Well in this case, if i dont bring it in ANI it wont get resolved. A warning, a small number (not even half a week) of suspension, something, anything that makes it clear he shouldnt treat editors like me in that manner. I see his other comments, they dont use slurs. So its not as if im taking those out of context. But its more about a word or two. Its how he treats me in a very acceptable discussion.Lucia Black (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
    • What is this "supspension" you speak of? The closest thing there is to what you're describing, which sounds like you're requesting that he not be able edit for 3 days, would be a
      bans? Anyways, it doesn't matter, as said before, no action is warranted here. Sergecross73 msg me 19:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I know Ryulong. He can tend to be agressive with his tone, but he certainly isn't here to do harm. He certainly doesn't attack editors and he comments on actions and edits and not the person in question. No action is necessary.—
    ^Chat_Offline 19:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Like i said serge thats what i expect for the maximmum course of action, the minimum would be a serious warning in which you yourself said would be acceptable. Cyberpower you are dead wrong as he just did do harm and it was well intended. And im not letting incivility be unnoticed. Its one thing to have an aggressive tone (in which i know if an editor does it constantly even for the smallest things, its not just rough behaviour but a scare tactic) and its another to provoke another.

  Its not acceptable in wikipedia and you all know it, but you continue to see it as a "minor" issue. But we all know full well if you were dealing with an aggressive, rude, uncivil editor, you're not going to allow that behaviour slide away. Ive seen other editors be blocked for alot less.Lucia Black (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Please, enough with the telling us what we know, or that we don't know what it's like dealing with difficult users. You're in no place to do either. (That's a rather ludicrous thing to say to Admin at ANI anyways.) Anyways, that's all I'll say on this, as I imagine this will be closed (or archived) before too long... Sergecross73 msg me 20:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Serge i feel your sympathetic for others except me. I feel admins are just seeing everything one point atg a time rather than all the points as a whole. Point being a warning (From an Admin) isnt too much to ask, is it? That aggressive rude behaviour is not acceptable. Do you agree or disagree?Lucia Black (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

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

  Probably disruptive RfC behavior on Talk:Rape culture
  Consensus seems to be that this has now reached its expiration date. There is also a motion for a round of applause for Kim Dent Brown. "Make it so" User:Ched

  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.

  ---

  WP:DEADHORSE behavior, and I very nearly closed the third RfC as being an abuse of process. While consensus can change, it doesn't magically change in a few days, and opening a new RfC weeks after the last one in an attempt to luckily get a different result is not an appropriate step forward. Then I decided that the matter isn't absolutely clear cut, and that it would help to have other's input. So, should the RfC be closed? Additionally, Mrt3366 and some of the other editors have stated or implied that is part of a larger pattern of poor behavior on DS's part, but I don't recall interacting with him much except for recently on one article, so I can't comment on whether or not that is the case. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment This was the wording of the first RFC "I would like to file an official Request for comment on this section. There is a great deal of material that has primarily been edited by User:Media-hound- thethird[1], an obvious political activist who has now been indef-banned for POV-pushing and WP:BATTLE [2]. The section focusses exclusively on three countries, India,South Africa and the United States, which, to my reading, seems like WP:UNDUE, as well as a WP:SYN implication that rape is exclusive to these countries. Furthermore, the sections are essentially a POV fork of three other wikipedia articles, Rape in India, Sexual violence in South Africa, and Rape in the United States, violating WP:POVSPLIT. It seems to me that an article on rape culture should focus on general discussions on the subject, rather than become a list of specific countries and instances cherry-picked to advance a POV. Handyunits (talk) 06:34, 28 January 2013" Hardly a neutral way to set one out is it? Also the first RFC dealt with their being sections for different countries, the one I started is over a small paragraph. It was closed disruptively three times, once by APL[90] and twice[91][92] by Mrt who was warned by an admin over this disruptive behaviour. I has little option after this highly disruptive behaviour but to reboot the RFC. I have never pretended to be an admin, and Mrt really should stop with that. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  General Behaviour

  • Caveat Lector: editors whose quotes are presented here may not retain/endorse the same views now. This is not to indicate the current pattern but an overall impression of his general modus operandi. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)}

  I thank you Qwyrxian for this effort. Like I have told Qwyrxian I have interacted with him for quite some time (sometimes productively and other times just wasted my time) and I can tell everyone reading this that DS is very passionate (often a good thing) but his passion borders on dogmatism. He also has a habit of harassing his opponents (others also, not just me) with needless discretionary sanctions notice (while pretending to be an uninvolved administrator) as well as redundant and occasionally invalid warnings (he landed one just recently). He has huge issues coping with any degree of opposition. FWIW, also see

  1. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Top Gun & Darkness_Shines.
  2. User_talk:Crtew#DarknessShines
  3. User_talk:Crtew#Notification
  4. User_talk:CarrieVS#Thank_you
  5. last ANI comments
  6. DS might be heading towards an indef block

  Thank you all.

  P.S. I didn't even begin to talk about his

  not-so-polite way of asserting his views. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  I informed APL and Handyunits. And DS, you may frame it as a "warning" against me. I think it was an advise (I don't know how valid or useful it was though). Besides I don't see you complain about the RFC1 when it first started nor did you attempt to strive against the early closure when a pretty clear consensus was reached. You're making issues up as you go along.

  You closed one RFC merely to start another, others should take a note of that. Your current RFC wants to assert that Indian culture is a "rape culture". That too based not on peer-reviewed sociology articles, but very personal opinions (perhaps with a COI). I will let others respond as they deem fit.

  P.S. the issue about your general mode of operating is larger than just this RFC-episode (this is just one in the series of various episodes with numerous well-meaning editors). We must put it in correct perspective. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 09:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  • There's an awful lot here to look at so I'm not going to give a view on the totality yet. But I did notice one complaint that seems justified: this edit from DS used a template which includes the words "This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system." I'm willing to believe this was unintentional and that it has not been repeated. But it does amount to DS placing a notice describing him/herself as an uninvolved administrator. If DS would acknowledge this and assure us the mistake won't be repeated, that would be one complaint dealt with. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Blow me, I've just found another one. I strike my assumption of a single, good faith mistake. This had better stop DS, is that clear? If I find a third I'll formally warn you on your talk page. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  What you?!?!  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  15:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  That probably has a different meaning the the UK than in the US. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Whoa Full stop, DS has been already told to NOT use admin warnings, nor to add to the ArbCom enforcement lists. Unfortunately, this appears to have continued. Any reason not to indef? (
    BWilkins←✎) 12:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  No I have not, this was discussed and no arbitration warnings have been given by myself since, so indef yourself. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  "...warnings have been given by myself since, so indef yourself." ← (emphasis my own) This is exactly the sort of tone I am fed up with. He is talking to an Admin on ANI (highly exposed page) after being accused of some serious contravention and notice his acrimonious tone. He doesn't have any interest in being polite. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  Another thing, the issue is not when he was told what. The issues are

  1. his
     dogmatic behavior
     . (see "last ANI comments" link I posted above)
  2. his proneness to edit-war over things he doesn't like (I too have been dragged into some of them but it's not just me)
  3. a
     perennial disregard towards what others are requesting him to do
     .

  ..to name a few.

  Please understand the issue. It's not just about the RFC episode here. His long-term pattern of incivility and disruption should be taken into account also. Let RFC run but stop this person at least. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  Qwyrxian states the issue clearly and accurately. I did attempt to close RFCII, because I felt it was an obvious abuse of process. If that was improper I apologize. (Afterwards, Darkness Shines reverted not only my closure, but my comment explaining why I had done it. I'm certain that's also improper.)

  Darkness Shines is one of two editors (The other is now perma-suspended.) who have repeatedly attempted to add large amounts of India related content to the article despite other editors explaining why the content wasn't appropriate.

  His current RFC is pertaining to only a single paragraph, if that represents a desire for compromise, then it's a good sign.

  As it's now clear that the RFC will continue, I hope that it can be expanded to decide the issue in a way that doesn't leave it open for other closely related content to be immediately debated, RFCed, or forum-shopped. (By either 'side'.) APL (talk) 10:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  Sorry, I don't believe he has quite understood his contravention. See this conversation. Darkness Shines says that next time he is going to file an AE case against me and then he will use the travesty of a 'sanction warning' he gave me (the warning he gave me while being involved in an issue and pretending to be an uninvolved administrator without clearly explaining to me the reason for leaving the warning). Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  Bollocks, you know full well that I asked Sal, an admin, which template was to be used in the topic area, that was the one he said to use. So stop misrepresenting what I did OK. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  "you know full well that I asked Sal" — another allegation. You know that I know it full well? Your truculent attitude is the major problem. Who is Sal? Stop throwing names around! I don't need to be dictated by you when to stop. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) Edjohnston explained to him why the sanction was not properly given and why being involved he is not in the best position to judge his opponent. He told he will "leave it off for a bit" (notice the tentativeness of the claim) then just four hours later on the same page he indicates to RegentsPark (in clear terms) that the sanction warning he gave me was enough to next time directly file an AE case against me. I think this is the typical mindset of a recidivist. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  Yes you know, [93] you commented in the thread when I mentioned that an admin told me to use that template. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  I have never seen such blatant misreprestnation in my fucking life. I have never filed an AE against you, so how could there be a "next time"? I never said I was going to file an AE agaisnt you, anyone can read the fucking diff and see that. I am done with this waste of time. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)(edit conflict)

  DS, did you give me diff here or there or anywhere about Sal? And who cares if you think I know? I never saw that page where an Admin gave you the impression to pretend to be an administrator and that too an uninvolved one. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Another allegation rudely delivered. Keep going. Did I say you have filed an AE against me? Kindly read. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  (

  AE recently. NE Ent 13:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  
  

  We are talking about the pretense of being an uninvolved administrator and the COI DS likely had while doling out sanction warnings. Is it also confusing? I don't think so. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  I habe never pretended to be a fucking admin so stop saying I did OK. Per your "Did I say you have filed an AE against me?" Yes you did Darkness Shines says that next time he is going to file an AE case against me Darkness Shines (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  

  (edit conflict)

  Never? DS pretended to be uninvolved admin :[94], [95], [96], [97], [98], etc.
  Should Do I need to give more?

  But notice that, instead of apologizing for his pretentious behavior he is claiming that he never pretended to be uninvolved admin. Now what to call that? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  Wow, did not see this earlier. What response has been given to this set of accusations? If none has been forthcoming, what is the appropriate administrative action to be taken against these repeated violations? Lostromantic (talk) 06:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  • See [99], edit summary indicates a motion on the topic is to be forthcoming.
    talk) (main account) 14:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  This is not about the Arbitration motion. It is about the misleading language he repeatedly used while warning his opponents (which is all the more reason to think he might have had COI). What's worse is he is still defending that. The template is clear enough. And one-time mistake would have been tolerable but he did it over and over again. He didn't even try to explain to me that he is not giving this as an administrator. He could have waited. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  If a non-admin can issue the warning, and at least some of the arbs appear to think they can, and the there is no separate warning for non-admins to use, and your supposed to use the "official" version of the warning I can totally see why someone would use the approved warning that misidentified them as an admin. Thus the confusion over the issue is relevant.

  talk) (main account) 14:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  "I can totally see why someone would use the approved warning that misidentified them as an admin." — I don't see how it is so obvious all of a sudden. Please read what I wrote below. .....{{

  Uw-sanctions}} also clearly says: "If this template is used by an editor who is not an 'uninvolved administrator', include the parameter |admin=no in the template to individualise 'This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be...'." ..Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment would an administrator please advise me of the scope of this ANI (since some material involving DS's interaction with me has come up in quotes -- see above). Is it just about the rape culture article that I never contributed to, is it about DS's behavior in general, or both. Crtew (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • When under scrutiny here it's not advisable to respond with "fucking this" and "fucking that" comments. Blocked 1 week for disruption. And that's before we consider any of the main issues at hand here. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  That is a terrible justification for a block. Regardless of the underlying merits of the case, getting dragged to AN/I can be rather stressful for editors. Blocking them for a minor expression of frustration, just because they said "fucking" is totally lacking in compassion, and is exactly the sort of thing that leads editors to despise AN/I. Its not preventative, and will just inflame the situation, certainly its not disruptive enough to justify a block.

  talk) (main account) 14:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  I am sorry but I don't think you're seeing the issue in right perspective here. His pattern shows he has problems on multiple level(ie. incivility, edit-warring, obduracy, etc), and in multiple places, instead of accepting his flaws he aggressively defends them. Don't know about what a 'right reason' might be but a block was required, I guess. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Now he might pretend that he was out of options but he had a lot of options. He could have asked an Admin to do sanction me and others.
    He could have added "additional text" to explain he is not an admin.
    The page also clearly says: "If this template is used by an editor who is not an 'uninvolved administrator', include the parameter |admin=no in the template to individualise 'This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be...'."
    He went right ahead and gave the sanctions anyway. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  With all due respect to Kim, I essentially agree with Monty. I believe the block should be lifted and allow DS to continue to participate in this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  So, should we just bend the definition of

  WP:ETIQUETTE as we see convenient? Should I start expressing my frustration in vulgar language too? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  MrT, can I suggest that you step back a bit and resist the urge to comment on every single contribution here? It's beginning to feel like badgering and to be quite honest, both you and DS are very poor advocates of your own case. DS can make a case on his/her talk page which can be pasted here and the delay and cooling off this brings about will be no bad thing. I'd suggest MrT that you drop back as well and let some previously uninvolved editors review the situation without being egged on by you. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  DS has appealed the block (with the edit summary "more bollocks"). I have replied to say that I'll unblock if s/he is willing to discuss here more calmly. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  I am not a fan of the language DS has used in this thread. However, its use doesn't warrant a block. As MrT said somewhere above, DS is passionate and he is prone to strong language. I don't think saying "fuck this" and "fuck that" is constructive or helpful to his position, but he shouldn't have been blocked, and he shouldn't need to change his unblock request to be unblocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  If any other admin feels my original block was unjustified, please do unblock them. I don't feel strongly attached to the block although on balance I think it was justified. But I certainly won't argue with anyone who undoes it. I'm AFK for a few hours anyway now so am happy to leave this in the hands of others. I'll check in later. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks, Kim. Unfortunately, I consider myself

  WP:INVOLVED, not based on this thread, but on previous interaction with DS. Therefore, much as I'd like to unblock, I don't feel comfortable doing so.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  I've unblocked. While I advised DS that using strong language like that is probably a bad idea, I don't think it's inherently disruptive, and certainly not enough to be immediately block-worthy. Basically, I read it as a (good-faith) cooldown block, which, for better or worse, we don't do. Writ Keeper (t + c) 16:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  By the way, this unblock was without prejudice towards the problem being reported or the outcome of any discussion in this thread, just as the block was. Writ Keeper (t + c) 16:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Block is good DS has been impersonating an admin in order to create a chilling effect. As noted, he's been told before to stop. This really cannot be permitted to continue (
    BWilkins←✎) 16:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Instead of admitting his incivility, he says: "So no. If I want to swear I will, there are no policy against it. You have made a bad block and are now trying to get me to agree to something "you want" and only you before unblocking me. I will not be blackmailed." - Is this the sort of behavior you guys think will help this discussion? He starts derogating the admin who blocked simply because he blocked him. This always happens with DS. That is another issue with DS he never accepts he was at fault. And never moves on. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  ANd he is unblocked. WoW! Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  MrT, Kim's advice to you was excellent. You should heed it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  Comment: I see now that this section is clearly about general behavior (above). I only intend to make one comment here and that's all.

  1) I applaud Kim Dent-Brown for blocking DS for his foul language. I've regularly told him and complained to others that this language is unnecessary and unacceptable and he continues to spout this type of language without any self-control. DS's editing history is chockfull of rudeness, cuss words, and other comments that go against WP:Civil. And he does it with the same hot-tempered attitude that Kim Dent-Brown identified. Moreover, somebody always (in the instances where I have been involved) comes along to say he shouldn't be told that he can't act this way. Finally, somebody did the right thing and right off the bat, too! Bravo.

  2) More serious is the issue about the warnings DS issued to me and others: DS issued me a warning on my talk page that looked very official like it came from an admin, it said I had already been disruptive (I paraphrase) and I'll be blocked if I do whatever I did again, and he put me on a warning list in the process. I felt and still do that he was trying to intimidate me and move me away from his area of interest, which is Bangladesh. I was editing in that area on the David Bergman (journalist) article, on my interest in journalists/people who were involved in the Skype scandal that brought charges against The Economist and Amar Desh, and on a married journalist couple who were murdered, and so I had entered into his terrain. From what everybody told the admins, and I agree, he did this to get back at people. So what did I do to deserve a warning? I had copyedited an article (commas and such) and made no content changes whatsoever. For that I was warned! The preposterous nature of this warning led me to investigate, find out that others were involved like I was (we all had somehow created content that went against DS's POV). I only found out later that DS didn't like Bergman because the journalist had made statements that were negative about Bangladesh's International Criminal Court, which I didn't know at the time that I saved it from AfD last year (DS's nomination) and started editing it. And when I popped up again, I was warned! That shouldn't happen on Wikipedia. I will admit that I went on a mission to get my name off this list and to tell any other person on that list what had happened to me, which led to a mini-revolt of sorts and also several admins telling DS to cease warning people and many names being removed. DS was coding the warning template incorrectly to make it look as if he was an administrator and he was issuing it as an involved editor. So he was told to back off. Now people in Abitration are currently looking at the wisdom of giving people like this this kind of power (See User:Sandstein's work there). Just like Mr T said, he threatening to use it again even after he was warned and was told again that he couldn't.

  3) Since I've started editing on Bangladesh-related articles (not my area of specialty but intersects with a number of journalists I'm looking at), I've had nothing but grief from DS. He's regularly accused me of stalking him at User:RegentsPark because I have made edits in this area where he overlaps with me. He seems to want to know what is on my watchlist. This is uncivil and aggressive behavior.

  4) From what I've seen, DS has a POV (pro-Awami League and pro-ICT as far as I can tell) and he will use any strategy available from a misuse of policy (AfD, merge, revert, limiting reverts on articles, BLP, warnings, false charges of sock puppetry, etc.) , and if that doesn't work, to just burying your edits later as a rewrite or for some other unnamed reason, in order to get content to skew toward his POV. It's almost impossible to add fairness and balance to articles where he is working with others who share his POV. (I won't make the case of Tag Teaming here because it's difficult to prove as the intent of multiple people are involved.) None of the policies I mentioned above are wrong when used for the purposes of improvement (whatever that may or may not mean for people), but when used for the purpose of inserting POV as a regular pattern of behavior, it violates the spirit of WP. For me should be the ultimate issue here in this AN/I. It's a pattern of behavior to misuse policy, intimidate others, and to insert POV that runs all the way through his editing history. And, I would suggest, it's at the very top of this AN/I in the RFC issue that started this process.Crtew (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment. (That may have only "one comment", Chad, but it was longer than ten.) I'm getting lost in all the issues here (not unusual for me). I'll address just the issue of DS issuing warnings of discretionary sanctions. There are really two subissues. The first is whether only an admin can issue the warning. To me and to others, that is unclear, so it seems to me that DS can't be faulted for "violating" an unclear policy. Second is whether DS should use the template. In my view, he should not. If he wants to issue a warning, he should personalize it so he doesn't represent that he's an admin. See, e.g.,
    Palestine-Israel enforcement}} may be used, or an individual message containing the same information."). Unfortunately, I think the original basis of Qwyxrian's post here is being lost in what is transforming itself into an RfC/U. This is the wrong forum for a discussion of such breadth about a user's conduct.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  View from uninvolved outsider I have been on discussion groups going back to FidoNet and USENET, including Reddit and Slashdot. Everywhere but Wikipedia, there is one unspoken rule: Figure out who is a Sysop/Moderator/Admin/Bohf, and don't disagree with him lest he LART you with a banhammer. On Wikipedia I know that even if I piss off Jimbo or Sue, it will be an uninvolved admin who looks at my behavior and blocks me, and I know that if I have a valid argument that the block was bogus, I can get another uninvolved admin to review the block. Any involved administrator making even veiled threats violates that trust. Any involved non-admin coming close to impersonating an admin and making veiled threats violates that trust. This needs to be stopped to protect the encyclopedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Uninvolved outsider I fail to see the issue. Darkness Shines has not pretended to be an admin, and no diff indicates he has. He did use templates which include that message; and that may have been accidental on his part. I'm willing to assume good faith there; I think a request that he doesn't use it again would be fine. I think the block by Kim was overzealous.
    talk) 19:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  Also bad block. What was highlighted by Kim for the block included this sentence by DS (presumably the one the block was over): "I habe never pretended to be a fucking admin so stop saying I did OK". DS is not attacking Mr T here. The underlying statement is; I have never pretended to be an admin, so do not say I did, but the language is more emotive, but not an attack. Let's not forget that the very next reply, by Mr T, to the message DS was blocked for, was to say he was acting pretentious; that is an attack.

  talk) 19:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  "The underlying statement is; I have never pretended to be an admin, so do not say I did, but the language is more emotive," — nevertheless it is a lie he did pretend to be an admin several times and defended that behavior till it has drawn quite some attention. [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], read the text of the template and also my reply to monty. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  The point is that he may have simply been using the templates carelessly without reading them. (They are rather wordy.) The admin impersonation would, in that case, be accidental. He seemed to have stopped when it was pointed out to him. APL (talk) 06:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  No sir. Are you saying is not intelligent enough to admit the most blatant of the errors in time? You know,

  competence is required. Although I would love to believe your case, I don't believe, not after all this, that he has quite understood his contravention yet. He just recently gave me a warning right after he and I were in the middle of a dispute in the talk of Rape Culture. He gave me a warning that made it seem like I was editing the article not the talk. He again defended his behavior. Now we may all split hairs about this and that, but the fact is he has issues all around him. Everything cannot be just accident, you see!
  About sanctions, he did it multiple times what explanation is needed, it ought to be apparent enough. He is here for quite some time and he knows better. He even defended that sort of contravention. He is still claiming that he has not posed as an uninvolved admin and quite aggressively too. (above) Please see my reply above (what he did after it was explained to him by Edjohnston).
  "He seemed to have stopped" - after sanctioning 5-6 editors (mostly his opponents). I am not talking about the technicalities but the COI-ridden vindictive attitude which led him to issue sanctions against multiple opponents. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  You don't have to be stupid to be careless.

  It's entirely possible he placed those templates without actually reading them, and afterwards was too stubborn to apologize for having used the wrong ones. APL (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  If his stubbornness were only in the "past" (as in "was stubborn") I wouldn't have minded that much. But he is still harshly reiterating that he wasn't pretending to be an admin even when he knows, intentionally or not, he was posing like one and besides that his COI is also a problem as Edjohnston explained to him. How can you justify this much obduracy? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 12:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was justifying anything. APL (talk) 12:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  • BWilkins, what part of since it was discussed on my talk page no notifications have been given out by myself did you not understand? Useing the wrong template was a misunderstanding on my part, I was not pretendiong to be an admin, an admin told me that was the template to use, so no it was in fact a shite block. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  Not sure if this is the right place to bring this to administrative attention, but Darkness Shines has been engaged in a pretty extensive edit war at Hindu Taliban over what he perceives as content that should not belong in the article. For reference, here is the talk page section in question. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hindu_Taliban#Failed_verification As you can see, the dispute started when Darkness Shines started removing content which he claimed failed verification. I pointed out that the links were, in fact, valid, which he disagreed with prima facie since they did not specifically mention the phrase "Hindu Taliban", and therefore the articles were not valid sources because Hindu Taliban was what he viewed as a 'neo'. At this point, Eduemoni stepped in later to address a potential 3RR by him and I, so I backed off and tried to set up a process by which we could reach consensus, but Darkness Shines deliberately flouted the process. He then resorted to foul language and personal attacks against Eduemoni and I on his own talk page and deleted Eduemoni's arguments off said talk page in an attempt to make himself seem more reasonable. I'm not sure which policy or set of policies such actions violate, but to me, they clearly seem to be an indication that some administrative action should be taken against Darkness Shines. Thanks, Lostromantic (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  I don't mind if Darkness Shine's overall behavior is evaluated here, but I would also appreciate discussion on the RfCs. I strongly believe this third RfC should be closed and DS should be admonished not to try to win a content dispute by simply repeating discussions until he gets the result he wants. Rather, he should avail himself of other aspects of

  dispute resolution. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  If the RFC had not been closed disruptively three times then I would not have had to restart it would I? The bot which invites uninvolved editors would have missed it due to the closures. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  Concur. An editor shouldn't "close" an RFC and then immediately start a new one. Recommend 30 day topic ban from article for Darkness Shines. NE Ent 23:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  You recommend a 30 day topic ban on me because two other editors closed an RFC which I had started? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  I have no say here whatsoever or any authority at all, but given the scope of what editors are saying here, wouldn't a topic wide ban on anything related to the subcontinent region be more appropriate? Crtew (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  What, the scope of all the editors who I have had editing conflicts with? Yep, I am sure they are real neutral. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  closure of second RFC by DS. opening of third RFC bys DS. NE Ent 23:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  So you want him topic banned for closing the second RfC which had become instantly sidetracked by involved participants?

  talk) 00:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Ent, the onus is on you to show that the DS is at fault here Restarting an RfC several times, to mitigate against disruption (the second RfC was sidetracked, see [105]), sounds potentially legitimate, and I fail to see why that would be the rationale for a topic ban for thirty days. The easiest thing to do would be to have an RfC and then have an admin close it and gauge the consensus. The first RfC apparently had an involved person gauge the consensus at the end (and asking if others agreed; obviously most people responding to an RfC don't hang around), which is inherently problematic.

  talk) 00:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Not really. I've give an opinion, and my reasoning for it. Folks can agree or disagree as they wish. I don't think "restarting" an RFC because an editor doesn't like the way it's going is a useful dispute resolution technique. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NE Ent (talk • contribs) 01:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment I didn't want to get involved in this discussion, but I came accross DS by vandalism patrol, he was engaging edit war in one article at that time Hindu Taliban, as a common procedure I did notify the involved parts (template) and proceeded to request page for protection because the edits violated the 3RR policy, I didn't issue (at that point) a warn on him for anything else other than the actual 3RR, but he was being rude so I mistakenly (or not) gave him a personal attack warn, I didn't even proceed to the 3RR noticeboard because someone else did. The other day I received a message regarding an advice ^[1], I responded to his concern, and then went all along to check the edit issues this other user (Crtcrew) has passing through only to notice he yet again violated 3RR, I issued another warn on him, but this time he came on a rampant against me ^[2], another user (SudoGhost) said I was being uncivil and didn't handle the situation properly by templateing him and compared both of us, however I talked very politely on his page, if you look on his dif pages and mine there are comments which are full of his bad words and some of them reveal his parapraxis. Anyway, I think that DS isn't a bad guy at all, however he is too willful and dogmatic, which may seem to be obnoxious to some. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 02:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  I'd like to add that, after reading through this thread and Wikipedia's internal policies, DS's deliberate attempt to hijack the RfC process in the

  WP:NPA depending on how easily the editor in question is offended. It's clear from what Eduemoni described above that DS did violate those three policies in his interactions with him, and it's for those reasons that I believe DS deserves to be banned, or at least topic-banned from Indian articles, broadly construed, for a lengthy period of time. Also, since this thread is getting rather tendentious and tangential, I'd suggest that we wrap this up with a list of formal charges against DS and a quick vote on actions to take. Thanks, Lostromantic (talk) 06:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  NE Ent the RFC was closed first by APL [106] and then twice by Mrt3366‎[107][108] which is why I archived the wrecked one ad restarted it. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  I probably wouldn't have closed the second time only if he didn't leave such an offensive and peremptory edit summary. I regret it now. But that doesn't discount what DS did and have always done (including but not limited to the RFC episode). See this post above. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  You should not have closed it the first time, never mind the second. And did you perhaps think I would give you flowers & chocolate for disruptively closing an RFC which had already been closed by another involved editor and then you come along to do the same, get real FFS. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  I hadn't noticed the edit summary before.

  So let me get this straight, I remove a template and explain that it's because I believe you're editing in bad faith. And you respond by

  1. Replacing the template with no answer to the concerns of myself and others.
  2. Deleting my comments critical of your actions.
  3. Leaving an edit summary that says "Do not fucking do that again."

  I can't imagine why I thought you were editing in bad faith. APL (talk) 11:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  It's been pointed out to me that the summary with the "Fucking" was not when I was reverted as I imply above, but when MrT was reverted. I got the reverts confused. APL (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Incivility and impetuous truculence is so obvious to him:- "And did you perhaps think I would give you flowers & chocolate for disruptively closing an RFC"
    Why does nobody take a note of his
    battleground mentality? He is inherently predisposed to create disputes and hinder amicable resolution. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 12:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  "You should not have closed it the first time, never mind the second." ——— I should have brought it to ANI. APL's and My closures gave you the right excuse to close RFC2 and open a new one. I still believe your 2nd RFC was not legitimate, albeit I needn't close it. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  The rationale for a topic wide is that what DS did with the RFC here is part of a general pattern of behavior that is pervasive throughout the subcontinent articles he edits. Perhaps if he were to edit "Top 40 singles" for a month (or something where he doesn't take on WP:OWN), he might begin to see that other Wikipedians are using civil behavior (WP:EQ). This environment seems to be toxic for him. Crtew (talk) 09:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Actually no, the rational is that it would get rid of someone you do not like. And if you are to make such wide sweeping statements how about some diffs to back up what you say? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Mrt, from the guy who has over the last few weeks told me STFU, and "shut up" and created a weeks long drama involving three admins cos you would not admit that India used child soldiers are in no position no censure my actions at all. Had you two not disruptively closed an RFC you were both involved in then this would not have happened at all, all this drama is down to you two, not me. And do not accuse me of editing in bad faith APL, it was you who stopped an RFC because you do not like the fucking content proposed. I have yet to hear from any of those objecting as to why it is OK to have content in that article which says India does not have a rape culture, but they are really really happy to have the opposing view excised from the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  General comment: I'm a bit surprised to see Qwyrxian bring this up here. The repeated closure of the RfC was brought to my attention here and I warned Mrt3366 not to edit war on RfCs. Looking at RfC I and III, the questions are different enough (III is far more specific) that an additional RfC is not out of the question. Perhaps RfC II could have worked with the judicious collapsing of text, but it is not unusual to start a new RfC when an earlier one gets bogged down in extraneous squabbling. About behavior. None of these three are pure here. DarknessShines could do with a bit of a rethink on how he approaches issues because, whether or not he is violating the letter of policy, the overuse of the f-word is not going to buy him friends or help him influence people. And, it is never a good sign when controversy follows you everywhere. Mrt3366 has shown signs of extreme tendentiousness in the past (though he is learning to withdraw graciously, if not early enough!). And Crew has shown signs of a battleground mentality, including inflaming disputes by dragging other editors in, tag teaming, and making injudicious comments about other editors. I'm not a fan of interaction bans but it is beginning to look like we'll need something between Crtew and DarknessShines. --regentspark (comment) 14:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  I try to be extremely objective and meticulous while discussing about something, anything controversial. If that is what RP sees as tendentious editing then I am very disappointed. I don't know where have I evinced tendentious behavior whenever I realized that sources were against me I immediately withdrew. As for the allegations that I "created a weeks long drama involving three admins cos [I] would not admit that India used child soldiers" — it is totally false. I was the one who found and inputted the source that was clearly proving me wrong. See this. I was initially against the source which was implying what RP, DS were claiming. I couldn't accept that and then when I stumbled upon a source clear enough, I myself put it in the article and closed the debate. DS is impolite and has always been. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  I'm a bit taken back by what I see as RP's "injudicious" comment above. If anybody expected me not to tell other editors who were on a fake warning list, put there by someone who appeared to be impersonating an admin and for reasons that were entirely preposterous in my case (for copy editing?), then we have a different view of what fair play and justice means. Yes, I fully admit to telling others as I said above. Tag teaming? When? Where are the charges about this and when was I brought up for a dispute about this? (I didn't even know what it was until recently.) In fact, when have I ever been the target of a single noticeboard dispute or when have I ever been blocked? The answer is NEVER. Anybody can verify this. Please do. Crtew (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Always impolite? [109] An obviously contentious thread, show me were I am impolite, or even on the RFC thread which began this fiasco. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  You have no clue, do you? This is the problem after all this you're still wondering. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  You just do not get it do you? It was your actions which lead to this. Yet you seem to think it was my fault. I had already reverted APL over his closure of the RFC, yet you went right ahead and closed it two times more. In case you had not gotten why I pointed to those threads, it is because when people are polite, they get the same in return, as anyone can see in looking through my comments on them. You have to earn respect, and your actions here, and at the most recent articles we have worked on, garner none. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Denial at its best. You're using me as the scapegoat? Yeah, now I am not to blame for your general behavior. I will not accept that. I don't even know some of the guys that have come up with behavioral complains against you, my friend. So don't you blame me now for your misconduct. It has always been the case with you. Even now you're denying that you've been uncivil. Even here you've exhibited severe behavioral problems. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  (xec) Crtew, regarding the inflaming disputes by dragging in other editors I'm referring to this post of yours that resulted in more, rather injudicious, unnecessary drama. About the injudicious comments, I can dig them up if you like but I hope you know what I mean. DarknessShines, your tendency to use the f-word and be unnecessarily dramatic is likely to get you tossed out of here one of these days. Mrt3366, in the source issue you quote above, you kept arguing your point about a source well after several neutral editors had determined that the source was being correctly represented in the article. I agree that you finally did end the discussion but it was after a lot of "where does the source say that" after many editors had pointed to where it did say that. Look, I don't think any of you are overly problematic editors but all three of you need to rethink the way you're approaching this project. I know two of you quite well as editors and think you're doing a valuable job adding content and, more importantly, most of what you add would probably not be here if you weren't here. I know less about Crtew but he seems to be adding useful content as well. All you need to do is to straighten out your egos a bit and stop running around reporting each other or edit warring at the drop of a hat. If other editors can recognize value in each one of you, why don't you try to recognize the same value in each other? --regentspark (comment) 16:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  /nowiki>1

  • DS you are indeed perennially, compulsively and inappropriately rude, combative and abusive. You seem to find it extremely hard to interact with anyone who does not agree with you in a collegial and constructive way. If you want diffs I'll provide them but I know in advance that you'll see each of them as entirely justified behaviour on your part. MrT you have what appears to be an almost unhealthy obsession with getting some kind of sanction, any kind of sanction against DS. You have badgered almost all contributors here and repeated yourself ad nauseam, only weakening your case in the process. As far as I'm concerned you are both welcome to one another. Personally I think there is a case for a total interaction ban between the pair of you and quite possibly a topic ban from south Asian, Hindu and Muslim topics. I'm sure those areas would proceed more calmly without your scuffles. But there has been very little interest here in enacting anything against either of you so I suspect this thread will wither and die. If it does then please can I beg you both to consider not the other person's behaviour but your own. Neither of you has anything to be proud of here and this whole episode is likely to count against either of you next time your names are mentioned on this board. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  I appreciate your comments and I value them, I have stayed away from the page but what do you expect me to do when DS is constantly misinforming others about me? He is even trying to make it seem that I made him uncivil, you expect me to sit here, fret and watch silently? I mean, what is this? What badgering? I am also a human.

  I understand you're having problems wading through all this unnecessary squabbles. I thank you even more for that. But what can I do? It's how it is. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  "Neither of you has anything to be proud of here" - I know. And I hate my luck for it. Ban me, block me I don't know what is appropriate but don't tell me to just sit here and watch while DS is posting his inane garbles to frame himself as the victim here. That is the last thing I need. Don't be irascible please. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Yet Another Comment - The Edit War on Hindu Taliban started 15 February 2013‎ and extended 10 days long, til 25 February 2013‎, three users were involved, I notified all them three (DS is included in that number), DS reverted (1R) the first time and made some rollbacks in his second, Lostromantic reverted, (2R) DS reverted once again citing failed verification, his following edit was template tag, Lostromating reverted, (3R) DS reverted, User:Scythian77 intervened strange revert, beyond this level is pure violation, DS reverted, Lostromantic undo, DS reverted, Scynthian undo, DS reverted, Lostromantic undo, DS tagged the page with some templates to sustain his 3rr violation, Scynthian thought it was a 3rr however the edit war was already taking place. Also the talk page was filled with uncivility, unnecessary jargon and offensive words. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 16:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Eduemoni, this is the second time you have stated here that I violated 3RR. Read

  WP:3RR then look at those diffs, I never violated 3RR at all. Please stop saying I did. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  DS, this is the kind of behavior that people cited above, you are not right, but you refuse to accept it, 3RR critically consider a 24h period, however Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation., which you surely did, the diffs and logs show it, avoid telling the the others to stop saying something which you obviously had part in, you engaged into a edit war and violated 3RR in the last days of the "battle", sometimes I still think that you Wikipedia:Ignore all rules or that you pretend to know them. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 18:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Eduemoni, all I have to say is: Thank You. Lostromantic (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Sigh, I did not violate 3RR. Again, read 3RR and you can see that I did not. I suspect you think adding something new counts as a revert, it does not. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Again "Any appearance of gaming the system...", DS, when I got in touch with you and your impetuous temper, I preferred to stay away because you didn't get exactly what you were touching, it is like you told me "Hey stop, that is a ball, don't touch it, it is going to explode and kill us all", when is exactly the opposite it is a square and it could be handled gently, this kind of behavior is going to get you blocked soon, listen to the majority of users in here, they are complaining about something, some may seem similar, some may not, but there is obviously an issue, listen to them and try to improve yourself, I may be right, but most of the times I'm wrong, think about that. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 22:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Can an uninvolved admin close this section on "General Behaviour". It is outside of the remit of this board (should be RFCU), and it appears to be dominated by people who have an axe to grind,
    talk) 21:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I posted a comment over at Kim's talk page and they suggested I also post it over here. "Re your most recent comment at ANI, your absolutely correct with this statement "You seem to find it extremely hard to interact with anyone who does not agree with you in a collegial and constructive way". I do get very annoyed very quickly when I know I am correct regarding an issue and others just seem to want to make everything hard work, I simply have little patience for nationalists and POV pushers. You are also correct in that I swear far to much, so as a show of good faith henceforth I shall keep the cussing to my talk page. Should you see me cussing outside of it feel free to block me for having broken my word." Darkness Shines (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

    You need to fix that DarknessShines because that's a problem for you. You have to do one of two things. Either assume that the other person is arguing their point in good faith or open an RfC/U with evidence that the other editor is a POV pusher. With the two editors here, crtew and mrt3366, it is hard to make a pov pushing case. With crtew you took an antagonistic tone in the David something (?) article and look how that's turned out - an all out war by the looks of it. Mrt3366 definitely has a defend India slant but there's nothing wrong with someone pushing back with that slant as long as they don't consistently push a pov and know when enough is enough (which he generally does know). Most editors are willing to listen to reason when it is reasonably presented and you'd go much further if you tried that approach. Just something to think about. --regentspark (comment) 22:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  As for me, I will believe DS's promise only when I see patience, thoughtfulness and civil language put into practice and months out from now and not in the moment when the spotlight shines on the darkness. Any message that apologizes but at the same time criticizes those of us who have complained to him by calling us "nationalist and POV pushers", deserves a healthy dose of skepticism. I for one am not an enabler, Crtew (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I said I wouldn't post again here but I think DS's post on my talk page, copied here, deserves a response. DS has acknowledged a problem with both collegiality and incivility. These two things are easy to maintain with our friends; it's with our opponents that the test really comes. The commitment to not swearing outside DS's own talk page is welcome and I for one believe it. The request to be blocked on breaking the promise is good enough for me. I will certainly act on it if anything is brought to my attention, but I don't think it will be. Now, antagonists of DS it's time to escalate or de-escalate. You can call DS's offer bad faith or you can accept it at face value in the knowledge that the next f-bomb on anyone else's talk page brings a block. If you'd like DS to be a more gracious opponent - model what graceful opposition means by accepting this offer with some style. I second the suggestion above that we close this section of the thread. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm as far as possible from skepticism here, I believe in DS words because I see his efforts, his harshness and his temper is what gets in his way, sometimes he may seem irreflexive, but I think that he made a commitment, we should trust him, otherwise a report in user noticeboard shall be created. I hope he doesn't take personal. I appreciate his anti-vandalism efforts, and his constructive edits. I think (even though I'm not a admin), it is pretty safe to close this section. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 00:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I again applaud Kim Dent Brown's stance for being fair to judge about this situation. I am more than willing to "de-escalate", as he calls it. But it would only be fair to User:Darkness Shines, if he were to know quite explicitly what any further negative action on his part would bring in terms of a future block(s). If the admins were to set out clearly a few boundaries or terms that any future uncivil language and behavior toward other users, any perception created about impersonating an admin or putting people on warning lists (even if he's uninvolved I might add), or for the misuse of WP policy to be overly aggressive against another editor(s), would bring, then he would know and we would know and the matter could be settled. I for one would be more than fine with that and we could all of us leave this be without doubts of enabling.Crtew (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

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

  Continued conflict of interest at Waldorf education

  I'm concerned because of what I see as continued controversial edits made by

  User:Hgilbert who was determined in 2006 to have a conflict of interest with regard to the Waldorf education article. At the 2006 ArbCom case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education#Conflict of interest, the committee affirmed unanimously that Wikipedia's WP:Conflict of interest guideline "applies to those persons associated either with the Waldorf schools or with PLANS, an anti-Waldorf organization, who are aggressively editing Waldorf school and related articles in a biased manner." Hgilbert is a teacher with Waldorf schools, but he continually adds positive and removes negative text at the article, for instance these two disputed changes from yesterday: this removal of negative points from the lead section even though the text was an appropriate summary of major points in the article section about "Reception", and this removal
  of the category "Pseudoscience", which he acknowledged in his edit summary as controversial.

  I warned Hgilbert yesterday, asking him on the article talk page and his own talk page to revert himself with regard to the ArbCom 2006 ruling restricting his behavior. He replied that the old ArbCom finding has been replaced by a new one.

  As far as I can tell, the conflict-of-interest determination remains in place with regard to the recent

  WP:COI. Binksternet (talk) 15:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Hgilbert may very well have a COI but so what? Our COI guidelines don't forbid editing due to a COI nor does the case appear to. Of course editing articles for which you have a COI is strongly discouraged for several reasons, one of them because it often leads to poor behaviour. And poor behaviour may be subject to discretionary sanctions as per the motion and this is even more likely if the editor has a history of poor behaviour on the article or in the subject. But if that's your concern, you should concentrate on the poor behaviour not the COI. Nil Einne (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  This was previously raised here as a behavioral issue, but failed to attract any outside admins. a13ean (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  I was editing the Waldorf education article several weeks ago, but took a Wikibreak to attend to some real life issues. Checking back recently I marveled at how the POV had been pushed there to render Waldorf education in a positive light and play-down/remove adverse commentary, with hgilbert as ever the principal force behind this. In my view this article is a copy-book example of how Wikipedia is powerless in the face of concerted civil POV-pushing. Any admin who bothers to take an interest is going to have to invest significant time in studying what's gone on, over several years. And that, I suspect, is the problem ... admins are too hard-pressed to be able to deal with these kind of problems, no matter how much they damage WP.

  COI 17:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Anyone concerned about Hgilbert's edits should consider filing at

  WP:Arbitration enforcement. I've had Waldorf education on my watchlist for some time (due to a prior sock case) and what I see going on there does not look to be a respectful consensus process. Hgilbert has reverted 20-40 times since February 1. It appears that some editors who appear to be insiders are consistently adding information favorable to Waldorf and removing stuff that makes it look bad. Unless Hgilbert and others will agree to follow Wikipedia-wide consensus a topic ban should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Okay, thanks for the guidance. I will file a report at Arb Enforcement. I agree with Alexbrn that this has gone on too long, and that Hgilbert is the problem. Binksternet (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  I'm happy to have this looked at. We could start with this diff of all the changes between Alexbrn's last contribution on Feb. 3rd, and the present state of the article as of March 11th. Could you please identify the massive removals of negative material and additions of positive material that have supposedly been made over this time frame?

  talk) 22:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  I filed a report at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Hgilbert. Editors are invited to voice their views. Binksternet (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  Threat to an editor by User:LarryTr7
  talk) 23:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  An interesting wrinkle here. I've been watching an NPR article change back and forth between “Fu is a refugee of the Chinese cultural revolution whose biological and adoptive parents were killed" and “Fu is a refugee of the Chinese cultural revolution whose biological parents were sent to exile in a remote area". Chinese Ministry of Truth hacking brigade in action, I presume. What worries me is that this LarryTr7 may be involved with that.

  talk) 01:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The LarryTr7 account here seems to be associated with a false identity, set up last fall at Facebook, and used solely for the cyber-attack against Ping Fu. Since I have solid evidence backing this up, I don't feel that it's a breach of civility to mention it. If you want, I can email the evidence. VanHarrisArt (talk) 02:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  Behavioral problems with User:OGBranniff
  Message delivered and, apparently, understood in the spirit in which it was given. Thank you all, Drmies (talk) 04:48, 12 March 2013 (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.

  ---

  WT:CHESS#Inappropriate. Earlier on that talk page he made comments such as "We could work together like the Gestapo and SS in Germany... you investigate and identify the deficient articles, and I'll round them up and ship them off. It'll be efficient." Quale (talk) 00:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  • My inclination would to to firmly warn OGBranniff that this sort of thing isn't acceptable, and that if it continues, blocks are likely. It is true that Wikipedia is
    WP:NOTCENSORED, but that is not a license to add offensive content merely for the sake of being offensive, or trying to provoke a reaction. For NOTCENSORED to apply, the material should be article content, potential article content, or at least related to building/discussing article content. The comments at [110] and [111] are none of those. They strike me as rather trollish, but as OGBranniff appears generally be editing within behavioral guidelines, I'm going to AGF and assume they are merely the result of a lapse of judgement, which is why I recommend a clear warning rather then a block at this point. Monty₈₄₅ 03:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Did you notice that he was blocked for
      WP:NPA on February 7 for some ugly harassment of an IP editor at User talk:166.82.205.115? This isn't the first time his behavior has been a problem. Quale (talk) 04:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Final warning issued. Only one of them was recent, by the way, so that doesn't do much on this board. An RfC would be an option if there are more such edits, but I think at this point that's overdoing it. Let's hope that OGBrandiff comes to realize that such edits are really beyond the pale. Drmies (talk) 04:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

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

  Tendentious editing by IP user

  A certain IP user with fringey ideas about Max Müller (85.154.76.76 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 85.154.175.142 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 62.231.238.58 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 62.61.188.138 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), most recently 82.178.178.32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) has been tendentiously arguing that Müller's middle name should be changed to Maximilian at Talk:Max Müller#Max or Maximilian and at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Max Müller. This has included a number of antagonistic comments about Paul Barlow (talk · contribs), whom the editor terms a "western apologist" [112] and "self declared 'victorianist'", [113] and accuses of trying to own the page. [114] - Cal Engime (talk) 05:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  Possible sockpuppet: Silviabe333 / Topfin
  Both accounts blocked by DeltaQuad. Mathsci (talk) 07:15, 12 March 2013 (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.

  ---

  • Silviabe333 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Topfin (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

  Hi, I think these 2 users might be the same person. He/she is making changes against consensus to articles such as Thomas Aquinas and Ignatius of Loyola. Would you please be able to take a look? Thanks, Azylber (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  The accounts were both recently created, edit the same articles, with very similar edit summaries and are engaged in edit-warring. Why not make a report at

  WP:SPI for the first created account (Silviabe333), setting "yes" for checkuser? Mathsci (talk) 07:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  Ok. Done. I've reported it there. But I'm also worried about the articles - what's going to happen with all the articles that this person is modifying? Azylber (talk) 08:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  Articles like

  WP:SPI report and I will provide it. Wait until there is a response at the SPI report. Mathsci (talk) 08:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  Cool. Thanks for your help! Azylber (talk) 13:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

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

  Block needed

  Can I get an admin to block 71.135.171.193 (talk · contribs). The IP's been laying down some undirected insults on the Kim Jong-un talk page that I've reverted, and when I reverted and warned him, the IP promptly put attacks on my page (fortunately a few watchers dealt with that). I could block myself but I'm technically involved. --MASEM (t) 14:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Yep, blocked. Lectonar (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Back again at 71.135.172.66 (talk · contribs). --MASEM (t) 17:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Blocked again. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Both contributors are from the same range, so it is likely that all insults come from the same person and that the person is able to switch IP addresses. Would it be possible to semi-protect

  Stefan2 (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined to say no to semi-protection, and the editor hasn't come back (yet). But other admins might feel different: you could put a note up at
    WP:RFPP; I don't mind disagreement. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
    • He's back now:
      Stefan2 (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Ah well. All this technology, all this progress, dinosaurs giving their lives to be turned into oil to power fans to cool down our massive servers, all for some semi-literate teenagers to have some fun. You know, when I was young we went outside and kicked lamp posts. Drmies (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I see you have semiprotected now.....but:when I was young, all I had was a piece of wood...and imagination. Lectonar (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  User:CSBulut14
  Blocked by Drmies. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 08:25, 12 March 2013 (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.

  ---

  Would someone mind indef'ing User:CSBulut14? They seem to be a so-called "sneaky" fact-changing vandal. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Yes. They've been at it before, as 76.173.132.206 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 76.173.132.198 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)--something to keep an eye on. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
    • An admin has indefinitely blocked him. Keep an eye out for any new identities with the same behavior and file a case at
      WP:SPI if you see them. SPI cases are a good way to let future admins know the history of a vandal despite name changes. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

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

  User:Cvpatel95
  Also blocked by Drmies. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 08:26, 12 March 2013 (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.

  ---

  User:Cvpatel95 keeps placing spam links on Portal:Current events/2013 March 11, I have warned the user two times now (Which brings it to the user's 4th warning counting ones from others) but looking at the contribs it seems it is a vandal account. Thoughts? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I have a thought on that, but it's really boring. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

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

  User:Amadscientist - Edits since 8 March 2013 to Adam Ant
  Admin are not content police. Use the article talk page, and then

  WP:DRN if that fails. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 08:21, 12 March 2013 (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.

  ---

  Since 8 March, user User:Amadscientist has been carrying out edits on the Adam Ant article. So far, this seems to primarily consist of (1)exiling to the talk page an "Upcoming Projects" section which he/she considers to be "promotional" (2)deleting section headers for most of the first half of the article so it becomes one extremely long single section (3)deleting content (some of it unreferenced, some of it referenced) in the name of "trimming excessive detail" (an objective I would strongly suggest is in disregard of

  WP:N#NCONTENT)

  More seriously, the user has left the article in a state of chaotic disrepair. As well as (2) above, sections of the article have been moved around clumsily - for example quotes from a 2000 interview with Ant's then manager Bryan Stanton regarding the then state of Ant's recording career have been moved to the Personal Life section. Also input in there is a section, unsourced and seemingly from a recent press interview, which repeatedly refers to Ant by his legal name Goddard, inconsistent with the use of "Ant" throughout the remainder of the article and indeed the article title. A section on the late 1980s and Ant's concentration on acting has been moved out of the main biography to the end. One edit removed under (3) above was the deletion of sections referring to Ant's lost album Persuasion all the remaining section headers up to the present day appear as subheaders of "Solo Career 1982-1985". Reference #161 was orphaned (although this has been resolved by AnimeBOT). A reference to Biography in a later section header has been deleted - this actually referred to Ant's autobiography, the publication of which is covered in the section.

  I did offer a revised version taking in legitimate concerns raised by Amadscientist about certain section headers and other issues and adding sources and clarification, however this has been rejected out of hand by the user as "Unconstructive" who then reverted back to his/her last version. My revised version can be seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam_Ant&oldid=543465969 . I also wrote on the user's talkpage offering constructive cooperation on improving the article - this appears to have been simply ignored. I still also wrote on the article talkpage suggesting that the user reinstate section headings - so far this too has been ignored, not even so much as an explanation why not to restore headings. The reversion by Amadscientist (edit 543468450) is the only work he/she has carried out on the article since 9 March except for an (acceptable) reversion of copyrighted material by another user (edit 543359890).

  I do not think it is acceptable for Amadscientist to leave the article in this state, looking frankly like roadworks abandoned overnight. Since I do not wish to engage in a revert war with him/her, I would ask for a sufficiently privileged Administrator to intervene. I myself would recommend reversion back to edit 543465969. I would concede it is not perfect but it is considerably better than the state which Amadscientist has chosen to leave the article in. 95.144.236.108 (talk) 00:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  Since writing the above, I have found that Amadscientist has posted a constructive reply to the article talkpage to which I am responding. I would still however welcome some intervention by an administrator. 95.144.236.108 (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  Looks to me like he is in the process of trying to improve the article to get it to

  talk) 00:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I don't see any need for admin intervention here. Garden variety content dispute. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  It's not just content, it's the general state of chaos & disrepair Amadscientist has left the article in since last working on it. It can't just be left like that. 95.144.236.108 (talk) 02:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  And those are issues for the article talk page. Administrators are not content referees. If a user is acting in good faith then the situation needs to be addressed editorially. Tiderolls 02:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  I just looked at every version since Amadscientist stated working on it, and I see zero evidence for the "general state of chaos & disrepair" claimed above. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

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

  Men's rights movement (again)
  Resolved

   – CSDarrow (talk · contribs) has been blocked by Drmies for 72 hours

  Recently, there has been an influx of new editors. It appears that some of Reddit's men's rights activists were invited to edit the article which is on article probation. In this difficult editing environment, CSDarrow (talk · contribs) has repeatedly tried to remove sourced material, sometimes using questionable edit summaries suggesting that he "moved" something when in fact he deleted and rewrote, calling someone's edits disruptive or referring to prior discussions which did not yield support for his position [115][116][117][118][119]. There is no consensus for CSDarrow's edits, quite the opposite actually, see Talk:Men's rights movement#Removal of Williams.2C 1995 and the two subsections. Today, I left a reminder on CSDarrow's talk page that the article is on article probation and that he appears to be edit warring to remove sourced material against consensus. In response, he called me "ignorant peasant" and basically blamed me for everything that is wrong with the article. I consider this a pretty clear violation of the terms of the article probation.

  I bring this here because KillerChihuahua seems to be absent. I hope that additional experienced editors can have an eye on the article as new Reddit users arrive or if those already arrived need further instructions. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  The above is such a shocking distortion of the truth that frankly Sonicyouth should be suspended. The fact that some Admin here have so quickly jumped to act on his word smells of cronyism. Any disciplinary system has to be utterly fair, consistent and strictly guided by procedure. Strategically positioned discretionary power, invested in trusted individuals, enriches the system. It must not only be fair but also appear fair.

  If you veer from these principles, because of the nature of the human beast, the system will inevitable drift towards despotism and the peasants will revolt. Sargon knew all of this when he developed the Hammurabic code; as did the hunter gatherer chieftains who preceded him. Wikipedia has been around long enough to develop an institutional culture. It is time to take stock of that culture because in parts cronyism and unfettered discretionary power has taken root; some of the peasants are revolting.

  I was bizarrely suspended for a different reason before I was even given a chance to respond to these charges. The ultimate root cause of that suspension can be traced back to what I have described above. Hasteur has made the only wise comment here.

  CSDarrow (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

  • CSDarrow has been warned: any next battleground move or personal attack should be met with a block. That talk page situation is ridiculous, but I'm no expert in the history of the article and cannot act expeditiously. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, those arbitration guidelines indicate that any sufficiently uninvolved admin may et cetera. I am so sufficiently uninvolved that I had to read those guidelines. As it turns out, CSDarrow was made aware of them in September 2012 yet chose to edit war; I've listed four instances of edit-warring on their talk page, right above the standard block template. I've given them three days to read up; no verdict on other disruptive edits. It's time for my lunch break, as Sheriff Bart said--I hope KillerChihuahua will clock in soon to have a look. Drmies (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks, Drmies. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Point of order, it's not an arbcom remedy, but a probation added by the community for significant disruption in the area.Hasteur (talk) 12:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  User:Eeekster
  The reporting editor found a

  boomerang returning to them. De728631 (talk) 14:45, 12 March 2013 (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.

  ---

  Admins,

  Please help.

  talk) 21:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Moved here from WP:AN, since this is an incident report. Nyttend (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  The reporter has persisted in removing delete templates without correcting the problems. Claims I can't add them because I'm not an admin. Already reported as vandalism before this incident was opened. Eeekster (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  I've left a 3RR warning for JaMikePA; he should be blocked if he continue anywhere else. Both parties have gone past 3RR on numerous files, but Eeekster has been doing it for the sake of enforcing our copyright policies, so he should be praised rather than sanctioned for it. Nyttend (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) Eekster's modifications to

  Stefan2 (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  And http://www.stadiumjourney.com/stadiums/sovereign-bank-stadium-s369/images (image #3) is the third of those images. It has no permissions statement, and the copyright statement unambiguously claims copyright for all content. He says at his talk that he's forwarded permissions emails to OTRS, so I'll not speedy-delete it, but I strongly doubt that we're going to get an {{attribution}} permission for images from this source. Nyttend (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

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

  LittleBenW, diacritics topic ban, and personal attacks (yet again)
  Resolved

   – LittleBenW blocked for one week. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  LittleBenW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) violated his diacritics topic ban yet again, even after a block for it and further warnings as detailed below:

  • Black Kite warning: "You are not allowed to edit or comment on anything diacritics-related anywhere on Wikipedia, except for appealing your ban", 2 March 2013.
  • LittleBenW posts combatively several times in a "diacritics in article titles" debate at
    WP:ANI that does not involve him, even un-hatting
    some else's attempt to stop his and others' "sideshow" of personal flaming, 8 March 2013.
  • LittleBenW makes a post in article talk drawing attention to diacritics disputes, 9 March 2013.
  • LittleBenW again re-involves himself in diacritics, 10 March 2013, at a
    WP:AE
    case not involving him but another "diacritics in article titles" issue.
  • Warned by Sandstein that this seemed to violate his topic ban and by Joy [shallot] that he was headed for a block, 10 March 2013.
  • I wasn't going to say anything about it, but he did it again anyway, with defiant verbal fist-shaking against Joy [shallot], 11 March 2013, and then did it again, 11 March 2013, in trying to turn an AE request into a threaded discussion for a third time.
  • Notification to LittleBenW by me of this ANI.

  I'm sure he'll accuse me of "

  despite many warnings to avoid them. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 00:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  This name seems to be showing up fairly often on these boards. I'll have a look — Ched :  ?  01:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I've suggested that SMcCandlish let others look after this for a bit, but it appears that his observations, links, and assessments are accurate.
  • I've blocked LittleBenW for one week, and notified him that I have done so. I didn't bother with a template as the account appears to be quite familiar with the procedure by acquiring 4 blocks in as many months. I don't see cause for blocking talkpage access at this time, and I've informed him of our "helpme" template.
  • Any administrator is fully welcome to review the situation and make adjustments that they feel are needed. I'll leave any "closing" or marking of resolved to this thread to someone else. — Ched :  ?  01:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  As I told Black Kite (the admin who most recently warned LittleBenW on his talk page), I have tried to ignore LittleBenW's attacks in his diacritics rants at WP:AE, but even after two more administrative warnings there regarding them, he just wouldn't stop, and even started lambasting those warning him. I trusted that admins at AE would deal with it, but one explicitly declined to do so, saying AE wasn't the right venue for topic-ban enforcement. There has been a strong general theme of "use the appropriate dispute resolution forum" everywhere lately. Thus I brought it up here; if this is not the right place/format/whatever, please let me know. While I believe that

  bureaucracy on Wikipedia over the last year or so. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 02:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  Black Kite is a top-notch admin and editor. Now, if there were an "unban me" request, and they confined their comments; respectfully and focused on his own "topic ban", then yes - I'd not block them. The snark and focus on another editor (Fyunck) was why I feel justified in blocking. — Ched :  ?  02:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  Even regardless of that, his complete and utter determination not to stick to his topic ban, despite several warnings, deserved a block I reckon. I truly hope he gets the idea now, but I'm not exactly hopeful. (He's been warned multiple times about incivility - especially attributing motives to other editors that are figments of his imagination - before as well). Black Kite (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  This has been going on way too long. Blocking is the only remedy we have when a user refuses to follow an editing restriction, so yeah, right call. Hopefully Ben will now understand that the only thing that will be accomplished by his continued ignoring of the restriction is that blocks will increase in length with each subsequent incident and his best course of action is to respect the restriction. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Can't say I disagree with this, their attitude to Hijiri, which is the only time I've come across them, was disgusting. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  Carptrash, personal attacks and incivility in Talk:Men's rights movement

  I really hope I'm in the right place, that it's appropriate I'm adding this and that I'm not out of line in thinking this is unacceptable. Their activity when I logged in to take notes about some more sources pushed it over the edge for a second time for me to try and figure out how to resolve this. The

  Men's Rights Movement article was probably one of the worst choices for me to pick to try and dramatically improve as a first one. I was completely clueless about the topic, which is what I was looking for, and expected that there may be some heated discussions from people who held particular perspectives, but User:Carptrash
  seems completely unwilling to take part in the discussion outside of verbal assaults, political grandstanding, personal attacks, and completely ignoring civil and straightforward questions trying to move the discussion forward. I've tried to link to a large selection of the relevant diffs below, in chronological order.
  • here, here and here were my first introduction to them.
  • here, here, here, here and here where I mistakenly spent time grabbing exact pages numbers for a source I was studying at the time, not realizing they would be completely ignored instead.
  • here continues to not even contribute to the discussion except sarcastically suggesting a clean slate approach.
  • here continues having an obvious bias against new editors and the topic of the article under discussion.
  • here is more sarcasm and bias
  • What I saw when I logged in to collect some more sources was this (first change they made to the article since I started working on it) with a corresponding comment on the talk page of this. And had decided to let the admin's who had warned them know about the issues here and here.

  I haven't discussed with them on their talk page, but I'm really not sure what I could say that would help resolve it. I don't know why they feel the need to attack everything (or nearly everything) me and a couple of new (and not-so-new) editors do, why I'm lumped in with those other editors in their mind other than having started editing around the same time or what I've done to deserve the treatment leveled in my direction. Thanks, Ismarc (talk) 06:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  Before you go any further would you like to try checking your bias at the door? Phrases such as "where I mistakenly spent time grabbing exact pages numbers for a source I was studying at the time, not realizing they would be completely ignored instead" are 100% unhelpful to diffusing the situation.Hasteur (talk) 12:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Patrolling admin comments: I'm aware of Carptrash's sarcasm, but I do not feel it has risen to the level of sanctionable yet. He's been a mix of disruptive, pointy, but also has been helpful with reviewing sources. His bias against new editors has been my primary concern for which he's been warned; it's hostile and exceeds normal caution towards new editors. I do not see any administrator enforcement necessary at this time and I'll keep my eyes on the topic area. However, Carptrash might consider taking some time away anyway until they relax a bit.--v/r - TP 13:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Uninvolved Comment: Observing the actions taken by Cartrash, I concur with both Hasteur and TParis on this matter. My main concern is the ninth diff, where Cartrash makes a rather offensive analogy towards Jerusalem. Is such a comment acceptable? Shiny Bauble 14:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  Fly, my pretties....
  • Betsyrossmadison (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

  This problem started with the rants on

  Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin. Drmies and I have both tried to talk to them on their own talk page as uninvolved editors, encouraging them to engage rather than enrage, but looking at their last post on my talk page, where they just rant more and call other editors my "wiki minions" [120], I question their motives. Their continued ranting on that article talk page screams "POV" as well. While they raised some interesting points (and Drmies and I both acknowledged that, yet they failed to notice) their methods are less than optimal, to the point of being disruptive. It is 3 am, can't sleep, just stumbled into the kitchen to get a cup of tea and after seeing this rant, I give up. I don't think I can help this person as they don't appear to be here to build an encyclopedia. So, my dear wiki minions, I leave them in your charge. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 07:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • While notifying User:Drmies on his talk page, I noticed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Betsyrossmadison, so wanted to point that out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 07:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  I'm not the best sock hunter in the drawer, but I've blocked for 31 hours, "

  disruptive editing". Any admin. is fully welcome to review and adjust the block. — Ched :  ?  08:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  Good to know my fellow cabalists are on patrol ;-) Someone else defrocked the sock at SPI. I think we are done here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  Well, that's just great. Another POV warrior with too many feet. Dennis, "defrocking a sock" is an expression I cannot accept and I'll mark it in your admin log. In reference to the SPI, if Betsy comes back sailing the same

  boarded, redirected to port by an administrative pilot, and chained to the quay indefinitely at that moment, I suppose. See, Dennis, it's not easy to not mix metaphors, but it's worth trying. One final note: my oldest just did a class presentation on Betsy Ross, and I have a lightly-used size 8 colonial dress for sale. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  Issue with Wikipedia:Esperanza

  According tot he Esperanza page, an issue with the following hidden text is causing the entire full page version of the Signpost to appear on the page. I'm not sure if this is an isolated problem, or if it is not how exactly to fix it, so I'm leaving it here in hopes that someone can look into it and figure out if there is a problem and if so how to fix it. Thanks in advance, TomStar81 (Talk) 09:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I've fixed the problem by removing the links from the template and placing them back in standard format. I'm sure someone will come along with something more elegant though. Black Kite (talk) 12:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • It wasn't the current version of the Signpost - the links were to pages from 18 February, and the problem was caused by transclusion of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/sandbox, which was edited recently. Protection of the Wikipedia:Esperanza page is probably unnecessary. Peter James (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  Blackdoom77
  • Blackdoom77 (talk · contribs)

  Serial author of copyright violation articles, continuing unabated after warnings, without response or explanation. All of their edits, including additions to categories, merit review. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  Yeah, not pretty so far. Chasing them down now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  Indeed--this goes back to 2011, so I'm still tagging for copyright violations and/or speedy deletion. The sources aren't even reliable. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  Can anyone comment on these IP addresses

  At

  talk) 18:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  The two IPv4 addresses come from the same geographic area, but the IPv6 comes from half a world away. IPv4 are probably the same person.--v/r - TP 18:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks. However, I know that it is possible to use IP addresses half a world away, I'm just not sure if this is one of those where it's possible.

  talk) 21:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  The IPv6 address is owned by Hurricane Electric, so they might be using HE's IPv6 tunnel broker service to switch their IPv4 address to an IPv6 one. -- 92.2.76.62 (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  Whatever he is using Hurricane Electric for, what I can tell you is that the geolocation of a Hurricane IP has literally no relationship to the user's actual location, and is often in the wrong country. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  Well there you have it. I was just about to say I know little about IPv6 and I was going to ping User:Jasper_Deng but Someguy1221 seems to know what he's talking about.--v/r - TP 22:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  Dougweller, I wouldn't dignify these accounts' credibility by adding the factual accuracy template. The claim that this is Roman is supported by reliable sources, but we haven't seen references that claim otherwise. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 22:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  Collingwood26: concerns about POV-driven editing and extreme talk page posts
  This appears to have run its course. Collingwood26 has committed to an effort to abide by policy. As noted in their rapidly escalating block log, the project does not take

  personal attacks lightly, but neither should we demand a degrading display of groveling. Let's all move on to more productive efforts. Closing note to Collinwood26, you've likely picked up a few more eyes on your work here, so please make sure that the "save page" button will reflect what you want to convey. User:Ched

  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.

  ---

  Collingwood26 (talk · contribs) has a long history of editing motivated by an extreme Australian nationalist POV, including some occasional edit warring. They were blocked last September for this extreme talk page comment and were blocked earlier in the year for similar abuse of myself ([121]), but this conduct continues to occur in articles concerning Australian history or race and religion. Post-block examples include:

  • Sustained edit warring to include a special claim that 15,000 Australian soldiers were "enslaved" following the Battle of Singapore (in January: [122] (edit summary of "How dare you try to erase it from history, you seem to be extremely anti-Australian Nick-D!"; I'm actually Australian), [123] (edit summary includes "over 15 thousand of us were enslaved, people like you just want to cover it up"), [124]) and this has just re-started without any talk page discussion [125]. Almost all the 80,000 Allied soldiers captured at Singapore were used as forced labourers by the Japanese, with Australians not relieving different treatment to the other national groups.
  • Accusations of Anti-Australian 'racism' when criticised: [126] ("Your going to have me banned just because I write articles about Australian battles? Racist much?" in response to a well-founded complaint about a clear copyright violation),
  • A claim that Asians somehow can't be Australian at
    Talk:Asian Australian as only people descended from the original fleet of British convicts are 'Australian': [127]
  • An obviously related removal of old talk page posts discussing the claimed presence of black convicts in the First Fleet [128]
  • Clearly anti-semitic trolling [129]

  Overall, it seems to me that Collingwood26 is mainly here to push his views and the blocks imposed last year have not been successful in getting him to change his ways. Can an univolved admin please look into this? Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Collingwood26 does seem to be pushing a nationalistic POV. The talk page trolling and personal attacks are completely unacceptable. They have made a number of good contributions though, so perhaps they just need a serious attitude adjustment. I would be interested hearing how they explain these interactions. - MrX 02:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  What a load of bull I have been nothing but harrassed on this site by Nick D and his cohort who want nothing more than to remove Australia's roles in wars from the history books.--Collingwood26 (talk) 02:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  Are those not your diffs up ^ there? Did you not write "White Race / Why do the Jews want to exterminate the White Race? Aren't they white themselves?" What harassment have you received that you thinks justifies this? - MrX 03:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  ...or this?

  No comment on anything else, but this last link would be reasonable if there weren't sub-articles such as the ones linked in the response. Nyttend (talk) 04:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  Harrassment? NickD has continually denied the truth throughout Australian military history articles. He has deleted articles in which I have said "15,000 Australians were enslaved", BUT if you look at the REAL history 15,000 Australians WERE enslaved. NickD is nothing more than a conartist, a lier, and a manipulative theif who seeks to impose his own viewpoints abusing the authority he has.--Collingwood26 (talk) 04:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  This is nothing more than blatent discrimination of Australian wikipedia members. This witchhunt you seem so keen on to ban any Australian members is outrageous!--Collingwood26 (talk) 04:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  Please stop the

  personal attacks. They're a violation of our policies and they're not helping your argument. Content issues can be resolved by discussion on article talk pages, starting with reliable sources and calm, rational arguments. - MrX 05:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  The funny side of this is that I'm Australian and have written about a dozen FAs on Australian military history. But this illustrates how Collingwood operates. Nick-D (talk) 05:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  Let me get this straight, Nick-D (an Australian) raises some, in my opinion, very legitimate concerns about Collingwood (also Australian) and Collingwood's response is that it is a witchhunt to "ban any" Australian member? Sorry, what did i miss? I (also an Australian) am suggesting a chill pill needs to be taken. --Merbabu (talk) 05:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  I see your point, but even if NickD is Australian then why does he revert my edit about 15 thousand Australians being enslaved? Do you dispute these facts because I can show you reliable sources for these!!!--Collingwood26 (talk) 07:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  Mate, then show him those sources and have a

  Australian). Stalwart111 08:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  By the way, if 15,000 Australians were "enslaved", I'd want that noted somewhere too. But the way to do that is to present such a claim in a reasonable manner, with sources, and discuss it if someone disputes it (it's a big claim, so expect there to be some questions at least). But trying to spam it into articles then screaming CENSORSHIP! when someone removes it is about the worst possible way of trying to get that done. Stalwart111 08:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  I have read some of the books by/about those POWs, albeit decades ago. The POWs were treated very badly, but not enslaved. Another Australian -- CWC 10:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  I’m the editor (NOT Nick-D) who reverted the most recent of Collingwood26s “enslaved” edits, with a repeated request that the author take their ideas to the talk page. They failed to do this. The hysterical response that accompanies these edits is so irrational I have occasionally wondered if it’s genuine. However, other editors probably choose to ignore these outbursts, as I generally do. In my opinion there is no doubt they breach WP standards and at best they are tiresome and disruptive. (Yet another Aussie)Nickm57 (talk) 08:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  Okay, well he can show you, I don't really care as long as he shows someone instead of claiming "racism" or "censorship" when someone reverts an edit. Nobody should have to put up with that sort of crap. Stalwart111 08:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  I agree with the concerns raised by Nick-D here (and others). Like several other Australian editors I have also found cause to revert some of his recent edits at

  Battle of Singapore. Whilst Collingwood26 has made some valuable contributions in the past, more recently his behaviour has only been disruptive. When he first appeared I had hoped that with some help from more experienced editors he might develop into a valuable contributor but this doesn't seem to have occurred. Claims of conspiracies against Australian editors are nothing short of embarrassing, and accusations that Nick-D is somehow trying to lessen recognition of Australian wartime involvement ignore his numerous high quality articles in this area. Anotherclown (talk) 09:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  I agree with the observation above, I've interacted with Collingwood26 on more than one occasion in the past and found him to be quite polite and understanding of the decisions reached by others, however his recent comments are quite provocative in nature, not only do the comments violate

  WP:CIVIL. I suggest he take a short Wikibreak to calm his nerves. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 10:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  Well there is not much point in me arguing with all of you, do what you want whether you ban me or not.Nothing I say cn change your minds anyhow.--Collingwood26 (talk) 11:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  True, continued arguing is counterproductive. The question is whether Collingwood is willing to commit forgoing the comments about other editors and disruptive behavior, such as removing sections of talk pages. If they believe being right about Australian history justifies behavior contrary to Wikipedians practices and norms they are not going to find Wikipedia enjoyable and should find another pastime. NE Ent 11:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  Well, Collingwood? Drmies (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  I guess I can behave myself--Collingwood26 (talk) 01:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

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

  Odes of Solomon

  I tried to edit this entry because the original article had a link to (King) Solomon, son of King David. I wanted to correct this since the Odes of Solomon are attributed to someone named Solomon, but they were written in the 1st century A.D., so they were not written by King Solomon of the Old Testament.

  I've edited other things on Wikipedia with no problem, but, apparently, I messed up on this entry. I would appreciate an administrator trying to fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.253.230 (talk) 07:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I just reverted in good faith. I don't quite know enough to incorporate that information without further study, and the link you provided was interesting, but I'm not sure if it passes
    WP:RS on its own. Usually, when you break the formatting that way, the best thing is to just revert yourself and add the raw material on the talk page, asking someone who is more familiar with the subject matter to work it in. I still do that from time to time, drop a note on the talk page when I'm not sure how/what to add, but have some facts that are worth adding by someone more familiar. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 08:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
    • 98.200.253.230 needs to read the Pseudepigrapha article. The Solomon that the name "Odes of Solomon" refers to is the biblical Solomon, not "someone named Solomon (but not King Solomon of the Old Testament)". That the ascription is false doesn't change that, and the source cited by 98.200.253.230 doesn't say anything about this supposed other person of the same name. Deor (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Wow, haven't thought of the Odes since an undergraduate paper in 2007! For future reference, the technical problem with your edit was the string of <ref> and </ref> tags with nothing in between them. The software will get angry if you don't put anything inside ref tags, apparently. What's more, you can always revert yourself if you don't like what happened: click the "History" button and find your edit, next to which you can see an "Undo" link. Click it and save the changes; this will put the page back to the way it was before you edited it. Nyttend (talk) 02:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  Legal threats at Talk:René Redzepi

  I am seeing legal threats at Talk:René Redzepi: Diff --Guy Macon (talk) 09:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  The diff does not appear to be a threat as per the

  BWilkins←✎) 09:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  Please read again as there has been no legal threat to anybody. What I wrote to the User "The Banner" is the legal consequences he might be liable in case he deliberately writes false or half truthful information about a living person. If someone writes on Wiki, for instance, that Schwarzenegger is an ethnic Dutch, and not Austrian, he has all the right to sue the author for spreading false information about his person. That's not a direct threat coming from me, that is the law! Etimo (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  Though not a direct legal threat, the

  chilling effect is still evident. Support indef.--WaltCip (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  Certainly doesn't deserve an indef. There is a fine line between creating an improper chilling effect, and trying to warn someone in good faith of the potential consequence of their acts. I would advise Etimo to be very careful when discussing this type of thing, and that avoiding it is probably better, but I don't see anything actionable about the comment. Monty₈₄₅ 16:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  But that also depends on the subject matter. There is nothing at all suggesting that we are dealing with

  WP:BLP violations or anything like that in this dispute which would require a friendly warning of legal consequences. And this means that mentioning legal implications can only be interpreted as a chilling effect attempt. Etimo has also made frivolous accusations of racism in the same discussion. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  For what it is worth, when I filed this it looked to me like, at most, a possible 24-hour block, and possibly a 24-hour block for bad behavior on the other side of this dustup, if any. I didn't imagine anyone suggesting an indef. That would be like swatting a fly with a bulldozer. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks for your comments. I agree the line might have sounded a bit intimidatory in that contest, although the intention was mere informational in nature. The discussion with the user "The Banner" has become a bit overheated, that tends to happen when someone avoids questions on the discussion topic. The accusation of Racism or prejudice, were made as a personal final evaluation of both the user's general attitude in the discussion (tendency not to read carefully people's comments or simply ignoring, giving short, unexhaustive answers to arguments, avoiding direct questions) and his rhetorical question about a particular ethnic group, totally unrelevant with the discussion. This brought me to accuse him of being biased or having prejudice. Of course that is my personal opinion, I might be wrong. Despite everything though, I'm confident things will cool down soon. Thanks again Etimo (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  That will completely depend on your behaviour. It was you accusing me of racism and prejudice because I kept asking for reliable sources instead of the YouTube-clips and blogs you offered initially. It was you who went to war about the ethnicity of his father. It was you, who dumped the case at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard without properly knowing what they can do. So stop kidding, I have been polite enough towards you. The Banner talk 19:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  You have been shown politely other reliable sources and asked to substitute the poor one you provided but you deliberately refused to do it without never giving any explanation to that. You have been repeatedly asked politely (quote: "if you are so kind to edit the article..", "if you are so kind to show us your evidence..") to edit the article, but you purposely refused to do it with a cocky and mocking attitude. You have been told why the ethnicity of the person in question was important and worth mentioning, but you deliberately made a deaf ear giving provocative and unrelevant answers ("there must be some local Albanian atists, scientists...??") and accuse me of "going to war for ethnicity"(??). You was asked to watch the video-interviews which supported the evidence provided, but you again, refused to do so. You provided false information (lied, basically) on the DRB by saying that I was the ordinary "POV-pusher" providing uacceptable "YouTube videos and blogs" as evidence, while the evidence we provided was quite different (as it turned out), and had my account being investigated for Sockpuppeting. Why? Because I was able to fill the DRB form..actually, because you didn't like that someone else was pointing out that you were wrong. So you might have been "polite" enough, but we have been patient enough. If I have said something out of the line, I sincerely apologize (I thought at first you were another Macedonian nationalist). Now, for my part, I have nothing more to add to the issue!! Etimo (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  User:Aeusetereleiea

  Would like to report a case of constant disruptive editing and vandalism against

  The Mentalist (season 5) page (as can be seen in their history) and has launched several personal attacks against myself when I reverted the edits. The user has demonstrated on several occasions that they are unable (or unwilling) to learn the rules and work alongside editors and now seems to just want to cause trouble. Their latest edits here and here demonstrate that this user has now taken to vandalising both my user page and talk page. I'm not sure exactly what steps should be taken, but I have a feeling that this is the kind of user who is just going to keep on going and going with their disruptions. Thank you. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 05:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  I have protected the article from editing, as there was a clear edit war going on there. Please be aware that this is not the only course of action to be justified by the editing history, see

  WP:BOOMERANG. Remember that next time, you should not get drawn into an edit war, even if you believe you are in the right. Remember, the other person believes that too, and you can both be blocked even if you believe you are correct. You both could have been blocked here, but I think this is the best way to handle this. Discuss the matter civilly on the article talk page, and when consensus develops, protection can be lifted. --Jayron32 05:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  But that's what I am trying to say, there is no way to discuss the matter civilly with this editor. I have tried a number of times to discuss the addition of unsourced material to the page but have gotten no response and they simply continue to add it. This has been going on for months. The editor blatantly and knowingly flaunts the rules, having said that learning them is a waste of time and has on numerous occasions verbally abused me, having called me retarded, a fucker, a loser, a control freak and once asked if I was being medicated. I take responsibility for being drawn into an edit war this time, but only because I have had enough dealing with an arrogant, self-righteous editor who flat-out refuses to co-operate or even consider familiarising themselves with the rules. That is what I am hoping to have some help with, because this is just going to go on and on. When you un-protect the page, they'll start up again with exactly the same disruptive edits. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 05:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  (uninvolved, unsolicited, non-admin opinion) An admin should take a closer look at the subject user's contrib history. If nothing else, they need to be made aware that what SchrutedIt08 is trying to tell them is correct, since they don't seem to want to hear it or co-operate. An incivility cool-off for some of the personal crap wouldn't be at all out of line. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Schrutedit08 got the point, I think Aeusetereleiea should be block from editing, not the article of

  The Mentalist (season 5) itself. I think if we unblocked the article, Aeusetereleiea might continue what he was doing to the article. The admin should take a closer at the contributions and what he said in each of his edit summaries and then blocked him from editing and then unprotect The Mentalist (season 5). That would be fine by us. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  You may have misunderstood me. That was what I said – that Aeusetereleiea needed to cool off and listen to what Schrutedit08 was telling them. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  I wasn't referring to you, AlanM1. I was just pointing something out about what Aeusetereleiea has been doing and he be banned from anything related to the Mentalist or blocked from editing. not to mention that the article The Mentalist (season 5) should be unprotected. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  I'm with Battleshipman. Hopefully Aeusetereleiea can be made to see reason, but the priority for me is to get the page unblocked (though I'm not exactly sure how to go about accompishing that) as a bunch of new episode and ratings information has become available and an edit request has already been made for the page. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 01:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  No, no, no. You have it all wrong. If I were to launch attacks against any editor than a lot more people would be hearing about it. I vandalised no one page, I'd happyily show you how to do that if you want. If you just adopted the same editing skills as sites like The Mentalist Wiki and actually put up new episodes ect, then you'd actually have a successful page. Anyway, you're all wasting your time worrying over what I'll do next. Unless of course your computer geeks, then it's in your nature to spend your time fixing and editing and editing and fixing and doing something else that I won't mention (sensitive topic). But if you wanna waste your time, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeusetereleiea (talk • contribs) 06:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  We put up new episodes all the time. Right now I'm waiting for the page to be unblocked so that I can put up more information on episodes 5x18 and 5x19. Specialized Wikis are often mismanaged and do not hold to the same standards as this site. What we are trying to impress upon you, Aeusetereleiea, is that the rules are what they are and they're not going to change just because you don't like them or can't be bothered learning them. If you want to add episode titles and air dates, that's fine, but you have to provide a reliable source to back-up your additions, otherwise it will just be removed. If you agree to do that, great. There's no reason we can't all get along and edit the page as long as Wikipedia's guidelines are being adhered to. If you're just going to keep doing what you've been doing, then this will just continue on and on. Do you really want to waste your time adding information, having it reverted and getting into situations like this? I've got better things to do (in spite of your delightfully condescending remarks above). So can we come to some understanding about this or do we just have to get you blocked from editing? -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 06:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  The Mentalist (season 5) blocked by Wiki admin to where the administrators can only edit. You wasted your time with your feud with SchrutedIt08 on your edit war, forcing him to revert your unsourced edits and that forced Wiki admin to block that article only to admin access. I do hope you understand what you done to that article and learn from your mistakes. Specialized Wikis don't hold the same standards as this site does, like SchrutedIt08 said above. It's apparent to all of us that you're a disruptive editor. Therefore, you're out of line with your edits on The Mentalist (season 5) article and it has gone far enough to be blocked by admin of Wikipedia. So you have two choices, Aeusetereleiea. Be patient, read the Wikipedia guidelines, wait for a reliable source before you edit any future episode titles of The Mentalist, and, when you learn from those guidelines and find the reliable source, we will have a understanding between us. Because if you keep on doing what you've been doing on that article, you be blocked from editing this site. Think about that? BattleshipMan (talk) 08:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  Need admin help . . . Mangoeater1000 is vandalizing my user subpage

  See here for vandalism by Mangoeater1000 sockpuppet. An SPI case is languishing at SPI due to backlog. Please block User:Slawtony vigorgusto and protect my user sub pages. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  Account nuked and I protected your sandbox. Could you please list the other pages he's targeting? Elockid ^(Talk) 23:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  That's a long list, Elockid. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  Tor Proxy
  Resolved

  — Ched :  ?  08:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  This is a regular editor of Wikipedia. I am looking at Tor proxies and saw that this one is unblocked. Please block it as soon as possible. --188.95.52.40 (talk) 00:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  I think the proper place to request a tor proxy to be blocked is at

  Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies.OakRunner (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  This seems to turn up negative, but this seems to turn up positive. Huh. — 

  ^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 00:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  Our editor, whoever it is, seems to have demonstrated that it's a proxy, so I've blocked it definitely. Nyttend (talk) 02:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  Someone reblocked it to a year. It was more interesting the way you had it - 3 decades plus 1 year plus some fraction of a year. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  User:GAtechnical
  Suicide by admin: GATechnical indeffed and talk page access revoked after TParis' unblock decline was reverted by GAT with the comment "Paris bollocks we alll know about the one word unblocks".

  IDHT is not effective against unblock declines. JohnCD (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2013 (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.

  ---

  This is my first time, and hopefully my last time, I have to report a user's actions to this noticeboard.

  WP:RM guidelines to start a new discussion, has verbally attacked other editors by calling them names, and is masking comments on their own talk page to hide the evidence of this discussion. Here are the distructive diffs on the page Talk:Julia Görges

  :

  1 2 3 4 5 6 7

  ...and here is the edits that GAtechnical has performed on their own talk page to hide the fact that they were sent talk page vandalism warnings, as well as verbally attacking another editor with profanity:

  1 2 3

  As requested in the editnotice, I will also send these to the email address provided, as well as apply the proper template onto GAtechnical's talk page. Thank you for your time. Steel1943 (talk) 09:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  Nothing wrong with deleting your own comments on ones own talk page. Where have I called anyone names, oh right on deleted comments how very sad you are steel to try and get another editor banned all because you don't agree, grow up, becuase ignorant is a fact not a childish name calling word. Also I moved the page as per wiki policy on

  WP:Diacritics and then going around saying that all UK press are unrelaibla as the don't use accents which is basically bollocks as they are then getting non English sources to support themselves which again is a violation of what is written in diacritics. GAtechnical (talk) 09:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  For the record:

  1. I am not stating that deleting information from a talk page is wrong. My point in bringing up this fact is the profanity that was used during this time on the talk page.
  2. The move discussion was not closed properly, leading multiple editors who were involved on the
     Talk:Julia Goerges talk page who warned GAtechnical
     regarding their disruptive edits on the talk page, even if GAtechnical was the one who initiated the move request.
  3. The move request was not closed properly after there had already been at least one editor involved in the discussion, as well as the fact that there are already two move discussions on
     bold
     move would have been controversial anyways (such is this case.)
  4. Rather than discussion these actions with involved parties, GAtechnical disruptively moved the article/talk page, and said disparaging remarks to other editors. At the point where other editors are involved, they have to be involved in the final discussion/talk. Either that, or the discussion should have been formally closed by the submitter (GAtechincal), which resulted in sections on the
     Talk:Julia Goerges
     being blanked rather than the discussion being formally closed to retain attribution to all of the editors who were already involved in the discussion.

  Steel1943 (talk) 10:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  Not those users are not following wiki policy so it doesn't matter what they think. 2. one it's not controversial when following the policy properly so i'm entitled to move it and keep it at the proper English name as per the policy i cited. 3. your the one being a vandal and disruptive by undoing the move which in noway is controversial, but it is to move it back to Gorges as it is not English. 4. If you're bring me here for that do it yourself instead of being disruptive. 5.Yes you were stating that deleting stuff is wrong with your trying to mask it policy and no i'm not swearing at another editor since I've removed the comments so I have no idea why you're bring it up. Steel withdraw this request as you blatantly haven't grasped the rules. or how to use templates properly. GAtechnical (talk) 10:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  • And now, GAtechnical is vandalizing my own talk page as shown in this diff: [130]. Steel1943 (talk) 10:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  Not my fault steel can't use the template properly. Not vandalism. GAtechnical (talk) 10:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  Refactoring or removing another editor's comments persistently is something you can be blocked for, GATechnical. Editing/deleting another editor's comments on that editor's talk page should not be done unless it is a direct violation of policy, e.g.

  consensus to move. As a final point, your constant harping about another's English is entirely an attack made particularly ironic when your own posts are laden with spelling and grammatical errors. Blackmane (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  I have blocked GATechnical for three days for edit-warring and removing comments from talk pages, moved that article back to Julia Görges, and move-protected it for a week. Two previous RMs decided on that title, and it should not be moved unless the currently open RM reaches a consensus to do so. I have no objection if any admin reading all the diffs above decides that GATechnical's conduct deserves a longer block; any resumption of edit-warring on this issue after his block expires will certainly incur one. JohnCD (talk) 10:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  I probably would have blocked for longer - their multiple attempts at justifying their actions above by basically saying "I'm right, I'm right, I'm right, fuck you" makes me believe that we will have future issues once this short block is over. However, I'd play it this way: when the block expires, if GATech a) performs one more controvertial move OR taunts/attacks Steel (or indeed, anyone who disagrees with a move) anywhere on the project, then it's an indef (

  BWilkins←✎) 11:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  I don't think it's done yet. I have reason to believe GAtechnical is now using their IP address as a sockpuppet to make edits to Julia Görges. If/when I have enough evidence, and I post enough disruptive edit notices on that IPs talk page, I'll probably have to start a new discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 11:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  IP blocked, for edit warring and blatant block evasion. I was planning to second Bwilkins suggestion above (a short leash after a short block), but given these edits I'm inclined to propose an indef, at least until we can be sure that edit-warring and this sort of thing isn't going to be recurrent. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  Aaaaand indefed for

  legal threats. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  That was perhaps the most boneheaded suicide by admins ever. I actually supported his mere 3 day block, and clearly specified his method of proper behaviour in the future in order to avoid an indef, and I get accused of threats, then threatened a lawsuit, and now he's indeffed? When I say "WTF", does it clearly get my WTF-ist point across? 12:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  No, routine use of WTF makes an editor appear overreactive, and, in the transient, semi-anonymous Wikipedia environment would only be effective if used by an editor one was both familiar with and whom did not use it regularly. In that instance, I'd used the explicit "what the fuck" for maximimal impact. (Maybe italicized or bolded, depending on the context of the rest of the contribution.) NE Ent 12:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  I agree with BWilkins that a longer block was appropriate: my 3 days was just for edit warring, but having reviewed the whole story, including blanking an RM that was not going his way and calling people idiots, I went back to extend the block but found he had already been indeffed for legal threats. I have left a note for any reviewing admin that if the indef is lifted any substitute block should be longer than my 3 days, particularly as he has been socking with an IP (see below). JohnCD (talk) 12:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  User:92.18.27.197 ... possible sockpuppet

  Well, it looks like there are issues with edits happening on the Julia Görges article once again. Seems like a user who uses the IP 92.18.27.197 has been making disruptive edits on Julia Görges, changing every mention of her last name's spelling from "Görges" to "Goerges". I've already had to revert three instances, and another user reverted another. Here are the diffs in question:

  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

  Due to the nature of the comments in these diffs, referring to one of my reverts as "vandalism", I have reason to suspect that this IP address is a

  sockpuppet of GAtechnical mentioned in the aforementioned section of this page. I cannot say that with 100% certainty, but someone with check user privileges might be able to find out. Steel1943 (talk) 12:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  • ...And never mind ... looks like administrator Yunshui already took care of business by blocking that IP. Steel1943 (talk) 12:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  • No need for checkuser, this is a
    WP:DUCK. I have semi-protected the article in case he finds another IP. JohnCD (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  Also socking as 92.22.82.168, now blocked. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  I've made this a subsection to the original ANI on GATechnical. Blackmane (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

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

  Kwame Kilpatrick
  Already being discussed at BLPN, no need to bring it to ANI. GiantSnowman 14:33, 13 March 2013 (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.

  ---

  Please review the content that I added to the page for Kwame Kilpatrick. It is being reverted. I say that the man was proven to have made millions in criminal activity and will now be known more for his criminal activity than his other professions like teacher or author. Everything was backed with citations, good citations. Thanks. 76.226.66.20 (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  Being a "criminal" is not a profession. If that is indicative of the type of crap you're trying to put in to the article then the reverts are proper. Tarc (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

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

  Repeated use of derogatory racial epithets in edit summaries by User:Calton
  Unblocked with the condition that "any further use of edit summaries to make any sort of disparaging comments about other editors will lead to another block". --regentspark (comment) 19:10, 13 March 2013 (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.

  ---

  For at least the eighth time on record (see the outcome of an edit summary search here [131]),

  User:Yworo [134], Calton refuses to even acknowledge that he is being uncivil, no less using a racially offsensive epithet. The term is hardly obscure (see, for example [135]

  .
  I therefore call on any uninvolved administrator to indefinitely block User:Calton until he acknowledges the gross misconduct involved and publicly commits to the community that he will not commit such misbehaviour again. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  Speaking as a person of mixed-race parentage...if someone called me "Buckwheat" to my face, that person would shortly require medical attention. There is no wiggle room here as to the connotation. Tarc (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  No excuse for such verbiage. It's astonishing he's been allowed to get away with it repeatedly. An appropriate edit summary for his indef could be, "You're done here, Alfalfa." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  He gone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I have indeffed - his block log shows a long history of this kind of behaviour, which he just refuses to acknowledge or change, and I do not feel he has a place here because of that. GiantSnowman 13:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) GiantSnowman got in there just before I could; there's no place for this sort of behaviour on Wikipedia, and I see from Calton's history that he's been on the receiving end of this sort of block before. A productive editor he may be, but such attacks go against the very fundamentals of Wikipedia's operation; good call by the Snowman. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Calton has been here since 2004 and done untold good work for the encyclopedia, especially in areas that many of us more sensitive souls are reluctant to enter; as he says on his talkpage, "mopping up after the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical". He's an impatient guy, and has gone too far in his wording quite a few times. Many times I've been able to understand him, considering the aggressive SPI's he mostly deals with. But with the "buckwheat" issue, you've lost me completely, Calton. What the hell? I've never seen you be racist before (obviously I must have missed the other uses of "buckwheat"). If Calton has some kind of idea that it's not offensive, he should still have deferred to the people who told him it was — as soon as Sjakalle told him to stop it in 2005, he should have done so. I agree with GiantSnowman's indefblock for the impenitent use of "buckwheat".

  But I protest against GiantSnowman's hasty conclusion that Calton "doesn't have a place here". As soon as he undertakes to keep a civil tongue in his head, specifically with regard to the offensive term Buckwheat, I for one am willing to unblock him. Bishonen | talk 14:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC).

  I think I would tend to agree with your comments here Bishonen. Calton's positive contributions far outweigh the occasional lapse in his temperament that we see. I think a block is clearly needed here to give Calton time to calm down and reevaluate how he interacts with editors. My experience is that he generally does edit more productively post-block. I would suggest that we knock the block down to one week and see how he is after this. No need for an indef in my opinion. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 14:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  How about we go with what the OP suggested and keep it as indef until he acknowledges that his behaviour is unacceptable. He's been blocked before for this sort of behaviour, and ultimately it has changed nothing. If we promise to unblock him after he has acknowledged his error, then it shows that he has learnt not to do this again. Having the block expire after a week teaches him nothing. –

  BB 14:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  Knowing Calton, he will never admit he is wrong and we'll lose an editor who is productive most of the time. If we set it to a week, he will return after his block in a better frame of mind for editing (but of course, he still won't admit he was wrong!) and we don't lose him from the project. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 14:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  I'm not so sure that's the case. He's been blocked before, and even if he is a bit more productive when he comes back, he'll ultimately end up back here again, as history has shown. I suspect that the threat of having eight years' worth of work ending with an indef will force him to admit his error — and even if it doesn't, I'd rather a good editor blocked if he's going to be racist. –

  BB 14:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  I'm not going to defend the racism - That was bad, but we have to look at it in the grand scheme of things and see what's better for the project. As I said, he'll never admit he was wrong. I'll also suggest that he'll be blocked again at some point in the future. Looking at his block log, he hasn't been blocked for 3 1/2 years - That's not too bad a recent record if you ask me. However bad the edit summaries were, I would prefer to keep Calton on the project and reduce the block. That said Richard, I obviously respect your opinion given the severity of the misconduct. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 14:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  It doesn't take a week to realise and accept that dishing out racial slurs isn't acceptable. There is no fixed time limit in which an apology and assurance is no longer needed. Fixing the block to a week achieves nothing if no change in behaviour is offered. Leaky Caldron 14:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  The change in behaviour won't be offered expressly, but it will happen. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 14:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  Any editor can be replaced. He doesn't have to "admit he's wrong", but he has to pledge never, ever to use racist insults again, especially in edit summaries where they remain permanently visible. That's not a ticket to being un-indef'd, but just one requirement. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  (e/c) If he will never admit that using racial slurs is wrong, then I fully agree with GiantSnowman that he has no place here, regardless of the number of good edits he may have done. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  As I said, he doesn't have to "admit" anything, he just has to pledge to stop doing it. There's always a meager chance that he may honestly not know that calling someone "Buckwheat" is one step away from calling them the "N-word". If so, he needs to be eddycated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  Being a good content producer should never outweigh someone's lack of civility and fondness for personal attacks, and it should never be used as an excuse for keeping them around. We probably lose many more potential replacements, scared off by the bully boys who think they are above the law, an opinion which is encouraged by the actions of those who defend them. GiantSnowman 15:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  I recommend we be firm. Keep the block indef, and make it very clear that he can be unblocked immediately if he simply acknowledges it is a racial slur and agrees to stop using it. I expect he will eventually do so. But if we are wishy-washy about it and reduce it to a week, he has no reason to do anything but wait it out.

  talk) 15:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  I agree. No reason to reduce it from indef before he even comments on the matter, as that sends the wrong message. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  Here,[136] Calton indicates he thinks the claim of personal attack is "nonsense". He's either truly ignorant of what "Buckwheat" implies, or he doesn't care. Either way, he needs to stay on ice until or if he gets the point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  But as the OP pointed out, one has to keep in mind that it was way back in 2005 that he was first made aware that it could be interpreted as an racial slur. And since then have been made aware of that fact by numerous editors. The chances of him being completely unaware of it thus seems very meager indeed. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  The Colonel ought to be thrown out of the hotel!!.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  I'd be inclined to keep the indef in place, but to lift it immediately if Calton gives a simple undertaking not to use the term "Buckwheat" again. I'm not looking for an apology or an admission of guilt relating to past conduct - just an assurance about the future. I'm uneasy about the "good content producer" defence. I don't think making some/many/thousands of good edits gives anyone licence to behave in ways that less productive users would be sanctioned for. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  Any editor, with absolutely no regards to any merits they may have, should be immediately and indefinitely blocked if they insult others with racial epithets (or, arguably, any epithet, but I may be in a minority in that regard). They should be unblocked, once, only if they credibly promise not to do this again. (But can someone explain how "Buckwheat" is an insult? I'm unfamiliar with this meaning of the word.)  Sandstein  15:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  I was reading this thread completely mystified; for once what a joy to find Sandstein, he and I must have led similarly protected and sheltered lives - what does it mean?  Giano  15:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  I can only vaguely recall somebody using it, it isn't used in the UK I don't think, urban dictionary says "a lowly term for a black person". Either way, you'd think a long-standing editor would know not to call people racist names! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  Billie Thomas.--159.221.32.10 (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  [137] has an entry for it.

  Fram (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, in general. Buckwheat was also the name of one of the black characters in the

  Little Rascals series. Eddie Murphy used to parody Buckwheat as one of his Saturday Night Live characters. ("O-tay!") Neither the black kid Buckwheat nor the white kid Alfalfa could be described as the brightest bulbs in the Little Rascals tree. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  Like most derogatory terms for Black people, it's an Americanism. The name has connotations of low intelligence, use of

  African American Vernacular English, and poverty - the character of Buckwheat is a variant of the pickaninny stereotype. Eddie Murphy's parody, which is well known to Americans of a certain age, was intended to mock this stereotype. Skinwalker (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)The use of Buckwheat implies stupidity as well; I remember the movies on TV when I was very young, and how we were always supposed to laugh at how the character just never got it. Hal Roach attempted to integrate the "Our Gang" (later "Little Rascals") series in the 1930's, when America simply wasn't ready for it, so the non-white characters, notably but not exclusively Buckwheat, were played as a series of very gross stereotypes to make them palatable. Over time, Buckwheat has come to take on the connotation of the slow-witted African-American stereotype that flourished in entertainment until comparatively recently. You basically couldn't be any more insulting unless you used a certain word that starts with an 'n'. I applaud the admin who took a stand and indeff'd. --Drmargi (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  The "net positive" standard that people often mention is a reasonable guide, but you need to use it with caution. The "net positive" calculation is not simply the value of all the good edits minus the disruptive edits. If the disruptive edits are driving away other good content contributors, so that we lose all their efforts in the future, then the person who drove them off is almost certainly a net negative. For while the visible effects of a driven off editor may be a mere entry on

  WP:MISSING, or nothing at all if the editor driven away was a newbie, the contributions that we lost may be a very significant loss indeed. (RE Sandstein: My objection to Calton's use of the term eight years ago is listed in the original posting of this thread. It's origin is an easily frightened black character of the Little Rascals.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  Agree completely, hence my disagreement with any argument of the sort of "but he's a good content contributor". Thanks for the etymological information. (I added it to Buckwheat (disambiguation)).  Sandstein  16:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  The question is how Calton used the word, and the meaning of "Buckwheat" nowadays. For 99.9% of Wikipedians they probably don't even know what that word means unless they look it up, and if they do, people tend to have different standards of its meaning, especially as a powerful term such as "racial epithet". It doesn't seem he was using it on that rationale but more of calling the user an idiot. We can all agree that the word is uncivil, and bordering on a personal attack, and he shouldn't have used the word in a edit summary, but an indef block is going way too far here. Secret ^account 16:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  Way too far? It could be lifted in hours if he does the right thing. Maybe you are confusing indefinite with permanent. Leaky Caldron 16:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  I can't wait to start slipping "schwoogie" into edit summaries then, since I'm sure not many people know what it means... Tarc (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Calling someone "buckwheat" is no more racist than calling a person "junior" is agist or calling them a "pussy" is misogynist or calling somebody a "wimp" is an expression of homophobia. I'm sure there are other examples. Such words tend to be separated from their origins. Obviously, nobody should be calling anybody ANYTHING in an edit summary, but this isn't a case for getting PC feathers ruffled for a sanctimonious banning party (WHEEEE!) this should be a case for giving a stern WP:KNOCKITTHEHELLOFF warning. Carrite (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Actually, calling a man either a "pussy" or a "wimp" is an insult to his manhood. It appears that your studies of political correctness need some refreshing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Also, if you still think the term "buckwheat" is harmless, you may find these definitions enlightening. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks for whitesplaining that to the community. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  What the fuck are you talking about?!?!? Jesus.... Carrite (talk)

  • • • "Whitesplaining"? Is that the new "ableist"? Realised this was a bit of a personal in-joke nobody here would get, so struck the second part. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
        • It sounds to me like a portmanteau of "whitewashing" and "explaining". Regardless, it sounds apt. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
          • That's one way of interpreting it, I suppose. Another would be as a racially-oriented comment in the other direction. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  Well, the blocked editor could say "sorry if you were offended by it, wasn't intended as racist, won't use it again on here" and resume editing...

  Buckwheat (character) anybody?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  Unblocking

  I see that he was unblocked, and claims to be utterly clueless about the offensiveness of that word. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, I have unblocked although Calton's appeal was hardly fulsome. Nevertheless I assume there will be many more eyes on Calton's future edits and I don't doubt that further problems, should they arise, will be reported here quickly. Let's hope they don't arise. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  I'm not surprised at all he didn't know. In 30+years I have never known the term "buckwheat" (as in "back off, buckwheat") had any racial connotations whatsoever. I guess you learn something new every day. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  His attitude is that if an insult is used by a character in a movie, it's OK to use here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  Somebody should tell

  Rygel that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  Kim, seriously ... you unblocked based on that unblock request? To be

  BWilkins←✎) 22:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  Buckwheat was re-popularized by Eddie Murphy in the 80's on S.N.L. with his portrayal of "grown up" Buckwheat. The usage here was obviously derogatory. Now that that has been cleared up, I hope the offender does not respond to OP with affirmatives in the form of "O-Tay!"  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  05:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I agree with Bwilkins, and I feel that the decision to unblock at this point seems like very poor judgement. Calton's unblock request isn't merely "not the most gracious"; it is incivil to the point that posting it anywhere would be a blockable breach of civility by itself. In it he says of the action "This is beyond stupid", of the complaint he says "no matter how bullshit the complaint is", and finally he minimizes the offensiveness by saying "some (emphasis mine) people find it offensive". The problem is not limited to just one word, it is to name-calling in general. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  I know people that use the term to refer to someone pejoratively, even directly to their face, but absolutely without any racist connotation. I think children of the 70s are more inclined to remember that the character was kind of goofy (like most of the other kids on the show), and not just that he was black, unaware that some of his dialogue and actions were based on old stereotypes with which we were not familiar. As adults, we probably should be more sensitive to those connotations (and I just wrote one friend an email on the subject), but it's not unreasonable to think that there are those who don't know its specifically racial connotations. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  It doesn't actually matter greatly whether Calton knew the epithet he was slinging around so freely was racist or not; he was told it was unacceptable seven years ago, condescendingly dismissed the complaint, and continued regardless. He knew the term was deeply offensive to at least part of the community, so his decision to persist with its use was indicative of a dismissive attitude towards Wikipedia's editors and towards collaboration in general. Frankly, I find it all but impossible to believe that someone could bandy about the same term for that length of time without knowing that it was, at best, racially insensitive. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  I'd never even heard of the character before this discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Poor unblock - and not just because it was my block that was overturned ;) - the unblock request was as half-hearted as they come, and we should have pushed for more concrete assurances. GiantSnowman 09:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  • That was indeed a very poor decision to unblock based on that particular unblock request. It just goes against every point listed at Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks#Composing your request to be unblocked and was in fact itself a perfect example of why Calton has the kind of block log that he has. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Ill-advised unblock. Back in 2005, Calton was warned (see here) not to call people "buckwheat". So an unblock request in which he says he didn't know it was offensive is implausible. Besides, what would be the purpose of calling someone "buckwheat" other than to offend? I can't see why else he would have used the word.
    The block should be reinstated. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  • This may very well be a case that ArbCom should take. Apart from the postings on the talkpage, and the AN discussion, Calton has already had an RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Calton, on him. Since he got unblocked by calling the complaints "beyond stupid" and "bullshit", I am having doubts that the community here is really able to deal with this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  • No, I don't think we need ArbCom's involvement - there is increasing consensus that the unblock was poor, and therefore an uninvolved admin should be able to restore the indef without any issues. GiantSnowman 10:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  • And who's going to do that? Aside from anything else, for all the drama that was generated last Christmas you'd hope that the average bleeding heart admin would stop for one nanonsecond to consider the community reaction before undoing an indef civility block these days, but apparently that's still not the case. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  Reblocking

  • Re-blocked. In view of the consensus above that the good faith lifting of the block by Kim Dent-Brown was premature, I have reinstated the indef block on Calton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  This is unfortunate, but I expect it to be temporary. I also expect that any unblock is now going to include some form of civility parole. It clearly is protective in nature - especially when the editor refuses to accept the racial terms they're using, and the potential impact on editors. (

  BWilkins←✎) 11:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I admire your guts, but the potential shitstorm that will be unleashed as a result of reblocking may well eclipse the original issue. It might have been more sensible to wait for a better-established consensus here - to that (retrospective) end, I regarded Kim's unblock as ill-advised, and would have Endorsed overturning it. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  Honestly, if Calton goes

  BWilkins←✎) 11:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Good re-block. In the discussion above I saw a good consensus that Kim's unblock was hasty, so I don't see the re-block as controversial. For my part, I was also unconvinced by Calton's unblock request, particularly given the warning in 2005. For a successful unblock I would like to see, at the minimum, a recognition that using the slur wasn't acceptable, and a plausible guarantee that similar behaviour won't continue in the future. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  (

  unblocks are cheap. Simply because an editor didn't sufficiently grovel is not a reason not to unblock. If they repeated the behavior they could have been simply quickly reblocked. Moving forward, if ya'll really don't like what they said, draft a copy of the specific words you need to see before resolving this issue with a minimum of fuss. NE Ent 11:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  Having "promise to never use the term buckwheat again" be a sufficient condition for unblock was a proposal by a small handful of editors, not the view of the majority in the discussion. The underlying issue is civility and personal attacks, and an unblock request calling the complaints "beyond stupid" and "bullshit" is more of the same behavior that got him blocked in the first place. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) Per Yunshui, I agree it was a very poor unblock request, but also foresee possible 3rd mover issues. You should at least drop a note on Kim's page. He's not usually the sort to get his knickers in a twist, and a courtesy note might help keep things a little cooler. (Although I do note that BWilkins did mention a revisit to this discussion) — Ched :  ?  11:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  That was my intent of advising Mr Kim :-) (

  BWilkins←✎) 11:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  I have just left a note for Kim. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict)The blocking statement -- you need need to demonstrate an abandonment of the battleground mentality is vague and counterproductive. What kind of mentality would any editor have after been subject of this thread? Mr. Stradivarius's suggestion above is a much more preferable tack to take. NE Ent 11:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  NE, 99% of the time I'm in full agreement with you, but "This is beyond stupid. All right, I will not use the word "Buckwheat" -- no matter how bullshit the complaint is" seems to be quite a distance from "Battlefields" in this case. — Ched :  ?  11:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Endorse re-block per my comments above. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Endorse re-block - as per my comments earlier in thread. GiantSnowman 11:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  • About racism I don't want to wade into the wheel-drama that this has become, but as kids in the early 70s when we called each other "Buckwheat", it wasn't about race at all, it was used when someone did something dumb, like the Little Rascals character. ("Way to go, Buckwheat" when someone spilled something, etc.) We didn't think the color of his skin is what made him foolish. We also called each other Alfalfa or Spanky for various reasons. It is who we grew up with on the 5 TV channels of the time, something that 20-somethings aren't familiar with. Granted,
    WP:BIAS tells us to avoid terms like this, but to automatically say it must be a racist comment intended is folly, and is presumptuous. I don't know Calton, but to insist he must have racist intent is taking political correctness too far. I think that needs to be factored in when contemplating the block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Calton already knew that the term is sometimes used as a racist insult, and that it may be perceived that way.
      In any case, why is an experienced editor ignoring
      WP:REVTALK by using edit summaries to make attacks on the character of other editors? This is fairly basic stuff, and it's unacceptable whether the insult refers to race or perceived stupidity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
      • And I agree that it isn't an acceptable term in a global community. My call is only to put it in a proper perspective when dealing with the situation and not assume he was using it as a racial insult, but rather, as simple racial insensitivity. There is a difference, after all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Endorse. As stated above. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  The goal here should be to return editors to editing in compliance with community norms as quickly as possible.

  Most people's superficial notion of "teamwork" is that it is equivalent to some namby-pamby consensus and bogus good cheer.
  The only consensus worth having is a creative one achieved in the combat of fully engaged intellects.
  — Jim McCarthy, Dynamics of Software Development (1995)

  If a battleground mentality is reason to block someone, we'd have to block many active administrators, some arbitrators and at least one Ent, along with large swaths of some various wikiprojects. People fight for what they care about, and that is a good thing. The issue isn't simply battleground mentality, it's not engaging appropriately -- not fighting fair, if you will.

  When you surround an army, leave an outlet free. Do not press a desperate foe too hard.
  — Sun Tzu,The Art of War

  The way we treat editors in situations is counterproductive; indeffing an editor and then excessively bashing them is wiki

  bear baiting

  , the normal and logical outcome will be the editor replies with intemperate language -- so we can then say -- See? We were right! There are uncivilized!

  If the goal is to ban Calton because they are a bad person, then open the appropriate ban discussion at

  AN. Otherwise, let's treat them with respect and, instead of vague terms like "battleground" and "awful attitude" provide specific, concrete expectations. Whether or not "buckwheat" is racist isn't a useful debate -- it's clearly inappropriate. Editors should only be addressed by their account name or reasonable abbreviation thereof: for example, Bish for Bishonen (talk · contribs) or "puppy" for LethalPekingnese, or KDB or DB. So all Calton should have to do is make a simple declarative statement they will only address editors by their account names. They they're unblocked and we go back to what they're doing.NE Ent 14:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I did state at Calton's talk page that no terms at all should be used - but that seems to have been ignored by both Calton and Kim. GiantSnowman 14:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  Agree with the conclusion but would note that the fact that the term is racist or racially insensitive highlights why your conclusion (and policy) regarding the appropriate narrower terms of address is a sensible one. (Also Users are still responsible for their own comments). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  Regardless of whether he used the name in a racist manner (and the evidence is that he was previously told it was perceived that way), he clearly used it pejoratively, so the question of racism is not a necessary factor in the re-block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Good decision; I agree with Mr. Stradivarius above. A collaborative project can have no use for people who persist in insulting their colleagues, especially (but not limited to) with racial insults.  Sandstein  20:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I have no problem with the reblocking, which clearly had consensus support. There's no wheel war here as far as I'm concerned and I certainly won't be unblocking Calton myself. The way I saw it when I unblocked, there was a feeling that Calton was unlikely to offend again having had this very public warning. I felt it was important to respond to Calton's appeal with some speed and so probably misjudged the consensus which then quickly solidified after my unblock. As it stands now I am a little uncertain about what Calton needs to do or say to make an unblock request stick - but as I'm not going to be the one to make that call I can skip that puzzle! Apologies for not replying here sooner, I've been away for the last 24 hours on family business. Now back and will keep looking at this conversation. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) I think the racial issue needs to be separated from the incivility. Had he written "jerk" instead, the result would have likely been a severe warning or short block, with reinstatement simply requiring a statement that he won't do it in the future. It's clear that there are people that do not know the racial component of "Buckwheat", and that Calton is one of them. Just because someone tells you something 7 years ago in the heat of an argument, and someone else says it years (and many thousands of conversations) later under similar heated circumstances, doesn't mean you should necessarily believe it, particularly if you are generally "anti-PC" (though you probably should investigate). It's clear from the block appeal that Calton did not acknowledge the seriousness of the racial component of the term (though I'll bet he does now, or at least understands it's more widespread than he thought), but also that he clearly stated he wouldn't use it again – all that should have been required. Procedurally, the re-block is pretty ridiculous, like a court overturning a case on appeal and then changing their minds and throwing you back in jail a day later. He should be unblocked and everyone should move on with their lives. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  Actually, it's more like a nice cop releasing the guy on his own recognizance before the court even had a chance to discuss it, and when they did, they remanded the guy into custody (

  BWilkins←✎) 12:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  Please review Caltons block log. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Anyone who thinks that Calton is "productive" should subtract the amount of time wasted by other Wikipedians in RFCs, threads on AN/I, arbitration, arguments on his talk page, and arguments on article pages. They should also take into account the damage he has caused to the reputation of Wikipedia. Many of the people Calton insults are new to the project. Their first human interaction is often with Calton. He is one editor, but how many people has he chased away? How many people are commenting on this thread right now? How does Wikipedia appear to observers when someone is allowed to ignore one of it's five pillars for so many years while other users are blocked without review? The damage to our reputation is deep and will last many years. I can only hope that this is a sign that Wikipedia now takes our civility policy seriously and not just a sign that Calton's patrons have left the project.—Best Dog Ever (talk) 05:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support reblock. I've looked through the block log of this user, and I see FIVE prior blocks for incivility, since 2006. If a user is still doing the same things 7 years on (even if it is 3 and a half years since they were last blocked), then being unblocked from an indef that quickly, after such a dodgy unblock request, is not the right move, to put it mildly. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support reblock. There is absolutely no room for racism on this project, no matter how many "good" edits a person has made. I note that editors requested that Calton not use that particular term, requests that apparently fell on deaf ears. Especially given Calton's rather long history of incivility blocks, I think it's time that a clear message be sent. I would support an unblock if and only if a genuine statement of contrition is made and Calton apologises to editors who feel they've been racially vilified. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC).
  • Bad reblock - Desysop for wheel-warring, anyone? Carrite (talk) 04:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  Woah, pitchforks down, people

  While Calton's unblock request was flippant, there was something in there that everybody seems to have missed: he was making a reference to the TV show

  take him at his word that we won't use it again? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  Aside from the very specific education about this particular insult Calton received and flippantly dismissed very nearly eight years ago, his lengthy block log since then suggests that this is not, as so depressingly frequently asserted at ANI, a witchhunt over a specific naughty word. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  But, again, would the encyclopedia be harmed if we unblocked, with the agreement of all parties that if the word is used again he'll be re-blocked, this time for good? It can't be understated that the supposed racist meaning of the word is far from commonly understood--I'm a native English speaker from the US and have never heard it used as a racist insult, though I've heard plenty of other ones. It's normally a character name and a plant used to make noodles. It really says something that we've had to use Urbandictionary to even find the insult definition. Urbandictionary is about as trustworthy and accurate as a drug-induced fever dream and would never fly as a reliable source in any article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  In my opinion, the problem with Calton isn't the use of a single word ("buckwheat") but his consistent use, year after year, of insults: [138]. He cannot edit Wikipedia without making personal attacks. Making him agree to not use the word "buckwheat" is meaningless because there are so many other insults he can use (and has used) against other users. He will be back here again if you unblock him. He should promise to not make arguments personal at all. Even then, I would not take him at his word, because previous blocks have not persuaded him to change at all. So, yes, the encyclopedia would be harmed gravely by unblocking him. See my comment right above this sub-section for an explanation why.—Best Dog Ever (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  Come on, that diff is from 2007(!!!) and his block log shows before this debacle he hadn't been blocked since 2009. He's not the Wikipedia Boogeyman some in this thread have desperately tried to portray him as. Stuff he may have done half a decade ago is of little bearing to the current issue. This is at worst a minor civility breach, he should apologise for it, agree not to do it again, and everyone should move on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  I suspect too make stakes have been driven into the ground for anything to change at this point. Intothatdarkness 19:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Involved comment Prior to this, the last time there was a block issued - I was the one who blocked him. Yep, he can be a really crotchety old fart. Set in his ways. After I talked to him, I found that he's actually not a bad sort. I'm going on memory and a quick look at the block log here, so don't quote me - but, I unblocked him to participate in the AN or AN/I discussion. After talking it out, there was no need to reblock. I don't recall if I was aware of the 2005 stuff, but it's not like Calton is on AN/I on a regular basis. A cranky cuss that yells at kids to "get off my lawn"? .. Maybe. An unblock request with "this is bullshit"? yea, very weak. But considering that this is not supposed to be a children's playground, and tensions run high at times, I would ask this. He's here to help build the free knowledge base. When he gets back and posts a bit more reasonable unblock request - I'd ask BHG to consider unblocking. If I see it myself, I'll ping her. — Ched :  ?  04:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Bewildered comment: I can barely remember what I ate for dinner five hours ago. I doubt anyone on this project can remember anything they discussed 8 years ago, barring it being a monumental event in their life ("I proposed marriage and she said yes" or "that's when they called to say I'd got my dream job" or "Mom sat me down and told me that xxx had died"), let alone something comparatively trivial. Risker (talk) 04:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I cannot agree that this was a mere minor case of incivility, or that enforcing the civility standards in this case is an example of "pitchforks". Also, the fact that my warning to Calton was eight years ago and that he had forgotten is hardly an excuse. In this most recent incident, Yworo specifically asked Calton not to use the term "buckwheat" against him [139], Calton's reply [140] is very rude, and compounds the damage by calling a legitimate complaint "spouting nonsense" and telling Yworo that it makes him look "ridiculous". The unblock request was not merely "flippant", it was written in a highly incivil manner using terms like "beyond stupid" and "bullshit". It does damage the Wikipedia community if we give the impression that such language against fellow editors is okay, and that using those terms are a way of getting unblocked. (I'll mention that my views on this type of behavior have evolved over the years, and I have become stricter after realizing that incivility of this type can cause a lot of damage by driving off editors who become discouraged in having to deal with editors who call them names and insult them without any sort of consequence. This damage is not easily seen, as we never see the contributions the lost editors could have given us, but the damge is just as real.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
    • The fact that your comment to Calton on this was eight years ago makes a HUGE difference, and nobody should be in the least surprised that he's forgotten it. EIGHT YEARS. I often look at my old contributions, especially AFD votes, and wonder what the hell I was talking about and I rarely remember actually writing any of it. Are you telling me with a straight face that if I picked out, say, 10 of your contributions from 2005 and gave you a pop quiz on them that you'd get a perfect score? Because I can pretty much guarantee that you wouldn't. And while I can't claim to be indide Calton's head I'd say that being accused of racism on extremely tenuous grounds and insta-blocked for it without getting to present his side, well, "bullshit" is actually a pretty mild word for it. It wasn't the gentlest word and it wasn't exactly what ANI wanted to hear, but I can't fault the man for calling bullshit bullshit, either. Sjakkalle, you're an experienced and respected editor, but you're being uncharacteristically unreasonable and bloodthirsty here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
      • On the hypothetical quiz, probably not on 10 random routine edits. However I do remember several of the less routine edits including relatively serious conflicts such as an VFD kerfuffle with real-world political and religious implications. The exchange I had with Calton back in 2005 was not routine either and I remember quite well being taken aback by the denial and hostility. If that type of exchange was routine and forgettable for Calton, then there is a problem. Also, Calton did get a chance to present his side when Yworo asked him not to call him "buckwheat", and Calton chose to use that chance by accusing Yworo of spouting nonsense and looking ridiculous. If Calton thought that his "buckwheat" comment was innocent and that Yworo taking offense was based on a misunderstanding, his response to Yworo was completely out of line. I do agree with a part of what you have written when you say "he [Calton] should apologise for it, agree not to do it again, and everyone should move on"; however Calton has not apologised, and he only promised, in the rudest manner possible, to not use a single word again when the problem, among other things, is name-calling in general. If he had presented a better unblock request then the consensus here would probably have been for unblocking, and if he does so now he will probably be unblocked as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • (Un-involved non admin comment) Although there's an implicit rule throughout WP where senior editors are treated with more lenience, a line has to be drawn somewhere. I for one have absolutely no doubt that any relatively new editor (even one with a clean block log) would not be allowed to get away with this behavior in a million years. I realize WP has no real legal system but these kind of things can set a precedent, specially when all this editor has to do to get his block lifted is agree to tone it down and not use inflammatory terms anymore. Just my 2 cents. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
    • That's often the case, but this time if anything it's the opposite. If I blocked a first-day newbie over a single word that may or may not be offensive, without warning, without getting their side of the story, and without assuming good faith, not only would the block be undone but I'd likely get a stern talking to about biting the newbies and such. Here, unrelated incidents from nearly a decade ago are being presented as evidence that he's some kind of habitual meanie, which wouldn't be a problem with a newbie. Yes, we can cherrypick a small handful of ill-considered edits out of Calton's 74,000+, representing a thousanth of a percent of his total contibutions. Just like I'm sure we could for any long-term editor. But if we blocked for that, across the board, we'd have no experienced editors left! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Been here since 2004. Over 74k edits. Over 35% to articles. Just dropping a few stats. — Ched :  ?  23:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  As I see it just because you are an experienced and/or prolific editor does not give you a free pass to be aggressive. He could have 1000k edits 90% to articles, makes no difference. Calton has been blocked at least 6 times in little more than 6 years for PAs and/or incivility towards other users. This time he called an editor what is considered by some a racial slur and instead of apologizing for it and acknowledging his mistake he escalated the issue calling the block "stupid" and "bullshit", something which would have had a relatively new editor (like myself) blocked indefinitely without a doubt. He's a long time editor which is all the more reason to expect certain levels of good behavior from him. For what I can see here he simply needs to agree to not incur in aggressive name-calling again and his block will be lifted. What is preventing him from doing so? Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 02:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  Nothing is preventing it. Read his talk page. He did so. It's not good enough for some people, though. That's the procedural problem with this whole mess. Different people want different responses by Calton. He's entitled to be pissed. I am, of course, against incivility at WP, but the response to it should be consistent and proportional*. At the risk of offending marsupials, this particular "court" is about as "kangaroo" as it gets.
  Several people have confirmed that the term that was used is not necessarily known to be racially offensive by everyone, and Calton's response makes it clear that he is among those. That issue needs to be taken out of the equation, and the offense treated the same way as calling someone "stupid" or an "asshole". If there's an appropriate punitive length for a block (the first in how long? 1842 months?!), then do it. If he commits to be civil in the future, do what you would for anyone else in such a case and lift the block, and let's all get back to editing.
  *On this very page, in a different thread, another well-known admin used a direct, unambiguously offensive word in talking about another user. Nobody said a thing about it. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  Back to the original issue, let me say that I had no clue before reading the thread that "buckwheat" was a racial epithet. I thought it had connotations similar to "buster", e.g. You're in big trouble now buster. I would advocate leniency, and to drop the pitchforks... Tazerdadog (talk) 07:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  Propose to unblock

  • I think he has been blocked sufficiently long, friends, and needs to be unblocked. Several people, including myself, have shown were you can call someone Buckwheat without it being racially motivated, and it seems clear with the link above that it wasn't. Maybe not the smartest term to use, but we don't block for not being smart. I don't know him, so I don't have a dog in this hunt, but I don't see the point in dredging up diffs over a year old, including some that are eight years old. It makes it look like a witch hunt, after the fact. His last block was 3.5 years ago, for 72 hours. This block has been for most of a week and has served every purpose it can. Permanently maintaining the indef block for him isn't appropriate considering the circumstances, certainly not at ANI. Now is the time to move on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for "time served". Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless and until there is a
    WP:GAB compliant unblock request from Calton. The last one was thumbing his nose at the concern. The unblock proposal here contains a number of strawmen. First, "Not being smart" was not the reason for the block. Second, if it were eight years of no problems since my warning to him, and this were an isolated incident, then I would understand the time aspect argument, but in between there have been numerous blocks and warnings for the behavior that culminated in this block. Finally, the block has not served its purpose if Calton is unblocked without having to commit to a more civil approach to other editors, and that includes avoiding responding to legitimate complaints with "Don't spout nonsense, Sport, it makes you look ridiculous". I am willing to entertain a sincere unblock request, but there hasn't been one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

    He was blocked because of the term "Buckwheat" was erroneously assumed to be racially charged. While I don't question the sincerity of the initial block, I do question the wisdom on continuing it. Now that this is clear, making him "beg" for an unblock seems demeaning, and his previous request makes more sense. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

    That "buckwheat" is racially charged was not erroneous (nor is it "bullshit" or "beyond stupid" as Calton claimed). There are numerous places where you can see that it is considered a derogatory term for black people [141] [142]. At the very best, we can take Calton on his word that he was referring to Wiseguy, although I have not seen any evidence that this context is any less obscure than the pejorative context. And even if that is the case he should have tried to clear up the misunderstanding, instead of compounding the (assuming good faith: inadvertant) injury by accusing Yworo of "spouting nonsense" and looking "ridiculous". Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

    It might be racial if YOU say it, as you perceive it that way. As I have pointed out, and have others, WE grew up where it wasn't a racial comment. Calton has indicated that wasn't his motive either. Reading

    WP:BIAS, you don't push your interpretation on others. He needs to not use the term, simply because it causes these problems, but simply because it offends you isn't a reason to assume that everyone that says it means it was a racist comment. That is erroneous. Context and culture are a clear factor here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

    The most charitable interpretation is that Calton didn't know that "buckwheat" could have a racially pejorative meaning, and I am willing to assume that. Yet, he was made aware that the "buckwheat" term was offensive when Yworo asked Calton not to use it against him. Calton could have tried to work out why such a term caused offense. Instead he lashed out by rudely telling Yworo that he was "spouting nonsense" and that he looked "ridiculous". (I have pointed out this diff several times already, yet none of those who are defending Calton have made any effort to address it.) That "buckwheat" has been used in a racially pejorative manner is a simple fact. Calton could have recognized that in the unblock request. Instead he chose to lash out again. If this is all a huge misunderstanding, Calton is not helping by calling the concern "beyond stupid" and "bullshit". Groveling is not needed. Begging is not needed. What is needed is a commitment to abide by the policies

    WP:CIVIL. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

    And there is no way I would have blocked him for the statement he made in his unblock request, taken alone. He called the situation stupid, and the complain "bullshit", he didn't make a personal attack, he commented on the merits of the actions in a colorful way. He was blocked, fine, but I'm saying we are better served not by reversing the block, but by ending it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Support per common sense. The term in question is NOT commonly understood to be racist, and nothing whatsoever in Calton's history then or now warrants a permanent block or even comes close. The more I read of this discussion, the more I think certain editors just want to see Calton grovel and beg to be unblocked, which frankly is a little sickening. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Unblock per Dennis Brown. -
    Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Unblock. Unless I missed something blindingly obvious, there really isn't anything preventing disruption here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. As has been stated several times, it is not the main problem whether the namecalling was meant to be racist or not (although we have several comments on Caltons talk page, the first dating back to 2005, made by other users who clearly perceived "buckwheat" to have racist connotations). The main problem is the hostility and namecalling this editor constantly engages in. A problem that has been so persistent that it has resulted in numerous blocks in their long Wikicareer, yet it doesn't seem to have changed their behaviour in any way. The hostility of Calton is on such a level that it is not difficult to imagine it can have caused fledgling editors to flee the project, negative consequences which clearly outweighs any constructive edits made by this editor. Caltons unblock request (which is just the latest example of their hostile tone) cleary shows that this is not something which this editor has yet grasped. Perhaps they never will, but at least make an unblock subject to a reasonable unblock request which acknowledges the reasons for the block. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I guess per Dennis
    WP:DIGNITY or some WP:EDITORDIGNITY link, and WP:I'veSeenALotWorse. May see ya back here in a couple years, but meh. I pinged BHG — Ched :  ?  16:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

    And to be sure, I'm not debating the block to begin with, even though I think there was a lot of genuine misunderstanding, I'm just saying that regardless, it has exhausted its usefulness. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  Yep. You'll certainly get no argument from me on that Dennis. I'd even hazard a guess that this was partly a "in the wrong place at the wrong time" thing. Drama levels have been high, and some "WHAT did he just say" aspects to it. Hopefully we're working through the back end of much of that now, and with spring around the corner for some folks - maybe a bit less Cabin fever will be had. — Ched :  ?  17:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) No disrespect intented, but this very long discussion seems to be more about a turf war between admins than anything else. Calton has not made any comment since his unblock request. I won't comment on the block, as that has been done to death already by others. Instead I'd simply advice you to end the discussion for now. If Calton makes an unblock request, then deal with request. Untill then, what is there to discuss?Jeppiz (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  But that's just it, Calton actually did make an unblock request, and while it wasn't exactly the most eloquent thing heard 'round these parts, it was accepted and he was unblocked. After that he was then blocked again despite having done nothing else wrong. Sure, he can put up another request, but whatever he says will be pulled apart by the pitchfork gang as either insincere or insufficiently lowly and grovel-y enough, and the drama begins anew. That's exactly why we're trying to gain consensus to unblock and everyone, Calton included, moves on with their lives. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  "...it wasn't exactly the most eloquent thing heard 'round these parts"? That's an understatement. It failed all points mentioned in Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks, and the unblock was revoked with good reason. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  Strongly oppose. The statement that "the term 'Buckwheat' was erroneously assumed to be racially charged" is absurd. The term is racially charged. If you Google "Buckwheat + racist" you get over two million hits; "Buckwheat + Wiseguy" gets about 15% as money. A Gbooks search on "Buckwheat + racist" is even more telling. The blocking and reblocking admins both indicated they would unblock if Calton committed to stop directing derisive epithets at other editors, especially in edit summaries, which is a stronger condition than I originally requested, but a very reasonable one, and consistent with blocking policy and practice. He has declined to do so. Absent some good reason for refusing to comply with such a reasonable unblocking condition, there's no good reason to unblock. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose unblocking - the rationale for the (my) original block still stands; even the unblocking administrator admits that their actions were hasty at the least, and Calton has not provided a sufficient unblock request, nor attempted to deal with the issues at hand. Note that I am not opposed to an unblocking at some point in the future; simply not now. GiantSnowman 18:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support unblock (by non-admin, non-previously-involved) per my and other supporting comments above. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose unblock until an adequate unblock request is made. Note that I have now hidden the offensive edit summary referred to in the original complaint. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - No valid unblock request filed, at ANY point. An unblock that was made in error, as consensus agrees with, is not a reason to re-unblock the user. Ask Calton to file an unblock request again, by all means, but I'm failing to see any reason for an unblock here, at the moment. I'm not fussed whether buckwheat was racially charged or not, as Calton's personal attacks over such a long period of time are enough to justify the block. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Suggestion. I was the re-blocking admin, and I think it's best to leave it to others to decide whether to unblock, so I'll remain neutral on the proposal, and support whatever consensus emerges.
    I see good points on each side here. The block/unblock/reblock cycle was a bit messy, and I can see a lot of merit in the case for an unblock based on time served. However, other editors are right to point out that Calton's unblock request was pretty awful. So how about an unblock accompanied by a clear warning that any further use of edit summaries to make any sort of disparaging comments about other editors will lead to another block? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
    • That sounds reasonable enough to me. After all, nobody at all is saying insulting edit summaries are okay, just that this particular incident, buttressed with old business from literally years ago, has been blown way out of proportion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I'll go with that unblock, providing that he's watched like a hawk and any further personal attacks result in a hefty sanction (no pansying with 1 day blocks, those evidently don't work) Lukeno94 (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Hmm, I am actually inclined to agree with BHG's wise proposal from BHG. Consider this one final chance, and we will need to be very, very strict. GiantSnowman 20:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose; I don't care whether buckwheat is a racist term or slang for stupid or what Calton called his BFF from grammar school; there's no need to address editors by other than their account name. If we unblock per the conditions suggested by BHG above we have a possibility of being back here haggling over some other term and whether or not it's racist / personal attack / disparaging / what have you. If ya'll proceed with this I encourage the unblocking admin to specify that any reference to editors by other than their account name or reasonable nickname / abbreviation (e.g. BHG) is grounds for reblocking. NE Ent 20:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I like that idea. "Refer to other editors only by their account name or reasonable nickname/abbreviation". It's clear and unambiguous, which avoids the risk of future wikilawyering over the just how bad any other term has to be to land Calton in trouble. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
      • So in other words someone is going to block Calton if he refers to someone as "Bud" or "Mate" or any of hundreds of completely non-offensive name substitutes? We were doing well but I think we're drifting back into silliness territory here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
        • If you want to suggest a better form of words, please do. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
          • I think you yourself got it exactly right a couple of edits ago: "So how about an unblock accompanied by a clear warning that any further use of edit summaries to make any sort of disparaging comments about other editors will lead to another block?" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I agreed with the original block, and I accept that my unblock was hasty and against the consensus which emerged immediately thereafter. I would have been wiser to wait until the consensus became clearer one way or the other. However I think BHG's present proposal is a good one and actually I'd have no problem with her enacting it, provided that sufficient people here agree with this as the way forward. I don't in fact think that after this very high profile incident there is any chance of Calton using this particular term again. I suspect he's smart enough to know that other intemperate epithets are also off limits. And of course our insurance is that any of us with a block button will have no hesitation in intervening should something similar happen again. (ec) - no problem with NE Ent's addendum either. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support the unblock and everyone finding something better to talk about. The original block looks to have been justified, but I have the feeling the point has been gotten across. Our drama meter is going through the roof; time to move on. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support unblock. It's not the job of admins to make editors sweet nor to make them humble. Strong support per Andrew Lenahan above, and per Wikipedia:Editors have pride and Wikipedia:Unblocks are cheap. Come on, N Ent, you wrote one of those suckers, and now you suggest a talking-down-to-a-naughty-child unblock condition like you do above? Were you abducted by aliens and replaced by a pod person recently? Bishonen | talk 21:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC).
  • Oppose. Ent has stated the best way forward (again). Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible oppose. Younger users may not be aware of the connotations of the term used, but those of us who do know how vile it is. He was warned repeatedly that it was inappropriate and continued. He as a long-term history of anti-social behavior. He's made no effort to request a second unblock once more strenuous terms were laid down. This process is an attempt to side-step them by his devotees. Sorry, no dice. --Drmargi (talk) 22:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I remain wholly unconvinced that the term is actually offensive, at least not in the US. They made a Little Rascals movie in 1994, and the character was still called Buckwheat. The early 90s were pretty much ground zero for political correctness, so if buckwheat had been an offensive term at that time they would have just renamed the character. Buckwheat noodles are sold in every supermarket, and they don't euphamise the name on the packaging even though they could call them soba instead. I've also never heard it used as an insult, anywhere, not in person, not on TV, movies, or any book I've ever read. I'm not claiming to be a walking slang dictionary or anything, but if it is indeed a racial insult (which again, I doubt) then it's by no means a common one that we might expect the average editor to recognise. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I have no problems with BHG's terms and completely understand her desire to have assurances. As she is the blocking admin, it is within her power to implement this condition, which would allow everyone to just move forward with clarity. I will suggest that anyone that thinks a larger discussion should take place, that RFC/U, while flawed, is the appropriate venue after he is unblocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support unblock While it was certainly not nice, it wasn't necessarily racist. How many of you knew Eeny, meeny, miny, moe has racist undertones? Sheesh.  little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer  22:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Question - does the phrasing in the terminology used indicate the reference is 100% definitely Eddie Murphy's Saturday Night Live sketch and not the Australian sci-fi show. If the User was resident in America it might be a reasonable assumption, but his User page indicates an American resident in Japan. He might have been mixing with Australians or seen the Australian show. Don't get me wrong, I don't approve any hint of racism, if anything en.wp is too lax. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
    • There doesn't appear to be anything in the phrasing or context to suggest what Calton meant, but he says he was referring to Wiseguy, a US cop show. The editor who he was addressing says on their user page that they're Native American, so comparing them to Eddie Murphy would be a bit of a non sequitur to say the least. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  Then unblock - I have never seen of any of these TV shows bar an episode of Farscape, a quick check shows the episode "Hello Buckwheat" in the 1990 Wiseguy does not appear to be racist, but doesn't mean a time-served block wasn't justified for using any adhominems in summaries. (FWIW I have made a loosely related request at

  WT:NPA so I in no way support any unblock if a clearly and unambiguously intended ethnic/national slur was intended). In ictu oculi (talk) 04:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  Just as an aside, that Australian sci-fi show was pretty danged popular in the U.S. as well, enough to bring it back for a miniseries to close the arc after it was cancelled. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Support unblock - I suppose asking for apologies from the original blocker and the reblocker in addition would be a bit much. Carrite (talk) 04:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose unblock, absolutely not. No unblock request, for starters. If the user can't be bothered to commit to not attacking other users in their edit summaries, then they should not be welcome here, no matter how much other "good" work they do. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC).
  • Strongly oppose unblock. Calton has long since proven himself incapable of working with other editors in a harmonious and constructive manner. Personal attacks characterize a ridiculously large portion of his interactions. This latest incident is just one more item in a long, long list. He is simply unwilling to abide by our civility policy, and therefore he has no place within our community. Everyking (talk) 12:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Third-party unblock requests almost never come to any good. Calton will come back when he's ready. And quite honestly, anyone who thinks the above discussion (a bunch of white guys pontificating on whether a given epithet sounds racist to them) reflects well on us probably needs to get some fresh air. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose The OP cites "time served". IIRC the editor was blocked, unblocked and subsequently reblocked, the reblock being due to the unacceptable initial unblock request. The concept of "time served" cannot possibly apply in a situation where a properly formatted, acceptable unblock request has not been received. That would make the re-block look like a "time served" punishment, which it wasn't. Leaky Caldron 12:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Unblock an editor, they edit for a month, teach an editor not to get blocked, they edit indefinitely. Yes
    editors have pride. I'm not advocating Calton be forced to apologize, admit wrongdoing, elocute their misdeeds or anything of the sort. Their unblock statement, however, is at best begrudging and too minimalistic -- the issue is broader than the use of a single word. I'm concerned the merely proceeding with an unblock will only end up with another visit to ANI when Calton uses another term for an editor which -- in some particular geolocality, age group, and cultural subgroup -- turns out to be offensive. In Wikipedia-as-it-should-be the block log length wouldn't matter, but in practice it becomes a weapon for other editors to attack Calton with. So I think it would be highly preferable if Calton simply agrees to address editors by the account names going forward, rather than continuing a destructive in the long term cycle of blocks, warnings, unblocks, ANI discussions etc. NE Ent 12:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
    • "Unblock an editor, they edit for a month", huh? You are aware the last time he was blocked was 4 years ago, right? I would hope so, since you linked to his block log and presumably actually looked at it. Again, this isn't the WikiBoogeyman. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  I tend to agree. An indef block seems a bit excessive (I admit to never having heard the phrase could be racist before this discussion) and my personal experiences is that Calton is a valuable user. If a unblock request is made, I would hope it is granted.Jeppiz (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

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

  Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket and Englishness
  Not a matter for ANI, and certainly shouldn't have been brought here when no attempt has been made to contact those involved in the project. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:20, 12 March 2013 (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.

  ---

  Please investigate this "project" which seems to be extremely dubious and has attracted several devotees with redlink usernames and few contributions. One of them has already made inroads into a cricket article with out of context stuff based on questionable sources. Could be some kind of hoax being perpetrated. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 16:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  It's members of a college course. The instructor has just misunderstood the purpose of WikiProjects.  davidiad { t } 16:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  Simon1252 (talk · contribs) is the course instructor, so I suppose the "WikiProject" should be moved into his user space. Am I wrong in remembering that we have people or some task force for working with these class groups?  davidiad { t } 18:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  FYI

   – There is already a WikiProject Cricket.

  --Auric talk 03:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  At best this should be a subproject (task force?) of the existing WikiProject, but given that this appears related to a course, there is likely another venue for this. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  What on earth is wrong with setting up a course as a Wikiproject? This is precisely what I did with (for instance)

  WP:MMM. I see no cause for admin action here. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

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

  Correct venue?

  I'm quite dissappointed that none of the supposedly "highly experienced" admins who handle this page have ever heard of Wikipedia:School and university projects which is the correct venue for this matter. Roger (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  Well, the "correct venue" is probably the Education Noticeboard, and it was indeed brought up there, not once but twice, the second time by someone who read this thread (but not the noticeboard itself, it seems). Either way, it is at least courtesy to inform the people involved. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  Also newbie biting and assuming bad faith by calling some of the contribution as "hoax". The editor in question was around for more than 6 years and should have known better than this. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  • See below. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  Repeated removal of cited lede 2

  User:Bhaskarbhagawati (BB) had started a thread on this noticeboard (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive787#Repeated_removal_of_cited_lede) about a dispute on the lede in Kamrup region. On the advice in that thread, a discussion was started in the talk page: (Talk:Kamrup_region#Lede_dispute_--_A_summary). Unfortunately, BB made no substantial contribution to the discussion, and soon left on a hiatus. He has since returned (diff, diff, diff), and has shown scant interest in moving the issue toward a resolution. Is it possible to bring this issue to some kind of closure? Thanks, Chaipau (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  WP:DRN. EdJohnston (talk) 21:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, BB's edit on Assam (diff) is indeed related to this dispute. So instead of addressing the dispute resolution efforts, he has widened the scope of the dispute. This despite the note I left at his talk page asking him to contribute to the resolution process (which he has since acknowledged by blanking -- diff).

  I shall flesh out the dispute resolution thread with references and shall announce it here when done. The main body of Kamrup region describes most of the historical regions named Kamrup with references. Chaipau (talk) 03:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  Actually since mid last year i am involved in long disputes with user Chaipau on different articles like Assam dispute and many others. At the moment i am not in a position to devote time on Kamrup region lede text dispute, so i let user Chaipau's version hang there. I don't think my latest edit is related with Kamrup region lede dispute. भास्कर्bhagawati Speak 08:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  I am glad that BB is refusing to participate in the process, that he himself has initiated, at WP:ANI itself. BB, nevertheless, continues to make controversial edits (diff). Chaipau (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  Please check the date of above edit and by the way i have put some sources in Kamrup region talk page. भास्कर्bhagawati Speak 15:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)comment removed by duffbeerforme; restored. Writ Keeper (t + c) 15:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  spam links to stores
  No administrator action required here.

  boomeranged for edit warring. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:04, 13 March 2013 (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.

  ---

  Ive been trying to remove inappropiate link to shops from an article. Wikipedia is not here to promote stores. Any refrerence from a shop is not independent and is not a

  reliable source. My atempts have been me with abuse and claims of disrution (eg [143]). Are spam links from Itunes acceptible? Is it OK to harras editors who dont think promoting iTunes is OK? Is it OK to call an attmept to remove spam links to iTunes an act of vandalism? Am I misguided? duffbeerforme (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  Sounds like a case for Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Itunes and Amazon has been discussed there before on several occasions, most recently in this discussion (which contains links to previous discussions). The conclusion about their reliability seems ambiguous though. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  Duffbeerforme is apparently involved in a huge edit war at Pon de Replay and has received numerous warnings on their talk page. Regardless of whether s/he's right or not, edit-warring is definitely not the way to solve the dispute. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  Editwaring is not the way to go. Thats why I've come here. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  If you know it's not the way to go, then why did you wait until after you received four warnings to bring it here? I'm sorry, but I doubt you'll get much sympathy here based on your inappropriate behavior. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  It seems to me that this question should first have been taken up on the talk page of the article in question. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  Saddiyama is exactly right. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  I had a look at

  WP:3RR. This all needs to go to Talk:Pon de Replay. For what it's worth, I think Amazon and iTunes are reliable sources that can be used to prove existence of something, but can't be used towards notability - since notability's not at stake here that's not relevant. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  • • Not sure about iTunes, but a listing on Amazon proves nothing at all, not even existence. I'm an Amazon seller myself, so if I wanted to create a listing for an XBox 720 or a holographic PurpleRay disc of Toy Story 5, I could. Amazon's sales ranks and reviews are also commonly manipulated, and even their core catalog has plenty of errors. Generally speaking I would say that these aren't useful links. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  I'm thinking of basic information like ISBN codes for books, product IDs or otherwise uncontroversial and non-opinionated stuff, but nothing else - certainly not reviews. I notice discussion of this flavour turns up on

  WP:RSN every now and again. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  Wether you support me or not look at this [[144]]..l duffbeerforme (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  Last I checked, iTunes and Amazon (MP3) links were valid for sourcing release dates and track listings. That was at least how it went a couple of years ago when I got in a kerfluffle about using particular links as sources for such data. Additionally,

  tea kettle and post a link to their ebay or etsy page where they sell tea kettles, but in this digital era it should most definitely not be forbidden to give links to iTunes or Amazon or whatever artist websites that are out there that might happen to sell the CDs as well. It would only be spam in this case if it was someone with a financial stake in the matter, and I doubt that someone adding an iTunes Store link as a source to an article on Rihanna really has much of a financial gain to be had.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  Just my two cents, but I don't think this content dispute should even be discussed here because it's essentially validating Duffbeerforme's very inappropriate behavior of getting into a major edit war and ignoring four warnings on his talk page, not to mention coming here without even attempting to discuss it on the article's talk page. Bypassing appropriate protocol after bad behavior should not be rewarded. And that's exactly what's being done here by discussing the content issue, rewarding Duffbeerforme. Therefore, I think this thread should be closed and that s/he should be told to stop edit-warring, stop ignoring warnings, and take it to the talk page. Perhaps s/he should even be blocked for a little bit for doing all these things. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  Another valid point. Duffbeerforme's actions were way out of line here. He should not have edit warred and then brought this to ANI to make it appear he was without fault in the debate. So he is wrong in his actions on links and wrong on his actions on the page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  I agree with Ryulong. And if it's a "spam link", then why is it not on the blacklist? I think we've already been through this.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 19:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  It's still a valid discussion, but definitely not here. This discussion should move on to the talk page of the article in question. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

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

  Input needed regarding new "conflict resolution" project (and process?)

  Input is needed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Conflict_Resolution#How_is_this_project_different_from_Dispute_Resolution_project to determine if a new project (and perhaps a new Dispute Resolution process) is needed. --Noleander (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Wikiproject Englishness and Cricket
  Being discussed below. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:20, 14 March 2013 (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.

  ---

  I would like to ask why this "educational course" which has limited term is not confined to sandbox or userspace edits? It is not a wikiproject in the sense of permanent development of a subject's coverage. Why are the course members allowed to disrupt long-standing articles with uninformed (albeit good faith) edits based on dubious sources? The articles are there for the benefit of the readers and not for some educational joyride. Can this please be escalated as it is serious issue with the integrity and credibility of several articles at risk. Thanks. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 19:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  • See above, by the same editor. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

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

  User Weireth removing images
  Complaining about people actually enforcing policy is usually a bad idea. I'd suggest you stop. Black Kite (talk) 00:03, 14 March 2013 (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.

  ---

  Over the past week I have witnessed user

  WP:NFCC

  standards. While I understand Wikipedia has various standards for displaying content it appears all this user is doing is trolling pages on the Wikipedia for such content and removing. The number of pages having images removed in a day is quite high. On Monday this user was blocked for a 3RR and minutes later unblocked by another user and then the users was back to removing content as if he hadn't learnt his lesson at all. If the number of pages the user was removing images from was small or from a one section of the Wikipedia I wouldn't consider this an issue but there is no pattern as to what the user is removing he is simply trolling the Wikipedia for such content. I feel all this user is doing is upsetting other users on the Wikipedia and using the guidelines to bully people. Bhowden (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  • That's a nice little smear, Bhowden. I'll give you a few minutes to replace "trolling" with "trawling", which must have been the word you meant to use. Then I'll explain what else is wrong with your commentary. Drmies (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Alright then. Your "trolling" is a personal attack. You are here, I presume, to convince readers of this forum that you are right and Werieth is wrong--insulting the opponent is the wrong way to go about it. Moreover, you are wrong already. I have no idea what you mean with "Wikipedia has various standards for displaying content" but I do know that a. your talk page is a pretty clear indication that you have no idea what such standards might be (it's the policy laid down in
    WP:NFCC) and b. Werieth seems to be in the right in the NFC struggle's they're in. Yes, they were blocked, and unblocked minutes later because of a 3R exemption--so the suggestion you're trying out here, that Werieth is a repeat offender, is bollocks. "Upsetting other users"--well, that's tough. I see that Werieth has taken on a pretty unpopular job, which is to make us operate within the legal guidelines. That those guidelines prevent some editors from splattering pages full with illegally used non-free images, editors who (see Werieth's talk page) seem to be on a crusade to get them banned or otherwise censured, editors who treat Wikipedia article pages like a kindergarten project, makes it all the more important that we properly read the guidelines and support those who are incorrectly put up as partypoopers who should be blocked. Oh, and I'm placing a NPA-3 warning on your talk page for this "trolling" nonsense. Mind the boomerang. Drmies (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Also, I see now that you have said similar things before, in the section "Revert war, block/unblock, and all sorts of mess", above. It's a bit of a shame that no one commented on your choice of words at the time--but what is clear is that you wanted a lot more out of that thread than you got, and now you're trying again. Drmies (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  • As a neutral observer, looking at two of the articles in question,
    chatter) 00:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

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

  Ongoing vandalism from User:206.231.99.154
  The blocks they are a-growin'. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:11, 14 March 2013 (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.

  ---

  Noticed a long string of minor edits by User:206.231.99.154 that in their entirety look like a pattern of subtle vandalism. Many appear to be dates changed by one number. A look at the talk page reveals many warnings, but by the similarity of the offending edits, it looks like it's been done by the same person occasionally popping in to make mischief. – JBarta (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  206.231.99.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is a static corporate IP that has a habit of messing with sports-related articles. The last block was 1 month starting on 2 January 2013, after which the disruptive editing was pretty quickly resumed. I have now issued a 3-months block. De728631 (talk) 00:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

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

  Strange pattern detected at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention

  We are seeing an unusually large number of new accounts reported at

  AGF, I begin to worry whether somebody is attempting stealthily to set up a large batch of sleeper accounts which will quietly achieve autoconfirmed status, then sometime be used in a mass-attack scheme. Any comments? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  As someone who tackles UAA often, the recent number of "OfficialThusandso"-type accounts doesn't seem unusually high to me. Even though those types of usernames are usually not blocked unless they engage in some type of promotional editing, I suppose soft-blocking them wouldn't be unreasonable. But it hardly seems worth the effort to do so in order to head off such an unlikely mass-attack scheme. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  If they have the word "official" in their name, they'll b pretty easy to spot no matter how long they wait, yeah? :) Writ Keeper (t + c) 19:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  It's possible they're just registering the accounts with the view that, if they have then, no one can impersonate them at a later date.

  Sign) 16:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

  Ongoing blanking from Imorthodox23

  Imorthodox23 (talk · contribs): Repeated, sustained blanking without explanation. Has been warned numerous times by numerous users—user then deletes the warnings from his or her talk page. Today I reverted this, for example: [145]. Judging by the comments on the user's talk page, this is also happening outside of English Wikipedia. I tried to handle this at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, but it appears a bot just removed it from the listing for reasons unknown to me ([146]). I now list it here where human eyes can see it. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

  If there is vandalism occurring at another encyclopedia by the Wikimedia Foundation, then I'd suggest reporting them at the

  randley ^(review) 02:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

  Point of information: today's cross-wiki spree consisted mostly of unalphabetizing a list (in two cases, after the edit was reverted, it was reinstated by an IP). They have in the past been contentious edits, and the editor is blocked indef. for that reason on ru. So far as I can see, they have never given an edit summary, and there may be a competence issue, although much of it may have dissipated with time - this was September 2010. Also this first edit to their talk page mentions a previous account. All I can see that we can do is keep an eye on them. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

  I've requested a global lock over on Meta. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

  Demiurge1000
  At this time, there is no consensus to further shorten or lengthen the block of

  talk · contribs), which expires in two days. Gwickwire (talk · contribs) has been unblocked with consensus. There is also a consensus not to sanction Silver seren (talk · contribs). Mark Arsten (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2013 (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.

  ---

  In November,

  talk · contribs) was blocked for falsely and repeatedly accusing an editor of creating malicious sockpuppets. He was shortly thereafter unblocked

  with the understanding that he would no longer make "comments that can't be properly substantiated."

  Yet just three days ago, Demiurge1000 falsely accused another editor, without any evidence, of contributing to the outing of a minor editor – on an arbitration page, no less. Their comment was rightly redacted by a clerk, and Demiurge1000 was given a very clear warning by Floquenbeam that any more false or unsubstantial accusations would earn them a block.

  Demiurge1000 has made many, many negative comments over the last few months about the participants in an external website, labelling them "the boxcutter crew" and the like. He's certainly welcome to his opinions, but after making another such comment yesterday, I left a note explaining that his constant on-wiki taunting of these people is unhelpful and likely to backfire.

  He responded by falsely accusing me of making personal attacks, which he then followed by trolling my talk page.

  As I told Demiurge1000, this is completely unacceptable behavior, and as such I have restored and extended the NPA block to 1 month.

  Normally, I would not feel the need to bring such obvious NPA and trolling block to AN/I for review, but as I am the latest in a serious of editors Demiurge1000 has insulted and/or made false accusations about, I am requesting community input. As far as I'm aware, I've never had any disputes with Demiurge1000 before, but when it comes to

  WP:INVOLVED

  it's better to err on the side of caution, which is why I'm bringing it here. Any admin is welcome to adjust the block as they see fit, and as I told Demiurge1000, if he makes a credible commitment not to repeat the behavior, I would support a unblock. I believe it would be unwise to unblock absent such a commitment from the editor, but as always I defer to community consensus.

  I have notified Demiurge1000 of this thread. 28bytes (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  28bytes, as you put it, "but as I am the latest in a serious of editors Demiurge1000 has insulted and/or made false accusations about...", perhaps a neutral third party should have done the block. Your block seems harsh (a month) and punitive.--MONGO 16:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I don't think Demiurge should be unblocked without consensus here. Now, keep in mind I'm not saying that I think he should have been blocked. I'm not especially up to speed on all the ins-and-outs of that ArbCom situation, although it looks like a fiasco to me, so I won't pretend to know who should or should not be blocked. However, let's keep in mind that blocking and unblocking without consensus has caused significant unpleasantness in the not-so-distant past.
    AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 16:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Righteous block, would have preferred another admin make it, in context. NE Ent 16:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I think you provoked him a tad, though Demiurge needed little provoking. The most unsettling thing for me were his constant references to members of WO as the "boxcutter crew", but he seems to have committed to not using that term again. My thought is that it could be shortened to a week.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  • The commitment seems to be to find a synonym for continuing to make comment about other editors. NE Ent 17:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  • "Boxcutter crew" What does that mean? The Admin should have discussed with the User, why the User thought he was being personally attacked. Did he think you were impugning his motives? Also, someone else should have done the block. But there may well be an argument for a block of some length, but this is not clearly justified here, if you were arguably provoking him in the view of TDA, who was also involved. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Boxcutter -> 9/11 hijackers. NE Ent 17:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  • It actually refers to an inappropriate comment one moderator made a few months back.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Here's one of "Boxcutter crew" comments, and yes, it means 9/11 hijackers, and yes, such kind of rhetoric should not be allowed here. Demiurge1000 should have been blocked indefinitely for this comment alone. Demiurge1000 belongs to the worst kind of users. He seemingly does not violate the rules, but makes false accusations time and time again. Wikipedia will be better off with Demiurge1000 gone for good.71.198.213.240 (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
      • No. Users are not blocked indefinitely for one bad comment. You're being way to harsh. –TCN7JM 17:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  TDA, when you say a moderator said that inappropriate comment, are you saying a Wikipedia Sysop said that? Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  • If this [147] is correct, "boxcutter" refers to some threat made on an external website. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
    • That's a reasonable explanation, but most many readers seeing the term "boxcutter crew" are going to associate it with 9/11. NE Ent 19:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Not being most of them, I could not say. But what I thought of is a moving company, as in my experience that's who uses them in a crew. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
    • The original context of Demiurge's famous box-cutter quote is here. Now, that comment was inappropriate. It was removed from the forum as a result a few hours after it was made, and the moderator who made it got a royal bollocking from the rest of us. Having said that, to describe it as a "threat" is nonsense. You only need to look at the context. It's a figure of speech. Lizzy Caplan e.g. once said in the New York Post, "I don't think you should be allowed to eat in a restaurant if you haven't waited tables at least once. It's so irritating when I see people being rude to waiters, like, it makes me want to slit their throats! Like, really? You're really this inconsiderate?" So the whole thing is overblown, just like the fuss that was made about the comments that sparked the Twitter joke trial. Not nice, not to be repeated, but not worth the fuss Demiurge has made over it. Andreas JN466 17:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  .

  • I'm not a fan of Demiurge1000, but this seems like a rather long block handed out because their response to the warning, not because of the incident itself. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The opinions of the IP above notwithstanding (and it's rather curios to see an IP posting here), it appears that making personal attacks against some of the people at Wikipediocracy probably should not be a sanctionable offense. As for the IP, he does not seem to know what he is talking about, as boxcutter is almost certainly a reference to an inappropriate comment made by a sociopath on another site.
    AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Sorry, but since I was the one being hit with that "boxcutter crew" remark, despite having no connection with the comment that prompted that term, I have to say I am utterly disgusted with your attitude.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Ditto. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Also, I agree with Demiurge when he says, "On a minor technical note, I'm not at all convinced that when one "resets" a 24 hour block that would have expired nearly four months ago, a proportionate extension of it can sensibly be said to reach the region of one month." Therefore, I support an unblock.
    AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Fully endorse block This editor has been politely given advice on multiple occasions by multiple editors. The continuous postings across multiple venues, from arbitration related pages to the
    village pump, complaining about "people talking about me" and all the drama that ensues in a mature environment is a bit of a mystery to me. Frankly I would have considered an "indef" until the user could display that they understood the reasons that this project exists. — Ched :  ?  19:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  Additional note: Being unfamiliar with the term being tossed around, a bit of researching the meaning of "boxcutter", I was unable to find anything positive; but plenty of negative and derogatory explanations. — Ched :  ?  19:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Month long block is sort of excessive (as have been almost all sanctions related to this recent wikipediocracy mess). Perhaps reduce it to one week?--Staberinde (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't think the period of the block (at least a couple of users have suggested reducing it) is of any significance. The issue is what kind of "credible commitment" (28bytes's phrase) must Demiurge make to be unblocked? As usual, I'm unfamiliar with the background mess, but even in trying to follow the latest mess, I see little clarity. As a procedural aside, I don't believe 28bytes is involved.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
  • additional note I see that the blocked editor is now hosting a picture of some rather young people who are said to already be the targets of internet harassment. Considering the already mounting concerns over
    WP:OUT; I have to wonder if that is a particularly wise idea. — Ched :  ?  20:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Wow, so posting a publicly available picture of some WMUK members is now outing? That's horrid that you'd even try to go there. gwickwire^talk_editing 20:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Since we are using bolds, here's some more. Now, in all seriousness. 28bytes is just mad that we removed a comment he made on my talkpage, which is fully within guidelines. Furthermore, he's now told me that I am not allowed to say fuck on wiki in any circumstances, which means that tons more users deserve a block as well. This block was inappropriate, especially because Demiurge had never attacked anyone directly (afaik), and I feel that this may be an attempt to just cool down the ArbCom case before it explodes. Regardless, Demiurge does not deserve this block, as everything they've said so far is completely founded, and we both offered to provide evidence in private if asked to. Nobody's asked us for evidence. Therefore, you can't say this is unfounded and personal attacky, because it's all deserved. Block should be overturned and the blocking administrator should be seriously admonished. Oh, p.s., for those of you who want to know, the comments in question were by the blocking admin themselves, making them extremely
    WP:INVOLVED. gwickwire^talk_editing 20:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  The comment in question[148] looks to me like good advice, not a personal attack, and I don't see that it makes 28bytes involved to the extent he couldn't block.

  talk) 21:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  Well, given the situation, I hope you understand that seeing him come and tell us to basically "stop sniping" when it's fully warranted seemed a bit bad, given the concerns me and others have raised about the attempted silencing going on. Looking now, I don't think anyone made a personal attack, not demi, not me, not the blocking administrator. I think we should just unblock, all say sorry to each other, and move on (and I won't say fuck so much anymore, oh fuck I just fuck I'm still fucking saying it! Ugh! So hard!) Humor for those who didn't catch that. gwickwire^talk_editing 21:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Support-ish - While long overdue...the boxcutter jibes were getting a bit overdone and tiring...perhaps there is wiggle room here. Perhaps a length reduction pending agreement of a topic-ban from all Wikipediaocracy/Wikipedia Review related discussions, broadly construed? Tarc (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
    • How about that? A Wikipediocracy contributor trying to silence someone from talking about the major issue here by proposing (implied) a topic ban? That's a great tactic, but everyone can see through it. Nice try. gwickwire^talk_editing 21:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  gwickwire, you're doing yourself and others no favors here. Wikipedia is not the "Internet Police Task Force". If you have a problem with WO, then take it up with them. Quite frankly, with all the fuss you've been making about this - I think that they (WO) could not have held a better membership drive if they had tried. Nobody here cares where Tarc spends his time on the internet (no offense Tarc), as long as he abides by the rules here when he is here. If you feel that WO is doing something shady, have your parents contact a local law enforcement agency - or do so yourself if you are of age. We are simply not equipped to take the kind of action you're looking for. — Ched :  ?  21:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  The issue is that users are not abiding by our rules regarding editor conduct, and it's okay because they're not strictly on Wikipedia. We are equipped to stop this by blocking editors who choose to violate our rules, here or elsewhere. If you don't remember, I specifically said this would only apply to a Wikipedia editor who violates our rules against another Wikipedia editor. Regardless, this is not the place to have that discussion. I was only pointing out that this editor is a bit too COIy to be trusted with a neutral opinion on Wikipediocracy and Demiurge. gwickwire^talk_editing 21:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  Saying "they're not strictly on Wikipedia" implies that they are in some way on Wikipedia. They are not. Twitter is not Wikipedia, Amazon is not Wikipedia, IMDB is not Wikipedia, and Wikipediocracy is not Wikipedia. For someone who claims not to like Wikipediocracy, you seem to be doing a great job of advertising that site here. I'm sure many people have gone there just to see what all the fuss is about. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  I clearly don't hang out in the right places and am always the last to know. Until these last few comments, I had no idea the background of this was another website. I just assumed that wikipediocracy was a coined word to refer to the bureaucracy at Wikipedia, i.e., 28bytes being a 'crat and all. Obviously, I spend too much time in my own little admin hole.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  gwickwire, we do not block people who "violate our rules...elsewhere". That's elsewhere, and has precisely bupkis to do whether they get blocked here. Criminal conduct excepted in some cases, I believe. If somebody "violates our rules against another Wikipedia editor" somewhere that isn't Wikipedia, but remains within policy on Wikipedia itself, any block would be strictly punitive, and blocks like that go over like lead balloons. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  Question for gwickwire (or anyone else): You claim that 28bytes said something along the lines of " I am not allowed to say fuck on wiki in any circumstances," - could someone please provide a diff for that? I know some people get rattled when people use "big boy" words, but I can't find where he's made that requirement of you. — Ched :  ?  01:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  It's still on my talkpage, he told me I was being incivil somehow, the only thing I came close with was saying fuck, I guess I assumed. If he meant something else, fine. Regardless, Demiurge has apologized and has said they won't use the (imo not that bad compared to some other peoples words recently) word they used which got them blocked. Unblock is fine now. gwickwire^talk_editing 01:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Fully support unblock per Demiurge's comments and AutomaticStrikeout. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 01:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Unblock per Demiurge's promise to not do it again on their talkpage. gwickwire^talk_editing 01:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Unblock per AutomaticStrikeout and Demigure. I am open to another chance in this case, anyways.
    randley ^(review) 02:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • 1 month is excessive. Reduce duration or unblock, as the duration set is definitely not in line with escalation. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I and another editor have suggested it be reduced to one week. My belief is that unblocking at this stage would just allow more unneeded drama if Demiurge's commentary on his talk page is any indication.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Reduce duration or unblock. Shearonink (talk) 06:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Unblock until there is a policy requiring editors to be nice to WO. I do not see a problem that requires a block of any length in what appear to be the important diffs from the OP ("after making another such comment yesterday" ∙ "I left a note" ∙ "He responded by falsely accusing me of making personal attacks" ∙ "he then followed by trolling my talk page"). The boxcutter reference is to an extremely offensive remark made at WO, and presumably "boxcutter crew" refers to the people who encourage such offensiveness by making participation at WO appear to be a normal procedure. Has Demiurge1000 made a personal attack against a specific editor? The "trolling my talk page" remark was certainly aggressive, but an admin should not block someone for a pointed yet civil rejoinder. If Demiurge1000 had violated a policy like
    WP:BLP and followed a warning with that rejoinder, a long block would be very appropriate as the rejoinder would show a disregard for the policy. However, I see no policy breaches. Johnuniq (talk) 11:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support unblock or reduction So, the drama-inducing external website (
    BWilkins←✎) 12:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I presume the comment about sock accusations is for my benefit, but it is mistaken. At no point did I accuse anyone of being a sock.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  Why in the world would you assume that it applied to you? Part of the original complaint against Demi related to sock claims (see the words "falsely and repeatedly accusing an editor of creating malicious sockpuppets"), so it was adminishing Demi for doing so ... I really cannot fathom why you would consider this to be about you at all when it's my specific judgement on the editor in question (

  BWilkins←✎) 15:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Sorry, given the recent situation and your statements about WO I thought that part of your comments was directed at me.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Support unblock I can't see what purpose is being served by continuing this block. Although I am familiar with some of the contributions that both demiurge1000 and gwickwire make in helping new users, during the many weeks I have been helping out on irc, I must stress that nobody has canvassed me to support them here. I am however quite shocked, and I must say disappointed, as a relative wikipedia newbie, of how unnecessarily punitive and confrontational the way of treating experienced editors seems to be in these circumstances where there is a reasonable substantive disagreement between editors. Additionally I think that the fact that both editors had to get other people to try and post their comments in this discussion involving them seems to me quite a significant departure from natural justice, and I would support sensible proposals for changes in this policy once the question in hand has been settled. --_nonsense ferret 22:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  Reduced to 1 week

  There seems to be a fair amount of support for (at least) a reduction in the block length, and I take Demiurge1000's and others' point that going from a 1 day block to 1 month isn't the usual block escalation pattern, so I've dropped it down to 1 week. And as I said at the top of this thread, if any admin is convinced that Demiurge1000 is going to cease making false or unsubstantiated accusations, they have my blessing to unblock. Judging from what I've read on Demiurge1000's talk page, I don't (yet) see such a commitment; instead, I mostly see defenses of why it's necessary for him to keep stoking the flames of the us vs. them battle. So the options now, I suppose, are for him to:

  1. make an honest commitment to avoid making stuff up about people, and get unblocked immediately,
  2. wait it out for a week, or
  3. hope someone unblocks him without any commitment to stop the problematic behavior.

  I sincerely hope he will come to realize why making false statements about other people is such a corrosive thing to do in a collaborate environment and make a sincere commitment to stop doing that, but judging from the comments here so far, I think there's a decent chance he'll get unblocked without making such a commitment, in which case I suppose we'll be back here soon enough. 28bytes (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  Comments by Demiurge1000

  I'm creating a subsection for any comments Demiurge wants to make here. This is the first:

  I'd like to make anyone who's not seen it aware that I've posted an explanation in this section of why I (and another editor) initially perceived 28bytes' comments as a personal attack.

  --Bbb23 (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  I've avoided comment here up to now, as my reply on my own talk page gives a pretty good idea of what happened with this incident. However, there's a few points that have been made that do need addressing. I'll keep it brief Apologies for wall of text!
  
  Above, Jayen466 defends the comment about "slitting some throats" of Wikimedia UK members by saying it was merely "a figure of speech". If it's merely a figure of speech, why's it supposedly so appalling for me to mention it? Some editors here are, rightly, "horrified" by it, and that's because it's an awful lot more than a "figure of speech". Jayen466 goes on to compare it to the Twitter joke trial. Now, that's an incident in which a man was convicted of a criminal offence after being arrested by anti-terror police, and his conviction was upheld by two appeal courts and only finally quashed by the third appeal court after a massive public campaign supported by more-than-notable figures. Did various authorities over-react to this joke bomb threat? Yes they did, but the airport staff who originally reported it to police did so because they are told, just like WMF are told by police forces in many countries, that even an apparently non-credible threat should be taken seriously. Likewise, here on Wikipedia, if someone makes a legal threat that's obviously aimed to have a chilling effect, that's blockworthy even if a sensible adult would be confident the threatener had no chance in hell of mounting a successful legal case (or potentially, even intending to try). Why? Because as well as sensible adults, Wikipedia editors include a great many young, naive, or just completely uninformed editors who do actually have the right to edit without worrying themselves about some supposed lawsuit from some angry guy with a COI.
  
  Moving further down this page, The Devil's Advocate says "Demiurge openly speculated at RFAR without a shred of evidence or any reasonable basis that Kevin was using his administrator privileges to funnel private information about a minor to someone else in order to facilitate malicious harassment of said minor". No, actually I did not say that. Some people may have thought I meant that; some people may indeed believe that, or have been led to believe it when they were prompted to consider the facts themselves. But I am not those people. I did not accuse, and am not accusing, Kevin of having done that. What I actually said can still be read in the history of the page concerned.
  
  Now, Diannaa has said on this page that it's a problem that I'm "pre-judging people based on their participation on that website". That's a very interesting point, but no, no I'm not. I don't make any judgement about Floquenbeam based on their registering an account there in order to be able to complain about the outing of certain Wikipedia editors, nor do I make any judgement about the arbitrator who said he reads the site to give insights into whether disputants on Wikipedia are being genuine or not (he also comments there thoughtfully with his own opinions from time to time, and there's nothing wrong with that either).
  
  What I do make a judgement about, and I expect many other people do also, is when editors who are banned or blocked on Wikipedia use Wikipediocracy to "out", harass, or attack in whatever other way their opponents, in a manner that would be totally unacceptable here, and then an editor like (for example) The Devil's Advocate proceeds to engage onwiki, in Fluffernutter's words, "writing comments laying a trail of how someone else could find personal information on a user makes it look a lot like you're gaming the wording of the policy to accomplish the same aim as Cla68 was trying to do
  ... Posting continual details about another person on Wikipedia, for no other reason than because you appear to be fascinated by them and by someone else's right to use them against that person, is not behavior we expect of an editor in good standing".
  
  So yes, we have a spectrum of users on Wikipediocracy; some of them make comments like the throat-slitting one, some of them collate private information about minors who edit Wikipedia and offer to give it out to other Wikipediocracy editors, some of them act in the manner Fluffernutter just described and then also turn up at the talk page of one of the people being harassed and oh-so-helpfully enquire as to whether they've had any other Wikipedia accounts. This while also engaging in the discussions on Wikipediocracy where all this harassment was being planned and discussed.
  
  Let's look at one of those discussions a little bit deeper, because it shows just why I might think that's not reasonable behaviour. Earlier this evening, one of the "Global Moderators" on Wikipediocracy called "Cla68" (sounds familiar somehow) suggested that a forum member called "Lone Wolf" should "Email the kid and ask him for his parents' contact info and tell him why you want to know it", and then if the child refuses to hand over his parents' details, try and use that as a way to get him blocked (or, as he nicely newspeaked it, "follow Wikipedia's administrative guidance on dealing with minor contributors"). Doesn't sound very wise, does it? To me it sounds a bit like "better hand your details over to this anonymous stranger, kid, you don't wanna get blocked, do you?" And a Wikipediocracy user called The Devil's Advocate immediately joins the discussion talking about whether this would be effective or not. The individual who has been doing the "research" on the kid concerned helpfully pipes up "I have the snail mail address, email and phone contacts", and offers to supply them.
  
  Now, maybe I should be so much more assuming of good faith, but when a person who acts as Fluffernutter has described above, and (apparently) participates in that manner in discussions of the nature I've just described on Wikipediocracy, is also the same person that turns up to the target's talkpage making these "polite" enquiries as to their past history, I think to myself that that is not appropriate. Not appropriate at all, nonono.
  
  Apparently, my rather intemperate responses discouraged that person from carrying on with those "enquiries". Well, given the situation described, I don't think anyone could argue that's a bad thing.
  
  BWilkins considers that "Reality appears to be that membership on the one is nearly incompatible with editing on Wikipedia", and Herostratus takes the view that "consorting with persons sworn to damage and destroy the Wikipedia is not consistent with being a Wikipedia editor", but I don't see anyone clamouring for either of them to be blocked for a month. Maybe they just have that little bit more self-restraint than me.
  

  Screenshots of the Wikipediocracy comments I refer to, and any additional diffs that are needed, available to any oversighter on request. --

  ey 02:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  Response

  People should look at Demiurge's original comment about Kevin at RFAR and judge for themselves whether my characterization was so unfair.

  While Demiurge can certainly defend himself from accusations against him while blocked by getting his comments posted here, I am pretty sure it is not appropriate for him to be agitating for action against me with personal attacks in the process. Several of the claims he makes are, again, misrepresentations of the facts designed to present an unduly negative picture of other editors. Prior to my comment on gwick's talk page this is the only on-wiki interaction I had with him. I had earlier made a comment on WO similar to the last few sentences of the second paragraph in the above diff (noting that the only information revealed about gwick was what gwick had himself revealed on his user page), but that is all as best as I can recall. The other matters he refers to above either came after that discussion or concern completely different editors and so his attempt to tie those in with my commenting at gwick's talk page is deceitful. Demiurge also misrepresents the context of the more recent conversation on WO. As far as my comment goes, another poster said that Cla68's suggestion was "not a good idea" and I responded to that post by saying that I wasn't even sure what it would achieve. He presents it as though I was brainstorming with other posters about how to harass someone, when that is farrrrr from the truth.

  Concerning the warning I got from Fluff, it was ridiculous then and is even more ridiculous now. For one, several editors had already said explicitly where the alleged outing occurred without any action and since then even more explicit references that allow for a simple one-two connection to identifying information via Google have been provided, in one instance by an Arbitrator. I am the only editor of those to have actually received a formal warning, for a statement that requires people put in some considerable elbow grease to scour over information in several unnamed places on-wiki before even having the chance of getting some off-wiki confirmation, while other people got away with all but linking to the original post that contained the alleged outing.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  Rather ridiculous

  I feel like no one was paying attention at all. First off, i'll start with Gwickwire, since that will be shorter. They were blocked by saying that personal attacks had been made against them by Kevin. This is true, I saw them too before they were oversighted (they were oversighted for several reasons, really). So, it's kind of ridiculous to say that the claims are unfounded and ask for evidence when the evidence has been oversighted.

  Onto Demiurge, let's start with the warning. Now, I don't know who it was they accused of contributing to the outing of a minor. Sure, User:Vigilant was the one who very clearly did the outing on the site, but there were indeed several other editors that were involved in the berating of Gwickwire and contributing to the general attacks on them that led to Vigilant doing that. Now, whether that's considered contributing to the outing directly or not, I don't know. That's rather subjective.

  Next, the "boxcutter" comment. This is a jab at Ericbarbour, who used that comment to refer to Wikipedians in the past. Sure, not a nice thing to say, but if you're just quoting the terms they used, essentially, it seems silly to get that upset over it.

  Last is 28bytes' comments. I don't know about any of you, but being accussed of "constant sniping" sounds like a personal attack to me. Also, isn't saying "egging on other folks to taunt them" an unfounded attack? Demiurge had nothing to do with Gwickwire and 28bytes was accusing him of egging them on.

  So, please, do tell me why blocks were handed out for both of them here? If it's based on the recent 28bytes stuff, it seems to me that they are the one in the wrong, not Demiurge. Silverseren^C 19:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  I don't really care about 28bytes, I just think that unblocking Demiurge and Gwickwire is appropriate. Silverseren^C 20:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  Silver seren, if you think that my comment was in any way, shape or form a personal attack, then your understanding of our policy on personal attacks is so poor that you really have no business commenting in a discussion about personal attacks until you gain a better understanding of what one is. 28bytes (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  • It wasn't a large one, but it is quite easy to see how someone could consider being accused of "constant sniping" would consider that a personal attack. Furthermore, why did you accuse Demiurge of "egging on" Gwickwire to "taunt them"? Silverseren^C 19:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry, but I have to agree with 28bytes on this one. I really do not see how a reasonable person could consider that a personal attack. That was clearly and obviously a comment about 28bytes' perception of Demiurge's actions not their person. Resolute 20:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  • It's just that sniping is a negative term. Besides, is him calling it a personal attack in an edit summary really that big of a deal? Certainly not worthy of a block. Silverseren^C 20:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Negative actions are hard to describe accurately with positive terms. And it was apparently big enough of a deal for you to bring it up, so... Resolute 13:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  • The whole point is that seeing "sniping" as negative is subjective and fully understandable to be taken as a personal attack. So, holding it against Demiurge at calling that a personal attack (in an edit summary, no less) seems patently ridiculous. Silverseren^C 14:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  • (
    AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  Excuse me? In what way am I "involved" with Gwickwire? Prior to blocking this editor, my only edits having anything to do with this person were to [ask another editor not to pester them and to warn them for repeatedly making stuff up about people, which they continued to do, which is why they are now blocked. Are you seeing some other edits I am not aware of? 28bytes (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  28, may I ask if you consulted an OS before blocking Gwick? He claims that the comments in question have been oversighted. Considering that this whole mess started with an admin using their tools in a situation where they didn't have access to all the information, I think this would be a logical thing to do. — 

  ^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 20:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  Hi PinkAmpersand. That's actually an excellent question, and I'm glad you asked it. The answer is this: I didn't need to ask oversight about them because Kevin's statements are still right on the page; it was other editors' comments that were removed, not his. When I said I'd read all of his contributions since February, I was including the contributions that appear to have been oversighted. If you look in Kevin's contribution history, you will see four oversighted edits, all made to Cla's talk page. However, the oversighting was done to remove other people's contributions; it just so happens that when you oversight someone's edits, other editors' contributions will not be viewable if they happened to post after the oversighted material was added to the page, but before the oversighter removed it. I will post the content of those edits here shortly (again, these are still visible on the talk page - it was other editors' content that was oversighted.) I believe you will agree that they come absolutely nowhere close to personal attacks. 28bytes (talk) 03:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks for the response, 28bytes. If only 4 edits have been OS'ed, I agree that it's almost certain that none of them had anything removed from them. However, Gwickwire seems to believe that Kevin did in fact make personal attacks that were OS'ed. I'll ask him what he thinks about your comment (which I fully believe, of course), then. I'd like to note, though, that this could somewhat explain the disagreement here about whether or not Kevin made PAs; Wikipedians often rely heavily on page histories, and without them they can become somewhat more confused than usual about what was or was not said by different users. But anyways, yeah, I'll ask Gwick if he can explain this. — 

  ^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 06:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  As one of the two editors (the first was Enric Naval) in contact with OS about

  WP:AN recently. There was an external link to one posting on wikipediocracy (a message that Cla68 wished to be added on to his user talk page). That link was removed by Enric Naval with a note. I later removed that note and that was the state in which OS left the page after suppression. No content added by Kevin was changed. Gwickwire's memory is not correct. There was nothing between my two edits by Kevin beyond the 4 statements listed below by 28bytes. There seems to be no point in making any further comments about Kevin or personal attacks. Mathsci (talk) 07:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  The claims about off-wiki personal attacks are also quite absurd. Best I can tell the only comment being called a personal attack is Kevin's talk about Demiurge "making it up as he goes along." Given that Demiurge openly speculated at RFAR without a shred of evidence or any reasonable basis that Kevin was using his administrator privileges to funnel private information about a minor to someone else in order to facilitate malicious harassment of said minor, I think Kevin's comment was well within reason.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Support block of 28bytes for abuse of administrator tools per
    randley ^(review) 20:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I remain neutral upon further investigation.
      randley ^(review) 21:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Just an observation, but this continuing to encourage each other down a path of flouting policy and generally accepted practices is likely to not end well. — Ched :  ?  20:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comments: 28bytes cannot be considered an involved admin since his only involvement with these two users has been to issue warnings and take administrative actions. -- Dianna (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Gwickwire has asked me to clarify that he feels 28bytes was involved since he (Gwickwire) had previously expressed discontent with 28bytes's block of Demiurge. — 
    ^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 20:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  • That in itself is not enough to make 28bytes involved. Writ Keeper (t + c) 20:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Nope. NE Ent 20:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Uhh, yeah, no. "I don't like the admin action you took" does not make an admin involved in this context. Resolute 13:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  • This is really a strange section to read. No, warning an editor does not make an admin involved, and even if it did, the response to that would not be to block the admin in retaliation. I see that PinkAmpersand has said he's in communication with Gwickwire - can I ask that if anyone else is here because they were asked to comment or urged toward a particular position, they say so here? The level of vitriol being directed at 28bytes here seems disproportionate for uninvolved users to be putting out, and I know gwickwire was expressing his distaste for the block on IRC earlier today, though he says he has not asked anyone to comment here besides PA (as PA discloses above). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I think the vitriol is also distracting from the simple fact that I don't think all the facts were properly explained in Demiurge and Gwickwire's blocks and that, with this information, it shows that they shouldn't have been blocked. It really has little to do with 28bytes beyond the fact that he introduced the section in the first place. Silverseren^C 20:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • (
    ^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 21:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I have been in contact with Gwickwire through IRC, in what I'm trying to make a helpful and friendly conversation (but YMMV), but I am not here as a result of his request, and in fact have a substantially different opinion about this from his. Writ Keeper (t + c) 21:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict)On Wikipedia, civility is ... some vague notion that we seem to be unable to come to agreement on. Last year's arbcom and over a hundred editors spent months on it to come up with the not very helpful:

  Throughout the project, breaches of the expected level of decorum are common. These violations of the community's standards of conduct are unevenly, and often ineffectively, enforced. (1,2)
  — English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee

  Demiurge and gwickwire have legitimate concerns about websites outside Wikipedia; although a significant number of Wikipedia editors believe that participation on such sites is inconsistent with collaborative editing here. They are entitled to that opinion but it is not policy and not the consensus viewpoint, and it does not entitle them to attack other editors. 28bytes, doing the job the community elected him to do, made a judgement that they had crossed that nebulous line. It's okay to disagree with that, it's okay to ask him to reconsider, but it's not okay to turn around and attack him or make ridiculous comments about desysoping and the like. NE Ent 21:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I do not think 28 was involved on this matter. Admins occasionally warn people in a less than genteel manner, but I do not think this necessarily makes them involved. Demiurge was "egging on" gwick, by saying things to him such as "The small but very important mistake the boxcutter people made, is that they didn't realise that you aren't ever going to give in to harassment." He was certainly engaged in "constant sniping" during this dispute. Gwick has also been unnecessarily combative towards numerous users, such as in the VPP discussion where he is posting links to some blogposts of his that simply list alleged "personal attacks" by editors.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Are they not personal attacks by other editors? Yours wasn't, admittedly, but I remember most of the others and they certainly were. Silverseren^C 21:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I haven't looked over every last incident, but many were being presented out of a context or otherwise misquoted. For instance, another quote is presented with "He's being . . . a douche". Those dots are called an ellipsis for those not in the now and indicate excised material. In this case the full comment was "He's being a bit of a douche now, yea, but meh" and the comment in the post was preceded with "Btw, I'm not sure I buy the 'returning editor' idea. Yea he was a bit familiar with the syntax out of the gate, but the editing history is just so terribly milquetoast that I cannot imagine this person ever being in a confrontational/adversarial situation that would warrant a ban or a need to invoke right-to-vanish." Hardly as bad when presented in full and in context right? The references to "lying" noted in gwick's blog were because of comments gwick made such as "A majority of the users on Wikipediocracy seem to have a view that is on one side of the Eastern Europe issue, and one side of the Arbitration decision there. This commonality allows them to effectively coordinate and perform harassment and outing." Another comment cited was "scumbag keed", which was in response to gwick's claim: "The site moderators, some of which hold advanced permissions with access to private information here on Wikipedia, fail to do anything to stop this outing/doxing and harassment, when it is obviously in their power to remove the posts and reprimand the users posting the material." The "scumbag keed" comment was made by Zoloft/Stanistani because he had actually removed the comments Vigilant made about gwick after gwick asked and was thus annoyed. It was redacted when gwick clarified that he had not been referring to Zoloft. Gwick made this blog post after that comment had been redacted.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  • FYI I don't think you're doing yourself any favors by repeating your claims about Gwickwire being a returning editor. Believe it or not, as much as some of our help pages suck here, it's possible to figure out things pretty fast. The epitome of driving editors away is thinking that all new users must be completely clueless, and therefore any user who isn't a bumbling idiot their first few weeks here must in fact be up to no good. Basically, we'll force you off Wikipedia for not getting our arcane policies, and if you do get them, you're obviously a troll. In my opinion, it should be a blockable offense to accuse an editor of lying about their past once they've answered your questions satisfactorily; here, of course, you're just quoting yourself, but it seems like a rather gratuitous reference to an unhelpful accusation you made in the past. — 
    ^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 22:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Those are quotes in my previous comment and are are not from me, but other posters. Also, I never made any such claims, but instead only asked gwick if he had edited before he created the account he is using now.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Diff of a PA needed Demiurge was blocked "for making personal attacks". Would someone please supply two diffs showing personal attacks. The diffs provided by 28bytes do not show a personal attack—while referring to unspecified participants at WO as being the boxcutter crew may be irritating, but it is not covered by
    WP:NPA. A community discussion could require Demiurge to not use that term because it is inflammatory, but I have not seen a comment directed at another editor that is a personal attack. Johnuniq (talk) 01:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Actually, it is covered by WP:NPA as it would be "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views" and one should also note that the policy says "These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." Referring to a group of editors as being part of a "boxcutter crew" or as being "boxcutter people" because they post on a forum is using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem in an attempt to disparage and discredit them.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  • And who exactly is this NPA directed at? What user is being accused of this and was mentioned by Demiurge? Silverseren^C 04:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  • He used that term several times during a conversation where it was just me, him, and gwick, and was clearly labeling me as part of the "boxcutter crew" due to me posting at WO.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Diffs then that show that he was clearly referring to you and not just WO? Silverseren^C 05:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Here and here.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  So the term was used in response to you pestering Gwickwire about whether they have had previous accounts, which Gwickwire then noted that if you have anything to go on, then take him to ANI because otherwise its just dirt-slinging (my paraphrasing), and then Demiurge noted that the attempts aren't going to stop . You then continued to respond and pester. I see...

  Furthermore, what does boxcutter crew even mean and how is it all that derogatory? My first thought is that it's meant to mean cookie-cutter people, meaning WO is all the same and everyone from it acts the same and is the same. Or I guess it could mean that a box-cutter is an ineffectual threat? Has Demiurge's even been asked and explained what he meant? Oh wait, nevermind I found it. Right here. Demiurge's was specifically quoting EricBarbour and just throwing his own terminology back at him. That seems appropriate. So, again, what's the issue here? Silverseren^C 15:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Yeah, yeah, I asked him quite nicely if he had edited previously, which can only be pestering because it is not like that is some sort of normal question to ask (we certainly don't ask that of prolific content-creators looking to become admins or long-time admins looking to become Arbitrators because that would just be disrespectful!), and therefore it is ok to talk about me as though I am part of some gang of murderous violent thugs. How lofty are your morals!--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  wow seren. another false claim from yet another editor claiming that Kevin made personal attacks. care to supply a diff, or a quote if the diff has been oversighted? 174.141.213.40 (talk) 06:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  Comments by Gwickwire

  I'm creating a subsection for any comments Gwickwire wants to make here. This is the first:

  First of all, I've promised multiple times to not do this again without evidence. That means that now this block is punitive, as it's not preventing anything (except my opinion) bad. Second of all, I feel that since there was an ongoing discussion about the validity of 28bytes' block of Demiurge1000, which I expressed my extreme dissatisfaction with, he was too involved in that matter to use the block tool on me at the time. Thirdly, when responding to my unblock request, he acknowledged that "I have no intention of lifting this block early.", which means he isn't going to lift it after all standard unblock conditions are met. This is an issue, that's happened twice now in the past 24 hours. Something needs to be done about the two blocks in place, which are hampering the discussions at ANI and VPP, possibly unintentionally. gwickwire^talk_editing 21:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  -- Cheers,

  ey 21:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  @TDA:

  Even in context, the comments I've compiled are still rude and incivil. The reason I removed some context is to make it less tl;dr for those who don't have 10 hours a day to spend on this.

  —

  talk · contribs) 22:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  It's my understanding that blocking means you get to post to your talk page but nowhere else. Why then does Gwickwire seem to have special license to comment here through proxy editors? — Hex (❝?!❞) 23:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  It's not uncommon that when a blocked editor is being discussed at a noticeboard (here, sockpuppet investigation, etc.) that their comments are allowed to be entered into the record, so to speak, of the discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  That's always how it's been done, because otherwise the discussion is completely one-sided. The only exception is if someone abuses their talk page privileges and gets them revoked, though I suppose they could always email a user and get a comment added by someone else that way. Silverseren^C 00:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Hey SilverSeren, I see that you also have a list of my attacks on other editors. Perhaps you might post the diffs here so everyone can see. We should probably ask an oversighter to give us the gist of any diffs that were suppressed. How about it? Kevin (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks Kevin for suggesting we contact an OSer for the diffs of your personal attacks. I'm wondering why 28bytes didn't do this before blocking me. Also, a good point is made above that Demiurge never attacked a specific Wikipedia editor at all, and therefore was not making a blockable personal attack under

  WP:NPA. Maybe you should all rethink your opinions on my and Silver seren's proposals now, because that would be blockable under my proposals. Secondly, I feel this block no longer has a purpose as a preventative block, as both me and Demiurge1000 have expressed many many times onwiki that we will not repeat the actions that made us blocked. If 28bytes doesn't unblock at this time, both of us, I hope that another administrator will see that these blocks have become punitive and are not helping anything anymore. Thanks.

  -- Posted for User:gwickwire via request on IRC. _nonsense ferret 02:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  I should note for those playing along at home that I actually haven't made any personal attack, and that this post was a gentle reminder that when you accuse a user of such a thing, evidence is nice. A requirement even. Kevin (talk) 02:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  So Gwickwire actually just repeated the allegation that Kevin made personal attacks ("contact an OSer for the diffs of your personal attacks") even while he is saying that he will not repeat that allegation ("we will not repeat the actions that made us blocked")...? Wow. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  If by "special license" you mean "right extended to every user whose block is discussed at ANI", then yes, it's a special license. IMHO it's a software flaw that admins don't have the option to selectively unblock users for specific pages. King of Hearts sometimes does this thing where he effectively does it with an edit filter, but that's been controversial. — 

  ^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 07:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Okay. That fact would benefit from being documented, even if only as a note in a block template, for those of us who don't hang around here. — Hex (❝?!❞) 09:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Please stop posting comments from IRC into this thread. If gwickwire wants comments posted into this thread, he may make an edit at his talkpage specifying the text he wants copied, and use the {{
    BWilkins←✎) 15:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Gwickwire has a Wikipedia cloak, which requires onwiki verification. Unless you're worried that his IRC account might have been compromised (which I can vouch for it not having been, since we've talked about personal stuff), I don't really see any reason that this should be a problem. — 
    ^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 04:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Well, it's not *just* that; it also allows us to confirm that his comments have been transcribed accurately. Not that you'd mess around with them on purpose, but errors happen sometimes, and other people might, so it's good practice. Writ Keeper (t + c) 04:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Fair enough. Glad to know I can still be trusted, at least. :) If this shitstorm ever blows over, remind me to start an RFC on standard best practices for blocked users whose blocks are being discussed at a noticeboard. I seriously think a selective block/unblock tool would be useful, but since that requires developer resources, I'd also like to hear what the community thinks of using edit filters as a workaround. — 
    ^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 05:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  We tried that once, and it was a miserable failure IMHO (

  BWilkins←✎) 11:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  Kevin's "oversighted" edits

  PinkAmpersand asked an excellent question above, which Gwickwire and others have brought up as well: what about Kevin's oversighted edits? Did they contain personal attacks? That's actually an excellent question, and I'm glad PinkAmpersand asked it. The answer is this: I didn't need to ask oversight about these edits because Kevin's statements are still right on the page; it was other editors' comments that were removed, not his. When I said I'd read all of his contributions since February, I was including the contributions that appear to have been oversighted. If you look in Kevin's contribution history, you will see four oversighted edits, all made to Cla68's talk page. However, the oversighting was done to remove other people's contributions; it just so happens that when you oversight someone's edits, other editors' contributions will not be "diffable" if they happened to post after the oversighted material was added to the page, but before the oversighter removed it. Below are the four "oversighted" edits that were made by Kevin to Cla68's talk page. Again, these edits themselves were not oversighted and are still present on the talk page. It was only the fact that other editors' comments were oversighted that non-oversighters are not able to view these four posts of Kevin's as diffs.

  I have unblocked the account. As I said earlier, now that Cla68 has agreed not to repeat the connecting of Russavia with his real name, or to post any links to the blog entry, the reason for the block is moot. I take note of the post Cla68 made not agreeing to NYB's request, however I feel that as this block was for a specific incident, and the threat of recurrence has been removed, an agreement to cease a wider range of activities is not required, particularly given that this is not a long term course of conduct. Should editors feel that some kind of restriction is required, of course that may be taken up at the appropriate venue. Kevin (talk) 07:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  Cla68 is talking about the all too familiar situation where an editor is discussed on their talk page, whilst being unable to participate due to being blocked. Kevin (talk) 09:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  Further to my post above, obviously there are wildly differing opinions on what should be done in the longer term, however the emergency, if it can be called that, has passed, and any future action can be debated calmly, and without a rush to judgement. Kevin (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  No, what I have done is taken the view that Cla68 is unlikely to repeat those comments and posts re Russavia. I take no stand on whether Cla68 was right, wrong or whatever. That issue can now be debated in the full light of day. Kevin (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  As you can see, these four edits were nowhere close to being personal attacks. Kevin has, in all the edits both "oversighted" and "diffable" done nothing on Wikipedia to attack, insult or lie about any other editors. Gwickwire has repeatedly claimed otherwise – after both Floquenbeam and I specifically warned Gwickwire to stop making false or unsubstantiated allegations about other editors or be blocked – which is why Gwickwire is now blocked. As you can see, Kevin's edits speak for themselves, and I stand by my block of Gwickwire 100%.

  With that, I'm going to bow out of this thread, and let the community decide who should be blocked, unblocked, desysopped, or what have you. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 04:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment - no personal attacks here. Can someone convincingly back up claim that there was still some on-wiki personal attack by Kevin that 28bytes has missed? If not, then Gwickwire's claims about OS personal attacks are simply continued
    WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior even after getting blocked.--Staberinde (talk) 07:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The notion that 28bytes was involved because Gwickwire had voiced disapproval about another block he made is hopelessly unsustainable. If it were true then every vandal could show up and proudly proclaim on their talk pages "all admins are wankers and all their decisions are bad" and then wreck the place, with no one being allowed to do anything about it. I can't see anything even approaching what one might describe as a personal attack from 28bytes here, either. I think some of the people here calling for blocks and de-sysopings need to get a little perspective.
    _berate 13:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I've just read through this little saga. Whilst 28bytes may or may not have been a bit too trigger-happy, some of the things here levied against them are surreal - especially the allegations about them being involved. If that's an involved user, then 90% of admins can't do anything... I've not seen any "blatant" personal attacks, what I have seen is a truckload of
    WP:BATTLEGROUND-esque behaviour, particularly on gwickwire's side, and their absurd allegation about 28bytes being involved only backs that up. I can't evaluate the warning message by 28bytes, as it doesn't appear to be visible on the talk page any longer, nor does the diff work, but I'm inclined to take their side on this. I think the one-week blocks are bang-on - one month would be too long, that I agree with, at least for Demiurge1000 - gwickwire seems to have tried hard to get their ban extended again. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Unblock of Demiurge

  I am formally requesting an unblock of Demiurge, as the "evidence" brought against him was not properly presented. His block, as I can see it, is two-fold. The first is his use of the term "box-cutter" as a jab at WO. As he explains here, he was specifically quoting Wikipediocracy global moderator EricBarbour, who has used that term in the past toward Wikipedians.

  Specifically, EricBarbour stated,

  "I gotta stop reading this thread. It just makes me want to fly to London, get a box-cutter, and start slitting nerdy little throats. These bastards simply aren't worth the effort."

  So, yeah. I don't really see throwing the term back at him being much of an issue, considering the original statement made by Barbour. Basically, he's stating that WO members are a "boxcutter crew" or, otherwise, a group of people that make threats such as that. Sadly, you can't look up the statement directly, as they redacted it. Just as sad...i've seen even worse threats than that on WO.

  Secondly, the discussion above involved Demiurge's calling 28bytes' comment on his page a personal attack in his edit summary. That comment is here. Demiurge took offense at his comments being called "sniping" and at being accussed of "egging on" Gwickwire. So, he considered it a personal attack and removed the comment. He then left this comment explaining that he considered it a personal attack.

  This is definitely subjective and neither side looks good in the outcome, but the sum total is remarkably minor and irrelevant and should have nothing to do with any block discussion ever. Ultimately, there seems to be no case whatsoever for the block, if you're basing the block on something as minor as these two things. Silverseren^C 15:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Silver seren, the problem with "he's stating that WO members are a 'boxcutter crew' or, otherwise, a group of people that make threats such as that" is that anyone who has any association with that site becomes associated with a comment made by an individual poster. If Eric Barbout said it, why should an ArbCom member posting on Wikipediocracy be associated with and held responsible for Barbour's remark? This is simply setting up a battleground mentality. I understand why it is appealing -- one can simply dismiss criticism as being from "the boxcutter crew" instead of looking at what is being said -- but ultimately it just creates an artificial polarity which breeds an unhealthy cycle of attack/revenge-attack. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  When members of the site come out en masse whenever there is a thread about them or that has a thread on WO, I think it's relevant to consider those members to be a part of the group. Aka, all the members who have posted in this thread. It's those members that Demiurge was referring too and it was quite clear that TDA was pestering Gwickwire because of it being brought up at WO. Even 28bytes noted on the talk page that TDA was pestering. It's not a battleground mentality when WO members are actually creating the battleground by group canvassing. Silverseren^C 16:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  What do you think is going to happen when you start your silly threads about blacklisting the site and applying WP policies on actions made off-wiki? Of course people from that site are going to be attracted to those threads. It's not at all the same thing as someone attracting voters to an AfD by posting on Reddit. Silver seren, if Wikipediocracy isn't paying you for driving traffic from WP to their site, they should be. Just like you and other did with Wikipedia Review, you are turning what is really a very small forum into some kind of scary bogeyman, which only fuels the battle (and interest in the site). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  To be fair, the members of Wikipediocracy are at least as diverse a bunch as the editors here, running the gamut from crazies to very sensible and respected commentators. When Demiurge threw the "boxcutter" epithet at someone who wasn't EricBarbour, he was effectively suggesting that they shared the crazy notion of slitting throats with a utility knife (and mine was one of the throats in question, so I feel entitled to comment). That is a personal attack, and seems to me to be sufficient cause for 28bytes to warn and then block. Demiurge has now understood the other connotations of "boxcutter" and the degree of offence that others may take from it, and has very sensibly promised not to use the phrase again. If he can now convince an uninvolved admin that he knows it's best to step away from this sort of conflict and try to avoid it in future, then I can see him being unblocked before the week is up. I'd recommend the same to Gwickwire as anybody who knows 28bytes will see that is all he wants from this episode. 28bytes is a reasonable person and took reasonable actions. I'm quick enough to criticise admins who act improperly; it is sensible to commend those like 28bytes who do act in the best interests of the project. --RexxS (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  I certainly have not made any fucking death threats and I'm nobody's fucking slave. When I asked gwickwire about his early editing history it is because his conduct at VPP was becoming so confrontational that it made me wonder and his early contributions seemed to me to be atypical for someone who was just starting out. I didn't presume that meant he was doing anything untoward as there are many good reasons for someone to show proficiency in editing at an early stage (previously editing from an IP or being a legitimate clean start account for instance). Look up the term "pestering" for a moment. It doesn't mean "asking a question that someone takes badly" but refers to persistent annoyance of someone. Making two civil comments on someone's talk page does not qualify. Having to deal with Demiurge's "boxcutter" snipes there would have dissuaded me from any further discussion on its own honestly, because it is quite troubling for me to be treated like some sort of vile, murderous individual, just because I post on a discussion forum.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Quite. About Gwickwire: I can say after having an extended conversation with them on IRC yesterday that they are very very sensitive; much too much so, I would say. They were taking offense to things that, to my eyes, were unimpeachably polite and civil, in both word and intent. In that context, I can quite easily see Gwickwire taking offense to your comments, TDA (though they shouldn't have). The only thing I can say is that Gwickwire needs some serious reflection and insight about their standards and expectations. What's happening is that they admit that their interpretations of things like INVOLVED and CIVIL are very very strict, but don't realize that our behavioral norms are based on the community's interpretation of such policies, not their own. (Indeed, the fact that there is no communnity-wide interpretation of civility is the reason why we have such a problem with it.) Basically, Gwickwire is acting (or demanding action, as the case may be) based on their own interpretation of the policies, and they need to realize that that's not how it works. Writ Keeper (t + c) 18:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Can we not make this about Gwickwire? That's why I made this a separate section in the first place, to discuss Demiurge and Demiurge only. Silverseren^C 18:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Sure, sorry. Just had some musings after reading TDA's post that I was moved to write down. Writ Keeper (t + c) 18:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Whoa, no one has accused you of making death threats. However, by posting on WO, you are associating with people who do make threats like that. And considering you started commenting to Gwickwire about previous accounts right after this was raised on WO, is it all that surprising that one would assume that's where you're coming from? If you came to it independently, then fine, but you can't blame others for taking the logical assumption that you weren't because of the timing. Silverseren^C 18:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  You (and Demiurge1000, based on his remarks on this wiki) are pre-judging people based on their participation on that website. That's a battleground mentality, one that apparently makes the assumption that anyone who posts on WO is okay with what Mr Barbour said. People who participate there are not "associating" with that WO user any more than I can be considered "associating" with any given Wikipedia user just because I participate on this wiki. For What It's Worth. -- Dianna (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Nobody's right if everybody's wrong? Eh, I prefer CSNY. Writ Keeper (t + c) 19:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Love the one you're with, baby. — Hex (❝?!❞) 20:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  I, at least, am judging people on their statements and actions. And that includes statements made on that website. There are plenty of people that are members of the site that I don't include when I say "Wikipediocracy members". That includes a number of Arbs and admins and other editors. But the moment someone becomes involved in the site in the sense that they start verbally abusing other editors...yeah, I guess I pre-judge based on that. Silverseren^C 21:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Should you think I have "verbally abused" anyone then I would love to see your evidence.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  And I haven't considered you to really be a member as of now. Though...you've been heavily involved in discussion threads that are all about abusing other people, so it's kind of on the line. :/ The whole thing about showing up in the spots wherever it gets canvassed over there is also a problem. Silverseren^C 22:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Yet you still seem to have no problem with someone labeling me as a member of "the boxcutter crew" in spite of that.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  You don't get that Demiurge was referring to WO in general. Sure, he may have been mentally including you in those ranks because of your questioning of Gwickwire and the timing, but he was also commenting against several other WO members within the same time period. So it was meant to be a general thing. And, seriously, EricBarbour's comment is one of the worst things ever and it deserves to be thrown in his face as often as possible. Silverseren^C 23:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Never to forgive, never to forget? From Hell's heart I stab at thee? For Hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee? Is that the kind of wiki we want to be??? -- Dianna (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  So you suggest that nothing is done about the harassment, outings/doxings, and threats? Silverseren^C 02:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  What would you have us do? Are you suggesting that calling them names is of any use? Call them bad names and throw things in their faces? How is referring to a group of people as "the boxcutter crew" helpful in any way, shape or form, no matter who is included or what it's referencing? Does it keep people from being outed, or does it just ratchet up the tensions and dramah even more, so that such things are even more likely? Would you rather us ban any mention of them or linking to their site, stick our fingers in our ears, close our eyes, and wish them away? That won't work. Or shall we anoint ourselves enforcers of the Internet? Not content with mere banning, are we now to declare people Untouchables, such that even a casual word exchanged with them or using the same website as them warrants a ban? That's an idiotically slippery slope if ever there was one. And what about legitimate criticism? There's quite a bit of that at Wikipediocracy, at least from my chair, even if it can take some wading to find it. Any reprisal against Wikipediocracy members on Wikipedia will accomplish nothing: any that care about Wikipedia and finding its flaws to make it better will be either muzzled or banished, and any that don't will be undeterred. Some might stop being the former and start being the latter.

  I don't know what the answer is. I freely admit that. But maybe, just maybe, the answer is to actually listen to what they're saying. Not all of it, by any means, and not all of it that's worth listening to is worth carrying out, but there are things worth consideration. And not because they're threatening to out people if we don't (thought that's not what they are doing), but because they might be right. A stopped clock is right twice a day, and I would imagine those people are certainly smart enough to be better than that. Maybe if we didn't have such a knee-jerk reaction to them, they wouldn't have to turn up the volume so loud to get our attention. Maybe, maybe not, I don't know. All I can say is that I don't think that running around and saying "something must be done!" without actual workable suggestions while openly antagonizing a disparate group of editors under the umbrella of "THE ENEMY" is not likely to be helpful. Writ Keeper (t + c) 03:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  BING BING BING BING!!! — We have a winner. Carrite (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  Create an edit filter which blocks all contributions with the letters a c c d e i i i k o p r w y, in any order. NE Ent 17:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  By posting on Wikipedia, Silver seren, you are associating with pseudoscience cranks, corrupt politicians, racists, propagandists, revisionists, and liars of every stripe. Are you prepared to be labeled as a supporter of any of those? Because that's exactly what your logic leads to. — Hex (❝?!❞) 20:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Illogical folks, too. NE Ent 01:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  Proposal: Silver seren is topic banned from Wikipediocracy

  Snow. Hatted to reduce drama (hopefully). - Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  This has gone beyond silly. Silver seren's comments have created a nasty WP:BATTLEGROUND here and he does not appear to be willing to give it up. He alternates between making blanket statements about "Wikipediocracy members" and then when confronted backs off with vague excuses that "of course he's not referring to everyone who's commented on that site" (leaving the choice of who gets to comment there without being slandered and who doesn't up to him alone). Enough is enough. This continued disruption is not serving the project, least not because this is something people WILL get defensive about. A topic ban would also not interfere with Silver seren contributing positively and constructively to the project in his usual way. Support as nom.Volunteer Marek 02:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC) You're topic banning me from an off-wiki site...that i'm not a part of? How does that even work? SilverserenC 03:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC) I think he is proposing that you are not allowed to discuss Wikipieocracy on wiki-en.  little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  03:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Yup.Volunteer Marek 03:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Oppose He isn't causing any real harm. Causing drama on drama boards is pretty much expected and it is fairly limited in scope at this time.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Support - Disruptive ad hominem campaign that needs to stop now. Carrite (talk) 04:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Oppose. If you think that it's criticism of Wikipediocracy that creates the battleground mentality, I suggest you check... well, the homepage of Wikipediocracy. Look, if someone criticizes Wikipedians, I don't get personally offended, despite the fact that I do in fact consider myself a Wikipedian. So if you're actually so thin-skinned that you can't take some criticism of the highly critical site to which you contribute (regardless of whether your specific contributions are constructive are not), then I think the problem is on your end, not SS's. —  (Je vous invite à me parler) 04:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC) I'm not "thin skinned", I'm annoyed. There's a difference. This stuff just has become a totally unproductive waste of time. People who devote themselves to wasting others' time on dramaboards, and spreading the battleground across venues, after a certain point need to be asked to stop. Other ways haven't worked. This is a good way.Volunteer Marek 05:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC) To use an overused argument, we're all volunteers here. (No pun intended.) If you think Silver seren is wasting everyone's time, just unwatch the page and click (Je vous invite à me parler) 07:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Oppose, with the added observation that Volunteer Marek, as a participant on Wikipediocracy, has too insuperable a conflict of interest to make a nomination such as this. Any such recommendation should come from a non-participant able to view the issue objectively. --Drmargi (talk) 07:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Comment - can't we all just cut the crap and block the majority of mentions of this site (rather than blocking people)? All it seems to do is cause a thousand different punchups... Lukeno94 (talk) 08:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Oppose per OTT at the present time. — Ched :  ?  10:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC) oppose TOo much drama. Can we just let this all die now? Mangoe (talk) 12:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC) I want to expand my point. I think the majority of mentions of Wikipediocracy should be blocked: it's causing an enormous amount of problems between previously very sensible editors, admins, and crats. This is EXACTLY what the proponents of Wikipediocracy want, they're mostly not interested in exposing "truth", they just want to air their own grievances. Cut the mention of them, and they haven't won - they can spout their conspiracy theories all they want, but we at Wikipedia can just ignore them as you would ignore any crackpot theorist. Nothing against the users who contribute to both sites, and no reason why this should be prohibited - just these pointless discussions that get everyone's ire up. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Most governments feel that way.--v/r - TP 14:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Oppose per PinkAmpers. "If you think that it's criticism of Wikipediocracy that creates the battleground mentality..." says it best.--v/r - TP 14:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Oppose - Even though I am uninvolved, I've got a feeling that this is way too much drama. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  Unblock of Gwickwire

  Unblocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:21, 13 March 2013 (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.

  ---

  I've been in email contact with Gwickwire since my comment here. We've discussed the comments xe believed were personal attacks and the appropriateness of their comments. The comments xe highlighted did not meet our definition of personal attacks, though they could be read as uncivil. I genuinely believe that Gwickwire now gets why their comments were inappropriate, and given that xe has undertaken not to repeat allegations that they cannot show diffs for, I am willing to reduce the block to time served. Since 28bytes is taking a bit of a break, I thought I'd check for people's thoughts on the matter. I've informed Gwickwire of my thoughts and hopefully they will make a statement soon. Worm^TT(talk) 15:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  • If you were trusted enough to get Arb position, I suspect the community trusts you enough to make this call. support — Ched :  ?  16:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Appreciate you not taking the unilateral approach as well — Ched :  ?  16:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • If he understands, go for it. Writ Keeper (t + c) 16:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Seems reasonable if the confusion has been cleared up. Mathsci (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm all for it if he understands. But be careful, you don't want to get desysop'd for it...friendly joke :) --v/r - TP 16:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Worm, did Gwickwire inform you of any plan he has for that blog he set up? Just wondering. — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

    No, I was keeping my attention focussed very much on-wiki. However, I will advise them to take the blog down. I've now unblocked. Worm^TT(talk) 19:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

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

  Final comments here

  In the heat of the moment, I made accusations against User:Kevin that were inappropriate, and without any evidence to support them. I'd like to apologize to him for anything this may have caused, and also apologize to everyone else that I made these accusations. I understand that it was wrong to make these unfounded accusations. I was wrong here. gwickwire^talk_editing 19:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  As for the blog, I've not heard of a real reason to take it down. I assume WTT is going to e-mail me with his opinion on that, and I will certainly read that e-mail and take it into consideration. As of now, I think the blog still serves to document some of the stuff that's been happening (from everyone BUT Kevin, in other words not from Kevin) in this whole mess. gwickwire^talk_editing 20:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  Pinging any uninvolved

  Someone want to close this now? Maybe clean like several mega-pixels of drama of the board? — Ched :  ?  20:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  Does being generally disgusted count as uninvolved? Although I suspect it would be best if you could find an admin to close it. Intothatdarkness 20:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  As far as I can tell, an unblock of user:Demiurge1000 is still being discussed above. So a close would be premature. Cardamon (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  Strongly agree that, at the appropriate time, it should be an uninvolved admin that closes this, possibly the ugliest ANI thread I have ever had the sorrow to review. The original "boxcutter" comment, in my view, must be regarded as a real world death threat, and should be reported to legal authorities, if it has not been already. This is no joking matter. Jusdafax 03:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  Jusdafax, if you spent any time at WO to observe the general tone of posts by EricBarbour, I can assure you that you would come to a diametrically opposite conclusion. — Hex (❝?!❞) 09:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  Some people need to get out more. John lilburne (talk) 09:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Off topic example per Hex: I remember back in school an experiment we did. The teacher whispered in the ear of the first student a sentence or two. That student then repeated the "whisper" to the following student. This continued through a room of maybe 20 or so students. By the time the last student got the information and repeated it out-loud, it was so outlandishly different from the original content that there was absolutely no way the two items could be reconciled. Moral: If you hear it from a friend of a friend of a friend - chances are astronomically good that you're not getting the original intent of the message. — Ched :  ?  09:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  Indeffed

  Mischief managed.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:39, 14 March 2013 (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.

  ---

  Demiurge1000's indefinite blocking was long overdue. He's been lying and manipulating others for years. (Look at his twisting of Black Kite and Carrite's statements in my RfC/U.) He still repeats his claims that he's a victory of McCarthyism. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry, but re-blocking indef as fix date doesn't do it for me, especially when no message was left on Demiurge's talk page. Penwhale (nonsecure) ^{talk/footsteps} 18:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

  • He actually left a message, but Demiurge removed it. Still, Ched was involved up to his eyeballs and the offense was rather trivial so I don't support any indef or extension to his original block for that. Ched has already said that any admin can adjust the block length as they see fit. Feel free to change it Pen.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I find the message Ched left on Demiurge1000's page to be incomprehensible as a rationale for blocking. Cardamon (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Block restored to prior length. NE Ent 20:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

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