Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive779

IP 66.30.138.33

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 talk:66.30.138.33

I have an IP-user here who vandalises spontaneously, and has received several warnings this year, each removed with immature retorts.. there are such gaps between each incident that it makes it difficult to call it persistent vandalism and indef. block, I imagine. After a minor bout with said idiot using the IP, they are now using the talk page as a soapbox to condemn Wiki practices, its editors, Jimbo Wales, etc, and declare themselves immune to being blocked or otherwise prevented from further vandalising Wiki at will. Wonder if someone can look into the comments, and determine a legitimate course of action. Personally, I suspect this may be a banned editor with a no-life grudge.. but given my lack of knowledge into who has been banned, or the reaction they may have, I cannot suggest who to checkuser to help determine who may be behind it, if indeed anyone. Perhaps others may have a better idea who this childish troll is, from experience.

Cheers, Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 04:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protecting its own talk page could be a good start. Otherwise, maybe a school-term length block? Until May or June? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Rrodic again, this time as User:Mosalman

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 the User:Rrodic case is so recent, please review the edits of User:Mosalman. He has the appearances of being yet another sockpuppet of User:Mangoeater1000. He is reverting any edits by User:Marco Guzman, Jr and is welcoming editors (including himself) that have edited articles related to NYU Poly. The account was created shortly after Rrodic was blocked. Oh, and he just gave one of his other blocked sockpuppet accounts a barnstar here. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 05:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't give that barnstar. That was given by administrator Kudpung [1]--Mosalman (talk) 05:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

This belongs at SPI.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I reverted one edit by User:Marco Guzman, Jr, which was clearly inapropriate and promotional (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Higher_education&diff=528913137&oldid=528912513)--Mosalman (talk) 05:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

And no, I am not related to Rrodic in anyway--Mosalman (talk) 05:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be the same editor as Rrodic (and an IP) since they are revert warring over the same image on Higher education. Mathsci (talk) 05:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Mathsci (talk, that IP is not at all related to me. The IP is also trying to keep the PhD level UTexas, Austin(which was oringinally there) and remove the MS level CalPoly, Pomona which Marco put up for promotional purposes. I think that article shouldn't have any picture because the pictures are POVs--Mosalman (talk) 06:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

A while back there was an image of Harvard university, comparable to the UK and Canada images (Cambridge and UT), so I've put it back. Mosalman seems to be an obvious sockpuppet account. Mathsci (talk) 06:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Mathsci (talk).....but I am not a sockpuppet account. :)--Mosalman (talk) 06:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Certainly looks like Rrodic. The editor's first 4 edits were to welcome other editors, the same kind of behavior as Rrodic welcoming a 4-year veteran. When was the last time you saw a legitimate first-time editor start off by welcoming other people? I'd say this ia another sock -- but even if it's not, it's a troll. Block, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

How am I a troll? And what's wrong about welcoming people? These are Wiki love messages--Mosalman (talk) 06:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC) I welcomed myself only so that I get a list of Wiki rules that I can study. I tried helping out other new users also in this way--Mosalman (talk) 06:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I have requested a checkuser be run on this account at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mangoeater1000. Mathsci (talk) 07:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

 Confirmed - also Bobagirl (talk · contribs) - Alison ^❤ 07:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Just wondering

I know own-talk-page issues from blocked users aren't that big of a deal, but seeing as Mangoeater1000 has a long, disruptive history, and seeing as he's escalated from general nastiness here to full-on name-calling and gay-bashing here, is there any way we can say that in the future, all of his socks should have talk page access summarily revoked? Just seems like it would save admins a lot of time, if he's going to make it a regular thing to harass other editors from his talk pages after getting blocked. Perhaps by leaving a note under the sockmaster notice at the main account's userpage, telling any admins implementing future blocks that they should revoke talk page access while they're at it? I'm not quite sure what policy/convention is on this, but his behavior's obviously problematic, and he's done nothing to show that the community should have faith that his sockpuppets will use their own talk pages for legitimate purposes after getting blocked. Thanks. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 08:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

An administrator should block Mosalman from editing his own talk page and considered doing so for other socks. I do not see though how we can decide about blocking talk page access for future socks, since someone would have to inform the SPI administrators each time. TFD (talk) 08:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we could add, after the sockmaster template at User:Mangoeater1000, something like, "Due to long-term abuse by this account, including harassment by blocked sockpuppets on their own talk pages, administrators are instructed to summarily revoke talk page access from any future CheckUser-confirmed socks." Sure, people wouldn't notice the note all the time, but it might save some admins a little time dealing with socks that should've already been dispatched of... Mangoeater's very good at riding out the time before a block; it's almost impossible to read through the SPI archive, from the amount of random fights he's picked during investigations. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 08:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

You know....there is something oddly familiar with this socks behavior. I think that is all I can say for now.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm? — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 08:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The behavior and the oddity of the unblock request as well as other weird sorta "performance of ignorance" (an almost obvious acting performance of being ignorant of so much) and the prolific amount of socks is very familiar, but that could just be a coincidence. Have all socks of this editor been fully uncovered?--Amadscientist (talk) 08:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Haha, your question poses something of a paradox, doesn't it? Umm, that aside, CheckUsers have been run by Coren, Avraham, Alison, and DeltaQuad over the course of 15 SPIs filed since July. Make what you'd like of that. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 09:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Black Kite has blocked talk page and email access. That's all that can be done for the moment. Mathsci (talk) 09:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I may just be stuck on the similarities between the bad acting. This could just be common with sock puppets. That and a few other odd coincidences may have me seeing shadows.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Earth100

Earth100 has had a history of problematic editing. Over the past 2 weeks, he has been involved in an edit war, and I brought him to AN/I for continued personal attacks and fighting against another editor. As of that AN/I he had added original research to articles ([2]), reverted edits that had cleaned up references and removed grammar errors ([3]), and was warned for what another editor labeled a personal attack ([4]). I've been a member of WikiProject Tropical cyclones for a couple years, so I have a lot of cyclone articles on my watchlist, and I noticed that even after I had tried to explain to him the rules of original research ([5]), he was still adding original research ([6]), removing maintenance tags without adding references ([7] and [8]). I have attempted to explain to him numerous times what is and is not allowed ([9], [10], [11], and [12]), but he has continued, and refuses to listen ([13] - the only thing actually in the reference that he listed was the crossing of Palawan after going through the Sulu sea. There was no mentioning of weakening to a category 2 or 1 storm, and there is no mention of decreased convection on its southeastern side). The pattern of disruptive editing has just continued, and any time I have tried to actually have discussion and get proper sources, he just tells me that the sources are wrong, and he's an expert, so it's not original research ([14] and [15]). For the most part, he is helpful to the project, but errors end up getting introduced when information is not properly referenced (and even more so when information not in the source) is placed in. Inks.LWC (talk) 13:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Inks.LWC, please look closely, i'm not without my sources. Besides, the storm itself and the track shows it, and also in wunderground map(history track info from JTWC) showing it's intensity in dates. Please look closely at where i got the sources.--✯Earth100✯ (talk✉) 14:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thats not the point. If Earth100 has sources for information, they need to include them in the article and not simply remove the maintenance tags. In fact, an editor inserting a tag instead of removing content is doing less than they could. verifiability policy clearly states All the material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.NE Ent 14:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll also note that Inks.LWC initial post here is fairly well done as it contains many diffs and not so much verbiage. Two suggestions: First, never call anything vandalism which is not blatant and intentional disruption -- use the term disruptive editing instead. Secondly discussing on a talk page is highly preferred instead of relying on edit summaries, so this User_talk:Earth100#Typhoon_Bopha is good but it would be better here: User_talk:Earth100#Typhoon_Bopha Talk:Typhoon_Bopha because you get more help for other editors than way. NE Ent 14:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)fix NE Ent 12:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

He should be made to understand that he must use sources for anything he wishes to add to Wikipedia. It is far easier to go by the rule of 'If you are contributing, tell us where you got your information from.' instead of claiming it and referencing improperly. A bad reference or one which doesn't state the information is one that I consider an offense because if you do it once, you might have done it many times before which brings all your contributions under scrutiny. Though I see that discussion is starting on the page and that is a good thing. Does this really need to be at ANI still? Its not that big of a deal. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It'd be best to leave this open until Earth 100 acknowledges the concerns expressed -- Inks.LWC has been patient while working towards maintaining WP quality and verifiability so I'd liked to see their efforts supported. NE Ent 15:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, disregard my comment about it. It would probably be for the best, that it be acknowledged here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. That was supposed to be a uw-tdel4 template (Removal of maintenance templates), but it somehow got changed to a only warning for vandalism template (I'm thinking perhaps I bumped an arrow key or something... I'm honestly not sure). I should've checked the template after posting it, so again, that was my error. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, I'm assuming that your second link wasn't supposed to be a repeat of the first link? Were you intending to say that discussion should have been on the article talk page? I did that for Typhoon Bopha, since the addition of unsourced/incorrect material was the result of several editors. I didn't want to clutter up the talk pages of the other two articles since the problems there were specifically with Earth100's edits, so I thought it more appropriate to keep the discussion on his page. (Also, at that point, I was trying to keep it more personal and explain to him 1-on-1 what was incorrect with what he was doing, so it wasn't on the talk page of an article that was getting more and more attention due to the news.) So if it would generally be better to keep discussions like that on article talk pages, I'll keep that in mind in the future as well. Inks.LWC (talk) 09:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, oops. Fixed. Anyway I'm just offering an opinion based of past experience in DR -- it certainly wasn't wrong to page on the user talk page, I just think it works better long term to use article talk. NE Ent 12:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Earth100 is going to acknowledge that what he's been doing is inappropriate or disruptive. He's still not properly citing claims ([16] - where an image made for the Wikipedia article was used as a source in that very own article, this morning), he's engaging in original research ([17]), and he's becoming more antagonistic against me ([18]). I don't want to badger him into coming here if he doesn't want to participate in the AN/I, but at the same time, I (and the other WPTC editors) don't have time to correct disruptive edits (nor should that be our responsibility on this large of a scale). Inks.LWC (talk) 13:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I've just warned Earth100 on the need for civility. While her/his comments so far are still probably within WP:CIVIL, they're clearly starting to head in the wrong direction. Let's see if there's a response... Qwyrxian (talk) 11:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Earth100 simply removed my message with an edit summary indicating that I don't know what I'm talking about. The removal, of course, is fine, but the refusal to take on board constructive suggestions is worrisome. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

In addition to the incivility, he is continuing to remove maintenance tags without properly referencing things ([19], [20], and [21]). Inks.LWC (talk) 03:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The only problem: He does not know what is introspection. He continues using bad syntax, poor grammars, unsourced and incorrect information, etc.. -- Meow 18:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Meow will you stop that?! Every single thing you said was freaking false info. I source, i fix, i fix grammars, and fill the article with TRUE INFO! Meow, how do you like if someone contributes and a freaking dude stops by and says you don't do ANYTHING! Once in for all, stop meow, i can't stand you behavior. Can't you say anything true about me, as i KNOW that you intended that.--✯Earth100✯ (talk✉) 09:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I have issued a final warning for the removal of maintenance templates here. Should the problem re-occur after this section is archived, feel free to bring the matter to my talk page directly. Of course, I'd prefer that Earth100 simply stop the removal of needed templates. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Email abuse

Although Enemy of the Jihadis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked yesterday for personal attacks and harassment, I have this morning received a further dozen abusive emails from this account. Please disable email access, and please remember to do so in all future recurrendces of such abusive vandalism! RolandR (talk) 08:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done T. Canens (talk) 08:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I know it has been blocked. I just wanted folk to know that it used its email account to target random users (me, I'm pretty random) with a grossly offensive message. The message was just below a credible threat of (personal) harm, and expressed a desire for genocide towards a large ethnic group (of which I am not a member). If I should forward the email message to anyone, please will someone message me on my talk page. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Received the same email and forwarded it to AGK (talk · contribs), just in case. Not sure what the proper procedure is myself. He's back (and blocked again) under a different username. Yazan (talk) 10:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Research for email abuse/harassment showed me that the general arbcom list should have sight of (certainly one) of the emails. I doubt they will appreciate a deluge, though. So I have sent mine to that list. What I suggest is that the new username is (blocked or not) reported as a sock and subsequent versions are treated as such. There is the possibility, of course, that this is a bunch of meatpuppets, and that the campaign os not the juvenile thing it appears to be, but a symptom of a more serious underlying incitement to commit racially aggravated crimes. The arbcom guys can decide about that one. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Me to, but the message that starts "Dear Amazon Customer...As you've previously purchased books, we thought you might like to know about" and then has the audacity to try to sell me "How to bake" by Paul Hollywood was worse. It would be very handy if Wikipedia's top boffins could somehow get this prolific sockpuppeteer/email abuser autoforwarded to the answer phone message that plays "Believe it or not, George isn't at home, please leave a message at the beep. I must be out or I'd pick up the phone. Where could I be? Believe it or not, I'm not home" to the music from the TV series "The Greatest American Hero". Sean.hoyland - talk 10:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a long term abuser, whose identity is well known to admins. There are several threads in the archives relating to this. In this case, the abuse is being sent from hmamail; the address for complaints is info@hidemyass.com. I have already written to them a couple of times about this; I recommend that others do so too, to spur them into taking this seriously. RolandR (talk) 14:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I have done that with no expectation of any result. I understand when you say this abuser is well known to admins. I feel the abuse has, in the iteration I was sent, reached the point where it is unlawful, and that law officers should receive information about its activities. I have no expectation of any outcome there either. Unfortunately there starts to become a time when one must take this type of abuse as a genuine threat. The abuser may find this thread amusing, of course they may, but they can also be aware that the net is closing in and true online anonymity is an illusion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

This may need to be considered, by several editors. And it is my understanding that some admins are aware of this person's real-life identity, so this should be possible. Over the past 18 months, I have received more than 1000 such racist, abusive and personally threatening emails, and I know of many other editors who have also been similarly harassed. Wikipedia really needs to establish a procedure or filter to prevent such abuse of the email facility. RolandR (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, we all know who this is, and many administrators know his real name and where he lives. Email me if you'd like the name of a law enforcement contact who has dealt with him before. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Is there any chance that they would treat this seriously? The continuing barrage of racist abuse and obscene threats of personal violence is distressing, and needs to stop. What have law enforcement officials done in the past? RolandR (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Milesgive3030- is at it now. Blocked, but still allowed to email. I now have a large number of grossly offensive emails. I don;t particularly care, but this needs to stop. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Just had a look through Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis and the key problem is Verizon (his hosting provider) refusing to cut him off, presumably claiming he's not actually breaking any laws, just wasting lots of time. Short of increased publicity (if all the above was reliably sourced, which it isn't, you could add it to Verizon#Controversies), I'm not sure what we can do except silently block and ignore. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Law enforcement is the only way with this type of person. I am getting loads of hate mail at present and expect a couple of thousand more. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

JarlaxleArtemis (aka Grawp) is a very experienced sockmaster who has been around, on and off, since the beginning of 2005. We've attempted to erradicate him multiple times, to no avail. I'm afraid I'm gonna have to agree with Ritchie on this one. Just Revert, Block, Ignore. By all means, Tim, attempt to prosecute him through law enforcement. I'm just afraid you'll be disappointed by the response you get. As long as the mail doesn't descend into threats of violence, I doubt they'll want to spend an extremely large amount of time (which would be required) to prosecute JarleaxleArtemis. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 10:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I simply have no idea with which agency to lodge the complaint. Perhaps one who knows would drop me an email? I an umder no illusions about the reaction I will get, but enough mud sticks, eventually. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

E-mail the 'emergency' e-mail address, they'll be able to direct you as appropriate. GiantSnowman 10:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I de-enabled my email last year because of him[22], then quietly enabled it again a couple of months ago. Last week it startet again, from "123456789is my password" and "Caade79" (His messages normally include: Fithy/fucking/nazi/Arab/whore ...in any order). I de-enabled my email again, but I see he has been all over my talk-page instead. Thanks to all of you who are reverting/"cleaning up" my talk-page! Cheers, Huldra (talk) 11:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, guys. The emergency system is for use when immediate response is required for an active threat of imminent violence. There are pretty strict protocols around what we can do with it. :) We can't process this kind of thing through that address. If you need assistance from the Wikimedia Foundation and aren't sure where to get it, please send me an email at liaisonwikimedia.org. I will do my absolute best to put you in touch with the person you need or to get you the assistance you require. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 11:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

"As long as the mail doesn't descend into threats of violence, I doubt they'll want to spend an extremely large amount of time". But that's the point; the emails I have received (more than 1000 so far) include graphic descriptions of specific threats of violence against me, alongside references to images of me appearing elsewhere on the internet. I have little doubt that this behaviour is illegal; one reason I hesitate to gtake any action is concern that Wikipedia itself could be implicated or held responsible, by virtue of enabling the use of its email facility. RolandR (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I've had a couple of run-ins with him in the past as well, though your issues with him appear to make mine fade into insignificance. I for one hope that something positive comes from TimTrent's complaint to law enforcement. I've left a suggestion on Tim's talk page as to where he can find contact details for police aid. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 11:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Roland - I don't think there's much chance of that. When people send email through wikipedia, it basically just acts like any other email client you can name (gmail, outlook, etc.) If Wikipedia were to be prosecuted for emails sent using its software, then those other clients should be prosecuted as well for all the illegal emails sent through them. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 20:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I apologise. I used the emergency email address after this advice and acknowledge that I was incorrect in doing so. As soon as someone tells me the correct law enforcement contacts to use I will be lodging a complaint. I suggest everyone affected does the same. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Apologies from me for suggesting it, thought it was the best place. GiantSnowman 12:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

No trouting intended! :) I just wanted to clarify the best avenue to use. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

@Maggie Dennis: Previous discussions on email abuse have produced nothing, with pathetic suggestions that new users might need to send ten emails immediately, or even 100 if they are part of an education project, therefore anyone victimized needs to suck it up. The WMF should provide serious resources to (a) add a filter to email; and (b) provide a staffer who will follow up available legal paths with extreme LTA cases such as the one under discussion (someone who specializes in such things). It's lovely to have people adding feedback to articles, but serious money also needs to be spent on serious problems. Johnuniq (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Johnuniq, Maggie Dennis, in areas such as this the alleged wisdom of crowds is the enemy of the project because it discusses ad infinitum and every individual's opinion somehow must be heard. It is an area that requires swift action from the legal team and the office. There are areas where crowd discussion removes any ability to act. Crowds are neither wise nor decisive. WMF needs to take wise and decisive action, ably assisted by those in the crowd who are competent to help. WMF has a duty of care to all of its editors and has to spend time, effort and money in solving long term sockpuppetry and abuse by any abusive editor. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

And what, exactly, do you propose the WMF do about it? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 05:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I see every reason why that discussion should be held internally by WMF itself. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

IP range evasion and promo-spam

In November, IP 93.42.210.45 (see User talk:93.42.210.45) was blocked per WP:NLT for a series of edits and edit-summaries at Freeboard (skateboard). More recently, a number of addresses from the same range (93.42.2XX.XX) have appeared at the same article to make ostensibly the same edits (removing sourced content and replacing it with un-sourced promo-spam about a particular Italian company that makes a competitor product). The IP has also contested a number of PRODs to Italian skateboarder articles on the basis that he/she is "doing a university assignment" on the subjects in question. I think it is more likely that the person is an advocate/employee of the company for which they are spamming.

IPs include:

• Special:Contributions/93.42.210.80
• Special:Contributions/93.42.201.14
• Special:Contributions/93.42.225.85
• Special:Contributions/93.42.227.52
• Special:Contributions/93.42.210.45 (blocked per WP:NLT)
• Special:Contributions/93.42.219.250 (the latest)

There may be others but the edit histories of each of the above are almost entirely focussed on this one article and the collective group have been editing in this way since early 2012.

I have asked for semi-protection over at WP:RFPP and have informed the editor responsible for reverting most of the vandalism to date (SQGibbon). But I have since realised the IP-range commonality and have come to the conclusion that the article would not be the subject of nearly as much vandalism were this IP range prevented from editing it. Other IP edits to the article have been entirely good faith and helpful and we certainly don't want to stop that. If action is taken against the IP range then the sensible thing to do would be to withdraw my RFPP request.

Regardless of the content of the edits, moving to a new IP address and continuing to edit would seem to be a clear case of WP:EVASION. The content of the edits simply compounds the problem. Stalwart111 23:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Query - I know I'm supposed to notify editors about ANI "cases". Does the same apply to IPs? Do I need to post a note to each of the above, or just to the most recent, or not at all? Stalwart111 23:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Update - I have informally notified the editor I mentioned and have notified the most recently used IP. Stalwart111 00:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• It looks like the original page at Aldo Grippaldi (one of the talk pages edited by the IP) was deleted yesterday both here and on the Italian wiki, then the same content created again here today.

The lack of formatting or links in the "references" section makes it extremely difficult to review/validate that content. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: These IPs appear to be sockpuppets of USER:Unotretre who is associated with the Italian company mentioned above and was indeffed for making several legal threats both on Wikipedia and in emails to other editors. During the time that account was active he used several IPs and other accounts to make his edits (or other employees of that company did) that besides being legal threats were about promoting that company. It's an ongoing problem but maybe a range-block would help. SQGibbon (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the previous username but this previous version of that user's talk page would seem to strongly suggest they are one in the same. That user was also blocked for WP:NLT breaches relating to exactly the same articles and subjects. For the benefit of the editor in question; anatra. Stalwart111 00:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• Update - admins cleared the backlog at RFPP and admin EdJohnston helpfully semi-protected one of the articles in question (freeboard) for 3 months. Stalwart111 08:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• On the matter of giving warnings, if an editor has been given a warning then they have been given a warning, and it is not necessary to give separate warnings to each and every account and IP address that they may use. Besides, doing so would almost certainly be pointless, as they would have moved on to another IP address, and would probably never see the warnings posted to old IP addresses. If you do wish to give a new warning, the best you can realistically do is post one to the latest IP address that you know of, and if they never use that IP address again and never see the message, well, it's not your fault. I have blocked the latest IP address, but there is little point in blocking individual IPs, as they will just move on. I have also placed a fairly short IP range block, but unfortunately a long range block is out of the question, as there are quite a number of constructive edits, evidently from other people. Other than that, and the page protection already mentioned, I'm afraid it's just a question of reverting and blocking as each new IP appears. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Please immediately delete my account on all WP-sites (esp. english and german)

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

---

Dear Sir or Madam, please delete/deactivate my global account on WP whith immediate effect. I made some contributions on en.WP and de.WP. (You can check all of them.) - I'm deeply sorrow, but I can no longer ignore all the rude and impolite behaviour, that I have encountered. You may check everything I've done, there is nothing to hide. - What I won't stand any longer are all the people that don't follow the basic rules and are just outright indecent and impolite. Thank you and goodbye Yours --CaffeineCyclist (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Can't be done here, at least not globally; go to meta for that Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) You may request to vanish, but your account can't really be permanently deleted. I'm sorry that you are disconcerted with how you've been treated. Thank you for what you have done. Go Phightins! 22:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Um, the editor has 157 edits in 4 months here, almost half of them (70) to their own user page, and only 35 edit to articles. I'm not seeing anything in their edit history to indicate that they had any serious run-ins or disputes with people. Strange, really. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

True, unless he's been observing and doesn't want to be part of such a culture? I don't know, it is speculation. Perhaps something occurred on the German Wikipedia, but that's neither here nor there. He does have the right to vanish. Though from an editor retention standpoint, I am curious as to the reasoning. Go Phightins! 22:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I just edit-conflicted with Amadscientist on the user's talk page to try to see what was the problem, so hopefully we'll hear something. Go Phightins! 22:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Could have been something that happened on the Deutch wikipedia. But I can't read it.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

It was. I translated the page and am reading through it.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Nothing that I can see needing any admin action here or on the Deuth Wikipedia. Seems to be a content dispute and the editor got upset with a section being referred to as off topic (I think...Bing translations of German are a little difficult to read). I have reached out to the editor. Now the ball is in their court.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Personal attack by User:98.113.167.211

User:98.113.167.211 posted this [23] on my user page, which I consider to be a personal attack.
The user is an SPA who has only edited Talmudical Yeshiva of Philadelphia, adding long unsourced claims and statements, introduced with phrases such as “We spoke to an alumnus of the yeshiva who prefers to remain anonymous.” My tagging of these statements with a and a led to this outburst. Arjayay (talk) 11:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see it as a WP:NPA. I see it as uncivil WP:OWN/WP:OR and a mistaken understanding of how Wikipedia works, followed by a THREAT. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

It's worth noting that threats are included in WP:NPA :). Ironholds (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that the only words he can spell correctly have 4 or fewer letters. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd warn them, direct to the appropriate policy and next time consider a block. One freebie with comments like that. I do not like the blocking of people, but I am concerned about the editor comments and WP:OR insertion in the journalistic style. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Guys, the IP is already blocked. I won't comment on whether or not I agree or disagree with it, but I will say that the issue is kinda over unless he decides to be a jerk again. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

User:YahwehSaves refusing to leave signature

Note: Blocked for 24 hours at this time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Reported user: YahwehSaves (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

YahwehSaves refuses to sign her posts with signatures, escalating what should be accidental or newbie-type incidents that are normally resolved upon notification. This adds to frustration from editors not knowing the source of comments, confusing them as part of someone's nearby comments, and burdening others to sign YahwehSaves' signature for her. Unfortunately, bots dont always catch missing signatures. The relevant behavioral guideline is Wikipedia:Signatures, which states "Persistent and intentional failure to sign is disruptive and may be sanctioned."

Looking at YahwehSaves' talk page, she was notified of using signatures by User:SineBot on 5 occasions from May 2011 until even now in December 2012.[24][25][26][27][28]. In 2012 alone, users have left personalized messages offering help to learn how to place signatures.[29][30][31][32] One user even started signing YahwehSaves' themselves everytime a response was left.[33][34]; the same frustrated editor left a message on my talk page believing "nor will you get any acknowledgement back even if you confront (YahwehSaves) on it directly." I left a message assuming good faith for YahwehSaves on December 19, offering suggestions but requesting the problem either be fixed or that she start a discussion asking for any help needed.[35]. Afterwards, YahwehSaves left another post without a signature on an article talk page.

I would recommend blocking YahwehSaves indefinitely until the user provides acknowledgement of their behavior and assures that she will begin conforming with WP:SIGNATURE. I would do it myself, but am semi-involved in some discussions where she is present. Certainly there is more damaging behavior on WP, but this persistently disruptive behavior has left editors that deal with YahwehSaves frustrated ... and it's so easy to fix.—Bagumba (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeffing as the first block for something like failing to sign seems a bit overkill. Perhaps a bit less could be tried as an opening gambit to get the attention of the user in question, don't you think? --Nouniquenames 21:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

How about not pissing YahwehSaves off and just let them get on and edit ? It's a pedantic thing to go after, and shouldn't be policy IMO. If you care so much about her not signing, then just sign for her.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Claritas (talk • contribs)

Because it isn't our job to do something for someone that they are expected by community norms to do themselves, that's why. I note that you just now didn't sign either; if intentional, that's pointy with a smidge of dickishness, and if unintentional it is quite amusing. As for Yahweh, is there any indication/evidence of this user explicitly refusing to sign? Or do they just ignore all requests to do so? The former IMO is block-worthy (remember indef doesn't mean permanence; at times they are used as attention-getters), while the latter could be addressed by a final "explain-yourself-now" request by an admin. Tarc (talk) 21:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We are not YahwehSaves's mother, we should not have to clean up after him. Indef for first block is overkill for all but obvious trolls. Guidelines are not policies, because there are exceptions (my last cell phone didn't have a tilde button anywhere, and not everyone is going to resort to copying and pasting the tildes from other pages like I did when forced to edit from phones). Still, it does reflect community consensus and it state that "Persistent and intentional failure to sign is disruptive and may be sanctioned." Not "may be disruptive," "is disruptive."

However, if SineBot does sign for him, that may be enough. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think having SineBot make all the edits would be permissible. My main concern is with unnecessary edit conflicts that can occur during SineBot edits. Ryan Vesey 21:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• I think we need a comment from YahwehSaves that they will sign all of their posts from here on out. If they do not do so, or are aware of this discussion and do not sign their posts, I would say an indefinite block is needed. As soon as the editor proves they can sign their posts and is willing to do so, they can be unblocked. Refusing to sign talk page posts is disruptive and can't be allowed. Ryan Vesey21:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
• I think dealing with the lynch-mob mentality here is rather more important than trying to force a user who doesn't want to sign their messages to do so. Just leave them be, and they'll soon see the advantages of it. No wonder user retention rates are down. Claritas § 21:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

A block is overkill, and we are to assume good faith from all editors. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that an indefblock is overkill. Maybe an (ugh) attention-getting block is in order, but a short one, 24 hours or less. I know that indefinite isn't infinite, but not everyone sees it that way. By the way, I would've said to let SineBot take care of it, but a quick survey of his contribs shows that SineBot is missing some of his edits, so that's not a great solution. But yeah, I know that edit-conflicts with SineBot or having to look up in the history for who said what is annoying, but...I dunno, an indefblock? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If he was on, a one-hour block would get his attention. One day should be enough to catch his attention when he gets back on, but I've seen some newbies react to blocks of any length as if they were unappealable indef blocks. I guess we'll wait to see what his reaction is to this thread. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I was operating under the belief that indef wasn't indef (easily appealed once the user finally acknowledges), but I would also support a shorter block. Note that the user was also blocked for 72hrs in February for "Disruptive editing: incivility, and sockpuppetry". There was also a recent edit-warring warning given. Without a response on this issue and falling back on track record, good faith has been mostly exhausted.—Bagumba (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Assuming good faith means assuming an appropriate response to legitimate concerns over behaviour. If we're going to call "editor retention" trumps for this round, editor retention depends on a level playing field, which implies editors should be expected to agree to a certain level of conformity with trivial-to-follow community norms. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the "we are to AGF with all editors bit" was addressed to multiple people. "Editor retention is down" has me wondering about the math, and outside factors (after the Colbert bump, we got a bunch of editors we really didn't need). Ian.thomson (talk) 21:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

How many editors leave because of persistent nagging behavior by others that the community does not self-police despite a trivial solution. We are not talking about rocket science to track sock puppets here.—Bagumba (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

It would be the least indefblock-like indef block ever. I'd say set the time to indef, but leave a custom message saying all that needs to be done to become unblocked is for the editor to show that they know how to sign their posts and agree to sign them in the future. I think we're caught up with what the idea of an indefblock appears to be. One hour or one day blocks wouldn't work and could be too long or too short. This block should last 5 minutes if that's the time it takes but shouldn't expire until the editor expresses the willingness to sign. Ryan Vesey 21:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

What's odd is that, having chosen a proselytizing account name (one that I would prefer to see changed, but which appears to be acceptable under current username guidelines) the editor is shying away from publicizing it. One would think that they would want to see it all over the place!

In any case, while guidelines certainly aren't mandatory, one should always have a good reason to not follow them, and it's hard to see what reason YS could have for using a signature other than "I don't want to." Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Even if a reason is given, it can still be deemed unsatisfactory; see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Docu and the "I have an old keyboard" argument. If this user would at least say "I don't want to" or "I can't" or "GTFO", at least that'd be a starting point for a conversation. Outright ignoring the matter and still editing merrily away is rather irksome, IMO. Tarc (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I recall the Docu situation, which came up on the boards numerous times before it got dealt with. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

This user, judging from the talk page, also seems to have had a fair number of adjustment issues aside from forgetting to sign posts. Intothatdarkness 22:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The cited guideline (Wikipedia:Signatures) (not a policy) says

It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.

Where is the policy requiring that editors sign?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

(As a relevant aside, I do not accept that the combined geek power of Wikipedians cannot figure out how to make it automatic. The known complications are just not persuasive. Even the creaking and antiquated OTRS signs everything for me.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The guideline is Wikipedia:Signatures: "Persistent and intentional failure to sign is disruptive and may be sanctioned."—Bagumba (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Missed your earlier comment, there is no policy per se. No common sense reason to apply an exception here has surfaced (esp. with no comments from YahwehSaves)—Bagumba (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

On the topic of no comments, I think we expect comment from the editor in question too soon in most situations. We should probably wait at least 24 hours for him to reply (or start editing without replying). Ryan Vesey 23:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Lack of response has brought this to ANI. Certainly, YahwehSaves should be allowed to respond.—Bagumba (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

For random, slightly helpful notes, I will recall that we ended up blocking an editor once who refused to actually provide a link to his userpage in his sig (he had created a plaintext custom signature.) Unfortunately I cannot for the life of me remember the user. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The current wording was edited on 7 June 2012. I see nothing in the talk page discussing the change in wording. Arguably the edit was a simplification of prior wording without a change in meaning.

The edit was a wordsmithing of a bold edit on 7 June 2012, adding:

During discussions a widely accepted community norm is to sign posts; failure to do so can cause undue confusion for readers (especially where no signature is used at all). Persistent failure to sign, once the concept has been explained, is disruptive and may be sanctioned.

I reject the notion that a bold addition to a page can transform a guideline into an actionable policy with no community discussion!

I'm reverting, unless someone can point me to the discussion leading to the major change. Let the community discuss.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The text has stood for six months, suggesting implicit consensus. I would suggest notifying the original editor, and starting a discussion on the talk page and placing {{Discuss}} on the guideline page if you disagree.—Bagumba (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Had it not existed there, the guideline would be Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. It is obvious that refusal to sign posts is disruptive. Ryan Vesey 23:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it isn't obvious that refusal to sign posts is disruptive. One could take the position that the force of an argument should be evaluated on the strength of the argument, and the identify of the writer is not just irrelevant, but prejudicial (I'm not for a second suggesting that such case is likely to prevail, I simply want to point out that truly anonymous posting isn't prima facie disruptive.) I could also make the case that if we expect every single post to be signed, this is a job for a computer, not an arcane convention. Not to mention that every single regular editor knows how to look at the history if they want to see the identity, which may be a pain, but so is signing. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Siiiiigh. Do we really need a WP:ITISNOTBANNED to get away from this inane trope whereby anything which is not explicitly punishable by death in the Space Corps Directives should be ignored indefinitely? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem is the lack of signature is more the rule with YahwehSaves than the exception. This would not be an issue if this was an occasional or even frequent issue; this always happens, the user refuses all cordial invitation for help. This is not a witch hunt for perfection by the signature police. Until a bot addresses the issue, it is a human issue.—Bagumba (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm the one who recently told Bagumba they weren't going to be able to get YahwehSaves to sign their posts, after seeing Bagumba trying to elicit that courtesy from the user. My comment wasn't intended to provoke an ANI posting... I was just trying to save Bagumba from wasting their time because I already knew what the outcome would be. All attempts to discuss signatures with the user go ignored, whether on their talk page or on article talk pages. Just exactly why that is, I have no idea. YahwehSaves and I have been able to have conversations about other topics (mostly military medals), and obviously they want to contribute here, albeit somewhat eccentrically at times. If there is some reason why he or she can not sign, I do wish they would tell us, which would make it easier to understand why this is a problem. When a user doesn't sign their comments, it can create confusion in conversation threads and inconvenience other editors who come to the thread later and have to do research in the history to figure out who said what, or cause routine edit conflicts with sinebot when conversations are going back and forth. That ends up becoming a disruption. At the same time, we don't want to be capricious and/or eager to levy rules on people just because they don't conform to our expectations or extend the same courtesies we take for granted and/or extend ourselves. So... this is really a question of balance, isn't it? On the one side is editor freedom to do as they wish, and on the other side is the detriment to others caused by the mild but repetitive effect of the disruption. Where do we strike that balance? I'm not sure myself. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, it's disrespectful of everyone else's time, and intentionally and unnecessarily so, AFAWK. Pretty much every other thing that is expected of an editor requires more effort than those 4 silly keystrokes, and that stuff is required. Absent an explanation or promise to correct in 24 hours, I would suggest something stronger needs to be done to get their attention. Indef seems unnecessary and unlikely to be good for WP. A 24-hour block, or block-pending-explanation is probably plenty. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• I think I remember what Fuchs is talking about, and I also can't remember. But we have blocked indefinitely for refusals to communicate (it's disruptive). I wouldn't oppose. All that is required for an unblock is "OK I'll play nice". The last such block I remember was one of these FOOTY kids. Drmies (talk) 00:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
• The aforementioned Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Docu was a case of a non-linking sig. Sphilbrick makes a valid point that bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake is counterproductive and just plain silly. However, we are a community that operates by convention as well as policy. Signatures were designed to aid communication. Not using signatures hinders communication. I will wait on YS's reply, but absent a reply and continued refusal to sign would be viewed as disruptive from my standpoint. Tiderolls 00:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

For those waiting for a response from YahwehSaves, edits at two different articles since this thread was started still have no signatures.[36][37] Like AzureCitizen, I also now believe this will not change. A block seems to be the only action that might change the behavior.—Bagumba (talk) 02:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I should add that YahwehSaves also does not indent responses per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Of course, if the community wont do anything about signatures, I'm not even going to bother trying to educate on the benefits of indentation.—Bagumba (talk) 02:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Slow your roll, Bagumba. There are reasons things take time. Tiderolls 02:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)That came off as much more lectury than it sounded in my head. Apologies. Tiderolls 02:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I blocked the account for 24 hours. The more problematic thing for me is that the user has not responded to several requests on their talk page and has not responded here. I will unblock if the user agrees to change their editing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Just want to point out that YahwehSaves edits fairly regularly as User:75.79.31.20, so an eye should be kept there for any block evasion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks like he's also User:70.165.84.140. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion regarding automated signing

If signatures are mandatory, then have them magically appear without having to type ~~~~. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Your "simple" solution is anything but - how is whatever software you're proposing meant to differentiate between edits which should be signed and that which should not? GiantSnowman 15:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

There's already a solution: The template "YesAutosign". I have that set up on my page, so in case I forget to sign, the system will take care of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: how do you differentiate between edits that should be signed and those that should not? -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

@Bugs: I would've said just leave it to SineBot and call it a day, but SineBot misses posts sometimes. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

SineBot doesn't touch users with more than some number of edits that I can't recall. YesAutosign causes SineBot to do its thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

@Nathan - will your software be able to differentiate between a new post on a talk page, and somebody changing the wording slightly? GiantSnowman 16:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why it wouldn't be able to. Adding new lines, not just modifying existing ones, should be a pretty close heuristic; just sign the last line in each contiguous set of new lines. Give it a manual override (a checkbox like the minor edit one that says "don't auto-sign this post") and that should be pretty good. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

How is somebody ticking a checkbox any harder than typing 4 x ~? Basically what I;m saying is that if editors lack the competence to sign normally, they probably lack the competence to check a box. GiantSnowman 17:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that the software will sign for you unless you check the box. Signing would be opt-out, with teh box being the way to opt out. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

And what I'm saying is that X writes a post, don't click the box, the software signs for them. They then edit to change a word, don't click the box, the software adds a second sig. They notice a spelling mistake, don't click the box, 3rd sig. GiantSnowman 17:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but as I said, the software can be smart enough to detect that, whether or not the box is checked. Fixing spelling errors or changing words isn't adding newlines, so the software can tell that it's not a new comment needing to be signed. The box would just be insurance. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

What if you want to add a new sentence or two to quickly clarify something? This sounds far too complicated - I don't see the issue with editors signing their own posts, and if they don't then they should face sanctions. GiantSnowman 17:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

copyright violation

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

---

Could i get someone to look a User talk:FY789 actions - Despite being warned 2 times he/she seems not to care about our copy right policies. Has added 3 times now (may be 4 times by the time I have written this) is copy and pasting copyright info to the Australia article from here over and over. user has been warned 2 times and is simply adding back the text and not replying on there talk page. Looking for a block or some sort of admin actions pls.Moxy (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

No. This isn't a copyright violation. I am putting it my own words.

FY789 (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Pls do not copy and paste from other sites...Moxy (talk) 22:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Copied from .... Australia is the only country that is also a continent. In area, it ranks as the sixth largest country and the smallest continent. Australia is often referred to as being "down under"

Text you added here Australia is the only country that is also a continent. In area, it ranks as the sixth largest country and the smallest continent. Australia is often referred to as being "down under"

Well, there's more text that was copied from that website than just that one sentence, some of it is WP:Close paraphrasing rather than verbatim copying. But why the link to the Keg Income Fund website - I don't get that part.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes lots more - as for the keg link - sorry working on many copy violations tonight wrong link to here (fixed now).Moxy (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• As a separate matter, I have never seen so many redirects created by an editor in such a short space of time. Like an Australian redirect bot.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I just removed a bunch that were WP:NOTDIRECTORY violations as R2 (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• The editor has been blocked for 24 hours for the copyright violations by User:Dpmuk. The redirect issue and other problematic edits (they added a thesis to Law of Australia) are also of concern.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Well someone beat me to reporting my own actions. Have also given them a 3rr warning as they hadn't previously had one. Dpmuk (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• Have asked WP:AUS to look over the redirects (Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#Australian redirects).Moxy (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• I haven't checked to see what's left but BWilkins's use of the word "bunch" was an understatement. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• User:DeltaQuad has indeffed the editor based on a CU.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

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

I remember this user from a while back – this is a sock of Bowei Huang 2 (talk · contribs). --MuZemike 03:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Islamic honorifics edit war

Resolved

I'm currently edit warring with FROESES (talk · contribs) who is removing part of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles and keeps on reinserting Islamic honorifics in the Caliph article. I've already reverted the MoS six times and the article twice. The user has been notified on their talk page by me and two other users. Can someone take a look at it? jonkerz ♠talk 23:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Links: Warning #1, #2 and #3. jonkerz ♠talk 23:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello Jonkerz, FROESES has been blocked for 24 hours following my report to Vandalism noticeboard + addition of Edit Warring. If it continues after the block has expired, just report the user to the appropriate noticeboard (Vandalism maybe as after unblock, Warring may not be applicable). Ofcourse a browsing Administrator may want to take action on this. John F. Lewis (talk) 23:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, John F. Lewis. I wasn't sure what to do but was told that creating a thread here was a fast way to stop the vandalism. jonkerz ♠talk 23:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

AN/I is a good place, But AIV or the Edit Warring noticeboard gets more quicker and accurate blocks/notices etc. If you ever need any help, Feel free to add a note on my talk page. John F. Lewis (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

A new editor shows up and immediately starts edit warring on articles and blanking sections of policy he/she doesn't agree with and discusses none of this? I can't see this editor having any future here. Is it really worth another chance twenty-four hours later for a purely disruptive account like this? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Omerli

Omerli issues death threats (to an active but blocked user) [38]--Ymblanter (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Again with the Armenians? I don't understand the conflict or why so many people continue this, but does it matter the user is blocked? I'd hope not. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it does not matter, and I am not involved, I just happen to have this talk page in my watchlist.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean you, I meant Omerli. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've indeffed the editor. They have a short but troubling agenda-driven history in addition to the attack/threat.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

IP 94.14.142.147

Hello I have reason to suspect this user is yet another block evader. In recent days there has been a spate of IP vandalism attacks on Peter Hitchens and several IPs have been blocked in connection with this. The users have then been coming on my talk page and writing abuse and offensive remarks as well as other editors who dare to challenge them. Firstly IP 94.7.158.48 vandalised Peter Hitchens and hurled abuse at me. While they were blocked IP 2.223.63.122 came on the article and made the same edits, they then abused my talk page, the talk page of "Clockback" and deleted my comments on the blocked IPs talk page. They have subsequently been blocked for 2 weeks for block evasion. Yesterday IP 94.14.142.147 vandalised the Mail on Sunday article with the same libellous remarks about Hitchens then proceded to write very abusive messages on my talk page and the talk page of user Clockback. Admin Wormthatturned very kindly blocked them for 31 hours which has now expired but I feel this is a sustained campaign against me and Clockback by a serial block evader. I would like this user investigating to see if this abusive behaviour can be stopped. Thank you. Christian1985 (talk) 01:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

These IP addresses are assigned to BT and Sky, two of the largest ISPs in the UK. The person responsible for these edits will surely have been assigned a new IP address by now. There is no practical means by which anyone at Wikipedia can identify someone by their IP, or to track them if their IP changes. A checkuser would know if these IP addresses had been used by a registered user, but the couldn't tell you, and given the size of these two IPs that's not very useful information anyway. Only the ISPs themselves can relate addresses to people, and they'll only do so in response to legal proceedings. From our end there's little we can do but play whack-a-rat when they pop up; lengthy rangeblocks on such huge ISPs would be Pyrrhic. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 01:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, very helpful. I am not too up on the technical side of IPs etc. So basically all we can do is monitor for now. The page has been protected and I think this will help. Thanks once again. Christian1985 (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

You can also have your own talk page semi-protected if you wish. Do you want to do that for a week or so? Registered editors would still be able to send you messages. -- Dianna (talk) 02:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I thought i put an IP to IP message on his talkpage asking other IPS to leave him alone, for the sake of not only themselves but also for all IP editors, for Christian1985 and for the good of wikipedia. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 09:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It's the sincerest form of flattery, but . . .

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 review the edits and accounts of User:72nino and User:Dinobasher. They are purely disruptive edits by someone who has a beef with me. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 04:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Mangoeater1000 sgain. I filed an SPI/CU request. The second account seems unrelated. Mathsci (talk) 04:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the reason why he mentioned the second account is because 72nino's talk page mentions 'keeping an eye on Dinobasher'. That's all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Proposed deletions

New user Special:Contributions/Saloon.cat is unusually energetic in proposing deletions. Well, WP does ask people to be bold, so I can't censure him for energy. He may however become a little too energetic: see Talk:Maggie Out. I have to turn my attention away from my computer; perhaps somebody else could keep a friendly eye on his edits. -- Hoary (talk) 04:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

PS While posting the customary welcome message on his talk page, I got into an edit clash with messages from others complaining about vandalism. Sure enough, "Saloon.cat" was vandalizing and lying about this in the edit summaries. I've given "Saloon.cat" a permanent vacation, but presumably he's merely the latest puppet to be invented by somebody blocked earlier. -- Hoary (talk) 05:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Those 'typo corrections' as if a broken page isn't going to be checked... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't even guess what this comment means. -- Hoary (talk) 07:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Editor and IP Claiming to be Possessed

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

---

Editor User:Evelynheaven (whose IP is almost definetely User:76.104.128.57) is claiming to be Evelyn Amielia Eirayonia Heaven Bovaxx, possessed by God and Adam. The user sent me an email claiming they were wanted by the US, Russia, and Britain and that I should put their edit back after I reverted this edit by their IP to Eve. See also User:Evelynheaven/sandbox. Could an admin take care of this? Thanks! Vacation^nine 03:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

... HalfShadow 03:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Vacation^nine 03:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you asking for a Wiki-exorcism? Actually, I'm not sure there's anything for admins to do here. If the editor continues to add inappropriate material to articles, she can be blocked as a vandal/troll or indistinguishable from one, but in the meantime, there seems little reason to have brought this to AN/I, unless it was intended as comic relief. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

OK then, just wanted to make sure. I didn't really know what to do here. Vacation^nine 04:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

You could try to engage them and explain that Wikipedia is not the place for what they're doing. If that doesn't work, just keep an eye on their contributions, issue warnings when necessary, and bring it to WP:AIV if they don't stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I threw some holy water on my laptop as a precaution, and it shorted out and won't turn on. Thanks a bunch.

Jerk. HalfShadow 04:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Like — Hex (❝?!❞) 13:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've revdeleted the edit because there was way too much personal info including a phone number and this is very likely a prank on someone. —SpacemanSpiff 04:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of that. Good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Mister "avoid drama at all times, mostly by doing nothing at all" 58 here. Completely agree with Spiff's revdel, thoroughly endorse BMK's assessment.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

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

User:AndyTheGrump

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.

---

AndyTheGrump has repeatedly called me a troll and accused me of being a sockpuppet in this talk page discussion.[39] [40] [41] [42] When Andy removed warnings from his talk page, his edit comment was "fuck off, troll"[43] I asked him to please focus on content, not contributors, and not to accuse someone of being a sockpuppet without filing at SPI, which I saw an admin had told someone who did that a few days ago. Andy was warned five times, including by another editor who said "Andy knock it off please. Name calling and sock puppet accusation are disruptive": [44] [45], [46] [47] [48] Thank you. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 09:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

You have demonstrated, or faked, a time-wasting, tiresome obsession with removing mention of the day of the week. This is troll-like behavior. If name calling and sock puppet accusation are disruptive, then an obsession such as yours is more so. -- Hoary (talk) 09:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Obvious troll is obvious - see block log [49], and (frequently blanked) talk page. And note the way this 'new' IP contributor parrots policy, with no discernible regard for who we are writing articles for. All over the entirely reasonable suggestion that an article concerning a notable event might actually say what day of the week it occurred on. Yes, I was rude, and yes, I'm drunk (I'll probably have an apocalyptic hangover later ;-) ), so maybe I could have been more 'civil' - but as far as I'm concerned, we are here to write an encyclopaedia, not engage in endless Wikilawyering over stupidities - and I'd rather be blocked for telling a fuckwit to go boil his head than take responsibility for writing a fuckwit encyclopaedia (and come to think of it, I could probably do with a Wikibreak over Christmas anyway - or possibly longer). AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Apocalyptic hangover? The world's still here - or is it supposed to end at EST? It will be here tomorrow. Happy holidays, Andy! Doc talk 09:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Hoary, Andy's above comments speak for themself ("I'd rather be blocked for telling a fuckwit to go boil his head than take responsibility for writing a fuckwit encyclopaedia"). He's made my point. In terms of the talk page discussion, I was reasonably discussing a legitimate issue about an extremely common edit (date format). And a very experienced editor (six years) indicated the legitimacy of my concern to Andy.[50] I was courteous throughout the discussion and focused solely on content, then was personally attacked without provocation. And while Andy thinks it's productive to reference my block log, I suggest he focus on his own block log,[51] which I had no intention of bringing up initially. Yes, I was blocked briefly (for edits, not mistreating others). But I have learned from my mistakes and have been working hard to productively contribute here. Andy has been editing for years, yet still treats other editors as inappropriately as he apparently always has. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 09:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I've provided plenty of diffs to support my claims, not to mention Andy coming into the thread and calling me a "fuckwit". Please do the right thing. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 10:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

People can't see your entire edit history. Your first edit on this IP used the WP:USPLACE link so you are clearly not new. I assume Special:Contributions/76.189.107.195 is you too. Who else ? Have you been blocked more than once ? How many years have you been editing ? Sean.hoyland - talk 10:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know about USPLACE until an administrator taught me about it on a talk page because he had seen that editor violating it. It's interesting how hard you're trying to make me look bad, yet are completely ignoring Andy's totally inappropriate behavior. Why is that? --76.189.123.142 (talk) 11:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Yup. The troll's edit's speak for themselves (look for yourself, don't take my word for it). And note the troll's endless citations of the intricacies of Wikipedia policy, and utter inability to explain why we mustn't tell readers what day of the week something occurs. This isn't a new contributor, self-evidently. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I asked the IP editor to form an argument as he seemed to dispute the use of the day of the week when the consensus seemed to be against its use when I arrived at the discussion. Andy was asked a direct question to explain the relevance to the subject for adding the day when the article had not had this information and I percieved a clear "I just like it" discussion forming with no clear reasoning. He declined to collaborate in anyway to the question, leading me to believe "I don't hear you" was an issue. Since Andy would not provide his own relevance I attempted to do so to at least demonstrate to the IP editor that it was possible. While I do not have an opinion to the addition or exclusion of the content Andy's editing under the influence has become too much of an issue for me to believe the editor is working in either good faith or within the spirit of Wikipedia. I am now understanding a little better what Andy's issues are. Andy has requested that he would rather be blocked than stop. I suggest his wish be made true. If the IP editor is indeed a sock puppet please report this to SPI and deal with that. As far as I can see, there is no clear boomerang detectable for the IP in this case. As for the block log....why is it not mentioned when bringing that up that the IP is one "through which multiple users may connect to the Internet via proxy. This IP address may be reassigned to a different user when the current user disconnects." If editors are able to demonstrate that this is the same "editor" in some form, I would still ask why the block log means anything here. The IP was not being disruptive in this case.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Amadscientist, are you seriously suggesting that there may be multiple individuals making near-identical arguments from the same IP address? AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Hoary, could you please provide diffs to this "time-wasting, tiresome obsession with removing mention of the day of the week" please?--Amadscientist (talk) 10:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Having read the talk page discussions Hoary's account is more accurate than Amadscientist's tl;dr outpouring above (just dramamongering like the OP). The IP has been blocked several times in the last few days and their conduct on the talk page isn't helpful and could be described as "trolling". They cannot in fact edit the article, which has been discussed multiple times at great length on WP:AN. Mathsci (talk) 10:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually I was attempting to be impartial, but I can see that was a waste of time. At any rate, the IP did, in fact confess to being the same editor. I do disagree that the editor was being troll like as I asked them to form an argument also making your assessmnet of me way off. An editor admits to being drunk and we see nothing wrong with that. Noted.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Mentioning the day of the week is not a controversial matter, yet the IP made it so. Their recent block blog speaks for itself. The fact that you have ignored it along with the WP:IDHT conduct on the talk page and are now suggesting that ATG be blocked would not normally be taken as signs of impartiality. Mathsci (talk) 10:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I asked them to form an argument. If it is truly so uncontoverisal...why was the discussion so long to begin with before the dispute. An editor just trying to continue the discussion and make their case after another asked them is not troll behavior. There is no "fact" that I have ignored the block log. But it does not speak for itself. Please tell me that you are not blowing off the dispute with a drunk and beligernet editor in favor dismissing the IP based on his block log. And...Andy actually suggested the block. I agreed --Amadscientist (talk) 10:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

WP policy is not on your side and your last remarks are out of place. Please stop this drama-mongering. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It appears the drama mongering is coming from you. As I said. Andy admitted to being drunk, said he would rather be blocked than to stop name calling and I still suggest an admin take him up on the offer.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Sean, this is starting to sound similar to a rape victim being blamed for wearing revealing clothing. And I would consider myself a new editor, unless you define someone's who edited for a month or two a veteran. I haven't done or said anything that can't be easily learned in a couple weeks. Reading guidelines and other pages that explain how to do things isn't rocket science. And this is the only account I've been blocked on. So, Andy has not only called me names and accused me of being a sockpuppet numerous times on the other page without reporting it, he's now come here and continued it and called me more names. There's no doubt that if I (or any other IP) did the things Andy's done, they would've been blocked in a heartbeat. Just calling someone a "fuckwit" would've gotten an IP an instant ban. Is this going to continue being ignored and, in essence, encouraged? I hope not. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 10:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Question, do you have other accounts?--Amadscientist (talk) 10:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I promise that I have no other accounts. Just this one. In fact, I would encourage that to be investigated, however that's done, rather than repeatedly being accused of editing improperly. Someone did that to another editor a few days ago and an admin came in and told him to knock it off if he wasn't going to report it. And by the way, if I did have an account, I would've just made some of these edits myself that I've been discussing on the talk page. I wouldn't have needed to make edit requests and have discussions on a bunch of them. Thanks. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 10:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

You've also edited with the IP mentioned by sean.hoyland for example on User talk:Jayron32. Mathsci (talk) 10:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

That was my previous IP. It changes. I have no choice in the matter. My internet provider does that from time to time. But I'm using one account. Why am I being treated like a criminal? I came here to talk about a problem I had and I gave the links to back up what I said. Yet no one, except Amadscientist, will even say a word Andy's actions. The sole focus is on this IP for some reason. This is very sad, but I still have faith that a good admin will do the right thing. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 11:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The 'right thing' being of course blocking trolls who think that the day of the week isn't relevant to Wikipedia articles... AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

So you're also calling Crisco 1492 a troll and think he should be blocked?[52] --76.189.123.142 (talk) 11:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec) "Other accounts" in this context would mean "any other previous account, IP or otherwise". If you knew about USPLACE violations for your first edit here (and the fact that that editor had been warned about it before), you are ahead of the learning curve. Doc talk 10:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Accusing someone of being a sockpuppet means using more than one account at the same time. I never said I didn't have a prior IP, I explained this above, my internet provider changes it, I have no choice. And I knew about USPLACE, as I already explained, from an administrator who had warned this one editor about it, and the admin had reverted a lot of the violations, so I started helping out and doing more, there were lots of them. Now, any words about Andy's actions, Doc? Or do you see what he's done as acceptable? --76.189.123.142 (talk) 11:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Andy's "traceable" - he's got an account. That's how you can have a choice as to someone seeing your overall contributions. Not that you have to do that at all, but it does help sometimes when discerning an editor who hops IPs because they like the freedom of anonymity vs. those who hop around to avoid scrutiny because they are already blocked for one reason or another. Doc talk 11:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

You still have yet to address Andy's actions. Your entire focus is on me, trying to make me look like a criminal. I asked if you think Andy's behavior is acceptable and for some reason you have ignored it, even though I've answered your irrelevant questions. And what does my history have to do with this situation? If you have evidence that I've done something wrong in this situation, please provide links so that everyone here can see them. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 11:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Andy's a self-admitted grump. And he's been drinking tonight, so I've heard. What do you suggest we do with him to prevent damage here? Block him? Doc talk 11:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• Just on this specific point "An editor admits to being drunk and we see nothing wrong with that. Noted." Nothing wrong at all. Comment on the content (whether under the influence or not) not the (state of) editor. Leaky Caldron 10:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Hoary, could you please provide diffs to this "time-wasting, tiresome obsession with removing mention of the day of the week". No, I can't be bothered; but you'll see the results here (passim). -- Hoary (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• That is an admission disclosed on the AN/I. It is a part of the discussion. It is the content here and the behavior being admitted to.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Trolling by blocked ipsock of banned editor Mikemikev
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev Note: Mathsci often sides with Andy in disputes. 211.50.30.36 (talk) 10:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC) ip trolling from Korea ==> Mikemikev. Mathsci (talk) 11:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC) Note: many editors often side with Andy in disputes because he is often right. GiantSnowman 10:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC) And note the sudden appearance of an IP who has never edited on Wikipedia before... AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC) Note: Mathsci's empty rhetoric could be applied to either party, but is being applied to one. "Making the issue controversial"? Takes two to do that. 211.50.30.36 (talk) 11:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC) "Dramamongering", "trolling". Pretty serious accusations. 211.50.30.36 (talk) 11:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC) And now we have Wikipedia's favourite pig-ignorant racist sockpuppet turn up. Oh joy. Mikemikev, go find a landmine to practice your pogo-stick on... AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC) I am just trying to nip any partisan rhetoric in the bud to provide a fair discussion of the issue at hand. 211.50.30.36 (talk) 11:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC) Really? Well a Happy Christmas and an unfortunate incident involving a chainsaw in the new year to you, Mike. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC) Happy Christmas to you too. 211.50.30.36 (talk) 11:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• Personally, I think the day of the week is fluff and not necessary in the long run of things. This IP editor should be listened to with an open mind, not condemned for arguing with Andy. If he were registered and logged in Andy would have been blocked a long time ago. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• I completely agree. For pity's sake! I don't give a good goddamn how often Andy is allegedly "right." Do we, or do we not, have a policy forbidding personal attacks? From WP:NPA: "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." (emphasis in the original) Is this going to turn into another MMN situation, where an editor racks up dozens of blocks for civility violations over several years before people applied the same standards to him they demand from newbies? Ravenswing 11:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes we do It doesn't really matter if Andy is right or not.If he is right there are proper administrative channel that he should followed.Its not the first time that he breaking WP:NPA.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I've looked at this sequence of events. While editing under the influence is not ideal, and calling someone a "fuckwit" is not something I would encourage, my judgement is that Andy's behaviour here falls short of the blockable. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't have been blocked if his target were not an IP. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations, Kim. You have just given Andy license to continue his personal attacks on editors. It's nice to hear that calling someone a fuckwit - on the incident noticeboard, no less - is "not something (you) would encourage". How bold of you. Not to mention his numerous other repeated insults and accusations. It's people like you that are responsible for so many of our children being bullied. So often, our kids are told by adults that the bully's behavior "falls short" of warranting any consequences. So it continues until someone has the nerve to stand up and do the right thing. Thank god for people like Ravenswing, Amadscientist, and Crisco, who can cut through all the nonense and clearly see the obvious. Much of this discussion is a very sad commentary on what many people see as acceptable behavior. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

"It's people like you that are responsible for so many of our children being bullied." You just lost your last ounce of credibility with me. But, drama on... Doc talk 12:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The fact that this has been open for about 4 hours now, and that no other admin has seen fir to enact a block, suggests that I'm not alone in my judgement. I have (I think) blocked Andy before and will do so again if I think it's necessary. Actually personally I would block for calling someone a fuckwit if it were entirely up to me. But time and again the consensus on these boards is that lone admins doing that get shot down by the community who call it an over-reaction by the civility police. So my judgement here is trying to reflect what I think the current consensus is, and not actually my own private view. I do however think that extending this thread much longer is unlikely to be fruitful. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, the famous WP:BOOMERANG. 76.189.123.142, please stop making personal attacks on other wikipedians. Mathsci (talk) 12:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I've read all your comments in this thread. So what you're saying is that my comments are an attack, and Andy's are not? Got it. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 13:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The comment in quotes above was a personal attack. As for the original objections to mentioning the day of the week, the article on September 11 attacks does so prominently in the lede. Mathsci (talk) 13:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Again... so my comments are an attack but Andy's are not, right? Got it. And we're not here to discuss the content of an article; this is about an editor's behavior. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 13:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• 76, I'd suggest being careful here as that is (arguably) a PA. Not as bad as Andy's, but... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Doc, based on all of your comments above, it's obvious to anyone reading this thread that I had no credibility with you from the very beginning. So to pretend I did is quite disingenuous. And once again, although I answered all your questions - even though they had no relevance to this issue - you have yet to answer my one very relevant question: Do you see Andy's behavior as acceptable? You also have yet to provide any diffs which show I've done something wrong in this situation. Perhaps you'll respond to what Ravenswing said. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 13:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Crisco, your comment is well taken. I'm simply saying that obviously inappropriate behavior like Andy's should be addressed accordingly, not defended or downplayed. In any case, your point is ironic. ;) --76.189.123.142 (talk) 13:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Kim, I appreciate your follow-up. However, I don't believe consensus can or should ever override clear policy or guidelines. I hope you will reconsider Ravenswing's thoughts on this matter. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 13:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

How long do want Andy blocked for? A couple of days? A month? Longer? What would be justice for you? What are you seeking here, exactly? Doc talk 13:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Answer the question and provide the diffs you've been asked for several times, and then I'd be happy to discuss that. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 13:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

You opened this thread. What do you want to happen to Andy as a result of it? Doc talk 13:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

76 engaged in a protracted debate, in several venues, about whether the word "Elementary" belongs in the name of Sandy Hook Elementary School. Having been blocked for that disruption, and having learned nothing from it, he is now engaged in a potentially protracted debate about whether it should be mentioned that the Sandy Hook murders occurred on a Friday. For a user whose first visible footprint here is December 12th, he seems to know a lot about wikilawyering and making Everests out of anthills, while also repeatedly demonstrating "IDHT" mentality. He also admits to being an IP-hopper. It's no wonder Grumpy might think him a sock, as that's the type of behavior demonstrated by other banned users. P.S. The behaviorial connection to that other Grover-based IP is pretty "obvious", to coin a phrase. It's also interesting that the other IP stopped editing the day before the one here started. I'm just trying to recall which registered user(s) were on that same obsessive-about-small-things track, as checkusers won't do anything with IP's by themselves. Also wondering which other IP's he's edited under. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:SPADE discussion has gone on long enough

I'm going to lance this debate and drain it of the puss.

• Andy, please don't use language like that. Even if they are an IP address that has way too much knowledge for the aparent editing history.
• IP Address, you've gotten your pound of flesh by drawing attention to Andy's behavior. I suggest you leave the field NOW. Anything more becomes more disruptive than the suppositions and intemperate words that Andy used.
• Board in general: We're supposed to drain drama, not inflame it.

I suggest this request for immediate action be closed down with prejudice. Hasteur (talk) 13:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Why don't we just do away with WP:NPA policy and stop kidding ourselves. Andy is clearly in breach. Even a short 1 hour block is better than inaction. If admins can't be bothered enforcing policy for such a clear breach (and nobody above has indicated that he's not in breach), then we've no hope for this policy and it simply becomes a tool open to abuse by an admin when they personally get pissed off at an editor. Just my 2c. But if consensus today is that calling someone a fuckwit doesn't breach policy and merit a block, please lets recognize that and adjust the policy. That is the best way to save time and drama. Next time, we can simply point to policy and say "Calling someone a fuckwit isn't in breach". --HighKing (talk) 13:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

That might be fair, as long as it's traded off with about a month for the IP. And if he switches IP's again, his behavior will tip us off, and then a rangeblock could be imposed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, inaction is the wrong choice when it comes to policy breaches that are brought here, given that there doesn't appear to be too many extraneous circumstances or mitigating factors. As for the IP being disruptive and back from a block - I'm sure the community would agree to a block there also. A slightly longer block than the last time would suffice. --HighKing (talk) 13:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The IP-hopper needs to be put on ice for an extended period of time. (Given the current weather conditions in the midwest, that might be redundant.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

One of those examples where incivility by an established editor is obscuring underlying issues. First of all Grumpy (hope you don't mind me calling you that) should not have called the IP a fuckwit, or a troll. Sorry but though the IP is likely trolling it rather obscures matters if you do as the false flag of incivility is raised. Editing whilst pissed wasn't the smartest of ideas, enjoy the hangover.

Secondly the IP has been blocked once already for disruptive editing. The editing pattern is disruptive, its not so obvious to anyone not directly involved but it is. Its wikilawyering and arguing over utter trivia, whilst continuing to demonstrate an unwillingness to engage in consensus building. The thread here is a further example of disruptive behaviour, with a lot of time wasted on trivia. We don't seem to be able to deal with disruptive editors unless their editing falls into obvious categories of vandalism or incivility.

Proposed solution:

• Slap grumpy with a huge WP:TROUT slap and beat over the head with a clue stick/
• Block the IP for disruptive editing per WP:BOOMERANG. They're not contributing usefully to wikipedia and wasting a lot of energy.

Jobs a good 'un. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

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

inflammatory comments and potential canvassing

Hi,

There is a new, and rather inflammatory comment on the talk page of White privilege. Because there has been a history of previous WP:CAN violations at this page, I am perhaps more sensitive to the language of this comment, but it appears to me to be threatening additional canvassing.

the comment is from an ip editor (User Talk:71.127.139.4), and can be found here

--UseTheCommandLine (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The IP has a somewhat frustrated tone and could arguably be described as inflammatory, but he's not being uncivil, making personal attacks, or otherwise breaking any rules in the process. I also don't even sense a hint of canvassing. Canvassing involves inviting people to a specific discussion that is taking place, in the hopes of influencing that discussion. He mentions an RfC, but for the life of me I can't find any RfC on the subject, and I don't think there is one. If there is no discussion, there can't be canvassing. I don't think there is any reason that this needs to be discussed at ANI. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 16:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

What Scottywong said. Was just about to draft exactly the same reply and found I'd been beaten to it! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

If i was being overly knee-jerky, then mea culpa. the page has just been through an edit war after a number of new editors with the same opinions seem to have discovered the page at the same time (this editor among them), and has noted has had an issue with canvassing, so the comment "as more and more editors slowly discover this article" was what i sort of siezed on. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The IP contribution doesn't bear the hallmarks of a collaborative and consensual editor, that's for sure! But this is AN/I and I don't think this is an incident - yet. certainly not one requiring any admin action such as a block or page protection. Let us know if it develops any further. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

UseTheCommandLine is describing the same thing I am - the more new editors stumble across this article, the more find it objectionable as time goes on - only he is describing it from the OWNER's point of view. He therefore doesn't want this article getting too much attention, since as he himself indicates, the number of people who have stumbled across it and objected now surpasses the few OWNERs who wrote it. The only course left to him then seems to be to cry WP:CAN every time yet another dissenting editor shows up. Honest articles don't need to fear the rock being turned over. 71.127.139.4 (talk) 16:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The battle ground attitude and the sweeping accusations and the entire language need to be curbed. You have people trying their best to develop an article, and wikipedia has a bad habit of not protecting good contributions. SOAPBOX time, this is why every month more leave. I don't think WP:CAN or WP:OWN (proposed by the belligerents) are valid. But someone should step in and mediate the situation. It is not helping wikipedia. And that is why we are all here. A few FRINGE views should not spoil the experience for serious contributors.--Inayity (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Record label interference

The account User:Sonymusicireland (which shares a name with the record label of Niall Breslin) deleted half his page the other week. [53] [54] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.105.202 (talk) 02:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah. Maybe that's not good. Then again, in this edit they removed, besides a ton of trivia and meaningless chit-chat, "he discovered a love and talent for sports as well as being shite at music". I'm looking through the other edits to see who all needs a spanking. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
• I've gone through the article, pruning a bit. That Sony account is blocked per our username policy. That article needs help. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for review of Administrator conduct: KillerChihuahua

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.

---

My recent interaction with Administrator KillerChihuahua has been extremely unpleasant. Here are just some of the many words this person has used to attack me:

"ignorant", "abstruce", "sarcastic", "patronizing", "insulting", "childish", "not civil", "nasty", "snotty", "bitchy", "troll-like" and many other suggestions. Of course always hiding behind the old idea, 'I'm only talking about how you are behaving and not name-calling'.

This all started with a well sourced edit I made at the God page which was reverted and which turned into a couple topics I began at Talk:God. Administrator KillerChihuahua responded to everything I posted and had a very strong opinion on the subjects I brought up, evidenced by the overwhelming counter point content this person added in response to my points. This part is fine.

What I believe is highly questionable is how the Administrator mixes the role of being an adviser of Wikipedia policies with being a person with a personal bias on a topic. This includes exaggerating the advisory and authority role when no major violation of policy is being committed. It includes the Administrator bullying and making veiled warnings and threats, again, without major justification. Example:

"And finally, if you ignore my advice to continue this elsewhere rather than here, I will not be responding to your posts at all here. This is about your lack of civility, not about the God article, and should not be continued here. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done."

In general, it seems to me this is an Administrator drunk with power and control who makes me question whether or not I want to be a part of a community that allows people like this to throw around their authority to push editorial biases and enforce their beliefs. I am still new here and have been learning the ropes, but being treated this way leaves a bad taste, especially when it's coming from an Administrator. If some experienced people have time, I'd like to know what they think of the content on my talk page, User talk:Allisgod and on Talk:God between myself and KillerChihuahua. I acknowledge I have made mistakes in the dialogue, but I don't believe they warrant the kind of treatment I've received and most importantly, I would think an Administrator is held at a higher standard. Allisgod (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua? Yep. A pattern emerges with this puppy. My own complaints about her abuses got short shrift at this forum. I wish you better luck; but don't expect a fair hearing. Others have simply left, conceding the field to her. We may never hear from them again.

We soon learn, on Wikipedia, that admins tend to support each other as a matter of reflex. Sad, but undeniable. It only takes a few to bring the standard down. ♥ Noetica^Tea? 10:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Allisgod, is there a reason you haven't provided any diffs? If you want people to look at the problem, you'll need to link them to at least one or two examples. I'm not an admin, and frankly, I'm not someone who kisses admin ass, but in my own experience KillerChihuahua (KC) is one of our best. I've just now read through the thread on User talk:Allisgod and I can't see anything actionable here. Allisgod, you say you've been treated poorly, but I don't see any such treatment from KC. If anything, she tried to explain to you how WP:AGF works and you didn't seem to understand her. And, Noetica? If there is a pattern here, it is shared between you and Allisgod, not KC. Now, I will be the first to admit, she does sometimes come off as if she has an attitude, but many of us do have attitudes since we are human, not machines. To me, her attitude is refreshing, as it gives her color and depth, and I find her sense of humor and perspective charming. There's nothing for any admin to do here, so maybe you could put this behind you and try to AGF in the future. Viriditas (talk) 10:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

So sure of your ground, Viriditas; and what great reflexes!

If you care to check (as I did), Allisgod is pretty new on Wikipedia. That would entitle a user to a lot of consideration; but not, apparently, from KillerChihuahua. And not from those who frequent this forum, that's for sure.

As for puppy being human, yes. Of course. And how various humanity is! Let's see how this will proceed. I have a hunch about that.

Noetica^Tea? 10:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing actionable for any administrator to act upon in any capacity. Since you are so concerned with KC, why don't you yourself find something actionable on User talk:Allisgod. Since there's nothing there, the best thing that could happen is for this thread to be closed and for you and Allisgod to get back to improving the encyclopedia. These noticeboards aren't for complaining about admins "drunk with power and control" based on harmless differences of opinion and interpretation during a discussion. Some people might claim that you need to grow thicker skins, others would say stop making mountains out of molehills. I would say, stop escalating minor disputes and start negotiating. This isn't the first place to go when someone says something you don't like. Viriditas (talk) 10:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

This report is meritless. Allisgod told KC on User talk:Allisgod that KC was "opinionated", and refused over several posts to recognize the negative connotations of that statement. Earlier this month on Talk:God, Allisgod had complained in an unhelpful way about the main image in the article God. Some of their statements there contradicted the consensus resulting from the "Muhammad images" arbcom case and the subsequent RfC. Various administrators and editors explained those wikipedia policies carefully, but the response seems to have been WP:IDHT. Mathsci (talk) 10:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Don't see anything actionable here, per Mathsci and Viriditas. --John (talk) 10:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I should have organized some diffs:

1) VERY liberal use of Wikipedia policy to force her way and close discussion [55]

2) UNJUSTIFIED name calling - "sarcastic, patronizing, and insulting...nasty and snotty...bitchy" [56]

3) UNJUSTIFIED THREAT of hounding [57]

4) Making UNJUSTIFIED Accusations of 'assuming bad faith' when she is clearly assuming bad faith using metaphors[58], accusing me of "trolling"[59], accusing me of "hostility and rudeness"[60].

5) More UNJUSTIFIED name calling - "ignorant" [61]

6) More subtle THREATS - "If you ever actually understand anything I say on the first go, I might decide you don't need help. but as it is you are merely providing more evidence that you do."[62] Allisgod (talk) 11:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• These are not diffs, please see Help:Diff to see how to make a diff. Nevertheless I have reviewed the edits you are concerned about and I still think there is no action warranted against KC. --John (talk) 11:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • John, after all these years, I don't myself understand the half of Help:Diff. I think it's better to link new users (in fact all users, but that may be just me) to Simple diff and link guide for how to create diffs. It's a page by a lamer for lamers (I wrote it myself). Bishonen | talk 11:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC).
    • You're right, that is better. --John (talk) 11:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I also don't see anything actionable here. If you're getting this upset over a minor content dispute, then I recommend you either find something else to do or try to pursue dispute resolution in a calm and collected manner. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll try the instructions again to fix those diffs but I'm frankly shocked at your quick responses here and how there are apparently no standards for an administrator's language or harassment, not even a 'hey, maybe you shouldn't be name-calling, bullying, threatening users who you simply disagree with being that you are an Administrator'. In that case, I find this website to be basically corrupt and discouraging to better contributors. Allisgod (talk) 11:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Logical reasoning isn't your strong point. Because you had a disagreement with one admin, the entire website is corrupt? Someone shut down this thread before Allisgod makes a further fool of himself. Viriditas (talk) 11:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Editor retention is a recognized issue on Wikipedia.[63] In fact, there is an organized effort to counter the ongoing loss of good editors. [64] Whether the entrenched old guard wants to admit it or not, admin behavior is part of the problem. People who are truly concerned for the future of the encyclopedia should be paying attention to these kinds of issues. Belchfire-TALK 11:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Gee, I wonder if KC is your buddy Allisgod (talk) 11:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know her, but if "all is god", aren't you playing with yourself? Viriditas (talk) 11:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

KC is definitely not my buddy but having taken the time to review your complaints I can confidently say they have no merit. --John (talk) 11:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Courtesy blanking request

Just so no one thinks I'm abusing my "authority" or trying to "hide" something, I'm making this request here. I would like Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Nihonjoe 4 and Wikipedia talk:Requests for bureaucratship/Nihonjoe 4 blanked as I'd rather not have my name come up with the absurd discussions taking place on those pages. Blanking them will still make it possible for anyone who wishes to do so to review the history and anything on them, but will prevent search engines from associating me with that filth. Thanks. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done and  Done Regards, — Moe Epsilon 09:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Legal action being taken, block request

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

---

This IP address User talk:69.27.21.250, issued to Neumont University, may be involved in the process of legal proceedings against the WMF or it's users. In accordance with WP:NLT, could this IP be blocked from editing until this is over? I'm not sure what, if anything Philippe is able to tell anyone at this time, however Philippe may be able to elaborate on this. I know this IP isn't all bad most likely, but probably more than one user on this IP is taking action against Wikipedia for some reason.

Thanks, gwickwire^talk_edits 23:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't see anything on-wiki so it's going to need some more information from WMF. Or, rather, they can take appropriate action.--v/r - TP 23:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Per the IP's talkpage, Philippe is seeking to make contact. In the meantime, there haven't been any edits in several weeks (at least not from this specific IP). No immediate action seems required but I will monitor. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm going with no. Making threats to take legal action may be a blockable offense, but actually taking legal action against the WMF is not. Unless they're making legal threats, there is no need to block them. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:NLT:

Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing while legal threats are outstanding.

In that way, if anyone else knows of the legal action taking place, could they be blocked? Thanks. gwickwire^talk_edits 23:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

That passage says exactly what I said; making legal threats is blockable, but taking legal action is not. I'm afraid I don't understand what you're asking. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Not digging too deeply here ... but if the school (for example) was suing WMF, why would we prevent a student from anonymously editing the project? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Specifically, I'm requesting that they be blocked while legal threats are outstanding (quoted from above, in turn from WP:NLT). I'm not saying block accounts from that IP, just block the IPs that are suing, per the policy. The way I read it, the policy says those who are in the process of legal action against the WMF, and in turn against Wikipedia, should be blocked until those legal actions are resolved, be it a suit, subpoenas, or any other thing involving the WMF/Wikipedia in some way. gwickwire^talk_edits 00:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

But that specific user (as per the definition) does not appear to have made a legal threat themself, and thus NLT does not apply (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, the more relevant quote from WP:NLT is this one:

If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, it is required that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels.

So I'm afraid that Deskana is wrong - one cannot edit Wikipedia while legal action is underway. So if the IP is involved in legal action against the WMF they must not edit. If they do, they should be reminded that they cannot edit, and if editing continue, they should be blocked to ensure there is no editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Just from the above, If the school were suing.....are we going to block every student?--Amadscientist (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

We also have no on-wiki evidence of legal action. I havent seen any news sources quoted, WMF hasn't come here saying anything, IP hasn't made a threat. All we have that I can see is gwickwire's word that legal action is taking place. We don't block on those grounds. That's why I said WMF can either give us the heads up or block them themselves.--v/r - TP 00:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, technically yes, however practically no. If they do not actually say on-wiki that they are taking legal action, then we have no way to know that they are doing so, other than if someone from the WMF explicitly states as such. The minute they mention that they are taking legal action on-wiki, then it becomes a legal threat and they are blockable under the policy. Philippe knows what he is doing and as such we can assume that if he had wanted the IP blocked then he could have done so himself or got someone else to do it for him. As TParis has said, we have no evidence of anything right now. We're better just leaving this alone. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 01:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement from the WMF

To my knowledge, that IP has made no legal threat, and has not filed any action against the WMF. I'm seeking contact with them in a matter that's not public, and my message was intentionally vague. Sorry for any confusion, but there should be no block of that IP (for that reason, anyway - I make no determination about any other block reasons that may be outstanding.) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Belchfire

User:Belchfire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Would someone (who has not already) please have a word with Belchfire? Edit summaries like this are not conducive to a collegial working environment. He's always been a bit outspoken, but lately he's become insulting and been making personal attacks. This is not a productive attitude. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 13:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think giving them some time off from Wikipedia over the holidays is now a neccessity. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Do we have diffs of a pattern? After I raised some issues at WP:WikiProject Conservatism, I notices a distinct lull in how often he showed up here, but seen anecdotal evidence of more problematic behavior recently. This one summary was uncivil, but I would want to see more of a clear pattern before I mashed the red button. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The POV in this [65] reminds me of old patterns, removing good sources with bad. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see more than one before considering a block - that edit summary was technically a tautological comment about as arguably empty set, but if not empty, admins are expected to have thicker skins, so I don't see it as blockable on its own.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Not sure what you are referring to in that diff you presented. That point aside, the edit summary in question is definitely inappropriate. While BF is being hounded by more than one editor, I can understand his frustration with what he thinks is inaction by the SPI team. I personally feel that frustration is unwarranted and by no means should he have lashed out like this.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• I did give Belchfire a warning, and notified him of this thread (which the puppy forgot to do). — Coren ^(talk) 17:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh crap, and thank you. *hangs puppy head in shame*... wanders off to kennel... KillerChihuahua 17:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
• I think that, in general, we do a piss-poor job of supporting editors who find themselves harassed by sockpuppets. It's an incredibly frustrating experience, and I don't think we should be coming down hard on Belchfire for what is, in context, his understandable frustration. I also don't think that referring to admins, categorically, as "dumbfucks" is anything that we should get too worked up about, assuming it's a momentary outburst of frustration. I've occasionally had similar thoughts, although I've usually caught them at the "Show preview" stage.

  Separately, as Dennis alludes to, I think there is a clear longer-term pattern in Belchfire's edits of treating Wikipedia primarily as an ideological battleground. But since our approach to dealing with partisan editing is so ineffectual, I don't think it's worth the effort to make that case formally. I don't see the particular edit summary in question as necessitating any more than a request to chill, which Coren has already supplied. MastCell ^Talk 19:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• My comment was directed at the system and not at any particular admin. When I have something to say to an admin, it will be posted on their talk page where I know they will see it. (KillerChihuahua should already understand this.) Coren's message on my Talk is well-taken - vis-a-vis the edit summary, which was inappropriate. But I stand by the body of my comment: the system failed and left a known socking problem uncorrected, and I'm not going to apologize for being unhappy about that.

Off-topic (and opportunistic) remarks about supposed "battleground" behavior is - unsurprisingly - coming from people with their own battleground issues who see me as an opponent. If somebody wants to make an issue of such things, perhaps they should start their own ANI topic concerning their complaints instead of throwing rocks from the bushes. Belchfire-TALK 22:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

And yet our policies dictate that we remain civil, especially in edit summaries where one cannot refactor personal attacks or incivility. I saw your rude comment merely because your page is on my watchlist; anyone else could have also seen such. However, all that is beside the point, which is this is not isolated;[ your verbiage is becoming increasingly hostile, and yes, calling people dumbfucks is definitely WP:BATTLE, regardless of your view that it is not. I am concerned that you're becoming burned out or letting things get to you or otherwise becoming unable to remain civil here; taking the effort to correct this is to your benefit, and someone trying to bring this to your attention is not "throwing rocks from the bushes." Please note I said "Have a word with.." not "warn or block" or somesuch. You are failing to see that there is actually an issue with your edit summary; I suggest that you reconsider my motives and your approach here. KillerChihuahua 00:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I've acknowledged that the edit summary was inappropriate; you've acknowledged that I can't actually do anything about it. I haven't said a word about your motives. Since you're not pursuing a grudge, there doesn't seem to be much left to talk about. Belchfire-TALK 01:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, there is that you may wish to dial it back a notch. I suggest you give it some thought. Puppy (talk) 04:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Misleading edit summary

He's just labeled this edit summary[66] "Copyedit (minor)" while what he actually did was change the word 'Palestine' to 'Canaan'. No way is that copyediting or minor. Dougweller (talk) 10:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, two of them with the same edit summary, [67] changed "following what he believed was" to "obeying". Dougweller (talk) 10:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I can see why it could be considered minor as it referred to the anteceding use of Canaan in the same paragraph, and that was the term used at the relevant time. Seems a very odd place for "Palestine" considering its content -- referring to a time before the Philistines were there. Sort of like referring to American Indians settling in the "United States". Collect (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The Levant geographic region has borne many different names at different times of history. "Palestine" is the correct name (or close enough to it in English) that it had between the years AD 133 and AD 1948. References to "Palestine" between these dates are NOT anachronistic.

This is because in AD 133 to punish the Jews, the pagan Roman Emperor declared that the name Judaea was to be remembered no more (damnatio memoriae), that the very name of Judah or Israel was offensive to paganism and must be obliterated, and replaced with that of the Philistines. Even though the Roman emperor's sentiments could not be considered "neutral", we do recognize that Palestine (Palaestina) was therefore made the official name for the next 1800 or so years. But even after 1800 years, there is more recent literature coming from some quarters, written by people who seem to be pining away wistfully their whole lives because the name Israel has not been eliminated yet, indicating that this type of polemic sentiment still has an active following today, feasibly even among users who come to this site.

Before AD 133, the Roman Province was called "Judaea"; under the Seleucids it was part of "Coele-Syria"; under the Persians it was the province of "Judah"; before Assyrian invasion the northern part, later Samaria, was part of "Israel". At some point (exact dates become elusive) it is more precise to speak of the region as "Canaan", there are even older Egyptian names used before that. In the 19th century when the region was in fact Palestine, there began a trend in some literature to use the then-current name Palestine generally for all time periods, which is becoming less common practice in recent scholarly works, but even so it is an anachronism when used in reference to events before AD 133, as the only historical political unit it could have referred to then was Philistia. We can strive to be less sloppy and more precise than that though, not having, as a collective project, any emotional antagonism to a NAME, that should sway us to use Palestine even when it's clearly anachronistic. I think we should use such politically charged terms carefully and only where chronologically appropriate to avoid confusion: Especially since 1948 the name Palestine / Palestinian correctly refers to entirely different sets of people, with different religions and languages, than it had before 1948, let alone before 133. Til Eulenspiegel talk/ 15:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

So, not a minor copyedit. My point is that there is a political(pov) content to such changes, and the two edit summaries were misleading. Dougweller (talk) 16:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to chime in, the use of the word "minor" ought to be reserved for changes that are truly minor. It isn't sufficient that there is a good case for the change, the point is that some editors, seeing a minor edit in a watch list, want to be certain that there is nothing to see here. That doesn't apply to either of these examples.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Copy&paste/pagemove chaos

• Nicholas Van Rensselaer (soldier)
• Nicholas van Rensselaer (disambiguation)
• Nicholas van Rensselaer
• Nicholas Van Rensselaer (reverend)

Plus a few redirects.

I found this mess because one of the pages was blanked. I reverted the blanking, but quickly realized that the whole thing was a mess of page moves and cut&paste moves. And I quickly lost track of what had been moved where. Could someone else take a shot at straightening this out? The biggest thing is that the history needs to be straightened out to end up with the history for the right page(s) with that page. As it is, I cannot even figure out if there are actually one or two different subjects here. There appear to be two. but I can really only find article data on one. I'll notify the two main editors next, but I really don't consider this a report on their actions so much as a plea for help in cleaning it all up. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I think there are two subjects here. The clergyman which I had put together an article on based on Appletons' some time ago, and a soldier for whom a stub has recently been created. The clergyman's article was copied to give it a new name with a disambiguation suffix. The clergyman (now Nicholas Van Rensselaer (reverend)) lost a lot of his links (as well as his history) in the shuffle, and my main interest is in restoring the links. I did a move on the soldier's stub to give it a disambiguation suffix as well, but the other editor did not appreciate it, and I will leave it alone, and see if I can restore some of the clergyman's links. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Please nobody edit these pages right now. Nicholas Van Rensselaer and Nicholas van Rensselaer don't appear to have any problems right now, but the soldier's history has several revisions of the minister's article, so I'm going to be doing some G6 deletions. Nyttend (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

History merge performed, and redirects fixed; I think I've finished everything, but I'd appreciate someone else reviewing what I've done. Nyttend (talk) 21:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: JGVR appears to have undone every redirect you attempted to implement. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 01:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I think I may have contributed slightly to the mess when I saw the blank page as well. Thanks for fixing Nyttend. -- KTC (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Additional copy/paste move fixed with another histmerge. I'd appreciate someone else giving JGVR a warning about copy/paste moves, since I suppose that I'm mildly involved. Nyttend (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

And undone again... Then there's now this. KTC (talk) 02:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I've warned them to stop with the name-calling and have reverted their most recent reinstatements: a short block for disruptive editing will be the next recourse. Acroterion (talk) 04:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not create the problem. I created a page that someone thought should have someone elses information in instead of what i created and someone keeps reverting things back to mistakes and it is not me JGVR (talk) 04:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC) The proper spelling is 'van Rensselaer' why someone thinks it is such a big deal i do not know JGVR (talk) 04:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you understand the problem with cut-and-paste moves? Do you realize how much work Nyttend put into fixing that? We're fine with correcting information, and properly-executed moves are OK, but please read the advice you've been given, follow the links, and please stop calling people who are trying to clean up the attribution problems names. If you want something moved to a better title, please ask for help. Acroterion (talk) 04:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Since they resumed reverting I've blocked for 24 hours and left a longer explanation. I've reverted to Nyttend's version to return to an attributed history. I take no position on possible content, naming or capitalization: it will be up to JGVR to support his case that there's a problem with that and to obtain consensus and assistance if needed so the cut/paste problem doesn't recur. Acroterion (talk) 04:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Unlike Acroterion, I take a position — JGVR is right to say that it should be "van" instead of "Van". However, I don't have time to work on that right now, and I'd rather see an RM that either gets support or at least gets no opposition for a while. My only objection is the copy/paste moves and the attacks that Acroterion notes. Thanks for resolving the situation for now; I just hope that we'll not see more problems at the end of 24 hours. Nyttend (talk) 06:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

By your posts I gathered that the history of pages is of some importance. I am only wanting to kee the pages straight. aint looking to win any debate. I think it is only fair that being part of the mess (only after being dragged in by an erronious edit to the page I started and was working Nicholas van Rensselaer on, got changed) -- I should be of assistance in straightening it out too.

I am not going to try getting the article back to the original page name, but I will admit I got a bit more agrivated than I should have in the first place but i let it get to me further seeing the rename with (soldier) at the end. The parenthetical suffix is not my gripe, in fact I made articles with suffix (colonel) (and I am not accusing you of being thoughtless) I came to the realization that anyone could research and find numourus references to (Nicholas) being Capt., Lt. Col, etc, - In all fairness to not only the subject,but the researcher the suffix should be mearly (military figure) suitable for "Latrine Attendant" to "Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff", because - obviously nobody starts out as Colonel.

In all honesty most of the blame falls on whomever didnt care to check if they were actually editing the topic they intended (on the other hand may well have checked and didn't care. (Without mentioning ______'s name )). Somewhere under the mesozoic layer in the history of one of the pages ought to show this, which in turn got me overreacting too quickly.

In closing I apologize for dubbing you a sabateur, although (if it was you that I responded to at first indication of the ongoing mess) I did explain that Nicholas van Rensselaer had the original article of the (military figure), I am only saying this regarding the 'history and attribution'

If it can be managed to change the suffix to (military figure) 99.999% of my aggritation will be resolved, the ony remaing portion would be the "v" vs. "V"

Being as there are current pages: Nicholas van Rensselaer Nicholas Van Rensselaer (Capped V) Nicholas Van Rensselaer (soldier) (Capped V) And yes even a: Nicholas van Rensselaer (disambiguation) and lets not leave this one out in the cold either: Nicholas Van Rensselaer (disambiguation) (Capped V)

I imagine one or more will have to be deleted Another article I started Philip P van Rensselaer is tagged for deletion, I am down with that. info on him is too scant for the time being to warrant keeping it up. Hope the holidays are safe and happy for you and yours JGVR (talk) 04:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done Since there seems to be broad support for the page moves you have requested (the only issue being with how you attempted to implement them), I have performed the moves. Hopefully this issue can now be closed. JGVR, for future reference, you are able to move pages yourself through the button labeled "move" in one of the menus to the top right of the website. This enables the history of the page to be preserved with the move, which a cut and paste move does not. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 10:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Before I got aware this thread, I moved the military figure to Nicholas Van Rensselaer (military figure) with capital V in "Van". All sources spell thus, and it is common American usage. I invite JGVR to discuss further issues of "van" vs. "Van" on the pertinent talk pages. Kraxler (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppeteer on the loose!

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.

---

FiveSidedFistagon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has caused serious issues since his block in August of this year for sockpuppetry. Today, he has returned, this time as Villano VII (talk · contribs) and has posted the same JerrySandusky Barnstar, which is a personal attack on the userpages of Srj4000, an IP, MarnetteD and myself. This round of sockpuppetry and personal attacks is the last straw. Can someone please deal with this sockpuppet? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I've never done this, but I think you can report the sockpuppets and the master to WP:SPI (WP:Sockpuppet investigations/FiveSidedFistagon). iXavier [talk|edits|logs] 23:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

In the meantime, I've indeffed this account for its own "contributions." Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I saw the edits before they were oversighted, and I don't get how it was degrading. But that may just be me. :/ iXavier [talk|edits|logs] 23:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I've revdel-ed, not oversighted. --Rschen7754 23:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The sockpuppets Villano I, Villano II, Villano III and Villano IX are all blocked. Other accounts created at exactly the same time are Villano IV, Villano V, Villano VI, Villano VII. Villano VIII and Villano X. Mathsci (talk) 23:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

To Xavier: He was presenting users with "the Jerry Sandusky barnstar." See Jerry Sandusky. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I did a quick search of that name, and I think I know now but there may be stuff I'm missing. iXavier [talk|edits|logs] 23:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The revert warring I saw at one page destroys any good faith that I may have in this being an innocent mistake. --Rschen7754 23:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Violation of AGF

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

---

I am an unregistered user who recently nominated an article for deletion. The rationale was valid, being that the article was created by a vandal. In the AfD discussion page, User Zeng8r called it "bogus" while also suggesting that I am the vandal that created the article.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most played rivalries in NCAA Division I FBS

Also, while I was looking for where I could report AGF violations, User:Zeng8r proceeded to request a sockpuppet investigation on me. 71.90.216.96 (talk) 03:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned at this sockpuppet investigation request a few hours ago, I was pretty sure that the IP user who started this bogus deletion discussion (and yes, I said that it's bogus, as I believe that the nominator knew that it was without merit) was actually User:Rhinoselated / User:Latish redone, who was indefinitely banned about a year ago for contentious editing and for dicking around with Wikipedia procedures for his own amusement.

He helped me put the pieces together, actually. He keeps insisting that the list in question should be deleted primarily because it was started by a banned user: Latish redone. That name was familiar, as I had several experiences with both Lr and his socks last year. So I checked the IP user's edits and saw that they fit the old pattern - lots of contentious, near-3RR edits to college football articles (especially SEC-related football articles) accompanied by snarky edit summaries.

With the filing of this report, I'm absolutely certain it's the same guy, what with the claims of ignorance about wikipolicies while correctly linking to them left and right coupled with fake indignation and claims of persecution, all classic modi operandi of Rhinoselated/Latish redone. I've seen his act before, and I'm not playing along again. It's time to investigate, block, and move on, imo. Zeng8r (talk) 03:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Note that the IP filing this report has been badgering other editors at the AfD, although he is the one misinterpreting policy. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 04:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Why is discussion called "badgering". I made my case for deletion, others are suggesting the article be kept, I am only attempting to discuss the issue so that hopefully they will understand why the article should be deleted. I am also commenting on people's rationales to point out where they may be flawed, so that the admin who closes the discussion can see which side has presented their case well and which side is consistent with WP policy. 71.90.216.96 (talk) 04:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Arguing with every editor who holds a different view from you is not helpful. Please be aware that the majority of us, if not all of us, are well aware of Wikipedia policy and we do know what we are talking about. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 04:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

After a little investigating, I am now even more certain that the reporting IP is a sock. Any admins who feel like a sock hunt, come on over to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Latish_redone. --Zeng8r (talk) 14:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Update: The IP user had indeed been blocked as a sock. --Zeng8r (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Daveno14

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 WP:SPA user has repeatedly created articles about his business Bridgnorth Mole Catcher and removed speedy notices from the page as well as removing notifications from User talk:Daveno14 ([68]); also trying to use that Talk page as an alternative placement of the advertising material. The user has also resorted to placing a speedy notice on another editor's User page: [69]. AllyD (talk) 14:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Ah, I see that while I was typing the above, User:Bbb23 blocked the user for "creating inappropriate pages, promotion, and harassment". AllyD (talk) 14:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's what I said as part of the block notice. Unfortunately, due to tiredness, I forgot to include the promotion component in the actual block. The editor has done nothing constructive since creating an account in 2006. Ally neglected to mention that the editor slapped a CSD tag on their user page as well. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• and it has now been salted. KillerChihuahua 15:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Whack a Mole? Fiddle Faddle (talk)

• Given the weather there at the moment, no need. All the moles will have drowned. Black Kite (talk) 16:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Hope you don't mind the reference-desk type of question — why would you even hire someone to catch moles? Aren't they really slow above ground and uncatchably fast underground? Nyttend (talk) 16:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Don't know how accurate it is but here and, of course our article.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Belchfire

User:Belchfire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Would someone (who has not already) please have a word with Belchfire? Edit summaries like this are not conducive to a collegial working environment. He's always been a bit outspoken, but lately he's become insulting and been making personal attacks. This is not a productive attitude. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 13:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think giving them some time off from Wikipedia over the holidays is now a neccessity. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Do we have diffs of a pattern? After I raised some issues at WP:WikiProject Conservatism, I notices a distinct lull in how often he showed up here, but seen anecdotal evidence of more problematic behavior recently. This one summary was uncivil, but I would want to see more of a clear pattern before I mashed the red button. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The POV in this [70] reminds me of old patterns, removing good sources with bad. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see more than one before considering a block - that edit summary was technically a tautological comment about as arguably empty set, but if not empty, admins are expected to have thicker skins, so I don't see it as blockable on its own.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Not sure what you are referring to in that diff you presented. That point aside, the edit summary in question is definitely inappropriate. While BF is being hounded by more than one editor, I can understand his frustration with what he thinks is inaction by the SPI team. I personally feel that frustration is unwarranted and by no means should he have lashed out like this.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• I did give Belchfire a warning, and notified him of this thread (which the puppy forgot to do). — Coren ^(talk) 17:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh crap, and thank you. *hangs puppy head in shame*... wanders off to kennel... KillerChihuahua 17:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
• I think that, in general, we do a piss-poor job of supporting editors who find themselves harassed by sockpuppets. It's an incredibly frustrating experience, and I don't think we should be coming down hard on Belchfire for what is, in context, his understandable frustration. I also don't think that referring to admins, categorically, as "dumbfucks" is anything that we should get too worked up about, assuming it's a momentary outburst of frustration. I've occasionally had similar thoughts, although I've usually caught them at the "Show preview" stage.

  Separately, as Dennis alludes to, I think there is a clear longer-term pattern in Belchfire's edits of treating Wikipedia primarily as an ideological battleground. But since our approach to dealing with partisan editing is so ineffectual, I don't think it's worth the effort to make that case formally. I don't see the particular edit summary in question as necessitating any more than a request to chill, which Coren has already supplied. MastCell ^Talk 19:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• My comment was directed at the system and not at any particular admin. When I have something to say to an admin, it will be posted on their talk page where I know they will see it. (KillerChihuahua should already understand this.) Coren's message on my Talk is well-taken - vis-a-vis the edit summary, which was inappropriate. But I stand by the body of my comment: the system failed and left a known socking problem uncorrected, and I'm not going to apologize for being unhappy about that.

Off-topic (and opportunistic) remarks about supposed "battleground" behavior is - unsurprisingly - coming from people with their own battleground issues who see me as an opponent. If somebody wants to make an issue of such things, perhaps they should start their own ANI topic concerning their complaints instead of throwing rocks from the bushes. Belchfire-TALK 22:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

And yet our policies dictate that we remain civil, especially in edit summaries where one cannot refactor personal attacks or incivility. I saw your rude comment merely because your page is on my watchlist; anyone else could have also seen such. However, all that is beside the point, which is this is not isolated;[ your verbiage is becoming increasingly hostile, and yes, calling people dumbfucks is definitely WP:BATTLE, regardless of your view that it is not. I am concerned that you're becoming burned out or letting things get to you or otherwise becoming unable to remain civil here; taking the effort to correct this is to your benefit, and someone trying to bring this to your attention is not "throwing rocks from the bushes." Please note I said "Have a word with.." not "warn or block" or somesuch. You are failing to see that there is actually an issue with your edit summary; I suggest that you reconsider my motives and your approach here. KillerChihuahua 00:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I've acknowledged that the edit summary was inappropriate; you've acknowledged that I can't actually do anything about it. I haven't said a word about your motives. Since you're not pursuing a grudge, there doesn't seem to be much left to talk about. Belchfire-TALK 01:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, there is that you may wish to dial it back a notch. I suggest you give it some thought. Puppy (talk) 04:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Misleading edit summary

He's just labeled this edit summary[71] "Copyedit (minor)" while what he actually did was change the word 'Palestine' to 'Canaan'. No way is that copyediting or minor. Dougweller (talk) 10:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, two of them with the same edit summary, [72] changed "following what he believed was" to "obeying". Dougweller (talk) 10:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I can see why it could be considered minor as it referred to the anteceding use of Canaan in the same paragraph, and that was the term used at the relevant time. Seems a very odd place for "Palestine" considering its content -- referring to a time before the Philistines were there. Sort of like referring to American Indians settling in the "United States". Collect (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The Levant geographic region has borne many different names at different times of history. "Palestine" is the correct name (or close enough to it in English) that it had between the years AD 133 and AD 1948. References to "Palestine" between these dates are NOT anachronistic.

This is because in AD 133 to punish the Jews, the pagan Roman Emperor declared that the name Judaea was to be remembered no more (damnatio memoriae), that the very name of Judah or Israel was offensive to paganism and must be obliterated, and replaced with that of the Philistines. Even though the Roman emperor's sentiments could not be considered "neutral", we do recognize that Palestine (Palaestina) was therefore made the official name for the next 1800 or so years. But even after 1800 years, there is more recent literature coming from some quarters, written by people who seem to be pining away wistfully their whole lives because the name Israel has not been eliminated yet, indicating that this type of polemic sentiment still has an active following today, feasibly even among users who come to this site.

Before AD 133, the Roman Province was called "Judaea"; under the Seleucids it was part of "Coele-Syria"; under the Persians it was the province of "Judah"; before Assyrian invasion the northern part, later Samaria, was part of "Israel". At some point (exact dates become elusive) it is more precise to speak of the region as "Canaan", there are even older Egyptian names used before that. In the 19th century when the region was in fact Palestine, there began a trend in some literature to use the then-current name Palestine generally for all time periods, which is becoming less common practice in recent scholarly works, but even so it is an anachronism when used in reference to events before AD 133, as the only historical political unit it could have referred to then was Philistia. We can strive to be less sloppy and more precise than that though, not having, as a collective project, any emotional antagonism to a NAME, that should sway us to use Palestine even when it's clearly anachronistic. I think we should use such politically charged terms carefully and only where chronologically appropriate to avoid confusion: Especially since 1948 the name Palestine / Palestinian correctly refers to entirely different sets of people, with different religions and languages, than it had before 1948, let alone before 133. Til Eulenspiegel talk/ 15:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

So, not a minor copyedit. My point is that there is a political(pov) content to such changes, and the two edit summaries were misleading. Dougweller (talk) 16:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to chime in, the use of the word "minor" ought to be reserved for changes that are truly minor. It isn't sufficient that there is a good case for the change, the point is that some editors, seeing a minor edit in a watch list, want to be certain that there is nothing to see here. That doesn't apply to either of these examples.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Copy&paste/pagemove chaos

• Nicholas Van Rensselaer (soldier)
• Nicholas van Rensselaer (disambiguation)
• Nicholas van Rensselaer
• Nicholas Van Rensselaer (reverend)

Plus a few redirects.

I found this mess because one of the pages was blanked. I reverted the blanking, but quickly realized that the whole thing was a mess of page moves and cut&paste moves. And I quickly lost track of what had been moved where. Could someone else take a shot at straightening this out? The biggest thing is that the history needs to be straightened out to end up with the history for the right page(s) with that page. As it is, I cannot even figure out if there are actually one or two different subjects here. There appear to be two. but I can really only find article data on one. I'll notify the two main editors next, but I really don't consider this a report on their actions so much as a plea for help in cleaning it all up. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I think there are two subjects here. The clergyman which I had put together an article on based on Appletons' some time ago, and a soldier for whom a stub has recently been created. The clergyman's article was copied to give it a new name with a disambiguation suffix. The clergyman (now Nicholas Van Rensselaer (reverend)) lost a lot of his links (as well as his history) in the shuffle, and my main interest is in restoring the links. I did a move on the soldier's stub to give it a disambiguation suffix as well, but the other editor did not appreciate it, and I will leave it alone, and see if I can restore some of the clergyman's links. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Please nobody edit these pages right now. Nicholas Van Rensselaer and Nicholas van Rensselaer don't appear to have any problems right now, but the soldier's history has several revisions of the minister's article, so I'm going to be doing some G6 deletions. Nyttend (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

History merge performed, and redirects fixed; I think I've finished everything, but I'd appreciate someone else reviewing what I've done. Nyttend (talk) 21:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: JGVR appears to have undone every redirect you attempted to implement. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 01:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I think I may have contributed slightly to the mess when I saw the blank page as well. Thanks for fixing Nyttend. -- KTC (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Additional copy/paste move fixed with another histmerge. I'd appreciate someone else giving JGVR a warning about copy/paste moves, since I suppose that I'm mildly involved. Nyttend (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

And undone again... Then there's now this. KTC (talk) 02:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I've warned them to stop with the name-calling and have reverted their most recent reinstatements: a short block for disruptive editing will be the next recourse. Acroterion (talk) 04:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not create the problem. I created a page that someone thought should have someone elses information in instead of what i created and someone keeps reverting things back to mistakes and it is not me JGVR (talk) 04:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC) The proper spelling is 'van Rensselaer' why someone thinks it is such a big deal i do not know JGVR (talk) 04:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you understand the problem with cut-and-paste moves? Do you realize how much work Nyttend put into fixing that? We're fine with correcting information, and properly-executed moves are OK, but please read the advice you've been given, follow the links, and please stop calling people who are trying to clean up the attribution problems names. If you want something moved to a better title, please ask for help. Acroterion (talk) 04:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Since they resumed reverting I've blocked for 24 hours and left a longer explanation. I've reverted to Nyttend's version to return to an attributed history. I take no position on possible content, naming or capitalization: it will be up to JGVR to support his case that there's a problem with that and to obtain consensus and assistance if needed so the cut/paste problem doesn't recur. Acroterion (talk) 04:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Unlike Acroterion, I take a position — JGVR is right to say that it should be "van" instead of "Van". However, I don't have time to work on that right now, and I'd rather see an RM that either gets support or at least gets no opposition for a while. My only objection is the copy/paste moves and the attacks that Acroterion notes. Thanks for resolving the situation for now; I just hope that we'll not see more problems at the end of 24 hours. Nyttend (talk) 06:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

By your posts I gathered that the history of pages is of some importance. I am only wanting to kee the pages straight. aint looking to win any debate. I think it is only fair that being part of the mess (only after being dragged in by an erronious edit to the page I started and was working Nicholas van Rensselaer on, got changed) -- I should be of assistance in straightening it out too.

I am not going to try getting the article back to the original page name, but I will admit I got a bit more agrivated than I should have in the first place but i let it get to me further seeing the rename with (soldier) at the end. The parenthetical suffix is not my gripe, in fact I made articles with suffix (colonel) (and I am not accusing you of being thoughtless) I came to the realization that anyone could research and find numourus references to (Nicholas) being Capt., Lt. Col, etc, - In all fairness to not only the subject,but the researcher the suffix should be mearly (military figure) suitable for "Latrine Attendant" to "Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff", because - obviously nobody starts out as Colonel.

In all honesty most of the blame falls on whomever didnt care to check if they were actually editing the topic they intended (on the other hand may well have checked and didn't care. (Without mentioning ______'s name )). Somewhere under the mesozoic layer in the history of one of the pages ought to show this, which in turn got me overreacting too quickly.

In closing I apologize for dubbing you a sabateur, although (if it was you that I responded to at first indication of the ongoing mess) I did explain that Nicholas van Rensselaer had the original article of the (military figure), I am only saying this regarding the 'history and attribution'

If it can be managed to change the suffix to (military figure) 99.999% of my aggritation will be resolved, the ony remaing portion would be the "v" vs. "V"

Being as there are current pages: Nicholas van Rensselaer Nicholas Van Rensselaer (Capped V) Nicholas Van Rensselaer (soldier) (Capped V) And yes even a: Nicholas van Rensselaer (disambiguation) and lets not leave this one out in the cold either: Nicholas Van Rensselaer (disambiguation) (Capped V)

I imagine one or more will have to be deleted Another article I started Philip P van Rensselaer is tagged for deletion, I am down with that. info on him is too scant for the time being to warrant keeping it up. Hope the holidays are safe and happy for you and yours JGVR (talk) 04:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done Since there seems to be broad support for the page moves you have requested (the only issue being with how you attempted to implement them), I have performed the moves. Hopefully this issue can now be closed. JGVR, for future reference, you are able to move pages yourself through the button labeled "move" in one of the menus to the top right of the website. This enables the history of the page to be preserved with the move, which a cut and paste move does not. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 10:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Before I got aware this thread, I moved the military figure to Nicholas Van Rensselaer (military figure) with capital V in "Van". All sources spell thus, and it is common American usage. I invite JGVR to discuss further issues of "van" vs. "Van" on the pertinent talk pages. Kraxler (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppeteer on the loose!

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.

---

FiveSidedFistagon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has caused serious issues since his block in August of this year for sockpuppetry. Today, he has returned, this time as Villano VII (talk · contribs) and has posted the same JerrySandusky Barnstar, which is a personal attack on the userpages of Srj4000, an IP, MarnetteD and myself. This round of sockpuppetry and personal attacks is the last straw. Can someone please deal with this sockpuppet? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I've never done this, but I think you can report the sockpuppets and the master to WP:SPI (WP:Sockpuppet investigations/FiveSidedFistagon). iXavier [talk|edits|logs] 23:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

In the meantime, I've indeffed this account for its own "contributions." Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I saw the edits before they were oversighted, and I don't get how it was degrading. But that may just be me. :/ iXavier [talk|edits|logs] 23:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I've revdel-ed, not oversighted. --Rschen7754 23:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The sockpuppets Villano I, Villano II, Villano III and Villano IX are all blocked. Other accounts created at exactly the same time are Villano IV, Villano V, Villano VI, Villano VII. Villano VIII and Villano X. Mathsci (talk) 23:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

To Xavier: He was presenting users with "the Jerry Sandusky barnstar." See Jerry Sandusky. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I did a quick search of that name, and I think I know now but there may be stuff I'm missing. iXavier [talk|edits|logs] 23:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The revert warring I saw at one page destroys any good faith that I may have in this being an innocent mistake. --Rschen7754 23:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Violation of AGF

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

---

I am an unregistered user who recently nominated an article for deletion. The rationale was valid, being that the article was created by a vandal. In the AfD discussion page, User Zeng8r called it "bogus" while also suggesting that I am the vandal that created the article.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most played rivalries in NCAA Division I FBS

Also, while I was looking for where I could report AGF violations, User:Zeng8r proceeded to request a sockpuppet investigation on me. 71.90.216.96 (talk) 03:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned at this sockpuppet investigation request a few hours ago, I was pretty sure that the IP user who started this bogus deletion discussion (and yes, I said that it's bogus, as I believe that the nominator knew that it was without merit) was actually User:Rhinoselated / User:Latish redone, who was indefinitely banned about a year ago for contentious editing and for dicking around with Wikipedia procedures for his own amusement.

He helped me put the pieces together, actually. He keeps insisting that the list in question should be deleted primarily because it was started by a banned user: Latish redone. That name was familiar, as I had several experiences with both Lr and his socks last year. So I checked the IP user's edits and saw that they fit the old pattern - lots of contentious, near-3RR edits to college football articles (especially SEC-related football articles) accompanied by snarky edit summaries.

With the filing of this report, I'm absolutely certain it's the same guy, what with the claims of ignorance about wikipolicies while correctly linking to them left and right coupled with fake indignation and claims of persecution, all classic modi operandi of Rhinoselated/Latish redone. I've seen his act before, and I'm not playing along again. It's time to investigate, block, and move on, imo. Zeng8r (talk) 03:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Note that the IP filing this report has been badgering other editors at the AfD, although he is the one misinterpreting policy. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 04:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Why is discussion called "badgering". I made my case for deletion, others are suggesting the article be kept, I am only attempting to discuss the issue so that hopefully they will understand why the article should be deleted. I am also commenting on people's rationales to point out where they may be flawed, so that the admin who closes the discussion can see which side has presented their case well and which side is consistent with WP policy. 71.90.216.96 (talk) 04:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Arguing with every editor who holds a different view from you is not helpful. Please be aware that the majority of us, if not all of us, are well aware of Wikipedia policy and we do know what we are talking about. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 04:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

After a little investigating, I am now even more certain that the reporting IP is a sock. Any admins who feel like a sock hunt, come on over to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Latish_redone. --Zeng8r (talk) 14:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Update: The IP user had indeed been blocked as a sock. --Zeng8r (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Daveno14

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 WP:SPA user has repeatedly created articles about his business Bridgnorth Mole Catcher and removed speedy notices from the page as well as removing notifications from User talk:Daveno14 ([73]); also trying to use that Talk page as an alternative placement of the advertising material. The user has also resorted to placing a speedy notice on another editor's User page: [74]. AllyD (talk) 14:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Ah, I see that while I was typing the above, User:Bbb23 blocked the user for "creating inappropriate pages, promotion, and harassment". AllyD (talk) 14:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's what I said as part of the block notice. Unfortunately, due to tiredness, I forgot to include the promotion component in the actual block. The editor has done nothing constructive since creating an account in 2006. Ally neglected to mention that the editor slapped a CSD tag on their user page as well. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• and it has now been salted. KillerChihuahua 15:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Whack a Mole? Fiddle Faddle (talk)

• Given the weather there at the moment, no need. All the moles will have drowned. Black Kite (talk) 16:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Hope you don't mind the reference-desk type of question — why would you even hire someone to catch moles? Aren't they really slow above ground and uncatchably fast underground? Nyttend (talk) 16:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Don't know how accurate it is but here and, of course our article.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Gentle help needed for overenthusiastic admin-wannabe

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 255000 has made several reports to the Username admin board. While those users are problematic Meridian has not made any attempt to talk to the users to sort out the situation, and problematic behaviour is best tackled with the correct policies. Username policy shouldn't be used because it allows an editor to come back with a different name and continue previous behaviour. Note that Meridian is young, male, has English as a second language, wants to be an admin, uses Twinkle and rollback, and has several "vandal patrol" style pages listed on their user page. Individually none of these are concerning, but collectively they are a useful flag for editors who may be making over-enthusiastic contributions to the admin / meta side of WP rather than building content. This is a problem because it damages gnomes, some of whom will just drop out of contributing. Like I say, it's only gentle guidance that this person needs. --87.113.116.168 (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I notice you also have made no attempt to discuss this with Meridan. Something about black pots and kettles comes to mind here...--Atlan (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, the only user named Meridian (talk · contribs) has only one edit to his/her name and has no user page or user talk page. Perhaps you mean someone else? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Checking out UAA, they are probably referring to Mediran (talk · contribs). 72Dino (talk) 17:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• The above request could describe any of a great many valuable editors. There is no incident for us to consider. While there is a sizable portion of the community who holds it against editors that they perform primarily gnomish and work on the admin / meta side of Wikipedia, there is just as sizable a portion of the community who sees nothing wrong with that sort of activity, and in fact encourages it. Mediran appears to be editing consistent with currently accepted practices, if the OP thinks those practices should change, this is not the way to do it, instead go start an RFC on UAA practice. If the OP cannot provide a specific instance of conduct that is problematic, I say we award Mediran an appropriate barnstar and move on. Monty₈₄₅ 17:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• •  Done --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I think the problem the IP is pointing out is that Mediran isn't trying to discuss this with editors before going to UAA. He isn't saying there is a problem with maintenance work.--v/r - TP 19:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Right, but the reality is that the process at UAA often doesn't involve prior discussion, as evidenced by the willingness of admins to block most of the recent reports without starting discussion themselves. If there is a problem, its a UAA problem, not a problem with any particular editor. Monty₈₄₅ 19:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
        • Sounds like a problem with a lot of particular editors. UAA is right, the folks patrolling it are wrong. Items #3 and #4 of the edit notice specifically call for discussing it with the user. That should be followed for any cases except for bad faith usernames. The IP is correct, this user - and several others - need a gentle reminder to discuss things first. TW has a template for it.--v/r - TP 19:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
          • I've left brief note on Mediran's talk page suggesting that they engage editors on their talk page before going to UAA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello folks! Well, I knew my mistakes regarding these issues for not engaging them. Sorry for that guys. Yes, I don't discuss them to the user I'm reporting because it is already given that their only intention on why they registered to Wikipedia is to edit only that interests them and also to use Wikipedia as a mean of promotion. I also report users that has already made bad faiths although I doesn't apply this to all (and that is why I got here). Maybe I really made deeds that is bad for others but I will and I am trying to fix those because it is hard for a Wikipedian to work when someone is not feeling great with you. Well, sorry for that IP and I will work on that and re-prove myself to make myself worthy with this right given onto me. Regards, Mediran (t • c) 23:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Mediran - nearly a quarter of all unblock requests that come through UTRS are from spam usernames requesting to change their username and edit other things. This gets put on the shoulders of the roughly 5 active admins on that system. It's much better to discuss it with them on-wiki both because 1) It saves them the embarrassment and frustration of a block, and 2) There is a wider userbase to do it. Most users are willing to change their username, declare a COI, and avoid spam edits. That's why you shoule engage. Only appropriate time to report w/o a warning is when it's a username like "FuckTParis" or "MyMonkeyBallsAreFuckingHuge" ect...--v/r - TP 00:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess I will start a new routine in reporting but this routine will be better. Well, it has been clear to me now. Thanks and I promise to be better now. Thanks though. ;) Mediran (t • c) 01:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Nonstop111

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 single purpose account that has been editing [75],[76] the MusclePharm page removing large chunks of sourced content and replacing it with corporately prepared material, claiming the previously added material is "outdated". Despite numerous requests to discuss edits on the article's talk page, warnings about WP:COI and content blanking, this user continues to edit war, and insert unsourced material. Since this is a publicly traded company, and based on the language of the material inserted, this appears to be a WP:COI situation where an employee or advocate of the company is removing material and added unencyclopedic material for public relations purposes. --Yankees76 ^Talk 18:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I have given an indefinite block for purely promotional editing. Obvious is obvious. DGG ( talk ) 19:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Need unsalting & undelete

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 few hours ago Toddst1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) discovered that GloZell Green (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) had been subject to an AFD in June that closed as delete and based on the long series of deletions in the page's history, deleted the article and salted it. However, after a DRV that closed as "no consensus", the article was recreated in someone's sandbox and then moved back into the mainspace, after which it went under AFD again but that closed as keep. As I do not think Toddst1 will be responding to the message I left him that quickly, I think it would be better to get the word out here to fix this error as it was a valid article that met the issues stated by the original AFD.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Wikihounding by User:Benyoch

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

Benyoch's contributions to Wikipedia were "generally" constructive, but he is unable to accept criticism and this has led to Wikihounding that is most definitely not constructive. I first became aware of Benyoch when he made some edits to New Lambton, New South Wales (I have most Hunter Region related articles on my watchlist) which, although flawed in their implementation,[77] represented a reasonable attempt by an editor with only 9 edits in his history. I had no real interaction with Benyoch until March 2012, when he started editing Paterson, New South Wales (also on my watchlist), reverting the edit of a well established editor,[78] and adding an image gallery of random pictures of the area.[79] The reversion of the other editor also restored some categorisation errors that had previously been made by Benyoch.[80] In fact Benyoch's edit hadn't been a reversion of a single edit, it was a reversion to an earlier version of the article, which reverted reasonable edits by 2 humans and a bot.[81] After a "discussion" about that on the article's talk page, in a case of what appears to be "tit for tat", Benyoch headed to Talk:Raymond Terrace, New South Wales where he started a discussion titled "Intention to delete gallery of pictures", although the article did not actually contain a gallery.[82] Although that discussion went on for two weeks, there was then a generall lull until I made a blunder (I blame Firefox) at Vacy, New South Wales. Although I tried to explain this on the talk page,[83] Benyoch subsequently started attacking me and the civility level dropped. As I explained at the DRN discussion that I tried to start,(link), Benyoch resorted to writing inappropriate edit summaries,[84][85][86][87] making baseless allegations,[88] and resorting to the odd personal attack, even attacking me on my talk page.[89] As well as that direct attack, he added a few non-constructive trolls to existing discussions there.[90] Benyoch chose not to participate in the DRN discussion, despite a reminder form another editor.[91] Instead, he resorted to puerile attacks on his talk page, such as this one that I removed when I fixed his archiving for him.[92] Since then, he has made some thinly veiled attacks, obviously still aimed at me,[93] but persists in wikihounding at articles that he has never edited. At Talk:Steven D. Binder, not content with this attack, two hours later he added this post, in which he refers to my alternate account, which is rarely used for anything other than edits in my own userspace. It has only been this month that I've started using the account to do some work using AWB. In the spirit of WP:DENY, I reverted the edits, although I did note in the edit summary, "Wikihounding - not aimed at improving the article, just at attacking an editor". I had let it rest there, but today, Benyoch reappeared at Talk:Steven D. Binder and, in his first edit today and the first since posting there previously, struck out a comment that I had made to another editor, with the edit summary "Strikethru: Wikihounding - not aimed at improving the article, just at attacking an editor." a cut and paste of my own.[94] Just to clarify, in the interests of full disclosure, as I explained elsewhere, I made that post because I had responded to that editor, explaining I was busy and would address his post in a few hours,[95] but instead of giving me the courtesy of waiting to me allow to respond, he posted more stuff and then immediately rushed to DRN about an issue that had barely been discussed - the comment was valid and not an attack, just an expression of dismay. In short, there was no reason for Benyoch's post. There are other examples that seem to point to this editor following me around Wikipedia; this edit 20 minutes after mine on an article he'd never edited previously, and it was the only article he'd edited that day. Similarly, Benyoch's only edits for 9 November 2012 were to City of Lake Macquarie, an article he had never edited before and which I had edited only hours earlier.[96] On their own, these edits don't really seem out of the ordinary but, together with edits such as those at Talk:Steven D. Binder and the attack on my talk page, I believe they clearly demonstrate Wikihounding. At this point, I'm hoping that a third party will at least warn him about wikihounding. There's no point me doing so, anything I post is ignored and deleted quickly. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Benyoch has been notified of this discussion, here. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

And this is how Benyoch responded to the notification that I was required to give. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

WOW, you do quite keep a dosier on fellow-editors, don't you AussieLegend. I could keep a dosier on you, too, but I have better things to do than to count up the alleged editorial sins of other people. What some would say is a deception on your part (used to inflate your editorial status) you say is wikihounding. Get a life and be more honest in your interpretation of what actually happens here, especially of other people's critiques of yourself or changes made to your edits. What is th eproblem with my edit of Lake Macquarie? What if it was my first edit? It's on my watchlist. Why, because I grew up in the shire! But whan I correct your edits and remove redunancies you cry 'I am being wikihounded - and I can prove it because his edit followed mine'. Well, what a lot of shite. Unfortunately for me most of the places I have an interestd you you also have on your watchlist. Damn, well maybe Aussielegend is wiki-stalking me! I have observed you can make anything say what you want, and if that doesnt work you keep changing the goal posts in a discussion to meet your own needs - that process is totally pathetic. And stop being such a sook, too. You are one of the reasons why people stop editing wikipedia, because you are so anal, punctilious and officious and cannot accept another person has a different view to you. Furthermore, you allow no room for others to learn and make mistakes because you just want to big-head yourself. Well, your handle here the great 'AussieLegend' says it all, to be sure. They who no longer edit here were good people who have a lot to contribute, but because people like you cant cope with someone having an alternative perspective you hide behind your legalistic grip on policy and procedure and your little black book and your head full of jargon terminolgy and your vomitous verbosity to push your weight around. Even in this case you drag up stuff that was done and dusted thru a DRN process which I chose not to participate (why? because your method is to swamp people with so much shit - I couldnt be bothered - just like here) - even so, it was a process that was finished yet you want to drag it up and rubbish me in the process. Again, get a life, and stop going and crying to teacher all the time. To any third party who is reading this, please take AussieLegend's pants down and smack his backside. Failing that get him off my case and tell him to be more reasonable and not beat the shit out of other editors here. Wikihounding? Bunkum! Showing Aussie he can be wrong sometimes? Yeah, right on! Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 05:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Immediately above, in ostensibly attempting to refute the allegation made against him, Benyoch demonstrates rather too high a level of excitement than what's conducive to the intelligent discussion of the editing of an encyclopedia. His earliest edits do indeed seem level-headed, but Talk:Vacy, New South Wales shows the Benyoch we see above. His talk page carries the stern warning Edits to this page which I consider to be offensive and/or executed by any editor whom I consider to be a sociopath or psychopath will be removed without notice. This of course leaves open the possibility that he also removes messages that are neither offensive nor "executed" by anybody diagnosed as sociopathic or psychopathic; but for whatever reason, the talk page is now free of a large number of messages posted by AussieLegend. None of the latter messages approaches what I'd regard as offensive, but Australian sensibilities may be more delicate than my own. NB here we see what he considers wiki-hounding of myself by AussieLegal (sic) and Benyoch's forthright disposal of it; better bear in mind Benyoch's idiosyncratic understanding of the term "wiki-hounding" when hearing his allegations of it. -- Hoary (talk) 07:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your perspective, Hoary. I might get to respond to it later. In the meantime you need to ask, what happened with Vacy? You need to also appreciate that AussieLegend is a jargon-head, where only the most perfect and technical language will do (provided it is by him, of course)--where simpler terms will suffice--regardless of whether the every-day reader will understand the article or not. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I will make this point about this current process: If some at least consider that AussieLegend is just an editorial bully who hides behind his officiousness and superior understanding of wiki stuff and by doing so lords it over the lesser informed like me like he owns the place, and look into that seriously, then I will have some confidence that this process is, in someway, balanced. Otherwise, you may as well just hang me now - but with the understanding I am not the first and wont be the last he hounds out of wikipedia. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Ultimatums like that really aren't helping your case... — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems quite apparent I wont get a fair hearing from you, HandThatFeeds, as you judge my comments wrongly in saying I put up an ultimatum. To be sure, it was an invitation for a balanced perspective - there is neither a demand nor a threat of or against anybody or any editor. Disagree? Then have a look at wikipedia for ultimatum and properly compare with what I said. I view your comment here as incorrect, unhelpful and antagonistic - but that doesnt surprise me given my experience of biased and/or poor interpretation here in wiki. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 14:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

You made an "either X, then Y or else Z" statement: that's an ultimatum. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Bwilkins, You miss the point about there not being any threat to others on my part. Now are you going to deal with the issue at hand or quibble about justifying other people's inaccurate observations? Have you considered, for example, that AussieLegend is gaming the wiki system thru swamping people with protocols and procedures and continuously moving the goal posts in talk discussions to the point that it becomes fruitless having a discussion with him/her? For example, Aussie will take a genuine edit on my part and bundle it up into a claim against me that I am hounding him - its utter bullshit. Now, critically examining his editorial activity and interaction with other editors in disagreement with him/her would be a productive thing for someone to do. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you please provide some diffs to support your claims? I'm sure editors would be interested. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

You know full well - I wont waste my keystrokes on you. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 10:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course that's up to you but if you are going to make allegations, as you did immediately above, you need to provide proof. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

There you go, again ... nag, nag, nag, nag. I am confident, given my past experience in communicating with you, nothing I could say would amount to anything near proof for you. And even if I did bother, you would just conflate it beyond all proportions. AussieLegend, you are a legendary bore. Now piss off, stop hounding me and leave me be. Furthermore, if you have come here with your complaint to garner support from a cohort of biased administrators, then you all know what you should do. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 11:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Please mind your civility. And if you make accusations without providing diffs, don't be surprised when nobody does anything about them. If you have complaints about AL, show the diffs or don't make the complaints. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Too quote an editor above, 'How many editors leave because of persistent nagging behavior by others that the community does not self-police despite a trivial solution'? Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 10:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

OK boys, why not just give me your warning about wikihounding, as The Legend wants, and any other warnings you like, and be done with it. Then I will be off. You wont ever hear from me again. I am closing my account - the reason: AussieLegend's editorial bullshit. There ya go AussieLegend - the place is all yours, just as you want it to be. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the comment regarding the "editorial bullshit of AussieLegend" on Benyoch's personal talk page can be considered a personal attack, and can be considered a blockable offense. As a result, I've issued a final warning towards this user. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

This warning has been disregarded as "an opinion".[97] --AussieLegend (✉) 20:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

My request to leave, boys, has been denied so that you can continue your administorial wiki procedures. Perhaps we have a different perspective on things, but I thought clearly stating my reason for leaving was the "editorial bullshit (i.e. the content) of Aussie Legend (i.e. the editor)" was a fair and reasonable description of my opinion of why I am leaving. You need to understand I am leving because of an EDITOR, and it is fair to name him/her. Perhaps you have a different opinion, but opinion it is. So, I ask, are you also going to deny me my opinion and procedural fairness in the process? Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 03:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Your "request to leave", which you didn't actually make, hasn't been denied. There's nothing stopping you leaving. You can go when you want but, many of your edits are constructive, like the ones you made at Waratah, New South Wales and City of Lake Macquarie.[98][99] If you concentrated on making constructive edits like that, accepted facts when they are presented to you, learned to discuss matters rationally and laid off the personal attacks and wikihounding, you could be a good editor. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Now, the above is an example of Aussielegend's manner gaming of the system, of using the system of reporting to his advantage, to garner support thru double-speaking. Full disclosure would mean he would say he was wrong and has changed his mind. But No, Aussie muddies the waters by trying to hold two positions at once. In the first place (his initial critique of me) he sayed my edits of Lake Macquarie and Waratah 'don't really seem out of the ordinary but ... I believe they clearly demonstrate Wikihounding.', yes, that's right, folks; what he says in his paragraph above is good editing (he could have said that before but didnt) was previously wikihounding. This is an example of how Aussie moves the goalposts in discussions to divert the attention from himself when he has been found out. Truth is Aussie, I do a reasonable job of editing and have done so until you come and scerw me over. So Aussie, do I make good edits, or am I hounding? You cant have it both ways. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 05:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

What can I say of the original claim regarding edits such as those at Talk:Steven D. Binder. the other editor at that page is at his wits end concerning Aussie's relentless attacks on his editing. So much so he took Aussie to a DRN. But Aussie couldnt handle that, because things have to be done according to AussieLegend's timing, will and ways. So he attacks the other editor and rips into him for doing something Aussie didnt like. my part was simply to highlight to Aussie that what he thinks is good for others is also good for him. And so, using Aussie's methodology I made an edit to highlight that fact. Unfortunately, Aussie has no sense of humour, or no sense of what he says is good for others is good for himself. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 05:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

On Talk:Steven D. Binder you will also notice I have called Aussie out for lying about his editorial prowess, about how he corrects copy vios 'every day'. My review of his contributions demonstrated otherwise and I made that know in order to assist the other editor as to knowledge of what is really truthful in the matter. But Aussie cant cope with being exposed for making false claims and so brings me over here on a wikihounding charge. Another truth is, I have the right to edit any page I wish and I dont need AussieLegend's permission to do so. And, revealing the truth where editors seek to misrepresent themselves and their editorial superiority is a reasonable thing to do, is it not? Please, Administrators, go check the facts for yourself and discover what I say is true. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 05:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

AussieLegend, you said I made no request to leave. That is utter garbage and I demand you to retract that statement. I did in fact, by making a request for Courtesy Vanishing, because I am so pissed off with all this bullshit of yours and the biased state of this Administrator's noticeboard, at least in part. I even have an email by Fumitaka Joe that states, 'Due to the current controversy surrounding your edits (see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikihounding_by_User:Benyoch>), we are unable to grant your request for courtesy vanishing.' So Aussie, the request to leave which you in the first place say I didnt make, and in the second place say 'hasnt been denied' (Thtat's some twisted logic on your part) does actually exist and has actually been denied. Yes, I would like to still be an editor, but you make that impossible. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 05:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

A request to leave, and a request to courtesy vanish are two different things. I can find neither in any of your posts. You don't need to request a courtesy vanish, you can leave at any time. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Your representation of things here is so awful, Aussie, it just gets worse, and worse. In this edit you make a claim of request to leave and request to courtesy vanishing are two different things. Big deal, so what. Just because YOU cant find something doesnt make it so - proof positive that you aren't the legend you think you are. The fact is, I have made a request for courtesy vanishing and it has been denied (repeating this for your sake - please take note this time at least), and the effect of making such a request for QV is akin to requesting to leave. But you wont believe that will you - because you have your mind set on one path only - maintain AussieLegend's view of the world even if it is wrong. It is called being deluded. So, what is the point of your post above? Nothing really, it is pointless, except being an effort to maintain YOUR status quo. In reality, it is just more of your relentless nagging, ever so typical of the method of your 'contribution' concerning talk on articles, I observe, where 'contribution' is more akin to 'dictates', from my experience. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 23:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, the other matter I havent brought up is the times AussieLegend edits immediately after me and reverts MY edits. Sounds a bit like wikihounding to me. Maybe more of that latter if this farce continues. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 05:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Like this? That was reverting a personal attack. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

There you go again, picking one incident in order to justify yourself without full disclosure of all the others. As I said, gaming the system. And, by the way, anything spoken about you and/or your edits will be interpreted by you as a personal attack. that is one big unspoken staus quo on your part. Ever so typical and ever so predictable. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It is a curious matter that no one has yet thoroughly analysed AussieLegend's critique of me here, wherein you will find links to the diffs in question. Hoary has made a stab at it, but mainly deals with the peripherals rather than the substance. And so editors will have to make an effort and read around to see how everything has to be done his way. Have none of you the gumption to take an alternative opinion and stand up for the weaker editor who gets thrashed by the stronger over such small things? Not one of you, thus far, I notice. Ask Aussie about the time he told me, more or less, that I had nothing valuable to contribute or say until I could match his 72,000 edits. I had less than a 1000 at that time; so being a newbie is more than just a start date. Ask him why he didnt demonstrate full disclosure by reporting how I thanked him for an edit on HMAS Cerberus? Ask him why he will report some alleged houndings because I am said to more or less immediately make an edit after he has on a page, but not report all the other time he has made an edit on a page/s and I didnt do anything? You see, for AussieLegend his claim to 'full disclosure' is selective self-puffery and, in my view, dishonestly so because all he does is game the system to support his critique of others. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 03:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

You may also want to ask AussieLegend why it is a big deal to claim my 'first edit' on a page is a matter of hounding him? Am I not permitted to make a first edit? Why can it not be after him? Unfortunately for me Aussie and I live in the same geographical region, and so our watchlist would be similar. in fact, when AussieLegend mmyakes an edit watchlist gives me a mental prompt as to my interest in that article; and as with so many articles on my watch list I go visit that page to check the validity of the edit and to make a contribution. That is my methodology. I didnt think it to be a big deal, but AussieLegend wants his special space around articles, in my view he wants to maintain a form of ownership. Selective reporting to a 'tribunal' such as this is nothnig more than gaming the system in order to discredit another editor. Its about time someone seriously examined his methodology, otherwise, with editors like him around, who package themselves in WP:CottonWool, wikipedia will be a lonely and hard place void of feelings and the valuable interest and contributions of others. I am actually asking some of you more experienced editors than I am, and administrators, to take him to task, even if it means you have to do some hard and serious digging to see how he operates. To be sure, I am not the first to express such concerns. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 03:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

"You may also want to ask AussieLegend why it is a big deal to claim my 'first edit' on a page is a matter of hounding him? Am I not permitted to make a first edit?" - The big deal is when your first edit makes it clear that you're only following me around so as to attack me as you did at Talk:Steven D. Binder.[100] It's an even bigger deal when your second post expands on that attack,[101] and make no other posts that day. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Is that all you have got Aussie - a purely subjective assessment on your part. Whatever you think is alledgedly 'clear' is not necessarily a universal opinion. It is rather pathetic really that you would embrace my edits which are months apart to build up your claim about hounding now without comparing and contrasting all the other edits both you and I have made in the meantime which have no connection to each other whatsoever. Again, a matter of lack of transparency on your part, a lack of full disclosure and a of gaming the system thru selective reporting. Time to get real, Mr Legend, and understand that people may not agree with your edits and may actually change them, and they have a right to do so at anytime regardless whether it is in close proximity to the time of your edits or not. Your response, of course, is to beat the editorial crap pout of them. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 09:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Now here is an example of the his jargonising of wiki, over which we came into conflict... The lead of an article states, "[a certain place] is a locality within [a certain local government area]". Now I ask each of you admins who have an interest in the pursuing fairness and understanding in these proceedings,

1) what does "locality" mean in this context?

2) What would a common reader make of it?

3) How would they understand exactly what the nature of that place is? And,

4) do you think the common reader should have to go look at the source material to understand what is the nature of that place?.

AussieLegend, in the interests of fairness I request you refrain from answering these questions, as yet anyway, and refrain from communicating your interpretation of the term to other admins. Thank you to all.

Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 03:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Benyoch, you need to calm down. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked Benyoch for 12 hours purely because of the tendentious nature of the edits here, which were spiralling out of control. No opinion on the merits of the OP, simply a response to the process under way here. Happy for any admin to unblock without reference to me if they feel this is too harsh. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 00:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Persistent dynamic IP at Talk:Autism

Since at least 2009, a dynamic San Francisco Bay Area ip has dozens of times requested that the article discuss an as-yet-unproven commercial test developed by the UC Davis MIND Institute, claiming to detect maternal antibodies related to the development of autism. No reliable secondary sources are ever offered (to my knowledge, there are none), commercial sources and sources related to the product are sometimes offered, and in spite of having this discussion with scores of IPs in the same range dozens of times, nothing has changed in the research or the discussion that would indicate there are reliable sources backing text that could be added. The IP has a persistent case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT that consumes article talk. See Talk:Autism/Archive_13#Summary of past discussions with IP 76.2C IP 75 and other 70 ip range for a very small sampling of past discussions. Since it is a frequently changing dynamic IP, I don't know what can be done to prevent this recurrence on article talk; if we archive the discussion or hat/hab it, it just recurs. If IP is ignored, it just fills up the talk page. I also don't see much utility in notifying the current IP, since the IP changes frequently within discussions on the same day, so I will notice article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Noticed the most recent IP and a post IP made to the talk page of arb requests. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• If this is so persistent and it's going nowhere, maybe just rolling them back is the most helpful thing to do, besides semi-protecting the talk page, which is unusual but possibly warranted in this case. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Semi-protecting article talk, ugh ... locks out all IPs. Do we need community consensus to just rollback or otherwise remove future posts from the same IP? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, ugh. Well, you have my blessing, haha. Seriously, I would think that WP:NOTFORUM gives you plenty of leeway to revert disruptive edits, and I'm sure you can argue easily enough that it's disruptive. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
• Another thing--I was going to archive the talk page so you could start with a clean slate. But maybe you, or some other clever person, can make a sub-section of the talk page where you lay out the case, including that "Summary of past discussions", so you can point to that easily, maybe with a note on the talk page. Same applies to Talk:Causes of autism. Drmies (talk) 03:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• There's nothing unaddressed on the talk page, so it could be archived, but it might be better to wait until tomorrow, in case anyone else adds something to the Summary thread. And, once the talk page is archived, IP will just start up again anyway. Thanks, Drmies, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• I am very impressed with your patience, Sandy. Drmies (talk) 03:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• It's been going on for four years-- it's not going to be solved any time soon :) And, I've got a Christmas party to host ! Merry ho ho ho, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• How about three months of semiprotection for the talk page. It sounds like this IP is becoming a hindrance to development of the article. After checking the addresses used, it seems to me that no range block is possible. EdJohnston (talk) 04:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• If you look at IP's long-term pattern, you'll see that three months is a mere drop in the bucket :) It might be nice to have a break for a while, but IP is a true believer in this product and will be back as soon as the three months expire. It's interesting to read the (perhaps) first 2009 post, where IP wanted to add unsourced text because it was "cutting edge research" (unpublished) that someone had told IP about, and it was to IP important that parents know they can get this test. That was four years ago; no big breakthrough yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate at this stage to simply delete - not even archive - any further similar posts from that IP range from now on, as we do soapboxing, trolling, personal attacks and other inappropriate content on article talk pages. It is either a serious competency problem or a determined financial COI. Either way, I'm sick of it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

From this point forward yes I agree with Anthony. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

"Don Quixote long ago paid the penalty for wrongly imagining that knight errantry was compatible with all economic forms of society", Karl Marx

So, now he's going at my talk page. Could we also notice admins to delete this IP everywhere he posts? People respond to him on my talk, unnecessarily. [102] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

"People"? At least, "knight errant wannabe". Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, if I named you, I'd have to notify you :) Thanks, Kiefer ... but that IP has a huge range, and is best ignored and summarily reverted. Will probably spread to other talk pages now that it is ignored and reverted on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Frimoussou

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

This user first came to my attention a few months ago when they were repeatedly removing Template:Subjective category from various LGBT-related categories without explanation. In the last month their behaviour has become more and more disruptive: this has included editing other users' talk page comments (including archived comments, with edit-warring) and singling out one editor in particular for repeated attacks and insults, which they are also edit-warring to restore.

Although I can find nothing especially worrying about their article edits, and their editing in general remains infrequent, Frimoussou's approach to contributing in other areas and interacting with other users leaves a lot to be desired and I believe that a block is becoming increasingly warranted. SuperMarioMan 01:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've blocked the editor for 48 hours for personal attacks and disruptive editing. I also reverted the archive edits by the editor and the IP, although my edit summary was flawed (sigh).--Bbb23 (talk) 02:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• 83.112.26.176 (talk · contribs) might be the same editor. At a minimum, their edits are beyond disruptive and go far into the NPA range. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 02:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
  • In fact, this edit makes it clear that they are the same person. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Drmies has blocked the IP. -- Dianna (talk) 04:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes xe has. And had a little rendez-vous with Brigitte Bardot in the process, from which I'm still recovering. Drmies (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
        • Was it like this? -- Dianna (talk) 04:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
          • Very much so, yes. Drmies (talk) 04:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
            • Much better than being sent to the cornfield. Much. Dreadstar ☥ 06:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Another suspected IP sockpuppet of Velebit (FAO EdJohnston or Osiris)

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.

---

Special:Contributions/71.178.112.242 has commenced editing in the same way and the same type of articles as Special:Contributions/71.178.108.23. Per [103].EdJohnston or Osiris might want to take a look. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

This must be Velebit (talk · contribs). I suggest a three-month block of each new IP as it appears. The last three I've noticed are 71.178.108.23 (talk · contribs), 71.178.106.250 (talk · contribs) and 71.178.112.242 (talk · contribs). Previous history is at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Velebit. EdJohnston (talk) 05:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

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

JonnyBonesJones

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

---

Could another admin or three please take a look at the discussions on my talk page User Talk:Qwyrxian#MMA Flags and User Talk:Qwyrxian#Admin grievances., User Talk:Qwyrxian#In case you aren't aware, and User Talk:Qwyrxian#So let me get this straight., and User Talk:Qwyrxian#I feel threatened by your comment? The short version is that User:JonnyBonesJones took what I believed (and still believe) to be actions in direct contravention to both MOS:FLAG and a specific discussion on WT:MMA; I told the user to stop, and threatened a block for further disruption. Over the course of this, perhaps I chose my words unwisely, but JBJ has taken part of my words out of context and has, in my opinion, gone to make WP:POINTy edits on other sports articles, claiming to be acting in my name. Regarding the underlying question (when/how is it appropriate to use flagicons on lists of people in sporting articles) I intend to seek guidance at MOS in the next few days, but need time to craft my concerns clearly (and it's 10:00 pm on Christmas-eve-eve, and I'm not willing to make promises on when I'm going to get around to that). In the meantime, I wonder if perhaps it might be best for the encyclopedia if JBJ stopped the aggression masked by an "Oh really? Isn't that what you meant? And you're involved! And I feel threatened by you!" attitude. I'm not recommending any specific admin action, though I think a nice talking to from someone who isn't me might help matters. And, as always, feel free to tell me that I'm getting it wrong and take whatever action is appropriate in that regard. After I notify JBJ, I don't know when I'll be back on; it might be soon, or it might be a day or more. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Now Now Qwyrxian, calm down. Please dont assume bad faith on me. I was only trying to follow wikipedia's guidelines and doing what you, an admin said was ok. I dont know why you are so upset, or accusing me of being pointy. And I didnt know what you meant by your "I strongly recommend backing down now before this escalates in a way that will not be good for you." comment. BWilkins helped clear that up though. I am not being aggressive, I am trying to help you calm down and discuss things with you! JonnyBonesJones (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Please note this is not taken out of context, this is an actual quote from Qwyrxian's page. I have bolded the important parts:

"It's funny that you talk about flouting "site-wide consensus", since the usage of flags in MMA articles is just the same as in most sports here in Wikipedia, which only goes on to show that we were following the consensus. Here are just a few examples of the most famous sports (none of them have a clear national connection): Tennis - Tennis male players statistics, 2012 Wimbledon Championships – Gentlemen's Singles, 2012 French Open – Men's Singles Bicycle racing - Tour de France, 2012 Tour de France Golf - List of golfers with most PGA Tour wins, 2011 U.S. Open (golf) Formule One - List of Formula One drivers, 2012 Formula One season Soccer - FC Barcelona, 2012 FIFA Club World Cup squads Boxing - Susianna Kentikian (a featured article). Miguel Cotto (a good article]] In some of these sports there might be an international federation which officially determines the nationality of the athletes, but that's akin to a MMA organization doing exactly the same thing. Evenfiel (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC) For soccer, the use of flags indicates the national team that that player plays for, thus fitting MOS:FLAG. For the boxers, they were listed as FA and GA in 2008 and 2007, respectively, which may be before MOS:FLAG's current formulation, and certainly back before WP was as serious about neutrality and site-wide consistency as now. I'm going to ask that those two articles be fixed. On the rest, you're welcome to start removing the flags yourselves. WP:OSE. Just to be sure, I looked very carefully at MOS:FLAG again, and the plain reading is unbelievably clear to me: we cannot use flags for sportspeople except in places where they specifically represent a country. That is not the case in a number of the articles you cited above, and certainly not the case in MMA. Flags over-emphasize the national identity of people, and thus violate WP:NPOV, except in those cases where the nationality is actually important; i.e., when they have won/competed on behalf of said country. I'm going to go ahead and take care of the two boxing articles, but I have limited WP time, so you're welcome to tackle the rest. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)" JonnyBonesJones (talk) 13:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Please note I am trying to follow all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to the letter, I also believe Qwyrxian is involved in MMA related disputes because of his deletion of this page: UFC on Fuel TV: Barao vs. McDonald JonnyBonesJones (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

No - one does not become WP:INVOLVED by performing an administrative action. I've deleted MMA-related articles (I think), that does not make me involved whatsoever (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

What would make him WP:INVOLVED then? JonnyBonesJones (talk) 14:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, you've managed to link WP:INVOLVED, but have you read it? It explains it right there. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty vague if you ask me. Also there was this post on Qwyrxian's page where he thinks he may be involved in MMA related editing. I will quote it:

"I've removed the flags. I don't know for sure if this would make me WP:INVOLVED, since I'm merely enforcing a site-wide consensus, but hopefully once notified of the rules (on the talk page) everyone will be cooperative. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)"

I don't see how:

One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area

is vague on the fact fuctioning purely in an adminstrative capacity doesn't make someone involved, which was the original issue of contention.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I also hope you have a Merry Christmas Qwyrxian. And if you are jewish, I hope you have a Happy Hannakuh! And as always, I hope you have a nice day. :) JonnyBonesJones (talk) 13:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

As I have Qwy's talkpage on my watchlist, I already provided some intervention there - before it was brought here to ANI, IIRC (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

And I thank you for that BWilkins! JonnyBonesJones (talk) 14:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

JonnyBonesJones (AKA: JBJ)knew what the WT:MMA consensus was after having it explained to them multiple times both at various articles that they were edit warring to restore flags to MMA articles and their own talk page. The WP:POINT violations and the WP:WIKILAWYAR-ing based on the summary close of the WT:MMA discussion show that suggestions to become a positive contributing member of WP is in danger of being branded a MMA-SPA. Suggest liberal application of wet oily fish and WP:CLUEBAT to diffuse the current situation. Of note, the community at large did recently authorize general sanctions for the MMA project space, and seeing that this disruption started at MMA topics. It may be appropriate to read the "riot act" of the MMA GS warning at JBJ so that there is no doubt regarding consequences that could happen for disrupting the MMA project space again. Hasteur (talk) 15:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong but, even though you misspelled it, cant accusing me of WIKILAWYERing be considered a personal attack Hasteur? JonnyBonesJones (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It'd be interesting to know who is behind accounts like Hooskerdo (talk · contribs). So SPA, so MMA-focused. Just sayin'. Doc talk 15:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

What is wrong with someone being in the MMA project? I am in it too. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Wiki-lawyering and passive-aggressive behavior are Jonny's middle names. Although he removed all the material from his talk page after coming back from his most recent block, those of you who can stand wading through it can read this revision starting here. And just above that is the block immediately preceding it. One of Jonny's many tortured arguments in favor of an unblock on the second block was that he was being punished for the first block twice.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

BBB23, why are you saying I am WIKILAWYERing and bringing up the past? I thought accusing someone of wikilawyering is a personal attack, is it not? For shame... JonnyBonesJones (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to go to deeply into this, but I find it interesting that of the two labels I used, the wiki-lawyering apparently bothered you more than the "passive-aggresive" label. I wouldn't think that accusing someone of wiki-lawyering is a personal attack; even if it is, it's pretty tame. In any event, accusing someone of something is generally permissible if it's supported by evidence. As for "bringing up the past", your past is part of who you are here, and to a large extent I see little difference between the past you (and it isn't very long ago) and the present you.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It can be considered an insult according to policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikilawyering#Negative_connotations And as far as passive-aggressive behavior is concerned, I disagree with you, I prefer the term logical and calculated. I know my past is part of who I am, all of our pasts are part of who we are, we build our legacy on it. I am quite happy who I am thank you very much. I am a very positive thinker. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 16:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

And for the record, JonnyBonesJones, crude passive-aggressive tactics tend to have a fairly short shelf-life on Wikipedia, so they don't really fool anyone and there's no external rules requiring anyone to accept them at face value.Calton | Talk 16:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, how am I passive aggressive? Are you a psychiatrist? You cannot diagnose people online. I am a very happy, positive person who loves his family, loves God, and loves MMA. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 16:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you a psychiatrist? No, I merely have reading skills above the the sixth-grade level, as well as a lifetime of dealing with and little patience for those who -- wrongly -- think they're being clever. If you think you're being particularly clever, I suggest you try this out on your homeroom teacher and see how far it gets you. --Calton | Talk 21:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

There's a lot of stuff in here that is not directly related to the point, and I'm trying to make sure I understand the point. Is this right? Community consensus is currently that flag icons should only be used to identify sportspeople who are officially representing that country in a formal sense, and should not be used to simply identify the homeland of a given sportsperson. Consensus is that this agreement applies specifically to the sport of mixed martial arts, a sport in which athletes most usually fight as individuals, and not as the official representatives of certain countries. User:JonnyBonesJones doesn't agree with that consensus, because he thinks that flag icons are useful for making certain kinds of tables more readable and visually appealing. Rather than either participating in a useful way with discussions and trying to persuade others to agree with his opinion on the usefulness of flag icons, he is instead removing flag icons from the lists of various other sportspeople, such as race-car drivers and tennis players.. He is doing this to demonstrate how useful the flag icons really are, and prove his point, even though this is not directly related to the area he truly wants to change, and even though race-car drivers are not typically considered martial artists, except perhaps in certain bars after important races. Even though others have asked him to stop, he is not participating usefully in discussions, and his edits are having a net negative result on the encyclopedia. In past blocks, he has shown limited ability to read and understand rules, and there is some concern that, while he has a great deal of enthusiasm and knowledge related to mixed martial arts, he may not have the reading or social skills needed to participate at Wikipedia in a way that will make the encyclopedia better with little or no disruption. Have I unraveled it correctly? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

That is completely false, and your opinion. I have helped create articles on this site, and helped ID what model Glock was used in the Sandy Hook massacre. My edits have been very constructive. And as far and reading or social skills go. I passed Reading class in college with an A plus, and I with my excellent social skills I have many friends and have had beautiful girlfriends.JonnyBonesJones (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain which specific parts of what I said were incorrect? You seem to be saying that you are entirely uninterested in discussions about flags or martial arts, and I'm almost positive that isn't right. Can you explain clearly which facts about the disagreement I got wrong? I didn't realize that the disagreement that we are discussing was related to the Sandy Hook massacre; if it isn't about the use of flag icons in MMA articles, then I'm very puzzled indeed. Please note that I am only curious about what's happening here at Wikipedia, and have no questions about your private life when you aren't editing Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Very well, I am all for explaining my position. I will quote you directly:

"Community consensus is currently that flag icons should only be used to identify sportspeople who are officially representing that country in a formal sense, and should not be used to simply identify the homeland of a given sportsperson. Consensus is that this agreement applies specifically to the sport of mixed martial arts, a sport in which athletes most usually fight as individuals, and not as the official representatives of certain countries. User:JonnyBonesJones doesn't agree with that consensus, because he thinks that flag icons are useful for making certain kinds of tables more readable and visually appealing. Rather than either participating in a useful way with discussions and trying to persuade others to agree with his opinion on the usefulness of flag icons, he is instead removing flag icons from the lists of various other sportspeople, such as race-car drivers and tennis players.."

For one, they are invidivuals that represent certain countries. If they weren't, flags would not be included in the tale of the tape. Secondly, I could care less if flags make the page "more readable or visually appealing" and the consensus said "RESULTS TABLES". Third, I was told by the admin I was allowed to remove flags from those pages because he said it violated MOS:FLAG. So I did him a favor.

"He is doing this to demonstrate how useful the flag icons really are, and prove his point, even though this is not directly related to the area he truly wants to change, and even though race-car drivers are not typically considered martial artists, except perhaps in certain bars after important races."

I have nothing to prove, I did this because Qwyrxian said it was ok, and I was doing him a favor. Also a bar fight isnt martial arts.

"Even though others have asked him to stop, he is not participating usefully in discussions, and his edits are having a net negative result on the encyclopedia. In past blocks, he has shown limited ability to read and understand rules, and there is some concern that, while he has a great deal of enthusiasm and knowledge related to mixed martial arts, he may not have the reading or social skills needed to participate at Wikipedia in a way that will make the encyclopedia better with little or no disruption. Have I unraveled it correctly?"

I dont care if someone tells me to stop doing something, they arent the boss of me. I will not stop improving wikipedia, just because some stranger told me to do so. Also many people have asked Mtking to stop what he is doing, he doesnt listen to them. I am participating usefully in discussing, and there is a discussion on the F1 racing page about MOS:FLAG. You are not an English teacher, nor are you a social worker. You do not have the credientials to judge my reading skills, or social skills. You have unraveled it completely wrong, and and tangled it all up. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 17:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you haven't rebutted what FisherQueen said at all. As for your last comment, if you are disruptive, are told to stop, and persist, you will be blocked. If you violate policy, you may be blocked even without being warned, but certainly if you are warned and you persist, you will be blocked. In the broadest sense, the community is the "boss", but in the narrower sense, those whom the community has empowered to act are "bosses" by proxy.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Just because you disagree with me on a subject that you admittedly know nothing about, doesn't make me "disruptive". How about trying to WORK with MMA editors, instead of alienate them? JonnyBonesJones (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support an indefinite block. While I don't feel confident unilaterally blocking this user without consensus, it seems clear that he is adopting an unnecessarily combative attitude toward other editors, choosing 'fighting words' even when courtesy would be more likely to achieve his goals. He doesn't appear to understand what other people try to communicate with him in writing. I don't think this is because he is unable to read and understand what others write. His oddly complicated and erroneous interpretations of others' comments, and of Wikipedia rules and guidelines, seems more like a determination to do as he wishes, and to willfully misinterpret anything which would contradict that. I think the problems here go much deeper than a mere misunderstanding of the rules; this appears to be a person whose refusal to collaborate with others in an honest and clear way will make it impossible for him to avoid disrupting the project. And, to respond to a specific comment - actually, I am an English teacher. But I'm not interested in assessing your overall reading skills, only the likelihood that your editing will be likely to make Wikipedia better. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

You're an English teacher huh? Well you aint my English teacher. And I am not your student. I have offered to help you better understand MMA, and to help out. But you just want to get rid of me it seems. Even if your plan succeeds, this will not help wikipedia, or the MMA situation, it will just make it worse. You know I have done nothing wrong, and I only did what an admin said was OK to do. BTW what "fighting words" did I use? lol JonnyBonesJones (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block. I, too, feel uncomfortable unilaterally blocking Jonny, although I gave it serious consideration. I agree with FisherQueen's assessment, perhaps even more strongly given Jonny's history. I would add that if Jonny wants to come back after a signficant amount of time has elapsed and demonstrate convincingly that he should be unblocked, that would, of course, be considered.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

You want to block me for no reason, even though I have offered to work with you to help understand MMA better, this is proof that you dont try and solve problems, you think you can just try and block every MMA editor and the problem will be solved? You are mistaken. You should work with us, not push us away. If I do get blocked, it would just make me another Martyr for MMA on wikipedia. Our sport deserves a place here. Football players have even been using MMA training to help them in their sport. Bruce Lee and Royce Gracie have revolutionized martial arts! We help protect people from bullies, muggers and rapists. We have no shame in protecting our sport! JonnyBonesJones (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

...each comment you make along those lines makes it more likely that you will be blocked, not less. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

What for? Because I offered to help? lol JonnyBonesJones (talk) 18:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Support indefinite block. Based on JBJ's commentary above, where he declares his intention not to listen and to continue the behavior that brought him here regardless of WP:CONSENSUS, complete with bad faith out the wazoo, I'm not seeing the gain to having him around without a major shift in attitude. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

When have I declared my intention not to listen? When what got me here was listening to an admin. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I see all these accusations, but have any of them been proven? JonnyBonesJones (talk) 18:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Support indefinite block, per Bushranger. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Support Arbcom investigation for misuse of admin tools and grivances if I am blocked JonnyBonesJones (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Community sanctions I don't meant to subvert the community's will here, but we already have community adopted sanctions in this topic area and I've gone ahead and invoked them.--v/r - TP 18:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

And I agree to these sanctions! Thank you for having my back TParis. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't have a problem with your imposition of sanctions, TP, but I don't believe that prevents an admin from indefinitely blocking him, particularly if there are other bases for the block. Please correct me if you think I'm wrong (as a matter of procedure). His threat above, which is typical, is more evidence in support of a block.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • You're not wrong. If consensus is a block then that's what it is. In the meantime, I invoked a previous consensus. When I said I don't mean to subvert the community, I meant that I don't mean to take action while another action is being discussed. Not that my action is in any way a shield to what is being discussed here.--v/r - TP 19:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support smaller sanction It seems exaggerated to block indefinitely here, yes JBJ is being obnoxious and uncooperative, but if given a timeout I think he will realize that he doesn't help himself by being argumentative in his responses to valid criticisms, or denying personal responsibility for his actions. He should get a short block to prevent himself from digging the hole he is in any deeper, and depending on how he handles that further sancitons may not be necessary.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• If this were the first sanction, I would agree with you. However, he has already been blocked twice this month. Each time he reacted very badly. In effect, he's been given timeouts, and there's no indication that they've helped. An indefinite block is not permanent. He can ask for it to be lifted after he's had an extended timeout. That said, I wouldn't be averse to a block of 1-6 months rather than indefinite if that's what the consensus is.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support TParis sanction I agree not to touch a flag on wikipedia for 6 months! JonnyBonesJones (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support 3 month block plus indefinite sanction against touching flags, plus 6 months topic ban from MMA-related topics (broadly construed) plus minimum 3 months mentoring when they return Switch to SUPPORT indef block this editor is the epitome of everything that is wrong with certain editors in the MMA topic (<- addition) They promised to continue to disrupt - 'nuf said. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not promise to disrupt anything... lol JonnyBonesJones (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

One of the problems is you don't see yourself the way others see you. Similarly, you don't interpret your comments the way others do. I'm sure many editors here interpret your statement "I will not stop improving wikipedia, just because some stranger told me to do so" (see a ways above) as you will do whatever you think is best no matter what anyone else thinks. That's a promise to disrupt.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

How is promising never to stop improving wikipedia a promise to disrupt? Dude, I dont care the way others see me, or what they think of me. Who are they to judge me? God is my judge. I have agreed not to mess with flags for 6 months, but you still wanna block me? Why? The only one who makes sense on this page, besides myself, and TParis. Infact, TParis, I hope you become a bureaucrat or something man, you have been the only one who has been fair to me on this page, big ups. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Hang on and step back. You say you want to improve Wikipedia. The problem between you and many other editors here is that you differ on what improves the encyclopedia. That is a reason to talk, not to throw around "I don't cares." You cannot improve the encyclopedia if you get blocked. This is a community, a society, and there are rules to this society. Does it not make sense to acquaint yourself with these rules? Qwyrxian has tried to do that for you, but you need to spend more time listening and being open then showing the community whose boss. Would you consider getting mentored?--v/r - TP 21:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I dont know what you mean by mentored, but sure. And I agree, blocking me will solve nothing. How do I get mentored? JonnyBonesJones (talk) 21:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's another example of your not listening to, or not understanding, what people say - TP did not say that blocking you will solve nothing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block, reluctantly. I've looked through JonnyBonesJones' talk page history, and the actions that have been mentioned therein and here - and I'm seeing a non-stop uncompromising battlefield approach. Instead of "I'll try better to follow Wikipedia's way of doing things", all I'm seeing is a constant "Wikipedia should listen to and learn from me" response to every issue. I really have not seen a single instance of genuinely listening to other opinions, taking them on board, and trying to develop a collegial consensus. The one so-called agreement, "I have agreed not to mess with flags for 6 months", is entirely bogus, because it did not come until after a prohibition had been forced on him - it has no more merit than a prisoner being locked in a cell and then saying "I agree to stay in here". Even this discussion here is more testament to the problem - all I see is a battlefield argument against every comment, and a continuation of the wikilawyering and pointiness, with no apparent understanding of the real nature of the problem. I would support an unblock should JonnyBonesJones make a convincing case that he understands the problems and is genuinely willing to change his behaviour. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

  Re "Dude, I dont care the way others see me, or what they think of me. Who are they to judge me? God is my judge": I mean no disrespect to your religious beliefs, but here on Wikipedia, no he ain't. Your judge here on Wikipedia is the Wikipedia community, and when it comes to dispute, Community consensus is the law - if you are not prepared to accept that, you will simply not be editing here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support minimum 3-month block, up to indefinite. Not here to improve the encyclopedia as a whole, just pump up his pet hobby and play games with everything else. Note to JonnyBonesJones: you think you're being clever, but you're not the first to try out that schtick. --Calton | Talk 21:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Note. Blatant violation of WP:CANVASS: [104]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support indef block: I threatened to take JBJ to ANI earlier because I felt he did not have the capability to work with other editors. He immediately goaded me on by behaving in a condescending manner and referring to me as being like "his little brother". [105] I didn't take the bait, but it is further evidence of his inability to work with others, which would be fine in some situations, but not in a collaborative project like Wikipedia. Ryan Vesey 22:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support community sanctions, blocked from editing sports related articles for three months. He's obviously going way over the line in MMA and no longer seems fit to improve that section, but who are we to come to the conclusion Mr. Bones can't write beautiful prose on classical music, quantum physics, or some other topic which will improve the quality of this encyclopedia? Maybe MMA just gets his blood pumping so much that he's let himself slip into single-purpose account mode and started screaming about martyrdom. Let's assume the best from this editor and give him a chance to prove himself. If it's obvious he can't, support indef block. PhnomPencil (✉) 01:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
• Presently Opposed to Indefinite Block - I have posted on my talk page in response to JBJ, offerring some advice. As the section "Please" on that page indicates, I have tried before to suggest he alter his approach, without success. I believe he was acting in a disruptive and POINTy fashion at the F1 page, and I believe the ban on flag editing is justified. However, I am still presently willing to AGF and accept that he is well-intentioned but acting poorly. On his current trajectory, JBJ is heading for an indefinite block but I support him having more time to adjust course and avoid that outcome. Maybe there is a mentor who JBJ would listen to and respect? EdChem (talk) 01:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
• One the one hand, I don't mind if a mentor can be found for JBJ, and JBJ agrees to work with the mentor, and together they work on finding ways for JBJ to contribute constructively and civilly. On the other hand, my life experience tells me this is almost certainly a waste of time. I know that it's somewhat unfair for me to just assume that JBJ is similar to a lot of people I've known in the past, including to some degree myself...but he's displaying all of the symptoms of the "super-smart, misunderstood victim". If my guess is correct, JBJ simultaneously believes two contradictory things: 1) his maneuvering is nothing more than an attempt to "win" by exploiting fractional differences in meaning (in both his own and others' words), and similarly he knows exactly what others mean when they criticize and advise him but he will intentionally avoid that meaning in preference for one that advances what he perceives as his own agenda; 2) he is sincerely hurt by the fact that others seem to be attacking him "unfairly" because all he's doing is "what he's told" and "what he said". That is, I believe that JBJ honestly doesn't understand why all of us don't act with his precision, logic, and "honesty", even though he knows that everything he's doing is an intentional, nonconstructive front. Now, I know that people can improve from this state of viewing and interacting with the world, but I sincerely doubt they can do it through Wikipedia, and also constructively contribute to the project in the meantime. I wasn't aware of all of the details of JBJ's past until I read the links provided above, but after looking I see someone who is fundamentally unable/unwilling to follow community norms. However, in the past, people have given me leeway to attempt to mentor and guide seemingly hopeless cases, so I don't mind if there is a volunteer willing to take on this task. Note that I would expect that this mentoring would require a period of offline editing--i.e., a period in which he could only suggest edits in his own/his mentor's userspace, and have them go live only after approval. Should any part of this not be plausible (no available mentor, no agreement to editing restrictions while under mentorship, no acceptance of a mentor), then instead JBJ should, I think, be blocked. Personally, I would prefer a fixed term block, of probably 6 months to 1 year, because I'm afraid that if he can't see the light at the end of the tunnel, then we're actually inviting unnecessary trouble on ourselves (email me if you can't figure out what I'm implying but not saying per WP:BEANS). Qwyrxian (talk) 02:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support indef block - I'm not sure I'll ever understand the ethos that allows editors like this to continue to walk all over us out of ... I dunno, an over-abundance of caution? Fear of being perceived as illiberal? An inordinate respect for "due process" which is out of place on a private website which was intended to build an encyclopedia and not to built an online community. If the guy's not contributing to the betterment of the project just ban him and get it over with. There is no onus on us to bend over backwards, he's had chances, and his comments here are dripping with his disdain for the rest of us. Just get rid of him! Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block. There has been no evidence so far that he either understands the purpose of this encyclopedia or is willing to change his on-line combative conduct to be compatible with those aims. Mathsci (talk) 07:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Amadscientist (talk · contribs) is not helping matters by his contributions on JBJ's talk page, e.g. [106][107] Mathsci (talk) 10:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose indef block at this time - Per EdChem. A little more time and a little help from others may or may not work, but I think we can try. with the stipulation that this is a last chance. Next step would be much stronger to an indef.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block like the topic he edits he is far too combative for my liking. GiantSnowman 10:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Temporarily blocked

• NOTE: as it appears that their intent is to disrupt this discussion, and MMA (including an appeal to Jimbo) as a whole during his possible last hours on the project, I have blocked JonnyBones for 31hrs for WP:CANVASS and WP:DE. This 31 hour timeframe will allow this ANI discussion to continue unimpeded - I think we have seen enough from him to understand his "point". He may still request copy/pastes from his talkpage here using {{helpme}}, but I would caution anyone responding to those helpme requests to consider them carefully. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Indef blocked

For a moment it looked like JonnyBonesJones was starting to respond to Amadscientist's approach (and we should thank Amadscientist for those efforts). But after the latest abusive outburst on JonnyBonesJones's talk page, I have upped the block to indefinite and revoked his ability to edit his talk page. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

And I've redacted and rev-deleted his gross personal attacks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

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

WP:OWN on several Japanese cinema articles

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 recently attempted to edit several articles previously edited/started by User:JoshuSasori, but he has reverted almost all of my edits on flimsy grounds. The worst case is Sonezaki Shinjū (1978 film). Even when I quoted clear MOS guideline, he continued to quote the same argument at me again and again. Basically, I wanted to include an English translation of the Japanese title in parentheses, in accordance with WP:NCF#Examples and WP:UE; but he insisted that because the film doesn't have an "official" English title then we can't do that. I also wanted to include mention in the opening sentence of the film having been produced in Japan, as per MOS:FILM. I quoted Wikipedia guidelines to him several times, but he continued to revert my edits. By obstinately refusing to budge, he forced me up to 2.5 reverts[108][109][110]. He then posted two 3RR notices on my talk page: this is ridiculous, since he has reverted me more than I have reverted him. He has also persisted in quoting Elvis Presley lyrics instead of providing comprehensible edit summaries/replies to me.

I am not sure if I am in the right place, but this user's childishly acting like he owns every article he has ever contributed to is somewhat upsetting. It is difficult to demonstrate with diffs, but most of his comments towards me are also tinged with sarcasm. This is probably the worst example: even though some of the articles on Japanese cinema that he has edited were worked on by me about six years prior, he seems to assume that I am a troll who only decided to edit Japanese cinema articles in order to undermine him.

elvenscout742 (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the Presley lyrics play off your discussion regarding "hounding" in the previous section of his talk page. Why is it a problem he uses the same argument when discussing a similar issue? Also, is there a third party you can go through who might act as an intermediary?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem here is that this user suddenly started trying to rename all pages I had created yesterday. I never heard of this person before. If you have the power to examine my watchlist then go ahead. I watch every single article on Japanese cinema and check edits every day. I have been doing this for about eight months. I have never seen this person before until two days ago, when suddenly he/she is moving several pages I created. He/she has never edited these pages before I am very sure. JoshuSasori (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the behaviour of the above user. He/she was WP:HOUNDING me and started renaming all the articles I had created, e.g Kindai Eiga Kyokai, Ryoko Nakano, Reikou, Sonezaki Shinju (1978 film), . He / she says that this is according to some policy but the referred-to policy MOS:JAPAN and WP:JATITLE do not agree with what he/she says they say, so I had to undo many edits. I keep telling him/her to read policies to check and to check the article references, but he/she just doesn't seem to want to read anything, or whatever he/she reads and quotes selectively. It is really getting boring and ridiculous because no matter what I try to communicate with this person, he/she seems not to read what I have said and he/she often accuses me of making a personal attack when I obviously haven't. I cannot begin to understand it and cannot take him/her seriously any more. He/she is making completely irrational and counter-productive edits and clogging talk pages with bizarre messages. I am sorry but I am completely lost for words what to do about this person. JoshuSasori (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you ask at the Japan WikiProject which of your approaches is better? Because I don't think AN/I's going to solve your difficulty. People are thin on the ground here due to time of year and the most likely outcome is an evenhanded one, which both of you will think is unfair.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

JoshuSasori already asked at WikiProject Japan if we could change the MOS to support his POV that macrons should never be used in articles on modern Japanese people. There doesn't seem to be any consensus on that. Several of the articles that JoshuSasori started, however, already violate the current MOS, including several that are not about people. That is why I moved several of them. The ones where he had no argument, he did not revert my move, but he has prevented me from making any other edits; wherever he could get away with it, he has reverted my move. (Ryoko Nakano has an "official website" that appears to have an English version created by a freelance translator, and the translator got paid whether or not he/she bothered to include the macron; there is no indication the Ms. Nakano prefers to spell her own name as "Ryoko" rather than "Ryouko" or "Ryōko"; nevertheless JoshuSasori completely reverted me.) Basically, WikiProject Japan right now is divided between those who wish to accurately represent the Japanese language by using the standard, official romanization system, and those who think that diacritics are ugly and pointless (JoshuSasori indicated in his initial proposal that he doesn't actually speak Japanese and can't understand the reason we use the macrons).

But the idea that I am "hounding" JoshuSasori is ridiculous. I was editing articles on Japanese film six years before he created an account, and despite his assumption of bad faith, I don't actually have it in for him. I have only made edits to articles where Wikipedia policy is obvious. JoshuSasori has been reverting me. His constantly reverting my constructive edits to Sonezaki Shinjū (1978 film) is ridiculous, and it appears to be either because he doesn't like me, or because he thinks of these articles as "his". elvenscout742 (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you've misrepresented JoshuSasori's statements. He didn't say he didn't understand the what the macron's function was, simply that he was unaware of any modern Japanese person that used them in the romanisation of his name. With that, I have to concur: I know many Japanese people with long vowels in their names, but not a one that indicates that via a macron. It's a form that has grown effectively obsolete. I'm very surprised that Wikiproject Japan clings to its use.—Kww(talk) 05:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that is how it was looking to me, though I am not comfortable enough in my understanding of Japanese to opine that specifically. I would suggest you guys start an RfC and settle the matter, putting these questions on hold until you do. You are both acting in good faith as far as I can tell, the only way you're going to get into trouble is if you talk past each other and edit war.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

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

JonnyBonesJones

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

---

Could another admin or three please take a look at the discussions on my talk page User Talk:Qwyrxian#MMA Flags and User Talk:Qwyrxian#Admin grievances., User Talk:Qwyrxian#In case you aren't aware, and User Talk:Qwyrxian#So let me get this straight., and User Talk:Qwyrxian#I feel threatened by your comment? The short version is that User:JonnyBonesJones took what I believed (and still believe) to be actions in direct contravention to both MOS:FLAG and a specific discussion on WT:MMA; I told the user to stop, and threatened a block for further disruption. Over the course of this, perhaps I chose my words unwisely, but JBJ has taken part of my words out of context and has, in my opinion, gone to make WP:POINTy edits on other sports articles, claiming to be acting in my name. Regarding the underlying question (when/how is it appropriate to use flagicons on lists of people in sporting articles) I intend to seek guidance at MOS in the next few days, but need time to craft my concerns clearly (and it's 10:00 pm on Christmas-eve-eve, and I'm not willing to make promises on when I'm going to get around to that). In the meantime, I wonder if perhaps it might be best for the encyclopedia if JBJ stopped the aggression masked by an "Oh really? Isn't that what you meant? And you're involved! And I feel threatened by you!" attitude. I'm not recommending any specific admin action, though I think a nice talking to from someone who isn't me might help matters. And, as always, feel free to tell me that I'm getting it wrong and take whatever action is appropriate in that regard. After I notify JBJ, I don't know when I'll be back on; it might be soon, or it might be a day or more. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Now Now Qwyrxian, calm down. Please dont assume bad faith on me. I was only trying to follow wikipedia's guidelines and doing what you, an admin said was ok. I dont know why you are so upset, or accusing me of being pointy. And I didnt know what you meant by your "I strongly recommend backing down now before this escalates in a way that will not be good for you." comment. BWilkins helped clear that up though. I am not being aggressive, I am trying to help you calm down and discuss things with you! JonnyBonesJones (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Please note this is not taken out of context, this is an actual quote from Qwyrxian's page. I have bolded the important parts:

"It's funny that you talk about flouting "site-wide consensus", since the usage of flags in MMA articles is just the same as in most sports here in Wikipedia, which only goes on to show that we were following the consensus. Here are just a few examples of the most famous sports (none of them have a clear national connection): Tennis - Tennis male players statistics, 2012 Wimbledon Championships – Gentlemen's Singles, 2012 French Open – Men's Singles Bicycle racing - Tour de France, 2012 Tour de France Golf - List of golfers with most PGA Tour wins, 2011 U.S. Open (golf) Formule One - List of Formula One drivers, 2012 Formula One season Soccer - FC Barcelona, 2012 FIFA Club World Cup squads Boxing - Susianna Kentikian (a featured article). Miguel Cotto (a good article]] In some of these sports there might be an international federation which officially determines the nationality of the athletes, but that's akin to a MMA organization doing exactly the same thing. Evenfiel (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC) For soccer, the use of flags indicates the national team that that player plays for, thus fitting MOS:FLAG. For the boxers, they were listed as FA and GA in 2008 and 2007, respectively, which may be before MOS:FLAG's current formulation, and certainly back before WP was as serious about neutrality and site-wide consistency as now. I'm going to ask that those two articles be fixed. On the rest, you're welcome to start removing the flags yourselves. WP:OSE. Just to be sure, I looked very carefully at MOS:FLAG again, and the plain reading is unbelievably clear to me: we cannot use flags for sportspeople except in places where they specifically represent a country. That is not the case in a number of the articles you cited above, and certainly not the case in MMA. Flags over-emphasize the national identity of people, and thus violate WP:NPOV, except in those cases where the nationality is actually important; i.e., when they have won/competed on behalf of said country. I'm going to go ahead and take care of the two boxing articles, but I have limited WP time, so you're welcome to tackle the rest. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)" JonnyBonesJones (talk) 13:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Please note I am trying to follow all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to the letter, I also believe Qwyrxian is involved in MMA related disputes because of his deletion of this page: UFC on Fuel TV: Barao vs. McDonald JonnyBonesJones (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

No - one does not become WP:INVOLVED by performing an administrative action. I've deleted MMA-related articles (I think), that does not make me involved whatsoever (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

What would make him WP:INVOLVED then? JonnyBonesJones (talk) 14:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, you've managed to link WP:INVOLVED, but have you read it? It explains it right there. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty vague if you ask me. Also there was this post on Qwyrxian's page where he thinks he may be involved in MMA related editing. I will quote it:

"I've removed the flags. I don't know for sure if this would make me WP:INVOLVED, since I'm merely enforcing a site-wide consensus, but hopefully once notified of the rules (on the talk page) everyone will be cooperative. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)"

I don't see how:

One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area

is vague on the fact fuctioning purely in an adminstrative capacity doesn't make someone involved, which was the original issue of contention.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I also hope you have a Merry Christmas Qwyrxian. And if you are jewish, I hope you have a Happy Hannakuh! And as always, I hope you have a nice day. :) JonnyBonesJones (talk) 13:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

As I have Qwy's talkpage on my watchlist, I already provided some intervention there - before it was brought here to ANI, IIRC (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

And I thank you for that BWilkins! JonnyBonesJones (talk) 14:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

JonnyBonesJones (AKA: JBJ)knew what the WT:MMA consensus was after having it explained to them multiple times both at various articles that they were edit warring to restore flags to MMA articles and their own talk page. The WP:POINT violations and the WP:WIKILAWYAR-ing based on the summary close of the WT:MMA discussion show that suggestions to become a positive contributing member of WP is in danger of being branded a MMA-SPA. Suggest liberal application of wet oily fish and WP:CLUEBAT to diffuse the current situation. Of note, the community at large did recently authorize general sanctions for the MMA project space, and seeing that this disruption started at MMA topics. It may be appropriate to read the "riot act" of the MMA GS warning at JBJ so that there is no doubt regarding consequences that could happen for disrupting the MMA project space again. Hasteur (talk) 15:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong but, even though you misspelled it, cant accusing me of WIKILAWYERing be considered a personal attack Hasteur? JonnyBonesJones (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It'd be interesting to know who is behind accounts like Hooskerdo (talk · contribs). So SPA, so MMA-focused. Just sayin'. Doc talk 15:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

What is wrong with someone being in the MMA project? I am in it too. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Wiki-lawyering and passive-aggressive behavior are Jonny's middle names. Although he removed all the material from his talk page after coming back from his most recent block, those of you who can stand wading through it can read this revision starting here. And just above that is the block immediately preceding it. One of Jonny's many tortured arguments in favor of an unblock on the second block was that he was being punished for the first block twice.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

BBB23, why are you saying I am WIKILAWYERing and bringing up the past? I thought accusing someone of wikilawyering is a personal attack, is it not? For shame... JonnyBonesJones (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to go to deeply into this, but I find it interesting that of the two labels I used, the wiki-lawyering apparently bothered you more than the "passive-aggresive" label. I wouldn't think that accusing someone of wiki-lawyering is a personal attack; even if it is, it's pretty tame. In any event, accusing someone of something is generally permissible if it's supported by evidence. As for "bringing up the past", your past is part of who you are here, and to a large extent I see little difference between the past you (and it isn't very long ago) and the present you.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It can be considered an insult according to policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikilawyering#Negative_connotations And as far as passive-aggressive behavior is concerned, I disagree with you, I prefer the term logical and calculated. I know my past is part of who I am, all of our pasts are part of who we are, we build our legacy on it. I am quite happy who I am thank you very much. I am a very positive thinker. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 16:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

And for the record, JonnyBonesJones, crude passive-aggressive tactics tend to have a fairly short shelf-life on Wikipedia, so they don't really fool anyone and there's no external rules requiring anyone to accept them at face value.Calton | Talk 16:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, how am I passive aggressive? Are you a psychiatrist? You cannot diagnose people online. I am a very happy, positive person who loves his family, loves God, and loves MMA. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 16:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you a psychiatrist? No, I merely have reading skills above the the sixth-grade level, as well as a lifetime of dealing with and little patience for those who -- wrongly -- think they're being clever. If you think you're being particularly clever, I suggest you try this out on your homeroom teacher and see how far it gets you. --Calton | Talk 21:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

There's a lot of stuff in here that is not directly related to the point, and I'm trying to make sure I understand the point. Is this right? Community consensus is currently that flag icons should only be used to identify sportspeople who are officially representing that country in a formal sense, and should not be used to simply identify the homeland of a given sportsperson. Consensus is that this agreement applies specifically to the sport of mixed martial arts, a sport in which athletes most usually fight as individuals, and not as the official representatives of certain countries. User:JonnyBonesJones doesn't agree with that consensus, because he thinks that flag icons are useful for making certain kinds of tables more readable and visually appealing. Rather than either participating in a useful way with discussions and trying to persuade others to agree with his opinion on the usefulness of flag icons, he is instead removing flag icons from the lists of various other sportspeople, such as race-car drivers and tennis players.. He is doing this to demonstrate how useful the flag icons really are, and prove his point, even though this is not directly related to the area he truly wants to change, and even though race-car drivers are not typically considered martial artists, except perhaps in certain bars after important races. Even though others have asked him to stop, he is not participating usefully in discussions, and his edits are having a net negative result on the encyclopedia. In past blocks, he has shown limited ability to read and understand rules, and there is some concern that, while he has a great deal of enthusiasm and knowledge related to mixed martial arts, he may not have the reading or social skills needed to participate at Wikipedia in a way that will make the encyclopedia better with little or no disruption. Have I unraveled it correctly? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

That is completely false, and your opinion. I have helped create articles on this site, and helped ID what model Glock was used in the Sandy Hook massacre. My edits have been very constructive. And as far and reading or social skills go. I passed Reading class in college with an A plus, and I with my excellent social skills I have many friends and have had beautiful girlfriends.JonnyBonesJones (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain which specific parts of what I said were incorrect? You seem to be saying that you are entirely uninterested in discussions about flags or martial arts, and I'm almost positive that isn't right. Can you explain clearly which facts about the disagreement I got wrong? I didn't realize that the disagreement that we are discussing was related to the Sandy Hook massacre; if it isn't about the use of flag icons in MMA articles, then I'm very puzzled indeed. Please note that I am only curious about what's happening here at Wikipedia, and have no questions about your private life when you aren't editing Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Very well, I am all for explaining my position. I will quote you directly:

"Community consensus is currently that flag icons should only be used to identify sportspeople who are officially representing that country in a formal sense, and should not be used to simply identify the homeland of a given sportsperson. Consensus is that this agreement applies specifically to the sport of mixed martial arts, a sport in which athletes most usually fight as individuals, and not as the official representatives of certain countries. User:JonnyBonesJones doesn't agree with that consensus, because he thinks that flag icons are useful for making certain kinds of tables more readable and visually appealing. Rather than either participating in a useful way with discussions and trying to persuade others to agree with his opinion on the usefulness of flag icons, he is instead removing flag icons from the lists of various other sportspeople, such as race-car drivers and tennis players.."

For one, they are invidivuals that represent certain countries. If they weren't, flags would not be included in the tale of the tape. Secondly, I could care less if flags make the page "more readable or visually appealing" and the consensus said "RESULTS TABLES". Third, I was told by the admin I was allowed to remove flags from those pages because he said it violated MOS:FLAG. So I did him a favor.

"He is doing this to demonstrate how useful the flag icons really are, and prove his point, even though this is not directly related to the area he truly wants to change, and even though race-car drivers are not typically considered martial artists, except perhaps in certain bars after important races."

I have nothing to prove, I did this because Qwyrxian said it was ok, and I was doing him a favor. Also a bar fight isnt martial arts.

"Even though others have asked him to stop, he is not participating usefully in discussions, and his edits are having a net negative result on the encyclopedia. In past blocks, he has shown limited ability to read and understand rules, and there is some concern that, while he has a great deal of enthusiasm and knowledge related to mixed martial arts, he may not have the reading or social skills needed to participate at Wikipedia in a way that will make the encyclopedia better with little or no disruption. Have I unraveled it correctly?"

I dont care if someone tells me to stop doing something, they arent the boss of me. I will not stop improving wikipedia, just because some stranger told me to do so. Also many people have asked Mtking to stop what he is doing, he doesnt listen to them. I am participating usefully in discussing, and there is a discussion on the F1 racing page about MOS:FLAG. You are not an English teacher, nor are you a social worker. You do not have the credientials to judge my reading skills, or social skills. You have unraveled it completely wrong, and and tangled it all up. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 17:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you haven't rebutted what FisherQueen said at all. As for your last comment, if you are disruptive, are told to stop, and persist, you will be blocked. If you violate policy, you may be blocked even without being warned, but certainly if you are warned and you persist, you will be blocked. In the broadest sense, the community is the "boss", but in the narrower sense, those whom the community has empowered to act are "bosses" by proxy.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Just because you disagree with me on a subject that you admittedly know nothing about, doesn't make me "disruptive". How about trying to WORK with MMA editors, instead of alienate them? JonnyBonesJones (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support an indefinite block. While I don't feel confident unilaterally blocking this user without consensus, it seems clear that he is adopting an unnecessarily combative attitude toward other editors, choosing 'fighting words' even when courtesy would be more likely to achieve his goals. He doesn't appear to understand what other people try to communicate with him in writing. I don't think this is because he is unable to read and understand what others write. His oddly complicated and erroneous interpretations of others' comments, and of Wikipedia rules and guidelines, seems more like a determination to do as he wishes, and to willfully misinterpret anything which would contradict that. I think the problems here go much deeper than a mere misunderstanding of the rules; this appears to be a person whose refusal to collaborate with others in an honest and clear way will make it impossible for him to avoid disrupting the project. And, to respond to a specific comment - actually, I am an English teacher. But I'm not interested in assessing your overall reading skills, only the likelihood that your editing will be likely to make Wikipedia better. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

You're an English teacher huh? Well you aint my English teacher. And I am not your student. I have offered to help you better understand MMA, and to help out. But you just want to get rid of me it seems. Even if your plan succeeds, this will not help wikipedia, or the MMA situation, it will just make it worse. You know I have done nothing wrong, and I only did what an admin said was OK to do. BTW what "fighting words" did I use? lol JonnyBonesJones (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block. I, too, feel uncomfortable unilaterally blocking Jonny, although I gave it serious consideration. I agree with FisherQueen's assessment, perhaps even more strongly given Jonny's history. I would add that if Jonny wants to come back after a signficant amount of time has elapsed and demonstrate convincingly that he should be unblocked, that would, of course, be considered.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

You want to block me for no reason, even though I have offered to work with you to help understand MMA better, this is proof that you dont try and solve problems, you think you can just try and block every MMA editor and the problem will be solved? You are mistaken. You should work with us, not push us away. If I do get blocked, it would just make me another Martyr for MMA on wikipedia. Our sport deserves a place here. Football players have even been using MMA training to help them in their sport. Bruce Lee and Royce Gracie have revolutionized martial arts! We help protect people from bullies, muggers and rapists. We have no shame in protecting our sport! JonnyBonesJones (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

...each comment you make along those lines makes it more likely that you will be blocked, not less. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

What for? Because I offered to help? lol JonnyBonesJones (talk) 18:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Support indefinite block. Based on JBJ's commentary above, where he declares his intention not to listen and to continue the behavior that brought him here regardless of WP:CONSENSUS, complete with bad faith out the wazoo, I'm not seeing the gain to having him around without a major shift in attitude. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

When have I declared my intention not to listen? When what got me here was listening to an admin. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I see all these accusations, but have any of them been proven? JonnyBonesJones (talk) 18:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Support indefinite block, per Bushranger. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Support Arbcom investigation for misuse of admin tools and grivances if I am blocked JonnyBonesJones (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Community sanctions I don't meant to subvert the community's will here, but we already have community adopted sanctions in this topic area and I've gone ahead and invoked them.--v/r - TP 18:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

And I agree to these sanctions! Thank you for having my back TParis. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't have a problem with your imposition of sanctions, TP, but I don't believe that prevents an admin from indefinitely blocking him, particularly if there are other bases for the block. Please correct me if you think I'm wrong (as a matter of procedure). His threat above, which is typical, is more evidence in support of a block.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • You're not wrong. If consensus is a block then that's what it is. In the meantime, I invoked a previous consensus. When I said I don't mean to subvert the community, I meant that I don't mean to take action while another action is being discussed. Not that my action is in any way a shield to what is being discussed here.--v/r - TP 19:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support smaller sanction It seems exaggerated to block indefinitely here, yes JBJ is being obnoxious and uncooperative, but if given a timeout I think he will realize that he doesn't help himself by being argumentative in his responses to valid criticisms, or denying personal responsibility for his actions. He should get a short block to prevent himself from digging the hole he is in any deeper, and depending on how he handles that further sancitons may not be necessary.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• If this were the first sanction, I would agree with you. However, he has already been blocked twice this month. Each time he reacted very badly. In effect, he's been given timeouts, and there's no indication that they've helped. An indefinite block is not permanent. He can ask for it to be lifted after he's had an extended timeout. That said, I wouldn't be averse to a block of 1-6 months rather than indefinite if that's what the consensus is.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support TParis sanction I agree not to touch a flag on wikipedia for 6 months! JonnyBonesJones (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support 3 month block plus indefinite sanction against touching flags, plus 6 months topic ban from MMA-related topics (broadly construed) plus minimum 3 months mentoring when they return Switch to SUPPORT indef block this editor is the epitome of everything that is wrong with certain editors in the MMA topic (<- addition) They promised to continue to disrupt - 'nuf said. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not promise to disrupt anything... lol JonnyBonesJones (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

One of the problems is you don't see yourself the way others see you. Similarly, you don't interpret your comments the way others do. I'm sure many editors here interpret your statement "I will not stop improving wikipedia, just because some stranger told me to do so" (see a ways above) as you will do whatever you think is best no matter what anyone else thinks. That's a promise to disrupt.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

How is promising never to stop improving wikipedia a promise to disrupt? Dude, I dont care the way others see me, or what they think of me. Who are they to judge me? God is my judge. I have agreed not to mess with flags for 6 months, but you still wanna block me? Why? The only one who makes sense on this page, besides myself, and TParis. Infact, TParis, I hope you become a bureaucrat or something man, you have been the only one who has been fair to me on this page, big ups. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Hang on and step back. You say you want to improve Wikipedia. The problem between you and many other editors here is that you differ on what improves the encyclopedia. That is a reason to talk, not to throw around "I don't cares." You cannot improve the encyclopedia if you get blocked. This is a community, a society, and there are rules to this society. Does it not make sense to acquaint yourself with these rules? Qwyrxian has tried to do that for you, but you need to spend more time listening and being open then showing the community whose boss. Would you consider getting mentored?--v/r - TP 21:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I dont know what you mean by mentored, but sure. And I agree, blocking me will solve nothing. How do I get mentored? JonnyBonesJones (talk) 21:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's another example of your not listening to, or not understanding, what people say - TP did not say that blocking you will solve nothing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block, reluctantly. I've looked through JonnyBonesJones' talk page history, and the actions that have been mentioned therein and here - and I'm seeing a non-stop uncompromising battlefield approach. Instead of "I'll try better to follow Wikipedia's way of doing things", all I'm seeing is a constant "Wikipedia should listen to and learn from me" response to every issue. I really have not seen a single instance of genuinely listening to other opinions, taking them on board, and trying to develop a collegial consensus. The one so-called agreement, "I have agreed not to mess with flags for 6 months", is entirely bogus, because it did not come until after a prohibition had been forced on him - it has no more merit than a prisoner being locked in a cell and then saying "I agree to stay in here". Even this discussion here is more testament to the problem - all I see is a battlefield argument against every comment, and a continuation of the wikilawyering and pointiness, with no apparent understanding of the real nature of the problem. I would support an unblock should JonnyBonesJones make a convincing case that he understands the problems and is genuinely willing to change his behaviour. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

  Re "Dude, I dont care the way others see me, or what they think of me. Who are they to judge me? God is my judge": I mean no disrespect to your religious beliefs, but here on Wikipedia, no he ain't. Your judge here on Wikipedia is the Wikipedia community, and when it comes to dispute, Community consensus is the law - if you are not prepared to accept that, you will simply not be editing here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support minimum 3-month block, up to indefinite. Not here to improve the encyclopedia as a whole, just pump up his pet hobby and play games with everything else. Note to JonnyBonesJones: you think you're being clever, but you're not the first to try out that schtick. --Calton | Talk 21:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Note. Blatant violation of WP:CANVASS: [111]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support indef block: I threatened to take JBJ to ANI earlier because I felt he did not have the capability to work with other editors. He immediately goaded me on by behaving in a condescending manner and referring to me as being like "his little brother". [112] I didn't take the bait, but it is further evidence of his inability to work with others, which would be fine in some situations, but not in a collaborative project like Wikipedia. Ryan Vesey 22:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support community sanctions, blocked from editing sports related articles for three months. He's obviously going way over the line in MMA and no longer seems fit to improve that section, but who are we to come to the conclusion Mr. Bones can't write beautiful prose on classical music, quantum physics, or some other topic which will improve the quality of this encyclopedia? Maybe MMA just gets his blood pumping so much that he's let himself slip into single-purpose account mode and started screaming about martyrdom. Let's assume the best from this editor and give him a chance to prove himself. If it's obvious he can't, support indef block. PhnomPencil (✉) 01:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
• Presently Opposed to Indefinite Block - I have posted on my talk page in response to JBJ, offerring some advice. As the section "Please" on that page indicates, I have tried before to suggest he alter his approach, without success. I believe he was acting in a disruptive and POINTy fashion at the F1 page, and I believe the ban on flag editing is justified. However, I am still presently willing to AGF and accept that he is well-intentioned but acting poorly. On his current trajectory, JBJ is heading for an indefinite block but I support him having more time to adjust course and avoid that outcome. Maybe there is a mentor who JBJ would listen to and respect? EdChem (talk) 01:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
• One the one hand, I don't mind if a mentor can be found for JBJ, and JBJ agrees to work with the mentor, and together they work on finding ways for JBJ to contribute constructively and civilly. On the other hand, my life experience tells me this is almost certainly a waste of time. I know that it's somewhat unfair for me to just assume that JBJ is similar to a lot of people I've known in the past, including to some degree myself...but he's displaying all of the symptoms of the "super-smart, misunderstood victim". If my guess is correct, JBJ simultaneously believes two contradictory things: 1) his maneuvering is nothing more than an attempt to "win" by exploiting fractional differences in meaning (in both his own and others' words), and similarly he knows exactly what others mean when they criticize and advise him but he will intentionally avoid that meaning in preference for one that advances what he perceives as his own agenda; 2) he is sincerely hurt by the fact that others seem to be attacking him "unfairly" because all he's doing is "what he's told" and "what he said". That is, I believe that JBJ honestly doesn't understand why all of us don't act with his precision, logic, and "honesty", even though he knows that everything he's doing is an intentional, nonconstructive front. Now, I know that people can improve from this state of viewing and interacting with the world, but I sincerely doubt they can do it through Wikipedia, and also constructively contribute to the project in the meantime. I wasn't aware of all of the details of JBJ's past until I read the links provided above, but after looking I see someone who is fundamentally unable/unwilling to follow community norms. However, in the past, people have given me leeway to attempt to mentor and guide seemingly hopeless cases, so I don't mind if there is a volunteer willing to take on this task. Note that I would expect that this mentoring would require a period of offline editing--i.e., a period in which he could only suggest edits in his own/his mentor's userspace, and have them go live only after approval. Should any part of this not be plausible (no available mentor, no agreement to editing restrictions while under mentorship, no acceptance of a mentor), then instead JBJ should, I think, be blocked. Personally, I would prefer a fixed term block, of probably 6 months to 1 year, because I'm afraid that if he can't see the light at the end of the tunnel, then we're actually inviting unnecessary trouble on ourselves (email me if you can't figure out what I'm implying but not saying per WP:BEANS). Qwyrxian (talk) 02:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support indef block - I'm not sure I'll ever understand the ethos that allows editors like this to continue to walk all over us out of ... I dunno, an over-abundance of caution? Fear of being perceived as illiberal? An inordinate respect for "due process" which is out of place on a private website which was intended to build an encyclopedia and not to built an online community. If the guy's not contributing to the betterment of the project just ban him and get it over with. There is no onus on us to bend over backwards, he's had chances, and his comments here are dripping with his disdain for the rest of us. Just get rid of him! Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block. There has been no evidence so far that he either understands the purpose of this encyclopedia or is willing to change his on-line combative conduct to be compatible with those aims. Mathsci (talk) 07:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Amadscientist (talk · contribs) is not helping matters by his contributions on JBJ's talk page, e.g. [113][114] Mathsci (talk) 10:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose indef block at this time - Per EdChem. A little more time and a little help from others may or may not work, but I think we can try. with the stipulation that this is a last chance. Next step would be much stronger to an indef.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block like the topic he edits he is far too combative for my liking. GiantSnowman 10:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Temporarily blocked

• NOTE: as it appears that their intent is to disrupt this discussion, and MMA (including an appeal to Jimbo) as a whole during his possible last hours on the project, I have blocked JonnyBones for 31hrs for WP:CANVASS and WP:DE. This 31 hour timeframe will allow this ANI discussion to continue unimpeded - I think we have seen enough from him to understand his "point". He may still request copy/pastes from his talkpage here using {{helpme}}, but I would caution anyone responding to those helpme requests to consider them carefully. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Indef blocked

For a moment it looked like JonnyBonesJones was starting to respond to Amadscientist's approach (and we should thank Amadscientist for those efforts). But after the latest abusive outburst on JonnyBonesJones's talk page, I have upped the block to indefinite and revoked his ability to edit his talk page. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

And I've redacted and rev-deleted his gross personal attacks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

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

WP:OWN on several Japanese cinema articles

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 recently attempted to edit several articles previously edited/started by User:JoshuSasori, but he has reverted almost all of my edits on flimsy grounds. The worst case is Sonezaki Shinjū (1978 film). Even when I quoted clear MOS guideline, he continued to quote the same argument at me again and again. Basically, I wanted to include an English translation of the Japanese title in parentheses, in accordance with WP:NCF#Examples and WP:UE; but he insisted that because the film doesn't have an "official" English title then we can't do that. I also wanted to include mention in the opening sentence of the film having been produced in Japan, as per MOS:FILM. I quoted Wikipedia guidelines to him several times, but he continued to revert my edits. By obstinately refusing to budge, he forced me up to 2.5 reverts[115][116][117]. He then posted two 3RR notices on my talk page: this is ridiculous, since he has reverted me more than I have reverted him. He has also persisted in quoting Elvis Presley lyrics instead of providing comprehensible edit summaries/replies to me.

I am not sure if I am in the right place, but this user's childishly acting like he owns every article he has ever contributed to is somewhat upsetting. It is difficult to demonstrate with diffs, but most of his comments towards me are also tinged with sarcasm. This is probably the worst example: even though some of the articles on Japanese cinema that he has edited were worked on by me about six years prior, he seems to assume that I am a troll who only decided to edit Japanese cinema articles in order to undermine him.

elvenscout742 (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the Presley lyrics play off your discussion regarding "hounding" in the previous section of his talk page. Why is it a problem he uses the same argument when discussing a similar issue? Also, is there a third party you can go through who might act as an intermediary?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem here is that this user suddenly started trying to rename all pages I had created yesterday. I never heard of this person before. If you have the power to examine my watchlist then go ahead. I watch every single article on Japanese cinema and check edits every day. I have been doing this for about eight months. I have never seen this person before until two days ago, when suddenly he/she is moving several pages I created. He/she has never edited these pages before I am very sure. JoshuSasori (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the behaviour of the above user. He/she was WP:HOUNDING me and started renaming all the articles I had created, e.g Kindai Eiga Kyokai, Ryoko Nakano, Reikou, Sonezaki Shinju (1978 film), . He / she says that this is according to some policy but the referred-to policy MOS:JAPAN and WP:JATITLE do not agree with what he/she says they say, so I had to undo many edits. I keep telling him/her to read policies to check and to check the article references, but he/she just doesn't seem to want to read anything, or whatever he/she reads and quotes selectively. It is really getting boring and ridiculous because no matter what I try to communicate with this person, he/she seems not to read what I have said and he/she often accuses me of making a personal attack when I obviously haven't. I cannot begin to understand it and cannot take him/her seriously any more. He/she is making completely irrational and counter-productive edits and clogging talk pages with bizarre messages. I am sorry but I am completely lost for words what to do about this person. JoshuSasori (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you ask at the Japan WikiProject which of your approaches is better? Because I don't think AN/I's going to solve your difficulty. People are thin on the ground here due to time of year and the most likely outcome is an evenhanded one, which both of you will think is unfair.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

JoshuSasori already asked at WikiProject Japan if we could change the MOS to support his POV that macrons should never be used in articles on modern Japanese people. There doesn't seem to be any consensus on that. Several of the articles that JoshuSasori started, however, already violate the current MOS, including several that are not about people. That is why I moved several of them. The ones where he had no argument, he did not revert my move, but he has prevented me from making any other edits; wherever he could get away with it, he has reverted my move. (Ryoko Nakano has an "official website" that appears to have an English version created by a freelance translator, and the translator got paid whether or not he/she bothered to include the macron; there is no indication the Ms. Nakano prefers to spell her own name as "Ryoko" rather than "Ryouko" or "Ryōko"; nevertheless JoshuSasori completely reverted me.) Basically, WikiProject Japan right now is divided between those who wish to accurately represent the Japanese language by using the standard, official romanization system, and those who think that diacritics are ugly and pointless (JoshuSasori indicated in his initial proposal that he doesn't actually speak Japanese and can't understand the reason we use the macrons).

But the idea that I am "hounding" JoshuSasori is ridiculous. I was editing articles on Japanese film six years before he created an account, and despite his assumption of bad faith, I don't actually have it in for him. I have only made edits to articles where Wikipedia policy is obvious. JoshuSasori has been reverting me. His constantly reverting my constructive edits to Sonezaki Shinjū (1978 film) is ridiculous, and it appears to be either because he doesn't like me, or because he thinks of these articles as "his". elvenscout742 (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you've misrepresented JoshuSasori's statements. He didn't say he didn't understand the what the macron's function was, simply that he was unaware of any modern Japanese person that used them in the romanisation of his name. With that, I have to concur: I know many Japanese people with long vowels in their names, but not a one that indicates that via a macron. It's a form that has grown effectively obsolete. I'm very surprised that Wikiproject Japan clings to its use.—Kww(talk) 05:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that is how it was looking to me, though I am not comfortable enough in my understanding of Japanese to opine that specifically. I would suggest you guys start an RfC and settle the matter, putting these questions on hold until you do. You are both acting in good faith as far as I can tell, the only way you're going to get into trouble is if you talk past each other and edit war.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Albania / Azerbaijan editing

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 neutral but with knowledge of the area please take a look at the edits of User:88.72.229.34? I reverted their removal of sources on the Azerbaijani American article, but I'm not conversant enough with the topic to judge the rest of the edits, although I know there's been disruptive action in that area recently Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

There are lots of edits removing sources and removing cn tags. I think it might be the same person as 88.72.245.145 (talk · contribs) and 88.74.38.219 (talk · contribs). However, it's an active range used by other productive editors... bobrayner (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Edits like this are good, because they bring our content closer into line with what sources say. But edits like this are not (Regis Philbin is not my specialist subject but the first source I googled said Arbëreshë, not Albanian). Putting hyphenated-americans into new national pigeonholes is a BLP problem, I think (although the edits to Eliza Dushku weren't so bad, actually).

This change looks bad at first glance, because we expect nationalist warriors to change demographic numbers away from what a source says, but in this case their new numbers actually match what the ACS tables say. Well, there's potential to misinterpret primary sources and how they pigeonhole people but overall I'd call that a good change if it weren't for removing the source. bobrayner (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

If this area is subject to discretionary sanctions, should the editor (at all 3 IPs) be notified? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I think there's some good and some bad. It's not a clear-cut case and I am absolutely no expert (I'm not even an admin, I just wandered in here by mistake when I was looking for where all the cool editors hang out). What would get the best outcomes - help, warning, or some combination of the two? bobrayner (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me that the following IPs may all be the same editor:

• 88.72.229.34 (talk · contribs)
• 88.72.245.145 (talk · contribs)
• 88.72.250.70 (talk · contribs)

What I've noticed is a pro-Albanian pattern of edits which extends to making unsourced changes of numbers and in some cases actually removing sources such as the US Census. These IPs are all on DSL from Arcor AG in Berlin, Germany. It is probably a simple matter for this editor to cycle his IP within a range. I suggest consideration of a range block of 88.72.224.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). For the past contributions from this range see the range contribs. For one person to make contentious edits from a fluctuating IP violates WP:SOCK so the niceties of the Arbcom warnings may not be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Since there were no objections, I've blocked the range one month. EdJohnston (talk) 14:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Tomcat7

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:Tomcat7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I hate to bring this here, but I think this warrants it. Tomcat7 continues to edit war after a RFC/U into his edit warring has been created. The diff in question.[118] I did issue a warning prior to the RFC/U filing on Dec 17th. [119] Discussion has continued on Talk:Friedrich Eckenfelder from December 11th across two GA's and two separate discussions on that page. Easier bits to read are here [120] and here [121].

Edit reverts relating to the one source tag in particular.

• Paperluigi added One Source tag on 22:02, 7 December 2012‎ [122]
• Tomcat7 removed One Source tag on 13:35, 8 December 2012‎ [123]
• ChrisGualtieri added multiple tags on 01:53, 11 December 2012‎ [124]
• Tomcat7 removed tags on 10:45, 11 December 2012‎ [125]
• Ritchie333 replaced by undoing Tomcat7's revert on 12:38, 12 December 2012 [126]
• Tomcat7 reverted again on 12:53, 12 December 2012‎[127]
• ChrisGualtieri added one source tag on 04:43, 13 December 2012‎ [128]
• Tomcat7 removed One Source tag on 19:48, 16 December 2012‎ [129]
• ChrisGualtieri added one source tag on 05:35, 17 December 2012‎ [130]
• Tomcat7 removed tag again on 11:47, 17 December 2012‎ [131]
• ChrisGualtieri added multiple tags on 03:21, 19 December 2012‎ [132]
• Tomcat7 removed many tags and fact templates on 10:49, 19 December 2012‎ [133]
• KillerChihuahua undid the revert on 16:26, 20 December 2012‎ [134]
• RFC/U filed. He makes his first post at the RFC/U on 20:17, 22 December 2012 [135]
• Tomcat7 reverted again on 20:23, 22 December 2012‎ [136]
• KillerChihuahua replaced on 01:55, 23 December 2012 and is current as of this posting [137]

This has gone on for too long, and even my opening of the RFC/U into his edit warring has not discouraged him from removing the tags even after all the warnings and discussions from several users. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Given that several editors have tried to discuss this with Tomcat7 prior to the Rfc, including myself[138] and generally get no reply except a removal[139] I agree that something needs to be done. It is clear the Rfc is having no effect; the last removal was after posting at the Rfc. Unfortunately, I cannot see a way forward from this venue unless we have consensus for a community sanction of a ban on tag removal - which to the best of my recollection is unprecedented; and even that would not address the issues of poor sourcing. I am open to ideas and suggestions. KillerChihuahua 05:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to add that Tomcat's edit warring is not limited to the above page. He reverted three edits that placed a citation needed tag in Golden Eagle Award for Best Foreign Language Film. He was the warned about his conduct by Crisco 1492, but swiftly removed the notice from his talk page: [140]. I agree something has to be done, his unwillingness to engage or address the issues is worrying, especially as multiple editors have expressed concerns. Yet none of this has worked, I'm not sure what action should be taken, but if left unattended I fear his poor sourcing will continue and there will be more of these disputes. NapHit (talk) 05:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

That is a content dispute. That is not serious, and is more likely a case of misunderstanding and aggravation. I am not going to hold that against him or put it forth here, as it is an unrelated matter to the Eckenfelder page. Crisco has commented on my talk page about it and I am going to discuss it on the page. A fix is likely for this little matter. Oh and I notified Crisco about this ANI as you brought his name up. Though I think the edit warring notice is valid for other things, it was not given to Tomcat7 for this page. So I did not include it and I would not hold it against Tomcat7. The only ones which should be held against him were the Eckenfelder related ones. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Tomcat has done good work, but sadly he seems to get caught in the heat of the moment too often. The warning mentioned above was for 3RR, which although not directly related to the issue here speaks of a very wide problem. I've had to block Tomcat before, for edit warring too... this was a couple months back. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm aware this is not a content dispute, that was not my point, perhaps I didn't make it clear. The reason I brought up his actions on the Golden Eagle page was because it further highlights an unwillingness to engage other users. Also it highlights that his edit-warring is not confined to one page. The fact that he has edit-warred on multiple pages is concerning and should be highlighted here, especially as he has been blocked for this before, so it's not like he is unaware of he rules. NapHit (talk) 06:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm well aware of this, and was (attempting) to indicate that he has been warned before. This is repeat behaviour so, if punished, that needs to be taken under consideration. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I actually don't want to discuss this further, but here is my response. Everything began with me translating a random article from the German Wikipedia, namely Friedrich Eckenfelder. I never knew this artist before and I saw that no English versions exists. So I took the opportunity to translate it for a wider readership. User:Wuselig was the main contributor of this article, and brought this article to "Lesenswert" (similar to Good Article) status, with an overwhelming decision. Now I did the same here. The article stayed very long in the queue, but finally a user named User:ChrisGualtieri, who, it seems, has no interest in art, posted his review. Well, it was a poor one because he first said that he put the article on hold, but then suddenly changed his mind. He then posted a very lengthy block text, and noted "TLDR", perhaps in response to the main contributor Wuselig who stated that he was glad that someone translated it to English. Chris claimed that text in Wikipedia is copyrighted and must be attributed, but actually that is not true. He did not even bother to read WP:ABOUT, and began further pushing his view. After a quarrel at the GAN talk page, Gualteri seemed to have forgotten me. However, suddenly a user started to review it, while Gualteri took the opportunity to add huge banners on the top, and place tags, such as citation needed tags, after almost every sentence. He also stated that there should be more sources, but I reminded him that there were no more reliable third-party sources. Then he watched my contributions on former featured list nominations or featured lists, and performed radical changes. For example, in Golden Eagle Award for Best Foreign Language Film, a featured list, he removed source and text and added a citation needed tag, claiming that the sources do not confirm what the article claims. Actually, both sources clearly supported the content, further outlined on the talk page. In Abel Prize, he also put citation needed tags, but now he was correct, so I added sources. Then he and User:NapHit, who rants when I add premature lists to FLC and is allegedly on vacation, unfairly stated on the nomination page of Golden Eagle Award, that I did no changes and just responded to the nominator for fun. Actually, I made an error somehow (perhaps forgot to save my changes), which I think happens at some point. Then he started a "request for comment", why I really don't know. It would be wise if he would eventually leave me alone and stop watching all my contributions, to avoid further disuptive edits and accusations. That is all what should be done, but it seems that Gualtieri does not want peace and instead wants to ruin the good atmosphere. Oh, and he often ignore my and others' comments, for example on his talk page he did not even responded to my comments and opened a request for comment. --Tomcat (7) 11:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

In short regarding the one article: Most of the banners are simply incorrect as stated hundreds of times. It is impossible to discuss with Gualtieri, as he often ignores comments and repeats what was stated many times. Chris is clearly making disruptive edits on that article. What I am doing is to defend the article to make it readable for our readers, but he and others repeatedly revert the good old version to an ugly one with a lot of tags and banners. Paraphrasing is, to my knowledge, not possible if the languages are different. However, since I don't have the book, I also couldn't have paraphrased it, but I simply translated the article to English.--Tomcat (7) 11:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't rant when you nominate lists when you nominate lists at FLC, how you can infer that from text alone is beyond me. However, the fact that you acknowledge you nominate premature lists indicates you're aware of what you're doing. Back to the main issue the article is readable with the tags, they don't impact on the readership. In fact they are probably more helpful as they indicate the article has flaws and the reader should assume everything in the article is correct. The fact that you say "However, since I don't have the book, I also couldn't have paraphrased it..." Is very worrying. The fact you don't have the book and yet are claiming the article is factually correct is completely nonsensical. You can't back up your claims without access to the book. Yes you've only translated but that doesn't mean everything in the article is correct. Clearly there are issues and without the book you are in no position to fix them or claim there are no issues, which is why the tags are valid. Oh and for your information I am backpacking around Australia and have recently purchased an ipad so I'm able to contribute on here more. This happened to coincide with this issue. Also you have to understand when I saw you had said you'd responded to comments at Golden Eagle Award, yet had not edited the article it looks bad. I'm notto know you had an issue so what I wrote was the logical response anyone would make upon seeing that situation. NapHit (talk) 12:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Tomcat7, your accusations that I did a 'poor review' is purely opinion. It is like I don't like art, couldn't be further from the truth as I am artist myself. I like art, I study art, I learn from other artists. You are responsible for your own edits. Several people have noted the close paraphrasing when reading through the article, it does not matter the language it was it, you directly translated it to the point that Google mirrored a majority of it. Including the flowery prose as noted at 2 GAs. I'm not here to discuss content, it is your behavior with the edit warring over tags that you know and admit to being valid. That is the problem. You know the one source tag is valid, yet you refuse to let it remain. And if you wish to make this a content dispute. Please point out how you are able to add additional inline citations to the article which did not exist in the de.wiki version. [141] All the edits done were by you. You are responsible for whatever material you put on wiki. And are you certain you are able to translate German to English properly? Your translation of these lines is worse then Google. "Friedrich Eckenfelder was born as the second child of the daily help Rosina Vivian and the shoemaker Johann Friedrich Eckenfelder. His father moved from Balingen to Basel when he was appointed journeyman shoemaker in 1859, meeting there his future wife." While I don't intend to start a content discussion, there are numerous concerns with the content. The insertion of false inline references on Eckenfelder is unquestionably bad-faith as you do not have the source material and they were not present on the dewiki page. Though I want to keep this on track about your edit warring. It is the edit warring which you continue to engage in after being warned half a dozen times that is the problem. You won't or can't address the problems so you remove the tags that you, in this very thread, have acknowledged being correct. I noticed you removing the tag prior to my review, rather then addressing it, you tried to conceal it from the readers and potential reviewers. The one source tag should remain until fixed.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• I would like to link to my statement at the RfC. I think both parties are at fault here and that the best thing to do would be for them both to take a step back and leave the other alone for awhile. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not think I am at fault for this mess. I just discovered that Tomcat7's GA nomination Golden Eagle Award is shamelessly copied text from Google Translate and dropped it word for word into the article. This is essentially what the Eckenfelder article had as well. Please see [142] for my post on that matter. Tomcat7 has done many GA and FAs yet deliberately inserts these violations in. RFC/U is not for such matters, but I think we have very deep problems when an experienced editor does this. Diff of him adding the CV. [143] Google translates version. [144] This is clearly a problem as it remains in the article prior to my tagging it. [145] I am just stunned at how many issues there are here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, RFC/U is for user conduct issues which is what this is. And yes TomCat7 is doing stuff that is not correct, but you have no basis to say that he is doing so deliberately in defiance of rules. It is not the case that most people realize that an original translation can also be a copyvio. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

No comment on the edit war, but we are now at two failed GAs due to copyright issues. I'm a lot more concerned about that then I am about the back-and-forth and the RFC going on. Wizardman 16:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not too difficult to handle that problem. Someone should probably try to calmly explain to TomCat7 that direct translations of sources also fall under the copyvio policy. I'm pretty sure he'll understand that.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I did explain the matter to him about copying on the Eckenfelder article. This was his response. [146] Granted he says its not copyrighted in wiki, which is true, but the close paraphrasing and the CV from the dewiki page came with it. I've told him numerous times he is responsible for his edits. I've tried to explain this, and I've never gotten through. Someone else should explain it then. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Generally people don't respond well to critiques offered as accusations, since that feels like an attack and not an offer of help. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I've begun discussing the matter with Maunus at his talk page about the matter. I've just learned Tomcat7 is not able to contribute with a native or professional level of English. Which explains two of the three content disputes. While it does not address the edit warring behavior, Tomcat7 has ceased edit warring. Hopefully, discussion at the RFC/U will pick up steam. As I never wanted a block or punishment and since warning about edit warring has reached Tomcat7: Please close this thread. It is no longer necessary. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

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

User using multiple user names to replace sourced content in multiple articles with what would appear to be deliberate misinformation

Please see WT:ANIME#Mass vandelism???, Aakeem00 (talk · contribs), and Aakeem077 (talk · contribs). Goodraise 22:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is another two user names most likely belonging to this editor: Aakeem0775 (talk · contribs) and Aakee08 (talk · contribs). Goodraise 22:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

And another three: Aakeem079 (talk · contribs), Aakeem01 (talk · contribs), and Aakeem 2010 (talk · contribs). The user has been warned (exactly how often is difficult to tell for obvious reasons), but does not react to them. They do not provide edit summaries and do not (as far as I can see) engage in any sort of discussion. Goodraise 22:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Is there a way to recover all the vandalism done? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

24.26.79.67 (talk · contribs) and 24.26.79.173 (talk · contribs) would also appear to be the same editor. Diffs to various warnings: [147], [148], [149], [150]. Will add more as I find them. Goodraise 23:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Several administrators including myself are now blocking these accounts. Aakee08 is however stale since 2008. De728631 (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Know, however, that WP:SPI is the correct place for this. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

You're right, of course. My mistake. This sort of thing just happens too rarely in my little corner of the 'pedia. I don't even remember when I last had a problem with sock puppetry. Goodraise 23:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that aakeem00 removed the block notice. Can someone please add it back.--64.229.167.20 (talk) 05:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I also removed an episode list that was on the talk page of Aakeem 2010.--64.229.167.20 (talk) 20:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Ops that should be User talk:Aakeem 2010.--64.229.167.20 (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate WP:CANVASSing by User:Cydevil38, not the first time

I believe that this edit by User:Cydevil38 is very problematic, since I see it as inappropriate canvassing. Per the page at WP:CANVASS, this message is quite biased in its message, since it uses loaded language which accuses editors which disagree with him to be "Chinese POV editors", and he has specifically chosen to notify a partisan audience, and not all relevant sides. I see this as campaigning and votestacking, and this has not been the first time that this has happened with this editor. This is a long-term issue, and I am under the impression that this editor thinks that this is perfectly fine behaviour. Not to mention, this editor has specifically ignored calls to engage in proper and thorough discussion in September 2012 on Talk:Northeast Project of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, and is now edit-warring because he thinks that there is "insufficient discussion" regarding an article merge (Northeast Project of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences into Goguryeo controversies). -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems like it to me. I suggest admins and other editors keep a close eye on that discussion and be sure that all decisions are based on strength of argument rather than numbers. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The editors in question have a long history of making antagonistic edits on Korea related issues. I more than welcome constructive edits and discussion from neutral parties. Cydevil38 (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Quote "The editors in question have a long history of making antagonistic edits on Korea related issues" - I sure hope you aren't talking about me, because if so, I find your argument to be somewhat absurd.

Let's have a look at the label you have given me, a "Chinese POV editor", which you have written in this diff. I have entirely avoided Korea dispute-related topics since 2011. Even in the article Senkaku Islands dispute which I have been involved in relatively recent (read: a few months ago) times, I believe that I have been able to keep a reasonable head, and being fair to both sides (China and Japan). I have even written many things that are critical of China, and I have been accused by other editors of being too Tibetan friendly, too Japanophilic, or being an agent of Taiwan independence or the Chinese democracy movement. Now, let me ask, what have you done, Cydevil38?

Now, ignoring everything political on Wikipedia, I have written articles about computer software, I have written articles about electronics, smartphones, game devices and computer security; I have been involved in topics relating to video games, and have written numerous articles about Japanese animations about cute little girls doing cute little things, not to mention anatomy and physiology articles, linguistics articles and military articles. I have written my first GA not that long ago, and I'm on the journey on writing my first ever FA. I have participated in numerous community discussions on how to improve Wikipedia overall, and I have reported various bugs. Now, may I ask, what have you done, Cydevil38? Have you been involved in any articles that aren't related to Korea and its neighbourhood disputes? And you have the nerve to label me as a POV editor?

Now, I'm not upset about this current edit-war dispute at Goguryeo controversies, I frankly don't really give two rat behinds about how this will end up in the end. What really grinds my gears is that you have the nerve to write things like this, about myself and other editors, over and over like it means nothing to you.

Currently the article at Northeast Project of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences serves nothing other than a content fork, since everything already exists in Goguryeo controversies. I made an edit which I saw fit, as a long-term Wikipedia editor, and through my judgment, I saw that your revert against an article merge was unnecessary. Your action of pulling out the "POV editor" card in response to me is unsportsmanshiply behaviour. Yours truly, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 00:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

You are the major contributor to many antagonistic and biased articles on Korea, major examples being Pure blood theory in Korea (now moved to a more appropriate title despite opposition from Benlisquare), Anti-Korean sentiment, Anti-Korean sentiment in China and Goguryeo controversies. It is rather an objective fact that Benlisquare is particularly notorious among Korean editors. You can accuse me of being "Korean POV", which I openly admit, but yourself denying your own biased point of view against Korea is rather ridiculous. With this history of anti-Korea edits in mind, as well as with one other particularly biased editor involved (Shrigley, where one of his edits gave me a very strong impression[151]), I found it not very "unsportsmanshiply" to mention POV editors. And I hereby state that by POV editors, I only referred to Benlisquare and Shrigley.

Regarding your argument that Northeast Project is merely a POV fork, first, creation of the article Northeast Project predates Goguryeo controversies. I am a major contributor to creation of both articles, the former focusing on the project itself, and the latter focusing and expanding upon a particular aspect of the former. Second, Northeast Project is an article dealing with a significant and unique subject matter, with their respective counterparts in three other languages. Goguryeo controversies does not even have a counterpart in the Korean Wikipedia, and the term itself is not a commonly used word. The only language counterpart of the article is Chinese, and no other languages. Third, the initial POV of Goguryeo controversies wasn't very different from that of Northeast Project, until a series of edits and edit wars, where you were actively involved, were made well after the article was stabilized and balanced.

With the above issues in mind, it is rather ironic that you accuse me of unsportsmanshiply behaviour, when yourself accuse me of WP:CANVASS on this board (not the first time he accused me of wrongdoing on this board, with ") [152]. I feel that this matter is very much relevant to WP:Korea, and I felt that persons interested in Korean articles should be alerted to this matter, as much as WP:Korea was alerted of Pure blood theory in Korea[153]. Of course, you are referring this as my previous attempt to WP:CANVASS, and if you are bitter that the article was eventually merged against your strong opinion on the matter, you are more than welcome to raise the issue again through a request for article split. I have not alerted any particular individuals, and I do not believe alerting WP:Korea of this ongoing dispute is an attempt to solicit biased opinion. If you wish, you can go alert WP:China. I will not object and I will not perceive it as WP:CANVASS. And I more than welcome any neutral parties to this dispute. In this regard, I am sincerely thankful that you notified this board, despite the false accusation, which has turned more attention of neutral editors to this dispute. Cydevil38 (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how things that I've done 20 years ago makes your argument more convincing. Anti-Korean sentiment was written in 2008, my last ANI report against you was made in 2011, your problematic edits were made yesterday. Are you trying to divert attention away from yourself? Or are you the type that keeps old clashes close to heart? I'm commenting on your inappropriate behaviour now, you're commenting about edits to Wikipedia that I made when I was 16 years old.

I have never ever touched Goguryeo controversies except for yesterday and a few posts on the talk page, Anti-Korean sentiment and its subarticle(s) are by no means "antagonistic to Korea" (I may actually say that it's critical of right-wing politics in Japan), and I'm pretty sure you were the one who wanted to merge (not rename) Korean ethnic nationalism. I am particularly notorious among Korean editors because Korean Wikipedia editors post about me on Korean internet forums, such as the one created and hosted by User:KoreanSentry. I'm also quite notorious amongst Japanese editors, and my name shows up on 2channel quite a lot as well, but that's a different story. It's natural that you gain a few enemies, after being on Wikipedia for so long and getting involved in controversial topics, so I don't see what the big surprise is. Also, nowhere have I ever used the word "POV fork", please do a CTRL+F next time you write your replies; Northeast Project is a content fork, because a large percentage of its content is repeated in another thread. You don't need a degree in astrobiology to figure that out.

Also, if I am "anti-Korean" like you say, then why the hell am I writing articles which, some might say promote, Korean things like Samsung smartphones and Korean video games? Your reasoning, again, doesn't really make sense. I shall repeat again, by what means do I become a "Chinese POV editor"? Does this label have some kind of criteria, and is this a permanent label that is never removed? If I spend the next two years writing about, I dunno, frilly dresses, am I still under that label? Now, please have a look at these, CYdevil38, and tell me with a straight face (oh wait, internet) that you're not the pot calling the kettle black. Of this list of the 500 most recent edits of yours that goes back to 2009, find me just one edit that isn't related to KOREA STRONG! astroturfing. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I rather getting tired of this. Yes, I am a pot calling the kettle black. I'm POV, you're POV, regardless of the number of neutral edits you make on other subjects. As for Goguryeo controversies, I ask that other editors look to the edit history of the article and see for themselves that Benlisquare made major edits to this article in the past. This being said, I find this discussion with Benlisquare rather pointless. Unless an admin or other editors comment on the matter, I will no longer partake in this meaningless squabble. Benlisquare, if you feel that your edit is neutral and justified, make a request for merge rather than destroying an article with no consensus whatsoever. I'd like to see more neutral parties involved in the process, and also editors who are well apprised of the subject matter, the reason which I notified WP:Korea, where definitely a lot of people would know about the Northeast Project and Goguryeo controversies.

With regards to the issue of content fork, as far as I remember as a main contributor to the creation of both articles, Northeast Project was a split from the Modern Politics section of Goguryeo, and Goguryeo controversies was a split from the Northeast Project. In other words, much of the initial contents of Goguryeo controversies were copy/pasted from the Northeast Project. Cydevil38 (talk) 04:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Clearly the bigger problem here is that User:Cydevil38's style of editing exclusively involves repeated reverts, no discussion with opponents (but canvassing of supporters), and heated nationalist rhetoric. Even if I opened a dozen RfCs, AfDs, and merge discussions on the topic, it would not change his behavior. After all, the "pure blood theory" article did go through AfD, yet disruptive Korean nationalist SPAs like Cydevil continued their attempts to blank, deface, and destroy it. This user's reverts don't even come with a rationale. Reopening the merge discussion for a few more months is not the solution. As Benlisquare points out, it's extremely difficult to find any contribution of Cydevil's that does not boost Korea or denigrate its opponents; that consist of civil dialogue with other editors; or that refute the obvious conclusion that he is not here to build an encycopedia. Shrigley (talk) 04:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Let me ask again, Cydevil38. I write articles about silly Japanese cartoons and boring, nerdy computer nonsense. Shrigley writes articles about Chinese biographies and history. What do you usually write about on Wikipedia? What is the only thing you write about on Wikipedia? Taking that into account, should you be crying wolf about me and others and giving us various labels? You might take offense at this, but I certainly believe that your sole purpose here is to engage in POV wars. You have not done anything other than fight for your sacred nation here; prove me otherwise. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

First, I would like to humbly ask the admins and other editors to take their time to take a look at my previous contributions to Wikipedia on issues concerning Korean history and culture before judging me based on the accusations made by Benlisquare and Shrigley. On articles of significant controversy, I devote significant amount of time to engage in discussion where I try my best to find reliable and NPOV sources to back my arguments and attempt to draw consensus. If the dispute escalates, I am often the first one to ask for attention and participation from neutral editors by initiating request for merge, request for comment, request for third opinion or request for neutral point of view. I have learned the importance of these efforts from my very unpleasant experience in the extremely heated POV wars on Goguryeo and related articles many years before, where much content that I have written in these articles remains to this day with the exception of the Northeast Project, where much content was deleted by Shrigley before he made the suggestion for a merge with Goguryeo controversies.

Second, I admit that I have been rather succinct to discussions on the Northeast Project on the suggestion for a merge with Goguryeo controversies. In this regard, I would like to apologize to User:Rincewind42 for not engaging in extensive discussions, including the circumstances in which Shrigley had deleted most of the contents of the Northeast Project. This is because, as a doctoral student, I had not sufficient time to be involved in what I anticipate to become a very controversial and prolonged discussion and edits, knowing the edit history of Shrigley where he had made numerous unilateral edits without consensus on Korea-related articles that I believe to be extremely unreasonable, prejudiced and unreliable. I have been so far silent on his edits due to the preoccupation of my studies. However, now that I have submitted my last finals paper for this semester as of December 22nd just before midnight, and with worsening of the situation with the recent involvement of Benlisquare, I decided that it was appropriate to first notify WP:Korea before making a major edit to the Northeast Project and prepare myself for extensive discussions defending my edits. I admit that perhaps my wording was inappropriate in the notification at WP:Korea, but nonetheless I do not rescind my position and my previous arguments that both Benlisquare and Shrigley are POV editors, although I admit Benlisquare's are far more reasonable in his arguments than Shrigley despite my longer history of disputes with Benlisquare and his history of edits on Korea-related articles, and an extremely offensive comment he has made on me in the last ANI report, to which I remember with much bitterness and anger.

I ask that admins and other editors consider my circumstances with regards to my recent involvement in the Northeast Project before taking accusations by Benlisquare and Shrigley at face value. To this end, I wholeheartedly agree with User talk:Heimstern that it is important for the Wikipedia Project for , I quote, all decisions are based on strength of argument rather than numbers. Again, I welcome the involvement of neutral parties to decide upon the merit of argument made by both myself and my disputants, and participate in the discussion and series of edits that is to come at the Northeast Project. Cydevil38 (talk) 07:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment This polemical statement and the edit warring on Northeast Project of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) suggest that it might be appropriate to place that article under full protection until editors can find a way of discussing matters more calmly without personalizing the dispute. Mathsci (talk) 08:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I would like to add to the case that I have just found out that Shrigley is a new account of Quigley, also an editor with a long history of POV edits in Korea-related articles. More disturbingly, collective action of Benlisquare and Quigley have lead to the permanent ban of a Korean editor, Kuebi, on the grounds of edit warring and POV pushing with their ANI notices. The result of Kuebi's permanent ban was his or her edits on Pure blood theory of Korea, in which both Benlisquare and Quigley engaged in fierce edit warring. They have been reverting my edits, to which either I have explained in discussions or no-one objected to, and they persisted on their reverts in my absence and without my knowledge which Kuebi in turn has been reverting. I am concerned as I have also been accused twice by Benlisquare on the ANI board, and the current and only editors engaged in edit warring with myself are Benlisquare and Quigley/Shrigley, "coincidentally" in all articles I am currently involved. While I will not defend the past actions of Kuebi, I shall appeal to the action the admin has taken with regards to edit warring on Pure blood theory of Korea, as I believe the action was taken on false pretenses by Quigley/Shrigley. Cydevil38 (talk) 10:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

None of this is helpful. You link to WP articles instead of usernames. Kuebi is not a Korean editor; you presumably meant Kuebie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The redlink for the article should presumably be Korean ethnic nationalism. Mathsci (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for the mistaken links. It's Pure blood theory in Korea. And you are correct on Kuebi. I believe I have been getting emotional on this matter, and I will no longer partake in this ANI notice unless absolutely necessary. I will focus on the article in dispute, and I will take your advice in avoiding personalizing the discussion. Thank you for your feedback on my behavior. Cydevil38 (talk) 11:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Cydevil is out of control. Now apparently he's wikihounding me by blanking an article that I created just two days ago, and which I sought feedback to improve. We need some kind of warning here, because otherwise - if this ANI thread dies without any activity - he'll continue his disruptive behavior of nationalist edit-warring, blanking, and defacement of articles. Shrigley (talk) 01:04, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Derwick Associates

There seems to have been some conflict over this page. One of the two conflicting editors is "wondering" if the other is Derwick's lawyer - a user with the same name has posted legal documents relating to the case on a file posting website. Since Derwick have a defamation case running, and have included their Wikipedia page in it, this seems a reasonable question. I have excised a significant amount of UNDUE coverage of the case, and made a few other minor tweaks. I have also requested from both conflicted editors a statement of their relation to Derwick if any. It would be useful if this situation could be reviewed to see if there is any need for administrator intervention in this incident, and incidentally to improve the article. (Spanish speakers might be able toc check more of the background.) Rich Farmbrough, 03:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC).

I am a Venezuelan with family in Venezuela. They brought this issue to my attention because it's received a lot of coverage in the major non-govermnent newspapers in Venezuela. Other than that, I have no relationship with Derwick. Justiciero1811 (talk) 02:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

DPL bot

DPL bot is creating The ancient inhabitants of the British Isles repeatedly and placing the {{dablinks}} tag. The page was speedily deleted under A10: was duplicating History of the British Isles ( check the deletion log). I think the original page consisted of more than 7 links to disambiguation pages; probably that's why DPL bot is placing tags on it. DPL bot has created the page 2 times. I read somewhere that a malfunctioning bot should be reported at ANI. Please look into this immediately. Thanks! Forgot to put name (talk) 05:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• I blocked it as the owner appears to be away. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Wouldn't it have been better to salt that page as it didn't appear that the rest of the bot was malfunctioning? Legoktm (talk) 09:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm unblocking and protecting the page per Legoktm's comment. You have my permission to reblock if you think it necessary; I'll not consider it wheel warring. Nyttend (talk) 12:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, we have a malfunctioning bot and absent owner and you think we should just let it run unmonitored? Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't seem an urgent problem. It only causes a problem when a page is deleted after it is detected with dablink, but before it is tagged. I'd guess this is pretty rare. If not it can easily be blocked. Rich Farmbrough, 04:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC).

Go to Special:Newpages and put DPL bot into the "DPL bot" line; you'll see that the bot's not created any extant pages in the last 30 days. Its deleted contributions, when filtered for articles only, show no deleted non-minor edits except to this page, and since only existing pages can be marked as minor, creating articles like this is plainly a first-time problem. Finally, going here reveals no new articles started by the bot. If this were a problem deserving of a renewed block, we'd see something happening somewhere else. Nyttend (talk) 06:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Help

Is anyone here who can help me or I have to quit. This User with IP address User:76.1.129.56 posted this at my talk page which sounds like vandalism, after when I reverted the edit; another User:Mrt3366 restores the same edit with his edit summary circumspect. Previously I had detected one edit of User:Mrt3366 as copyvio and labbeled, indicating the site from which the text was copypasted. User:Mrt3366 removed the copyvio template and reverted the edit with his edit summary vandal. The user oftenly uses these harsh and abusive words in his edit summaries. Previously he threated me in his edit summary. My request is an immediate action as desired. MehrajMir (Talk) 13:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

That edit summary was not a threat. And what the IP address posted on your page doesn't look anything like vandalism, no (it looks like someone not using diffs or wikilinks and also not remembering to sign their post). And Mrt3366 would have been better off not restoring what you removed from your own talk page, but they are correct that you should be more circumspect before marking things as vandalism. And the quote you marked as copyvio is indeed rather long by Wikipedia's standards, though I'm not sure you handled it in the best possible way. Mrt3366 should avoid assuming you're a vandal, you should avoid assuming other people are vandals, and yes it's entirely up to you whether you "quit" or not. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Bot scale link changing by User:SnrRailways

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:SnrRailways seems to have a pathological hatred of the term Train station and is trying to systematically purge the term from Wikipedia, even when it is in piped links and does not show on the page. User:Edgepedia has requested that this activity cease pending the outcome of this discussion at WikiProject UK Railways but editing has now resumed while the discussion is ongoing. An IP has pointed out that User:Wedensambo has a remarkably similar history of removing train station links and has been active on Japan railway articles while SnrRailways has not been editing. I believe systematic changes on this scale may need prior approval as would be needed for bot changes.--Charles (talk) 22:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked the account as an unapproved bot, being careful to take steps (e.g. disabling autoblock) that are appropriate when blocking a bot. He's making so many changes in short periods of time (and always using precisely the same edit summary) that this can't be explained as making use of tabbed browsing. Let's hope that this permit more time for discussion; if discussion end up rejecting his idea but he continue these edits in a fashion that's plainly manual, blocks for general disruptive editing will be appropriate. Nyttend (talk) 02:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Shot in the dark here, but this could be an indexed search that works through a database scanner to generate a list of hits. I've done the same thing to find specific errors in Wikipedia before, the edit summary is lacking the AWB bit, but I do not see the tell-tale signs of a bot. The edits are not spaced in such way as to be a bot, and the edits themselves are not indicative of tabbed browsing. This is definitely in the realm of human editing, but is probably assisted with a tool. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I left the message on the talk page in the hope that the edits were WP:POINTy after Sheffield station was put on full protection after SnrRailways had attempted this change by edit warring over a week. There appears to be a misunderstanding what is meant by discussion and case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT here. Edgepedia (talk) 09:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Wedensambo

And User:Wedensambo? Similar concern - please see contributions. I must say for me the interest/concern is not so much whether it's automation per se or not; it is whether there is consensus, preferably at some centralized point such as a project, for these large-scale changes. Show me a place where it's been properly discussed and agreed, as a mass update, and I will be content. At the moment it has the worrying feel of an individual crusade and I would like to avoid this. Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 11:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Patricia Cloherty

De-archived to request further assistance - Stalwart111 23:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

MX896 and rapid creation of dubious redirects

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.

---

MX896 (talk · contribs) has created about 40 redirects this morning, most if not all dubious, some removed, some up for speedy. At AIV but seems to have stopped for the nonce. If no one objects or beats me to it, I'll indeff him, does anyone have the tools to fix these rapidly? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Given the number of times they've been warned, they're due an indeffing. Blackmane (talk) 09:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

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

IP address 69.119.118.141 vandalizing...

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 course of 2 months, 5 edits, all vandalism of specific Jewish institutions which the user seems to disapprove of. I'm unclear how to investigate if this is the only IP address implicated, as it may be just a dynamically assigned address that was used by this user multiple times over several months. More vandalism may exist. 16:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidmanheim (talk • contribs)

Five edits in two months isn't much, really. You could request the page be semi-protected, but I doubt that'll happen with such infrequent vandalism. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For what its worth, users who vandalize are generally reported to the administrator intervention against vandalism. But since you are already here, an administrator may already deal with the concern. TBrandley 21:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe the matter is stale, blocking would serve no purpose at this point. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 22:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Page protection

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

---

Please protect the Union of Orthodox Hebrew Congregations from the constant IP blanking. 82.132.217.109 (talk) 01:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• For the record, this should go to Request for Page Protection. The traffic isn't heave, though... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 01:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Normally, you want to take this to WP:RFPP. If I were patrolling there, I would probably look at this and decline as not being enough action to justify protection at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree, this case should probably be marked as closed. TBrandley 02:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Since November 21, I can count around ten IP edits with section blanking tags. It might not be that much but it has been fairly constant. Decision up to you. 82.132.217.109 (talk) 02:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I would still recommend submitting a request at requests for page protection, as administrators deal with those matters there. This page is designed for incidents occurring among others, so please use the appropriate subpages. But since you are already here, an administrator may already deal with the concern. TBrandley 02:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I was reverted again today. Can an admin semiprotect this please? The edit-warring has lasted over a month.82.132.246.70 (talk) 12:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, you do know you will not be able to edit the article yourself unless you get an account (not hard) and become autoconfirmed?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Despite his comments above, Dennis Brown decided to semiprotect it for a month. I agree with his decision, because almost everything in the recent history is vandalism or someone reverting vandalism. Nyttend (talk) 14:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I was willing to; but was waiting for the OP to confirm that was what he wanted in the light of my question.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

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

CJ de Mooi

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

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

has expressed disatisfaction with article

• CJ de Mooi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

William Avery (talk) 14:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• Not an ANI issue actually. First, we don't know if this is really that person, and we can't determine that at ANI. Second, this probably needs to be dealt with at WP:OTRS. I will leave a message on their talk page pointing them there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Ravenglass and Eskdale Railway

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

---

Hi,

User:Skarloey keeps undoing/deleting my additional information I add to the station information section to Ravenglass and Eskdale Railway. He/she keeps deleting information that I add and he has given no reason for doing this when I post questions on his talk pages as to why he/she deleted this information.

Alastair Carr (talk) 14:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• Have you considered adding references to support the disputed material you wish to add? In any case this is a fairly low-key content dispute and I am not sure what sort of admin action you would expect to be taken in a case like this. --John (talk) 17:28, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The main page about the line is perhaps not the best place for detailed information about its individual stations. This kind of information belongs on the separate pages created for each station. All the main page seeks to do is provide a brief introduction and in this respect I would have to agree with User:Skarloey's changes. Lamberhurst (talk) 18:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• OK, thank you very much for your views on this matter. In my view, User:Skarloey has a chip on his shoulder about whatever I do. For example, when I changed Template:Ravenglass and Eskdale Railway or rather added collapsible status to the stations, he/she immediately changed it to show the collapsible sections from in-between stations to in-between sections of double track, and therefore missing out stations. My view is that the general public doesn't want to know where the track sections are, they want to know where the stations are. Thankfully, he hasn't changed this, however. But, it still seems that everything else I do, he changes in some way.

Alastair Carr (talk) 18:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

You may want to raise this issue on the UK Rail page which will bring it to the attention of editors who contribute to articles on UK railways who can give their point of view. A kind word of advice though, you're more likely to get somewhere if you assume good faith and approach the matter in a neutral manner. Lamberhurst (talk) 19:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Alastair, the problem is that a lot of the information which you have added about the various stations is not of relevance to the article, and a lot of it is needlessly duplicated. It is simply unnecessary to include information about disabled access at intermediate stations (that sort of information is purely unencyclopaedic and quite honestly un-noteworthy). That sort of information would be more appropriate on the company's website than on Wikipedia, as is information about access to workshop buildings and the like - we can take it as a given that access is restricted. Also, is it really necessary to include the line diagram on each individual station's page? There is already the information box at the foot of each page, noting the station's location in relation to the others. Also, we do not need the diagram on the main R&ER page twice. I am still not particularly convinced about it having "collapsible" sections between stations, as all this succeeds in doing is restricting the amount of information which is given. When editing Wikipedia, I try to stick to the maxim - use what is useful; discard what is not. May I assure you that I most certainly do not have a "chip on my shoulder", Alastair, I merely feel that some of your additions to the article(s) have not been particularly beneficial or useful. As an aside, don't we all have better things to be doing on our Christmas Day?! Skarloey (talk) 19:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to add, you say that I didn't reply when you posted about it earlier on my user page - there was little over an hour between you posting on there and posting with your "concerns" here! Perhaps it would have been better to have undertaken a discussion there, rather than this massive over dramatisation here in an administrative area. Skarloey (talk) 19:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Borderline legal threat?

Resolved

[154]?--Amadscientist (talk) 05:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The seem to have already removed that content [155]. Not sure what the outburst was for.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

perhaps next time you might find it more helpful to the user to direct them to OTRS rather then seeking tarring and feathering. There is clearly nothing more to do here so we can close this. I'll leave a note on the users page. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps. But you still have not addressed the post made after the deletion. Was that, or was it not a borderline legal threat?--Amadscientist (talk) 05:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I just removed the line entirely; unless we're talking about Drew Rosenhaus or Scott Boras getting them a high three-figure contract, sports agents usually aren't mentioned in articles of their represented athletes, and golf agents are never usually famous, nor are college golfers who don't go further than that. A totally doable request for sure. And no it wasn't a legal threat, just a simple request (probably just of the 'I'll send an email to the general WMF address to see what else I can do' variety). Nate • (chatter) 05:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Nate...although that is not at all what I have been told by other admin. I'll take your word for it.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Despite its pointy title, WP:DOLT is applicable.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  06:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I actually agree this was not a borderline legal threat. A threat to take action could mean an intention to contact WMF. No mention of "Legal action" or mention of slander etc. I feel satisfied that it was I that was mistaken.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Continued Block Evasion by User:Dannyboy1209

Resolved

Hello, this is a Confirmed IP sock User:92.0.110.196 (see Special:Contributions/92.0.110.196) of User:Dannyboy1209 who has been evading their indefinite block and editing via multiple IP addresses after a recently put block by User:Bbb23 expired. An Admin review over this will be helpful. TheGeneralUser (talk) 14:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Extended block for another 2 weeks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Borderline legal threat?

Resolved

[156]?--Amadscientist (talk) 05:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The seem to have already removed that content [157]. Not sure what the outburst was for.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

perhaps next time you might find it more helpful to the user to direct them to OTRS rather then seeking tarring and feathering. There is clearly nothing more to do here so we can close this. I'll leave a note on the users page. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps. But you still have not addressed the post made after the deletion. Was that, or was it not a borderline legal threat?--Amadscientist (talk) 05:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I just removed the line entirely; unless we're talking about Drew Rosenhaus or Scott Boras getting them a high three-figure contract, sports agents usually aren't mentioned in articles of their represented athletes, and golf agents are never usually famous, nor are college golfers who don't go further than that. A totally doable request for sure. And no it wasn't a legal threat, just a simple request (probably just of the 'I'll send an email to the general WMF address to see what else I can do' variety). Nate • (chatter) 05:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Nate...although that is not at all what I have been told by other admin. I'll take your word for it.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Despite its pointy title, WP:DOLT is applicable.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  06:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I actually agree this was not a borderline legal threat. A threat to take action could mean an intention to contact WMF. No mention of "Legal action" or mention of slander etc. I feel satisfied that it was I that was mistaken.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Continued Block Evasion by User:Dannyboy1209

Resolved

Hello, this is a Confirmed IP sock User:92.0.110.196 (see Special:Contributions/92.0.110.196) of User:Dannyboy1209 who has been evading their indefinite block and editing via multiple IP addresses after a recently put block by User:Bbb23 expired. An Admin review over this will be helpful. TheGeneralUser (talk) 14:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Extended block for another 2 weeks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

2012–13 Premier League

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 sort out the edits on this. In the last 40 minutes it's been the subject of vandalism from 2 new accounts but I can't rollback without losing some valid edits by other editors. The two jokers are User:RaymondHolianBers and User:MattMarleyBers both of whom I have reported to AIV. The last clean version prior to their activity is this one. NtheP (talk) 18:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Page has been protected and both users blocked, no need to report this type of problem to both AIV and ANI. The report at AIV sufficed. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 19:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Could someone handle this please

I have unavoidable commitments that prevent me following this through, and am involved too. We need to check out edits by User:Sk8terguy27 (whose RfA was removed as unsuccessful last week). I took him to task re a copyvio here. Also, see this which is one of his earlier contributions, a cut and paste copyvio from this. I'm guessing there is more, but simply haven't the time to investigate further. User being notified. Moriori (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for finding and highlighting this! Looking at his contribs, it looks like you've already identified nearly half the articles on which he introduced copyright violations; this does need cleanup, but probably (hopefully?) doesn't need a CCI. Shall we move this to Wikipedia:Copyright problems?

(Incidentally, it's a bit unfortunate because Sk8terguy27 has obviously made attempts to re-write what he's taken, not just copy and paste it, so he might just not understand what is allowed.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks from Kiefer.Wolfowitz

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 discussion has been courtesy blanked. Please do not restore it.--v/r - TP 16:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Tailsman67 problem

Hello everyone! Tailsman67, who is defacto community banned, has been using two IPs (98.71.62.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 74.178.177.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) to engage in disruptive editing at Talk:List_of_Virtual_Console_games_for_Nintendo_3DS_(North_America) and wikihounding on the contribution page of administrator Sergecross73 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), as well as disrupting the AFD on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gangnam Style phenomenon. He was issued a final warning, but he has continued to post on one of the articles in Sergecross73's contribution page despite the warnings ([158]). Can someone please do something about this? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Yes, thank you Sjones, you beat me to this. For a little bit of background, see User:Salvidrim/Tailsman67, where this person, who only uses IP address, but constantly calls himself "Tailsman67". (We looked it up once. It's his username he used at a Sonic Wikia - he started editing Wikipedia around the time where he had been blocked for a month for incivility.) Since around Q4 2011, he has managed to be blocked here on Wikipedia at least 7 times we've tracked, and as Sjones pointed out, eventually community banned by User:AniMate. Once all his numerous blocks ran out, I wondered if it would be easier to try to help him edit rather than continually warn him and advocate for his block. However, it's degraded into the same ol' problems. See his latest IP's collection of warnings, where I've had to warn him of personal attacks, giving absolutely terrible advice out to others, not adhering to WP:BRD, etc.
• Additionally, I'm getting very tired of the IP constantly hounding me. If he's not crying to me about how he's changed on my talk page (something he never backs up with any action or proof), he's following my contribution list around, making non-constructive or pointless comments. (See here or this terrible AFD comment or this one. These topics are pretty all over the place, and he clearly has no conception of a good AFD argument, so it's pretty easy to see he's just going around hounding me.
• Anyways, I'm more than tired of dealing with this disruptive IP editor. He's gotten far more chances than most, and is still stuck in his disruptive ways. I'm WP:INVOLVED, so I didn't want to block him for this, but I'd like a longer-term block put on his recent IPs. (If he continues to block evade like he has in the past, I feel like that would go into the "any admin would do the same" clause of INVOLVED, so at that point I'd probably block him for block evasion. I think that would be best, I'm always the first to spot him since he's always following my edits around.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I told you I have no interest in followin Sergecross73 nor what he does aslong as it doesn't effect me,also I can't stop my Ip from changing.About the "disrupting" on the AFD on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gangnam Style,yeah I'm sorry about that.Right now I'm moving on.And it was suggested I get a defacto community banned,but they held it(I think)and bet it all on the last ban I had,seeing if I could hold out that long,and I did.I continued to post on one of the articles in Sergecross73's contribution page despite the warnings because I felt the need to reply so it doesn't seem I chicken on the subject,but if you read I have posted my last comment.98.71.62.112 (talk) 18:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)98.71.62.112 (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that this is pretty much the same thing he says every time, and yet he never leaves and never stops. Also, I'd like to point out that, for someone who has no interest in me or following me around, just today, he started up a conversation with a disruptive user that I had been warning the last few days, that he had never interacted with before. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Speedy_X_77 Sergecross73 msg me 18:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

NO Serge the last time I was THAT I ever said anything I just edited,If you be humble I can show you all that I can help,I did stop but it's hard to edit what has been fixed,maybe if people recommend pages for me then you will be surprise.I have made positive edits don't believe what you want to see.98.71.62.112 (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I have seen him around on Sonic articles.98.71.62.112 (talk) 18:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

But what you said on his talk page was related to what he and I had been discussing. (Comparisons between Mario and Sonic the Hedgehog games.) Are you really suggesting it was just one big coincidence that despite your history of following my edits around, you just happened to run into the same person I had been talking to, and just happened to discuss a similar topic, within a roughly 24 hour timeframe? Sergecross73 msg me 21:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• This is a very long-term issue and I could rant at great length about it, but I've grown tired and disinterested. I have, in the past, engaged the editor negatively and been pro-active in seeking blocks and sanctions (the previous AN/I threads, the SPI, the multiple range-blocks, as seen on the summary page, which you'll notice is in my userspace). During the last rangeblock the editor has engaged in discussion with me and I've since then been very passive and taciturn in my communications with him. He staged a return despite AniMate's proclamation of his de facto community ban, and since his initial contributions weren't immediately negative, I passively gave him some rope, see if he had really changed; after all, assuming good faith's one of the basic of Wikipedia interaction. However since we had discussed it and I did not voice strong opposition to his return, he paraded around proclaiming I was supporting him as justification for his actions, which is at best a horrendous lie and at worst the sign of a deep delusion. I do not believe the editor will change his behaviour (despite his repeated claims) in anywhere under at least a year and I do not believe it is relevant or pertinent to have other constructive editors wasting time and effort dealing with this. Plenty of diffs of his behaviour can be found through the contributions of the IPs in the list on the summary page, should you be interested. Salvidrim! 21:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Might be time to reinstate those range blocks. If anything, that de facto ban may need to be brought back up onto AN and converted into a proper community ban this time. Blackmane (talk) 21:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, absent evidence of collateral damage. He has more than worn out his welcome. Guy (Help!) 23:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all for the input. Everything that has been said sounds right; Tailsman is wasting constructive editors time and energy, and he never changes no matter how much he pleads that he has (I think you said it best Salvidrim, when you mentioned his Recurrent claims of "I have changed", which is a common, well-documented behaviour of people who haven't changed.) I would fully support getting a formal community ban on him, though in all honesty, if I can just get an "uninvolved" Admin to block/range block him again, chances are he will probably get blocked into oblivion again due to continually getting caught block evading. (The editor seriously lacks any sort of subtlety or ability to mask the sloppy way he writes, not to mention during one of his blocks, he signed his name on a message he left on Jimmy Wales's talk page. Why would you go to such a high-visibility location while block evading? He's just wasting everyone's time.) Sergecross73 msg me 00:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I think formalizing the ban at WP:AN is a good idea. I also think WP:SPI is going to be your best bet for getting him blocked. The biggest problem here is that you guys have been giving him exactly what he wants, which is attention. You guys have consistently handled this poorly. You get mad. You respond. You interact. You make pages in userspace detailing everything he's ever done, inflating him from an annoying kid who wants attention to one of the worst and most dangerous Wikipedia has ever known. But he's not. He's just a kid with too much free time who has decided negative attention is better than no attention at all. Read WP:RBI. Get the ban formalized. Start reporting him to WP:SPI. Revert him. Ignore him. If he's persistent and keeps changing IPs, ask for semi-protection on the articles he's targeting. There are all sorts of mechanisms built into the system to help deal with these kinds of users. Above Sergecross states that "The editor seriously lacks any sort of subtlety". That goes for everyone involved in this. Grow up, handle this like adults, and stop playing his games. Sheesh. AniMate 02:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Look, I don't need a lecture on RBI, we already "revert" him, I just wanted an uninvolved admin to do the "block" part so we can get the "ignore" part. I'm here mainly to cover my tracks because every time he gets blocked, he always asks for unblock requests until he loses talk page access, and with likely multiple Admin hypothetically looking into his block, I didn't want any unneeded scrutiny for being too involved to block him. The page isn't to immortalize him, it's to speed the process up here, so we don't have to go hunting for difs all the time. Additionally, going to SPI seems silly - He almost always admits who he is - no "investigation" is needed. I want this to be done with as well, I'm just trying to cover my bases here. Sergecross73 msg me 02:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

One of the reasons I've refrained from engaging him too much is to avoid feeding his ego. However I think the swiftest and cleanest solution, considering the IP-hopping and the wide range of articles, would be to confirm a social ban of the editor, and then automatically and without further question revert & indef-block any IP he might resurface under. However, I am unsure as to what would be the best procedure to achieve this and am hoping you will be able to prove yourself a guide on that path. I do not believe criticizing the actions of exasperated constructive editors and insulting them is very helpful in any way to resolve this case, and I hope you will be able to guide us with your experience to the best possible solution. Salvidrim! 02:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

@Sergecross73 Taking this to SPI isn't silly. You don't have to request a checkuser if he's admitted who he is, and it's a great place to gather info so we can see what ranges he's operating on. You also don't have to wait for a block to ignore him, and you really, really need to start ignoring him. Stop being part of the problem.

@Salvidrim To formalize a ban you need to go and lay out evidence at WP:AN, but we won't indefinitely blocking any IPs, especially considering he appears to be on a dynamic IP. If you guys are exasperated, it's your own fault. Stop playing his game and use the mechanisms in place to deal with the problems. AniMate 03:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I certainly don't agree with, or appreciate, your personal views regarding our end of things, but you do still want the same end result that we do, so thanks for that part of your input at least. Sergecross73 msg me 03:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Per the growing consensus, I have raised the discuss on AN [159]Blackmane (talk) 12:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

User talk:119.73.11.43

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

---

Resolved

 – by SarekOfVulcan. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Serious sounding threat of violence here. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Page deleted. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Propagandising titles unwanted in Timeline of the Syrian civil war (from September 2012)

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.

---

2/3rds of 9 involved editors want these out but have been frustrated by extreme efforts of what looks like one editor. WP:NPOV, WP:TRIVIA, WP:RS (for LCC as a source), and WP:UNDUE apply. Requesting help to enforce this.MalesAlwaysBest (talk) 13:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary. In October 5 editors (including 2 ips) opposed and 3 wanted to keep. However there was no elaborate discussion among 3 of those 5 editors. The Discussion ended when Django passively conceded to I7laseral's points.

Now 2 months later MalesAlwaysBest tried to reignite the discussion, and claims that the 5 editors prior are still part of the discussion. Perhaps they are, but wikipedia is not a vote. No consensus is reached. Right now there is only a discussion between me and him.

The Friday names are long-standing, they have been used on the wiki articles since the conflict began. They are widely noted, as hundreds of reliable sources such as AP, BBC, CNN< Reuters, ect had made note of their use throughout the conflict. During the Egyptian and Yemeni Arab Spring events they were used on their wikitimelines. I don't see whats the problem here. Sopher99 (talk) 13:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. Try WP:DR (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Turning myself for deleting someone's account

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

---

I received a message from some IP user saying that I had deleted his entire account. I'm not sure how I did it, seeing as the admins cannot even do that, but I'm turning myself in for it anyway. Obviously, he is not a block evading disruptive editor, but a new user who cannot seem to find his account information. I've asked him for information regarding his account, and he's remained tight lipped. He said that he was going to report me, but has not, so I assume he must be too busy with real life or trying to figure out what his old account was to do so, and am filing the report on his behalf.

I mean, clearly, I somehow deleted his account, and he's the victim, and not a block evading troll. I trust y'all will know how to handle this. :) Ian.thomson (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

•  Done - Ian indef blocked for deleting user account and other admin abuse even though he isn't an admin On a more serious note, I left him a message and so have others trying to help him remember his account. Nothing else to do here at ANI since he is being assisted. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• Yer a wizard, Ian! GiantSnowman 16:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe a CU could help locate his account? I'd do it, but I'm indeffed and not an admin. Because going through my emails, I know its none of the few users who have emailed me (all rather amicable discussions), so I don't know what he's forwarded. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps Ian should have his account deleted. :) --Rschen7754 16:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Stop deleting accounts -- it's witchcraft and bad for business. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

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

RightGot

RightGot (talk · contribs) has a history of problematic AfD proposals, see now Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 phenomenon which he thinks should be deleted because the world didn't end. Time for an indefinite block? Dougweller (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• That is the first edit for them in 4.5 years. Maybe a good talking to would suffice for now? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• Just ban them from AFD's Darkness Shines (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• I closed the AfD, but since it's been so long since the last edits, someone should definitely talk to them before blocking. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe a chat would work, but it didn't work before. Still... thanks to the editor who notified them, I got a phone call and forgot. Dougweller (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• • I left them a message and gave them a notice of this ANI, as that must have slipped Doug's mind when filing here. I don't have much hope looking at his archives, but we should still try to solve the problem on the talk page first, if only for ourselves. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Where was the attempt to discuss it with the editor before escalating to ANI? GiantSnowman 16:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • It might be interesting to see what he says, if anything, but as I've said, it didn't work before and I don't see why it would work now. I clearly shouldn't have let myself be distracted from notifying him and I apologise for that. On the other hand, if the editor doesn't respond, do we just ignore it? Dougweller (talk) 21:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• Since it's none of my business, I'll put in my two cents. If he hasn't edited in 4.5 years, cut him a break. When I got back from my enforced absence, it took me awhile to get back into the right way of doing things. But, if the problematic AfDs continue, it should be brought back here for resolution. Maybe someone could mentor him? GregJackP Boomer! 22:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

DouglasTheMovieGuy

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

---

I am totally not happy to have to report DouglasTheMovieGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) but my requests, advice begging and warning falls to deaf ears. Mr. DouglasTheMovieGuy is adding excessive detailed plots on the articles of the movies The Stalking of Laurie Show and Sweet Temptation (film). Bigger problem then that is that the inclusion of the cast is copyvio from IMDb (Duplication Detector Sweet Temptation and Laurie Show). I have advized him, warned him, warned him again and begged him to stop. But as result I got this and this. An other edit made very clear that he is aware of the copyvio and tries to disguise it. As non-administrator, I can't do any more. The Banner _talk 19:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment, the guy needs a block for this [160] personal attack Darkness Shines (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Buck Winston

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.

---

About a week ago, Buck Winston (talk · contribs) was blocked after edit warring on several pages to add the category Category:American LGBT-related television programs to articles that aren't really relevant. Several were to seasons of reality shows that happened to have gay cast members/contestants, and he was particularly selective in the application. For example, he added the category to The Amazing Race 4 and The Amazing Race 21, presumably just because the winners of those seasons were gay life partners, while ignoring the fact that pretty much every season has had at least one gay or lesbian contestant (in two separate cases there were 4). Today, after presumably having taken the week off to gather himself, his first article edit was to reinsert this category despite a vast consensus against it. Further removals of this category have been termed by Buck Winston as homophobic as he reinserts it (examples 2 and 3).

It seems that he will not abide by the consensus laid out (at least on one page where the regular editors believe it is unnecessary), that he went to canvass for support and the fact that his first edits upon resuming editing after the Wikibreak were to edit war again and combine that edit warring with vaguely directed attacks means we have a problem a-brewing.—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Otto4711. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

As I just pointed out on that SPI report, when you take the articles that Buck Winston has edited and look at the overlap with Otto4711 and his 8 most prolific socks, you come up with 108 articles:

• 2 of those are overlaps between 7 editors
• 1 is between 6 editors
• 7 are between 5 editors
• 17 are between 4 editors.

It is totally beyond the possibility of random happenstance that any editor would have that amount of overlapping without being connected. Since he's back to being disruptive can we please have this person indef blocked on the obvious behavioral evidence?? Why are we rewarding Otto4711 for waiting long enough to create a new sock that his old socks are all stale and can't be connected to him by CU? Anyone who's dealt with one of Otto's socks in the past will tell you that the behavior outlined above is typical for him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, for those wondering if they've ever dealt with an Otto sock before, here's my list, which is probably not complete, in order of number of edits:

• Otto4711
• Are You The Cow Of Pain?
• Harley Hudson
• Buck Winston
• I Want My GayTV
• Iridescentlavender
• Greatsouthbay
• Lafe Smith
• Eddie's Teddy
• Jetblack500
• Calvin Grant
• Brig Anderson
• Screaminsista
• Orrin Knox
• William Bradshaw
• Pranking Member
• A Radish for Boris
• Liihaas
• Jed Stryker
• Sapphire Steel
• Herr Issyvoo
• RFA Guy
• Gaysoul
• War Rocket Ajax
• Lee Haas
• Lihaaas
• Difficult Situations
• Lihaass
• Sousa Blaine
• Derek Tenley
• Seventh Thief
• Heaven hear my heart
• Lea Has
• Archibald Noaccount
• Seab Cooley
• Dalek Trixie
• A-List Arrangement
• Eddie Tenley
• Cosmo Donovan

Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked per WP:DUCK. --Jayron32 20:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Special:Contributions/92.40.254.14, Special:Contributions/86.42.8.86: Edit warring?

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 can't make heads or tails of the contributions history here, but this is definitely not productive for the encyclopedia. 15:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hello71 (talk • contribs)

• 86.42.8.86 has been blocked by Kuru following a report at WP:ARV. Perhaps sanctions against 92.40.254.14 for edit warring are also in order, although I haven't analyzed the history enough to see if there was also a clear 3RR violation; although in theory WP:ANEW might be a better venue. Salvidrim! 15:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• This issue is down to the user 86.42.8.86 removing information of wikipedia pages. To be more precise, they were removing timestamps o last update on professional footballers wiki pages and in some circumstances removing the date of last update entirely. I have noticed that there have been a few other members that have also reverted this edits made by this member, not just 92.40.254.14. I hope this will help you with this issue. Regards Pippin0490 (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 16:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• For information, please note that the above user Pippin0490 self-identified HERE as the IP 92.40.254.14. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• • Ah, yes, thank you. I knew I had forgotten to add something to my previous post! I meant to add "who is actually myself" to the end of "not just 92.40.254.14." :) Regards Pippin0490 (talk • contribs) ] comment added 17:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• 86.42.8.86 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has no respect at all for consensus or discussion, they only seek to do what the feel is correct, even if this means introducing technically false information to Wikipedia, or edit-warring. They will evade the block by changing IP, whether deliberately or not. GiantSnowman 17:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The blocked anon has found themselves 88.151.81.197 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) another IP address. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

"Match played 26 December" means match played 26 December. I have no idea how this could confuse people, unless they are just frustrated little men that have no power in real life, so they bully people anonymously on Wikipedia. There are thousands of pages without timestamps on Wikipedia, why pick on the ones I edit? I update footballer's pages every single weekend, including goals scored. I have also included external links for Soccerbase.com to corroborate this. I have made thousands of edits to Wikipedia, without looking for any credit, yet every week, there are sad little men reverting them out of spite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.151.81.197 (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Example of an average Wikipedia contribution from me. Reading defender Ian Harte had incorrect number of appearances (listed as 79) as of time of Man City game. I corrected this to 76, his correct number of appearances as of Man City game. I edited his page since, to acknowledge his 77th League appearance against Swansea midweek. Playoffs don't count, right? This is all corroborated on Soccerbase. Another Reading player Noel Hunt and MK Dons player Shaun Williams are other footballers whose appearance stats are constantly being incorrectly changed by other people to include Cup and Playoff appearances. But why acknowledge the good contributions I make? This is about a reputation I have undeservedly built up amongst nerds like you. Keep blocking my IP. Ever heard of civil rights? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.151.81.197 (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• You have already been blocked, bypassing a block will only get you in further trouble. You're removing timestamps of players, timestamps are there for a reason and this has been outlined here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_72#PC.26NT_updates_in_infobox) You're also changing dates for no reason and completely removing other dates. The fact that numerous other members have reverted your edits, you have had warning posted all over your talk pages and have been blocked should tell you that you're in the wrong and causing problems for wikipedia. Please STOP!Pippin0490 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully people will see, I have provided this person with the link to the discussion regarding datestamps and timestamps, they ignored it, so I even went so far as to copy & paste it to there talk page, so that they have the proof right in front of them that what they're doing is wrong. Yet this hasn't worked, the person continues to remove timestamps and cause problems relentlassly. I am just about out of ideas, clearlt the person has no interest in contributing or coming to a compromise or talking about it as they either ignore it or blank their page. What else is there to do?Pippin0490 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• I have notified the blocking admin of the block evasion. Salvidrim! 22:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

  88.151.81.197 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) blocked for a week for block evasion. Please notify User:Kuru, the blocking admin, if the user shows up again, at his request. Salvidrim! 22:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Thank you for sorting this out, hopefully this will be the end of this matter. Pippin0490 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

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

One week of edit warring on Socionics

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.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socionics&action=history --Th4n3r (talk) 21:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks like some socking going on as well. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I filed an SPI, three of those editors are certainly the same user. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted to the last stable version in the meantime. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 21:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Inappropriate edit summary.

[161] Dunno what ought to be done here. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Meh. --Jayron32 00:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Probably nothing: it's really un-classy and a bit trollish, but it is idiomatic, so I wouldn't take it at its offensive face value. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, but he seems terribly disruptive to me, look at this edit[162] hardly neutral and he was up to around 9 reverts on Timeline of the Syrian civil war (September 2012 - December 2012) today. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Other behavior may be a problem, but that wasn't what you asked people to look at. If you've got editwarring problems, collect the reverts as diffs and post a request at WP:ANEW. If you've got other concerns about tendentious editing, please collect those diffs with an explanation about what makes them tendentious. However, when you posted this thread, you only asked people to look at the edit summary, so that's what we did. If there are other more pressing problems, please give us evidence of those. --Jayron32 00:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

'Terribly disruptive'? I'm really making a gold star effort here - and as it's had to be, all on my own - to keep propaganda filth out a timeline article. No actually, strike that: out of -all- of them. Yeah, I'm saying that's better. Even if the compromise has been to corral it into the new article I've had to create. Would be a good thing if you would think more and have the class to withhold from announcing judgments like that on these sorts of forums in the future.MalesAlwaysBest (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You are really not helping your case right now... Jeancey (talk) 00:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Beg pardon? Who else has done the work? I've done the homework which show's up to 7 others having the same conclusion as me on the basic issue, and moreover that the other party making it a 'war' was told to knock it off by other editors with his/her same campaign in the early part of this year. Other discussions of the same topic have only added more voices against said campaign than joining in with it.MalesAlwaysBest (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

From the recent discussion I count only you debating me. And from past discussion I count I7laseral, Jeancey, me opposing Djang andres shipfan and you Sopher99 (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Specifically, referring to it as "propaganda filth" is inappropriate and inflammatory, and telling someone to mind their own business in that manner is inappropriate. Wikipedia is a community project, and the community pretty much always has the right to ask or inquire as to the reasons for particular edits or behavior.

It's not evident that the cleanup was wrong per policy or reasonable best end result for the articles (might be a problem, but didn't see that on first look). But poking and insulting people in the process of doing good work is a bad thing. Please tone it down some.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

That is what I was referring to when I said you weren't helping your case. Thanks for being more eloquent than me, George. :) Jeancey (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Kereći svatovi and Special:Contributions/79.175.75.179 at Hungarian occupation of Bačka and Baranja

G'day all, User:Kereći svatovi is a relatively new account (started editing under this name on 19 November 2012 and till now has only 24 edits) that is essentially an WP:SPA on Hungarian occupation of Bačka and Baranja. He/she (referred to as "he" from this point on) has only edited four articles on WP, and they all relate to the region of Vojvodina in Serbia (formerly in Yugoslavia). Thus, they all fall under WP:ARBMAC. When he began editing Hungarian occupation of Bačka and Baranja I attempted to WP:AGF but his attitude quickly got out of hand. He dropped off the face of the earth on 23 November after a number of acrimonious edits, including one edit summary that said "wrong! there was recognized yugoslav government in exile. hungarian occupation was unrecognized and illegal. there is no need for illegal fascist names here" [163]. I had previously warned him and another user about edit-warring on the article and about ARBMAC here [164]. On 23 December he re-appeared to make significant edits to Hungarian occupation of Bačka and Baranja that I had made significant improvements to, got through MILHIST B class and nominated for GAN. Here is his edit [165] and after his deletion was reverted by User:Antidiskriminator and Antidiskriminator and I began discussing the details of what should be in the infobox, he again deleted the infobox he did not like here [166], and replaced it with an infobox that suited him here [167]. After I reverted him, he once again reverted me here [168].

I had warned Kereći svatovi here [169] and again here [170]. Immediately after the most recent revert on the article, I received a series of messages on my talkpage from IP 79.175.75.179 Special:Contributions/79.175.75.179 essentially carrying on with the same stuff (WP:DUCK)? I consider this really disruptive, and while I am very happy to discuss the pro's and con's of the infobox (and have already made amendments and responded amicably to comments by constructive editors like Tomobe03 Talk:Hungarian_occupation_of_Bačka_and_Baranja#GA_Review and even Antidiskriminator (who I have had significant disagreements with before) Talk:Hungarian_occupation_of_Bačka_and_Baranja#Infobox, this is getting ridiculous. Could I get an admin to have a look? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I reviewed this right after you posted it, but dealing with POV pushers is not my strong talent. Since no one else has said anything, though, and I don't want you to feel ignored and unsupported, I'll offer my thoughts. I see why you are concerned about this user and the chance of sockpuppetry is a real one, but I think the actions of this user are just scratching at disruptive behavior. He's participated in discussions, at one point even agreeing with you personally, and has had decent arguments and ideas. He appears willing to compromise on the naming issue, for example. I know you've put a ton of work into this article to get it to the GA review, but I'm just not sure this editor needs to be blocked yet. Certainly they need to stop with the infobox and you were right to come here instead of warring over it. They also need to cut down the nationalist POV language and stick with the purpose of Wikipedia. But I think that can be solved with a mentor. What are your thoughts about my outside perspective?--v/r - TP 16:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look. I was thinking about an ARBMAC warning from an admin per {{subst:uw-sanctions|topic=b}}. Which would set the scene for a discretionary block if the behaviour continues? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

That's right about the area I was thinking, so I've gone ahead and done it.--v/r - TP 23:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much, hopefully that will get the message through. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately their ears must be painted on. Despite the fact that three separate editors have reverted the removal of the infobox from the article [171], [172] and [173], and it is under discussion on talk, we now have a brand new IP 94.127.0.191 Special:Contributions/94.127.0.191 (WP:MEAT)? doing the same thing, with a very similar edit summary [174]. I think some action against all three might be appropriate? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Article „Hungarian occupation of Bačka and Baranja“ speaks about two geographical regions of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia which were under occupation of Hungary. Both regions (Bačka and Baranja) were only geographical areas and had no any official administrative status either in Yugoslavia or in Hungary. User:Peacemaker67 wants to include infobox „fomer country“ in this article, and from his infobox, one can conclude that this geographical area was former country with its flag, capital, currency, etc, etc. It is not only that User:Peacemaker67 included this wrong infobox, but when other users told him that infobox is wrong, Peacemaker67 started revert war and continued to move his infobox back to article. It is obvious case of user which knowingly add false info to article trying, for some reason, to make that these two geographical areas look like a former country. Bačka and Baranja had no any kind of official administrative status, were not former country, had no flag, coat of arms, capital, leaders, currency, etc. Infobox that was introduced by Peacemaker67 is simply unacceptable for an encyclopaedia that aims to be accurate. If administrators iam to perform some action here, they should perform it against person that inventing non-existing former country and that tries to create infobox of that non-existing country in Wikipedia. If administrators are not familiar with this period of history of Bačka and Baranja, they should research by themselves what were administrative divisions of Yugoslavia and of Hungary. In Yugoslavia, both regions were part of province Danube Banovina. During Hungarian occupation, Bačka was part of Bacs-Bodrog county and Baranja was part of Baranya county. So, is infobox „former country“ proper infobox for two geographical regions with no administrative status? I think not, and several more users agree with that. User:Peacemaker67 is the only one who thinks that these geographical regions were some fictional former country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.146.192 (talk) 13:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

so I leave an ANI message for 94.127.0.191 and another new Serbian IP turns up here to defend the actions of 94.127.0.191 and friends? Classic off-wiki travelling circus and meatpuppeteering. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tom, would you consider a range block covering IP's 94.127.0.191, 94.127.0.174 and 94.127.0.166 on the basis of these three reverts [175], [176] and [177] and the attendant edit summaries? It is clear that these edits are by WP:MEAT or WP:SOCK and have no intention of discussing the matter, and will just continue to revert war. It is hard enough to get a useful and productive discussion going on the talk page without IP's just reverting anything when they WP:DONTLIKEIT... Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat

The editor User:William S. Horn has made a legal threat on my talk page [178] and on the talk page of the Jennifer Horn article. [179] He has a self-confessed conflict of interest (spouse of the article's subject), and is demanding that the article be deleted or he will take legal action. --Drm310 (talk) 03:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Clear legal threat, but the article also has serious BLP issues. All of the specific complaints from William S. Horn are of unsourced negative BLP content, and I will be removing them from the article per WP:BLP policy shortly. I will leave it to someone else to decide what action is warranted regarding the legal threat itself. Monty₈₄₅ 04:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See WP:DOLT. His specific complaints about article content should not be ignored. The legal threat aside, the article needs serious clean up as it is full of WP:BLP problems. Of course, the legal threat needs to be adressed, but the BLP issues cannot be summarily ignored merely because the person who brought them to our attention also made a legal threat. --Jayron32 04:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have warned the user for legal threats, which hasn't been done before coming to ANI. If he continues, additional action should be taken. I agree with Monty about the BLP issues. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I removed the most egregious BLP issues in a first edit, and then stubbed the article in a 2nd, as after the BLP violations were removed, it seemed overly promotion, and none of it was cited. I'm done with it for now if anyone else wants to edit it further. (The 2nd may have been overkill) Monty₈₄₅ 04:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Phishing on Silk Road (marketplace)

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 just removed a phishing link from Silk Road (marketplace). This has happened several times before, and it has gotten to the point where they are gaming autoconfirmed. The subject of the article is site that uses cutting-edge peer-to-peer and cryptographic techniques to openly run a mail-order store for recreational drugs. The link in question allows readers to access Silk Road by means of a technology called Tor. It is not technically feasible to use the SBL, and before we evaluate other technical options, such as the abuse filter, I think we should discuss whether it is appropriate for us to link to the site at all. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 12:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm going to go with no, per NOT. Wikipedia is not a recreational drug site, nor should we work as advertising for such a site. I can't see any reason for such a link; if used as sourcing, I doubt its reliability; no other use occurs to me to argue for it's inclusion. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 13:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

And the buggers who add the link are persistent, and lie in their edit-summaries. I've upped protection to full, removed a spam link, and blocked a persistent re-adder. Wikipedia's role is not to enable people to obtain black market items (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• Technically speaking, it's WP:ELOFFICIAL and isn't in WP:ELNEVER. Sometimes, though, it's better for the project to ignore the rules, and I think this is one of those times. T. Canens (talk) 13:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• I thoroughly agree with refusing to include an official website that engages in phishing. We're not out to do things that actively hurt unsuspecting editors. Perhaps it's time to change WP:ELNEVER to include phishing and malware sites, even when they're official. Nyttend (talk) 14:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• No, the official site doesn't engage in phishing (it's essentially, as Jake put it, "a mail-order store for recreational drugs", although the people running the site is apparently different from the people selling the drugs). The problem here is that the nature of the technology used makes it very hard to distinguish the real site from the phishing site at a glance. There are potential technical solutions to this problem, but the question is whether we should even bother solving it or simply not link to the real site in the first place. It may not be a bad idea to expand ELNEVER to cover sites engaging in illegal activity, but there could be some line-drawing problems there (e.g., Wikileaks). T. Canens (talk) 15:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think we would link to a site whose main purpose was providing copyvios, even if we had an article about it; the situation is exactly analogous. DGG ( talk ) 19:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• cf. WP:AVIASTAR. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:33, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• I have no objection to those who care to do such things, but given the ease by which the address may be ascertained, I do not think we should maintain a link.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've proposed that ELNEVER be expanded; please offer your opinions. Nyttend (talk) 02:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I made a post there, but for the purposes of the ANI in response to the link, how is this any different from linking to Demonoid or The Pirate Bay? Though I see the Silk Road and its darker cousin the Armory to be one in the same. Knowledge is power and this genie will not go back in the bottle if we take a role in generating more awareness for something that is already public. I'd go to the foundation about this one, as this one is quasi-legal, same as Wikileaks. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

If WMF's OK with it, then I am. My concern is more on the legal/publicity side, and that's their responsibility. It is not a objection on moral grounds.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Why can't this be dealt with using the spam blacklist? The SBL uses regular expressions, so couldn't we just add something like:

\bsilkroad.*\.onion\b

which would not allow any url that contains "silkroad" followed by ".onion", with anything else in between. I'm not sure if they use any other domains besides .onion, but if so they could be added to the regex as well. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 22:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I've looked into all of the socks, and it seems to always be "silkroad" followed by random characters, and then ".onion". So, I've added it to the spam blacklist, which should prevent it from being added in the future. ‑Scottywong| express _ 23:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Could we get a little more discussion before we consider this matter closed? The first response makes it appear that the link has been removed more because "we don't like it" than for any encyclopaedic reason, i.e. "nor should we work as advertising for such a site". Do we consider it "advertising" when we link to other commercial sites? Let's not just whip out "Ignore all rules" as a convenient reason for "this is what we want to do." TL;DR:I do not believe that there was sufficient discussion to justify adding this to the blacklist. - 124.168.221.199 (talk) 04:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a much better technical reason not to have the link, which is that it's really hard to protect people from the phishing attempts that have been going on. .onion links are uniquely susceptible to this kind of attack, and I feel that it just isn't worth dealing with. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 09:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Then why don't you just put in the correct link, and protect the page from edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.115.121 (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

That's not for discussion here. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Admin User:Good Olfactory aiding and abetting sockpuppet of User:Otto4711

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:Otto4711 has been a rather abusive editor, which led to his block back in 2006. Since then, he has had these seven sockpuppets detected and blocked, usually because he has been drawn back to the same set of articles and to WP:CFD, a rather small world in which patterns of editing became rather obvious. As noted at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Otto4711, his latest incarnation, User:Buck Winston, walked like a very Otto-like duck. Yet he managed to squeeze out nearly 1,000 edits before being blocked yesterday. But while the sockpuppet report was filed on December 17, at least one editor seemed to have been onto the sockpuppet at least two weeks earlier, if not longer. User:Good Olfactory, an admin with a long history of interactions with Otto4711 and the world of categories, was rather clear in his suspicions. At this edit, he does everything but out BW as a sock of Otto4711:

Otto4711, is that you? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, who is that? Buck Winston (talk) 01:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I won't say anything. Mum's the word. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

BW removed this exchange in his next edit and then takes a few days off to lie low. User:Good Olfactory doesn't do a thing, and with a wink and a nod allows BW/Otto4711 to simply walk away scot free. As Sergeant Schultz would say on Hogan's Heroes, "I see nothing - NOTHING", despite the clearest possible evidence of sockpuppetry at work. BW would go on to squeeze out almost 200 more edits before being blocked more than three weeks later, including many at CfD. Not only did Good Olfactory ignore this blatant sockpuppetry, he actively aided and abetted the block evasion, knowing clearly that he was dealing with a banned user. Good Olfactory closed Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_14#Category:British_transgender-related_television_programmes on December 5 and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_December_11#Category:American_gay-related_television_programs on December 19, two of BW's many nominations, in a subject where Otto4711's handiwork was blatantly obvious. I would have hoped that an admin would try to actively deal with abusive sockpuppeteers and immediately block editors like Buck Winston / Otto4711, and his willingness to turn a blind eye is more than disturbing. But aiding and abetting a sockpuppet by closing CfDs that the sock had initiated clearly goes beyond the pale. User:Good Olfactory's abuse of process and administrative powers and responsibilities goes way too far here. Alansohn (talk) 05:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

This is .... interesting. (1) I was never sure if User:Buck Winston was User:Otto4711, though I had my suspicions. (2) My comment on the user's talk page was intended on tipping off those who were investigating the issue of "who is User:Buck Winston?" that I too had such suspicions. (My final comment on that talk page was somewhat tongue in cheek and given my past interactions with Otto4711, I wouldn't expect anyone to take it in its literal sense, though I can understand the confusion if Alansohn did.) (3) My comment had the desired effect: shortly after my comment, this was posted on my talk page, to which I responded here. I was aware it was being looked in to by other users, and I had some contact via email with other users about the issue. (4) I don't think any of the CFDs I closed resulted in consequences that were particularly controversial or troubling, regardless of who started the nomination. We could go back and void the results, but they would likely be nominated again by other users to accomplish the same effects. Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Alansohn: If a claim should be made, "abuse of process and administrative powers" is not a correct one, in my opinion, because Good Ol’factory didn't perform any administrative action. Additionally, I guess that factory gets the summary of his actions very well above. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Or perhaps Good Olfactory's simply lacking enough evidence to block the sock as such. Why not just open a WP:SSI investigation to confirm whether this is actually a sock first, before assuming bad faith about Good Olfactory's actions? ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 06:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

An admin calls actively working together with a known sockpuppet "interesting"? This is ..... extremely disturbing. Whatever the excuses, the appropriate action was to start a WP:SPI or initiate a block, not to work together on imposing Otto4711's abusive actions on the Wikipedia community. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Otto4711 was opened on December 17 and closed as confirmed on December 27. Good Olfactory had no issue with using administrative authority to close CfDs initiated by someone he at least suspected to be a sockpuppet. Unfortunately, the consequences will need to be severe for both Otto4711 and Good Olfactory before this abuse finally stops, as they seem to work a bit too well together. Alansohn (talk) 06:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd recommend that this is assumed with good faith. If an admin is not sure if a user is or isn't a sock, the best course of action is to stay calm and wait until further evidence is provided, not to go ahead and block. Also, Good Ol'factory wasn't bound to open an SPI case, and he cannot be blamed for it. Anyone opened it, the result was positive, and the case is over. The fact that you suspect someone to be a sockpuppet isn't ground enough to perform any action you'd perform if it was a confirmed sockpuppet. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The evidence presented by Alansohn is clear, compelling, convincing, and not ridiculous at all - Good Olfactory is in cahoots with Otto4711. I would not be surprised if Good Olfactory is just another of Otto4711's many sockpuppets. The safest thing to do is block them. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 06:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

@Delicious, I disagree that the evidence is clear and compelling. Alansohn seems to completely miss the humor when Good Olfactory says with a wink "Mum's the word", tongue in cheek, and this diff (presented earlier by GO) shows that GO probably wasn't quite confident enough to block or open an SPI (which can be very bitey if you're wrong). Also, I think it is extremely unlikely that GO is a sock of Otto4711. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Lol—if I wanted to keep User:Otto4711 under cover as he sockpuppetted, why would I have commented on User:Buck Winston's talk page at all? Think, people. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

@Alansohn: Just a little question though. Why is this brought up after the sockpuppetry case is closed and solved and not before?

@Delicious: Be careful, remember that accusing someone without evidence is disruptive... — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Good Olfactory is my sock. Sorry for confusing everyone. (Please, no one take that seriously and open another thread). It looks to me like GO was somewhat, but not fully, certain that the account was a sock, and asked flat out to gauge the reaction. I do not see any reason to believe that GO is in any way attempting to help Otto, nor do I think he would be monumentally stupid enough to make it so obvious if for whatever reason he were. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Wait—I'm your sock? I thought I was socking you? To date, I have been accused of being a sockpuppet of half a dozen banned editors of ill repute, but being accused of being a sock of Otto4711 is somehow more satisfying for me given how Otto and I used to clash occasionally. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I came here to criticize DC for shooting from the hip in making his absurd claim, but was taken aback by the Stalker evidence of the overlaps between GO and Otto & Co. Then I remembered that the last time I was looking into Otto and came up with pretty good Stalker evidence of a connection between Otto and an admin (it might well have been GO, I really can't recall), a second look showed that the admin had such significant overlapping because he was policing Otto, not because he was Otto.

There's also the question of why Otto would need to keep creating socks if one of them was made an admin, or why GO doesn't exhibit any of the kind of behavior that got Otto indef blocked in the first place. I'm inclined to think that the person behind Otto & Company isn't just acting like a "bad hand" account, he really is combative and intolerant of others, as shown by his editing behavior. I don't see that person as being able to carry out the kind of long-term acting that would be required to be an admin.

I suggest that DC withdraw his suggestion, or else put his money where his mouth is and file an SPI. After all, we now have Buck Winston to run a CU against, so things can be cleared up rather quickly - that is, if DC can convince an SPI Clerk that the evidence is compelling enough to warrant a CU. However, if DC were to file an SPI on GO, I would be presenting evidence against it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot that people on WP have a hard time recognizing sarcasm... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 07:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I withdraw my demand that you think. You were convincing. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

@DC: It's not just on Wikipedia, sarcasm is extremely difficult to convey in any text-only medium, and probably accounts for a good deal of flame warring everywhere on the Web. It's especially difficult to recognize with a throwaway one-liner, which is why people tend to label it explicitly to make sure they're understood. In any case, I'm glad to know that you weren't serious. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I have repeatedly requested that people write sarcasm in Times Ironic font, to prevent any misunderstandings. RolandR (talk) 14:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I thought that the phrase "not ridiculous at all" might have been a clue that I wasn't serious. And that I thought the whole topic was ridiculous. I will be more careful in the future to avoid such remarks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: Just as otto has clashed with GO (and others) in the past, so too has alansohn (note block log). This isn't quite boomerang worthy (mostly just unfortunate ABF, as we've seen in the past), but I think it has the potential to be if the equine continues to be flagellated... - jc37 08:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

We've identified the problem, now lets work on a solution

Please, all, concentrate on resolving the problem, not escalating it.

This is my own opinion on the problem and its solution, and I think its pretty well already resolved.

• Problem: Good Ol’factory suspected Buck Winston was a sock of Otto4711, and then conveyed that suspicion to Buck Winston in words that could have been better chosen. But then a shit-storm happened, with accusations of aiding and abetting, admin socking and more.
• Solution: The sock has already been blocked. Good Ol’factory, I think the wording of the message quoted above and not acting on your suspicions earlier were not the best course of action. I think we are done here. Everyone else (including me), go back to improving the encyclopedia.
  

--Shirt58 (talk) 10:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is absolutely no requirement that an admin take action upon seeing any particular incidence or situation.

I also disagree with your assessment of the above discussion. Other than a misread of sarcasm, I don't see any sort of "storm".

And I also don't see any endorsement of the initial posting. So I'm not sure what your proposal is intended to 'resolve". - jc37 11:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I "conveyed that suspicion to Buck Winston in words that could have been better chosen"? What I wrote was, "Otto4711, is that you?" I'm not sure how my question could have been misunderstood if the person behind User:Buck Winston was the same person that was behind User:Otto4711.

Like User:jc37, I'm not seeing much of a storm, except for the outrage of one user who has had a tendency in the past to be outraged if I sneeze. In the past, I've been accused by this user of such things as trivialization of the Holocaust and pedophilia, so being accused by him of WP administrative malfeasance is small potatoes.

Anyway, after a 4–5 month hiatus away from WP, I was not about to block a user on my first week back based on a vague suspicion of familiarity registering in my brain. So, User:Shirt58, I do not agree that me failing to block at that time was a mistake. I feel that the issue was handled carefully and responsibly, and I was involved in pursuing it after my initial inquiry on Buck's talk page. (You have made a commendable attempt to at least get users back to doing something productive, however, so thanks.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems that the Wikibreak didn't help any. By the time that Good Olfactory demonstrated that he thought that BW was a sockpuppet, his only words of explanation were part of a side conversation regarding which one of two likely puppetmasters was behind the sock. In the ensuing weeks, BW kept at it and the pattern was blindingly obvious to anyone who was uninvolved who looked at the matter. But Good Olfactory allowed Buck Winston / Otto4711 to continue his abuse for weeks right under his nose at CfD. Good Olfactory saw no reason to get involved when he suspected that BW was a sockpuppet, but saw no reason to be uninvolved when it came to using administrative authority to close multiple CfDs, even after the community as a whole recognized that this was Otto4711. Good Olfactory could have asked uninvolved admins to investigate the suspected sockpuppet in early December and he should have asked uninvolved admins to take action in mid-December when he was closing the CfDs for his buddy Otto4711, but Good Olfactory did neither. Sure, blocking Buck Winston will sweep the problem under the rug for a short while. But given Wikipedia's sieve-like justice system, Otto4711 will be back with more of his socks, especially if there are administrators who are willing to look the other way. Otto4711 will be back, just as he has been dozens of times before, several of which have been caught. The problem is that Good Olfactory seems to lack the judgment of when to act and when not act, even in a case like this where we are dealing with one of Wikipedia's most abusive sockpuppeteers. Otto4711 is only half of the problem and a virtual co-conspirator who uses his administrative privileges to assist Otto4711 by closing CfDs well after it was clear who was involved simply has no legitimacy as a Wikipedia administrator. Alansohn (talk) 14:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Good Ol’factory merely voiced suspicion about puppetry. No action from GOF was required, and in hindsight needed. The system worked. I suggest a close and trout for submitter.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  15:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Continual linkvios

By User:Aminul802 I have told him three times on his talk page he cannot link to hacked or leaked content as it is a linkvio, he continues to do so, and has just now done it again. Could someone tell him this is not allowed as he refuses to listen to me. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting this Darkness Shines (DS). The relevant discussion on my talk page is: [180]. I am awaiting arbitration on this issue from DS's suggested arbitrator. May I note that I have advised DS regarding WP:CIV, as I find his language offensive here [181] on 28th Dec 2012, at 13:32 and 14:53. Aminul802 (talk) 15:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see why 17 USC §105 wouldn't apply to the leaked embassy document, seems to pretty clearly be a work of the US Government, and if so, is in the public domain, leaked or not. Monty₈₄₅ 16:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec)And what of his links to hacked skype phone calls on youtube? Which are between a layer in Belgium and a judge in Bangladesh. Also are you sure of that 17 USC Cornell says does America not have a set time before stuff becomes PD? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Where? And why did you remove a link to foreignpolicy.com that contained the exact quote from the leaked document? And why have you made 6 reverts in the past day on that page? nableezy - 16:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Cos the FP source did not mention the fucking ambassador so it was a BLP vio. Take a hike. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

No, but it links to the actual cable here. So again, why did you remove that link and why did you make 6 reverts in a day? nableezy - 16:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Darkness Shines has made it clear he thinks this is a copyright violation which is an exemption to WP:EW. As long as he believes that in good faith that is what he is doing, then the reverts are justified. However, now that Monty845 has pointed out that this potentially isn't a copyright violation, Darkness Shines should cease the reverts. However, we should all play it on the safe side and not use the source until it is determined.--v/r - TP 16:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Im sorry, but I dont think that is true. Given this and this, what I see is a user with an at best curious understanding of what is acceptable use of copyrighted material using any excuse he can come up with to further his editing goals. But maybe Im just a tad cynical. nableezy - 17:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe cynicism is playing into it ;). But DS's actions, on the surface, display a concern that copyrighted material is being used. As that exempts him from warring, the only thing left is an unprovable curiosity into whether he misled us on his intentions or not. And I just can't see an admin blocking on those grounds.--v/r - TP 17:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You reported Aminul802 for re-adding a linkvio, stating he had just done so again. So thats the link I looked at, and my analysis for that link is above. It appears you reverted another potential linkvio, but that that link was not re-added. Could you provide diffs of any additional linkvios that were re-added after you objected on linkvio grounds? Monty₈₄₅ 16:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

[182][183] After he had two warnings over this very link twice on his talk. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

And of course the copyvio image he claimed as his own work, I had the speedied.[184] Darkness Shines (talk) 16:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

And here[185] In a BLP Darkness Shines (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The links to the youtube videos do appear to be impermissible under current linkvio policy. At this point, I think we should make it clear to Aminul802 that the youtube links must not be re-added unless the copyright issue surrounding them can be addressed and a consensus formed that they are permissible. The reason that cannot be included is that they are copyrighted and that the place they are published did not have the copyright permission to publish them, not that they are leaked. Copyright is automatic in most expression, included recorded conversation, and absent an exception, such as for works of the US Government, we must assume the leaked material remains copyrighted. I think the communication to Aminul802 regarding the various issues could have been clearer regarding what was wrong with the youtube links, copyright policy is extremely complex and confuses many editors, even experienced ones. As far as I can tell, Aminul802 is making a good faith effort to navigate those policies, even if they have made some errors in that regard. (I would also mention that links to reliable sources that quote small excerpts of the leaked material are also probably permissible, its only links directly to the copyrighted conversation that would be effected by linkvio.) Monty₈₄₅ 17:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

(ecxalot)Cool, also let him know it is a BLP violation to use the leaked documents for information on a BLP as there is no way to know it they have been altered. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Phishing on Silk Road (marketplace)

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 just removed a phishing link from Silk Road (marketplace). This has happened several times before, and it has gotten to the point where they are gaming autoconfirmed. The subject of the article is site that uses cutting-edge peer-to-peer and cryptographic techniques to openly run a mail-order store for recreational drugs. The link in question allows readers to access Silk Road by means of a technology called Tor. It is not technically feasible to use the SBL, and before we evaluate other technical options, such as the abuse filter, I think we should discuss whether it is appropriate for us to link to the site at all. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 12:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm going to go with no, per NOT. Wikipedia is not a recreational drug site, nor should we work as advertising for such a site. I can't see any reason for such a link; if used as sourcing, I doubt its reliability; no other use occurs to me to argue for it's inclusion. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 13:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

And the buggers who add the link are persistent, and lie in their edit-summaries. I've upped protection to full, removed a spam link, and blocked a persistent re-adder. Wikipedia's role is not to enable people to obtain black market items (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• Technically speaking, it's WP:ELOFFICIAL and isn't in WP:ELNEVER. Sometimes, though, it's better for the project to ignore the rules, and I think this is one of those times. T. Canens (talk) 13:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• I thoroughly agree with refusing to include an official website that engages in phishing. We're not out to do things that actively hurt unsuspecting editors. Perhaps it's time to change WP:ELNEVER to include phishing and malware sites, even when they're official. Nyttend (talk) 14:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• No, the official site doesn't engage in phishing (it's essentially, as Jake put it, "a mail-order store for recreational drugs", although the people running the site is apparently different from the people selling the drugs). The problem here is that the nature of the technology used makes it very hard to distinguish the real site from the phishing site at a glance. There are potential technical solutions to this problem, but the question is whether we should even bother solving it or simply not link to the real site in the first place. It may not be a bad idea to expand ELNEVER to cover sites engaging in illegal activity, but there could be some line-drawing problems there (e.g., Wikileaks). T. Canens (talk) 15:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think we would link to a site whose main purpose was providing copyvios, even if we had an article about it; the situation is exactly analogous. DGG ( talk ) 19:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• cf. WP:AVIASTAR. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:33, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• I have no objection to those who care to do such things, but given the ease by which the address may be ascertained, I do not think we should maintain a link.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've proposed that ELNEVER be expanded; please offer your opinions. Nyttend (talk) 02:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I made a post there, but for the purposes of the ANI in response to the link, how is this any different from linking to Demonoid or The Pirate Bay? Though I see the Silk Road and its darker cousin the Armory to be one in the same. Knowledge is power and this genie will not go back in the bottle if we take a role in generating more awareness for something that is already public. I'd go to the foundation about this one, as this one is quasi-legal, same as Wikileaks. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

If WMF's OK with it, then I am. My concern is more on the legal/publicity side, and that's their responsibility. It is not a objection on moral grounds.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Why can't this be dealt with using the spam blacklist? The SBL uses regular expressions, so couldn't we just add something like:

\bsilkroad.*\.onion\b

which would not allow any url that contains "silkroad" followed by ".onion", with anything else in between. I'm not sure if they use any other domains besides .onion, but if so they could be added to the regex as well. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 22:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I've looked into all of the socks, and it seems to always be "silkroad" followed by random characters, and then ".onion". So, I've added it to the spam blacklist, which should prevent it from being added in the future. ‑Scottywong| express _ 23:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Could we get a little more discussion before we consider this matter closed? The first response makes it appear that the link has been removed more because "we don't like it" than for any encyclopaedic reason, i.e. "nor should we work as advertising for such a site". Do we consider it "advertising" when we link to other commercial sites? Let's not just whip out "Ignore all rules" as a convenient reason for "this is what we want to do." TL;DR:I do not believe that there was sufficient discussion to justify adding this to the blacklist. - 124.168.221.199 (talk) 04:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a much better technical reason not to have the link, which is that it's really hard to protect people from the phishing attempts that have been going on. .onion links are uniquely susceptible to this kind of attack, and I feel that it just isn't worth dealing with. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 09:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Then why don't you just put in the correct link, and protect the page from edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.115.121 (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

That's not for discussion here. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Admin User:Good Olfactory aiding and abetting sockpuppet of User:Otto4711

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:Otto4711 has been a rather abusive editor, which led to his block back in 2006. Since then, he has had these seven sockpuppets detected and blocked, usually because he has been drawn back to the same set of articles and to WP:CFD, a rather small world in which patterns of editing became rather obvious. As noted at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Otto4711, his latest incarnation, User:Buck Winston, walked like a very Otto-like duck. Yet he managed to squeeze out nearly 1,000 edits before being blocked yesterday. But while the sockpuppet report was filed on December 17, at least one editor seemed to have been onto the sockpuppet at least two weeks earlier, if not longer. User:Good Olfactory, an admin with a long history of interactions with Otto4711 and the world of categories, was rather clear in his suspicions. At this edit, he does everything but out BW as a sock of Otto4711:

Otto4711, is that you? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, who is that? Buck Winston (talk) 01:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I won't say anything. Mum's the word. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

BW removed this exchange in his next edit and then takes a few days off to lie low. User:Good Olfactory doesn't do a thing, and with a wink and a nod allows BW/Otto4711 to simply walk away scot free. As Sergeant Schultz would say on Hogan's Heroes, "I see nothing - NOTHING", despite the clearest possible evidence of sockpuppetry at work. BW would go on to squeeze out almost 200 more edits before being blocked more than three weeks later, including many at CfD. Not only did Good Olfactory ignore this blatant sockpuppetry, he actively aided and abetted the block evasion, knowing clearly that he was dealing with a banned user. Good Olfactory closed Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_14#Category:British_transgender-related_television_programmes on December 5 and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_December_11#Category:American_gay-related_television_programs on December 19, two of BW's many nominations, in a subject where Otto4711's handiwork was blatantly obvious. I would have hoped that an admin would try to actively deal with abusive sockpuppeteers and immediately block editors like Buck Winston / Otto4711, and his willingness to turn a blind eye is more than disturbing. But aiding and abetting a sockpuppet by closing CfDs that the sock had initiated clearly goes beyond the pale. User:Good Olfactory's abuse of process and administrative powers and responsibilities goes way too far here. Alansohn (talk) 05:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

This is .... interesting. (1) I was never sure if User:Buck Winston was User:Otto4711, though I had my suspicions. (2) My comment on the user's talk page was intended on tipping off those who were investigating the issue of "who is User:Buck Winston?" that I too had such suspicions. (My final comment on that talk page was somewhat tongue in cheek and given my past interactions with Otto4711, I wouldn't expect anyone to take it in its literal sense, though I can understand the confusion if Alansohn did.) (3) My comment had the desired effect: shortly after my comment, this was posted on my talk page, to which I responded here. I was aware it was being looked in to by other users, and I had some contact via email with other users about the issue. (4) I don't think any of the CFDs I closed resulted in consequences that were particularly controversial or troubling, regardless of who started the nomination. We could go back and void the results, but they would likely be nominated again by other users to accomplish the same effects. Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Alansohn: If a claim should be made, "abuse of process and administrative powers" is not a correct one, in my opinion, because Good Ol’factory didn't perform any administrative action. Additionally, I guess that factory gets the summary of his actions very well above. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Or perhaps Good Olfactory's simply lacking enough evidence to block the sock as such. Why not just open a WP:SSI investigation to confirm whether this is actually a sock first, before assuming bad faith about Good Olfactory's actions? ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 06:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

An admin calls actively working together with a known sockpuppet "interesting"? This is ..... extremely disturbing. Whatever the excuses, the appropriate action was to start a WP:SPI or initiate a block, not to work together on imposing Otto4711's abusive actions on the Wikipedia community. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Otto4711 was opened on December 17 and closed as confirmed on December 27. Good Olfactory had no issue with using administrative authority to close CfDs initiated by someone he at least suspected to be a sockpuppet. Unfortunately, the consequences will need to be severe for both Otto4711 and Good Olfactory before this abuse finally stops, as they seem to work a bit too well together. Alansohn (talk) 06:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd recommend that this is assumed with good faith. If an admin is not sure if a user is or isn't a sock, the best course of action is to stay calm and wait until further evidence is provided, not to go ahead and block. Also, Good Ol'factory wasn't bound to open an SPI case, and he cannot be blamed for it. Anyone opened it, the result was positive, and the case is over. The fact that you suspect someone to be a sockpuppet isn't ground enough to perform any action you'd perform if it was a confirmed sockpuppet. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The evidence presented by Alansohn is clear, compelling, convincing, and not ridiculous at all - Good Olfactory is in cahoots with Otto4711. I would not be surprised if Good Olfactory is just another of Otto4711's many sockpuppets. The safest thing to do is block them. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 06:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

@Delicious, I disagree that the evidence is clear and compelling. Alansohn seems to completely miss the humor when Good Olfactory says with a wink "Mum's the word", tongue in cheek, and this diff (presented earlier by GO) shows that GO probably wasn't quite confident enough to block or open an SPI (which can be very bitey if you're wrong). Also, I think it is extremely unlikely that GO is a sock of Otto4711. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Lol—if I wanted to keep User:Otto4711 under cover as he sockpuppetted, why would I have commented on User:Buck Winston's talk page at all? Think, people. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

@Alansohn: Just a little question though. Why is this brought up after the sockpuppetry case is closed and solved and not before?

@Delicious: Be careful, remember that accusing someone without evidence is disruptive... — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Good Olfactory is my sock. Sorry for confusing everyone. (Please, no one take that seriously and open another thread). It looks to me like GO was somewhat, but not fully, certain that the account was a sock, and asked flat out to gauge the reaction. I do not see any reason to believe that GO is in any way attempting to help Otto, nor do I think he would be monumentally stupid enough to make it so obvious if for whatever reason he were. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Wait—I'm your sock? I thought I was socking you? To date, I have been accused of being a sockpuppet of half a dozen banned editors of ill repute, but being accused of being a sock of Otto4711 is somehow more satisfying for me given how Otto and I used to clash occasionally. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I came here to criticize DC for shooting from the hip in making his absurd claim, but was taken aback by the Stalker evidence of the overlaps between GO and Otto & Co. Then I remembered that the last time I was looking into Otto and came up with pretty good Stalker evidence of a connection between Otto and an admin (it might well have been GO, I really can't recall), a second look showed that the admin had such significant overlapping because he was policing Otto, not because he was Otto.

There's also the question of why Otto would need to keep creating socks if one of them was made an admin, or why GO doesn't exhibit any of the kind of behavior that got Otto indef blocked in the first place. I'm inclined to think that the person behind Otto & Company isn't just acting like a "bad hand" account, he really is combative and intolerant of others, as shown by his editing behavior. I don't see that person as being able to carry out the kind of long-term acting that would be required to be an admin.

I suggest that DC withdraw his suggestion, or else put his money where his mouth is and file an SPI. After all, we now have Buck Winston to run a CU against, so things can be cleared up rather quickly - that is, if DC can convince an SPI Clerk that the evidence is compelling enough to warrant a CU. However, if DC were to file an SPI on GO, I would be presenting evidence against it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot that people on WP have a hard time recognizing sarcasm... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 07:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I withdraw my demand that you think. You were convincing. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

@DC: It's not just on Wikipedia, sarcasm is extremely difficult to convey in any text-only medium, and probably accounts for a good deal of flame warring everywhere on the Web. It's especially difficult to recognize with a throwaway one-liner, which is why people tend to label it explicitly to make sure they're understood. In any case, I'm glad to know that you weren't serious. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I have repeatedly requested that people write sarcasm in Times Ironic font, to prevent any misunderstandings. RolandR (talk) 14:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I thought that the phrase "not ridiculous at all" might have been a clue that I wasn't serious. And that I thought the whole topic was ridiculous. I will be more careful in the future to avoid such remarks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: Just as otto has clashed with GO (and others) in the past, so too has alansohn (note block log). This isn't quite boomerang worthy (mostly just unfortunate ABF, as we've seen in the past), but I think it has the potential to be if the equine continues to be flagellated... - jc37 08:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

We've identified the problem, now lets work on a solution

Please, all, concentrate on resolving the problem, not escalating it.

This is my own opinion on the problem and its solution, and I think its pretty well already resolved.

• Problem: Good Ol’factory suspected Buck Winston was a sock of Otto4711, and then conveyed that suspicion to Buck Winston in words that could have been better chosen. But then a shit-storm happened, with accusations of aiding and abetting, admin socking and more.
• Solution: The sock has already been blocked. Good Ol’factory, I think the wording of the message quoted above and not acting on your suspicions earlier were not the best course of action. I think we are done here. Everyone else (including me), go back to improving the encyclopedia.
  

--Shirt58 (talk) 10:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is absolutely no requirement that an admin take action upon seeing any particular incidence or situation.

I also disagree with your assessment of the above discussion. Other than a misread of sarcasm, I don't see any sort of "storm".

And I also don't see any endorsement of the initial posting. So I'm not sure what your proposal is intended to 'resolve". - jc37 11:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I "conveyed that suspicion to Buck Winston in words that could have been better chosen"? What I wrote was, "Otto4711, is that you?" I'm not sure how my question could have been misunderstood if the person behind User:Buck Winston was the same person that was behind User:Otto4711.

Like User:jc37, I'm not seeing much of a storm, except for the outrage of one user who has had a tendency in the past to be outraged if I sneeze. In the past, I've been accused by this user of such things as trivialization of the Holocaust and pedophilia, so being accused by him of WP administrative malfeasance is small potatoes.

Anyway, after a 4–5 month hiatus away from WP, I was not about to block a user on my first week back based on a vague suspicion of familiarity registering in my brain. So, User:Shirt58, I do not agree that me failing to block at that time was a mistake. I feel that the issue was handled carefully and responsibly, and I was involved in pursuing it after my initial inquiry on Buck's talk page. (You have made a commendable attempt to at least get users back to doing something productive, however, so thanks.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems that the Wikibreak didn't help any. By the time that Good Olfactory demonstrated that he thought that BW was a sockpuppet, his only words of explanation were part of a side conversation regarding which one of two likely puppetmasters was behind the sock. In the ensuing weeks, BW kept at it and the pattern was blindingly obvious to anyone who was uninvolved who looked at the matter. But Good Olfactory allowed Buck Winston / Otto4711 to continue his abuse for weeks right under his nose at CfD. Good Olfactory saw no reason to get involved when he suspected that BW was a sockpuppet, but saw no reason to be uninvolved when it came to using administrative authority to close multiple CfDs, even after the community as a whole recognized that this was Otto4711. Good Olfactory could have asked uninvolved admins to investigate the suspected sockpuppet in early December and he should have asked uninvolved admins to take action in mid-December when he was closing the CfDs for his buddy Otto4711, but Good Olfactory did neither. Sure, blocking Buck Winston will sweep the problem under the rug for a short while. But given Wikipedia's sieve-like justice system, Otto4711 will be back with more of his socks, especially if there are administrators who are willing to look the other way. Otto4711 will be back, just as he has been dozens of times before, several of which have been caught. The problem is that Good Olfactory seems to lack the judgment of when to act and when not act, even in a case like this where we are dealing with one of Wikipedia's most abusive sockpuppeteers. Otto4711 is only half of the problem and a virtual co-conspirator who uses his administrative privileges to assist Otto4711 by closing CfDs well after it was clear who was involved simply has no legitimacy as a Wikipedia administrator. Alansohn (talk) 14:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Good Ol’factory merely voiced suspicion about puppetry. No action from GOF was required, and in hindsight needed. The system worked. I suggest a close and trout for submitter.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  15:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Continual linkvios

By User:Aminul802 I have told him three times on his talk page he cannot link to hacked or leaked content as it is a linkvio, he continues to do so, and has just now done it again. Could someone tell him this is not allowed as he refuses to listen to me. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting this Darkness Shines (DS). The relevant discussion on my talk page is: [186]. I am awaiting arbitration on this issue from DS's suggested arbitrator. May I note that I have advised DS regarding WP:CIV, as I find his language offensive here [187] on 28th Dec 2012, at 13:32 and 14:53. Aminul802 (talk) 15:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see why 17 USC §105 wouldn't apply to the leaked embassy document, seems to pretty clearly be a work of the US Government, and if so, is in the public domain, leaked or not. Monty₈₄₅ 16:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec)And what of his links to hacked skype phone calls on youtube? Which are between a layer in Belgium and a judge in Bangladesh. Also are you sure of that 17 USC Cornell says does America not have a set time before stuff becomes PD? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Where? And why did you remove a link to foreignpolicy.com that contained the exact quote from the leaked document? And why have you made 6 reverts in the past day on that page? nableezy - 16:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Cos the FP source did not mention the fucking ambassador so it was a BLP vio. Take a hike. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

No, but it links to the actual cable here. So again, why did you remove that link and why did you make 6 reverts in a day? nableezy - 16:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Darkness Shines has made it clear he thinks this is a copyright violation which is an exemption to WP:EW. As long as he believes that in good faith that is what he is doing, then the reverts are justified. However, now that Monty845 has pointed out that this potentially isn't a copyright violation, Darkness Shines should cease the reverts. However, we should all play it on the safe side and not use the source until it is determined.--v/r - TP 16:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Im sorry, but I dont think that is true. Given this and this, what I see is a user with an at best curious understanding of what is acceptable use of copyrighted material using any excuse he can come up with to further his editing goals. But maybe Im just a tad cynical. nableezy - 17:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe cynicism is playing into it ;). But DS's actions, on the surface, display a concern that copyrighted material is being used. As that exempts him from warring, the only thing left is an unprovable curiosity into whether he misled us on his intentions or not. And I just can't see an admin blocking on those grounds.--v/r - TP 17:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You reported Aminul802 for re-adding a linkvio, stating he had just done so again. So thats the link I looked at, and my analysis for that link is above. It appears you reverted another potential linkvio, but that that link was not re-added. Could you provide diffs of any additional linkvios that were re-added after you objected on linkvio grounds? Monty₈₄₅ 16:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

[188][189] After he had two warnings over this very link twice on his talk. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

And of course the copyvio image he claimed as his own work, I had the speedied.[190] Darkness Shines (talk) 16:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

And here[191] In a BLP Darkness Shines (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The links to the youtube videos do appear to be impermissible under current linkvio policy. At this point, I think we should make it clear to Aminul802 that the youtube links must not be re-added unless the copyright issue surrounding them can be addressed and a consensus formed that they are permissible. The reason that cannot be included is that they are copyrighted and that the place they are published did not have the copyright permission to publish them, not that they are leaked. Copyright is automatic in most expression, included recorded conversation, and absent an exception, such as for works of the US Government, we must assume the leaked material remains copyrighted. I think the communication to Aminul802 regarding the various issues could have been clearer regarding what was wrong with the youtube links, copyright policy is extremely complex and confuses many editors, even experienced ones. As far as I can tell, Aminul802 is making a good faith effort to navigate those policies, even if they have made some errors in that regard. (I would also mention that links to reliable sources that quote small excerpts of the leaked material are also probably permissible, its only links directly to the copyrighted conversation that would be effected by linkvio.) Monty₈₄₅ 17:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

(ecxalot)Cool, also let him know it is a BLP violation to use the leaked documents for information on a BLP as there is no way to know it they have been altered. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Patricia Cloherty (returned from archive)

The article Patricia Cloherty has been the subject of constant bad-faith edits by User:Happy225 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) who seems determined to turn it into an WP:ATTACKPAGE. The article was sent to AFD and was fixed (by me and others) to remove the WP:UNDUE weight given to some references and other attacks and accusations. A few days ago, Happy225 copy-pasted an entire old version of the article back into place including the old attacks, undue weight and old AFD tag.

Happy225 is basically an WP:SPA almost solely focussed on this article. He has been blocked in the past for edit-warring at this article and has received warnings going back 3 years - all related to this one article. Not sure what the obsession is but some form of WP:COI is obviously at play.

The latest obsession seems to be related to the subject's age which Happy225 seems desperate to include. This was specifically noted at the AFD by the closing admin because no WP:RS exists for this "fact", only social media, and I think there was a suggestion that the original DOB was wrong.

Either way, the article was the subject of an OTRS ticket from the subject, seemingly because Happy225's previous edits inserted a bunch of unsourced attacks and accusations and the subject asked for the article to be deleted. Thus the AFD nom.

Happy225 has again be warned, twice, and I asked an admin to keep an eye out, but the quasi-vandalism continues. On the matter of the subject's age, I'm probably at 2RR myself, though the timing is spaced beyond 24 hours. Either way, I would appreciate some assistance. Stalwart111 22:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

If you receive no remedy on this notice board, for the immediate problem (edit-warring), try WP:EWN; for the longer-term content dispute, try WP:BLPN. Hope this helps. Rgrds. --64.85.215.128 (talk) 16:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, but I really think this now needs a block to prevent further vandalism and/or bad-faith edits. Stalwart111 23:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I have manually de-archived this thread to try to get some admin attention before it closes. The vandalism continues - this time the "facts" were reinserted with a bad direct link as a "reference". Fixing the link produces a Forbes profile which does not support the claimed facts anyway - here. This seems to be a clearly bad-faith attempt to reinsert the same dubious "facts" using fake/bad references, again, to create an attack page. Can someone please block the vandal in question? Stalwart111 23:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

He's made a single edit in the past three days, the above edit, which doesn't appear to be an attack. Could you elaborate what edits have been made in the past three days besides this one that constitute an attack? --Jayron32 23:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The above is simply the latest in a three-year campaign to insert unreferenced, negative and POV material into this one article - a campaign I don't profess to fully understand. Eventually it got so bad, it was nominated at AFD. The "problem" sections were removed (including the unsourced DOB) and the article was rewritten. The editor in question seems to be determined to revert the article back to its pre-OTRS, pre-AFD state. I can continue to revert, every three days or so, the same vandalism and will continue to do so. But Happy225 is clearly WP:NOTHERE to build WP and has contributed nothing but the same quasi-attacks since he/she registered. I don't, as I said, profess to understand why someone would be hell-bent in inserting the wrong DOB into a BLP but I think its just what he is stuck on since everyone keeps reverting the more obvious stuff. Does there need to have been something in the last 3 days for action to be taken? Stalwart111 05:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Full protection for 2 weeks to give time for any other necessary action to take place. I note that Happy225 is persistently trying to insert her age but wavers between her being 70 and 72. Dougweller (talk) 06:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, and the suggested "source" says 69. Without an WP:RS to verify the age/DOB, the AFD closing admin suggested it should be left out. That has been upheld since for continued lack of an RS. But previous bad-faith edits included an unsourced/undue claim that the subject was responsible for commercial loses overseas (extrapolated from a single off-hand line in a multi-page profile and inserted in the article lede) and the unexplained removal of easily-sourced information about an major honour the subject received. Very strange. Stalwart111 11:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

So, dispute over content and page protection have been somewhat dealt with ... even though neither should be on this board. Why this was pulled out of archives instead of being taken to the right places is beyond me. Your next step on the user is WP:RFC/U as nothing that requires immediate blocking has been proven (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Page protection is obviously helpful but not what I asked for and this is not, in my humble opinion, a content dispute. We don't disagree on what should be in the article - consensus determined that previous "facts" were unsourced and inappropriate and a single editor is vandalising the page to have particular attacks reinserted. If it's being done so slowly that it doesn't constitute blockable vandalism, that's fine. I'll continue to prevent vandalism once the block runs out - I can guarantee it will continue (the editor in question removed my explaination on his talk page then asked why his edits were being reverted). Sigh!

It was restored from archive because no-one had responded (except to suggest a solution for the edit-warring). These were serious enough issues to prompt an OTRS ticket from the subject, an AFD and delete votes there until it was cleaned up (it was so bad, people chose to delete rather than fix) and all bad-faith content was from one SPA who nows wants his/her old version of the article to be returned. I've seen blocks for far less serious vandalism, especially in BLPs, but if admins think this doesn't even constitute a topic-ban, I'll respect their judgement. Stalwart111 22:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox women

Could some involved editors please take a look at the template Template:Infobox women and impose a decision on its content, either way it goes? It has been the theatre of a slow-motion edit war between me and another editor for three months now. A previous ANI failed to put an end to this. I would like to achive any kind of consensus on this dispute (described in the previous ANI) so that this can finally end.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Is this infobox really needed? I'm not convinced by its title either. In fact, I'd go the whole hog and question the purpose of 95% of that category! Most of the articles could easily fit into the main country/people articles, and some of the ones that actually may have a case for an article, don't have one! (Women in Afghanistan, anyone?). Lukeno94 (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

We have that as a redirect to Women's rights in Afghanistan. Which should really be named to Women have no rights in Afghanistan but there ya go. Any others? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Not really an ANI thing -- I'd suggest WP:3RD or WP:DRN. NE Ent 20:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Sepsis II‎

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

---

Hi, can you please look into User:Sepsis II‎ recent editing practice, on the Operation Pillar of Defense‎ article.

Sepsis keep making cumulative reverts of unrelated edits/users, with uninformative outraged edit summaries(like "undoing shamelessly blatant propagandizing"). I have contact the user (#Revert) explaining that he reverted several unrelated edits(creating collateral damage), asking him to make separate edit that address each issue with informative edit summaries. To which he responded with blanking my post and making the same revert. This time his edit summary stated "undoing acknowledged collateral damage", I contacted him again(#ARBPIA_notice)(maybe this not a duck, but some kind of miscommunication) stating that the same issues still stand and that I find his cumulative reverts disruptive, asking him to self-revert and if wish reintroduce each issue with appropriate edit summary or discuss this. To which he responded with blanking my post again.

So I'll appreciate if someone can look into this. Because honestly, I am really sick and tiered with the edit warring and general incivility on this article and I find Sepsis unexplained cumulative reverts, disregard to other users and refusal to engage only to prompt edit warring, cause tension and make collaboration even more difficult. Thanks Mor. --Mor2 (talk) 19:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit: It seem that Sepsis just(3 min ago) got posted on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring as well. I am not certain if it take precedence or effect this process. personally, my issue is not with the content, but with his behavior, it either one address it I am fine with it.--Mor2 (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The proper location to report violations of Arbitration Remedies is at Arbitration Enforcement. Please attend to the issue there and do not open threads elsewhere as it projects the aura of Forum shopping for your prefered response. Hasteur (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not reporting a violations of Arbitration, but bringing what I consider a behavioral issue. I am not part or party to the AE submission, which I discovered only when I came to post the required ANI notice on the user page. Thus my additional edit, which serve as due diligence for you, since I am not familiar with this process and what it meant for it, not some an attempt to "Forum shop".--Mor2 (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Xerographica

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.

---

Reason: Repeated WP:NPA despite repeated messages and warnings:

• [192] User talk page taunts on the number of warnings posted. Also, talk page has recent messages about AFG, which display a lack of respect for AFG guidance.
• [193] Posted after user attempted to re-do a redirect after consensus had determined to re-direct to another article.
• [194] Repeats "VDE" acronym (Value Destroying Editor) which s/he has created as a slur.
• [195] Another use of "VDE".
• [196] Another use of "VDE"

(PS: I do not recall that I've ever posted an ANI before.) --S. Rich (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Just because they made up their own acronym as a personal attack, it's still a personal attack - and they were indeed asked/warned to stop. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Main page error

Prompt attention to [[Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors#"today is the birthday of Dattatreya"]] is required, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Main page errors is becoming an embarrassment. The main page is the most visible page in Wikipedia, and one of the most visited, and most important, pages on the entire web. The process that produces its content needs to approach perfection; angsty pleas for urgent updates, which is a daily phenomenon, is indicative that the process is abjectly broken. If this process can't produce solid reliable content that meets all our standards with at least 99% first-time certainty then DYK, ITN, and OTD need to be removed from the main page, leaving only FA and FP which do. Complaints that MP/E isn't watched by enough admins misses the point - there need to be no errors in the main page in the first place. 176.250.45.76 (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

This is true, but while Tomorrow's Main Page is linked on Talk:Main Page, few people actually go to visit it. Unfortunately, no set of people tasked with reading the next day's Main Page will catch everything. Rather basic grammatical errors are unacceptable, as they should be noticeable to almost anyone reading the content, but issues of fact are not unless someone takes the time to thoroughly read the article or, more likely, someone knows the subject matter.

In this case, the "error" fits in neither category, and I'm not sure there was an error at all. I'll admit it'd be preferable for phrases like "today" to not appear on the Main Page, especially as DYK items are up for twelve hours (when did it change from eight?), but it's hardly the kind of error that results in embarrassment. And it's most certainly not the kind of error that requires complaining here after just half an hour of waiting. -- tariqabjotu 00:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:DYK#Reduce_queues_into_two_per_day.3F. -- KTC (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

As the description of the problem has been removed from the error-report page, and as says "I'm not sure there was an error at all", I'll explain here. the DYK item said "today is the birthday of..."; but was displayed, around the world, during parts of two days, the 27th and 28th December. I proposed more suitable wording. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, in part, but I've also seen errors and omissions, including failures to make articles properly accessible in accordance with the MoS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

For example, removal of fan art from today's FA. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

lough neagh

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

---

Hi admins, Fearing a potential edit war at lough neagh so raising the issue. User:Mo aimn is refusing to acknowledge the outcome of the discussion here Talk:Lough Neagh on topic "Basin Countries". I have corrected the vandalism but as this page is under 1RR I expect Mo to be back in 24hrs. Please can someone look into this....Factocop (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• You can't be serious with this... request. Doc talk 18:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
• I've looked into it. Looking at this diff, which spans a period of six and half years, it appears that the only content writers are this person and this person (who was also a vandal and whose content has already been partly challenged as suspect), with this person adding section headings and listifying prose and this person adding the infobox. These four people are pretty much responsible for every significant change to the article in six and a half years.

  In the meanwhile, you, Factocop, alongside GoodDay and a whole load of others, are collectively responsible for almost 500 edits of edit warring and 440KiB of talk page discussion all over one frelling detail. And not a one of you has written anything about, say, the petrified wood that is one of the things that Lough Neagh is most famous for, and that forms a significant part of its entry in several other encyclopaedias, or the inflows and outflows, or the historical differences in water levels, or the geology.

  So, having looked into it, I now have some questions: What use are you and they to the writing of this article, or indeed to Wikipedia? You've collectively and individually contributed a sum total of nothing on the topic in six and a half years. Moreover, you edited exactly one article during your three-month Troubles topic ban, and even that was Ireland-related, but the day it ended you're back at Troubles topics, and indeed at the very same article that got you topic banned for three months, with the same one-note melody. Are you simply incapable of substantive writing about anything else, so when banned from your one note you have nothing of worth to offer the encyclopaedia at all?

  I note, almost in passing, that this edit is a revert of this edit that in turn was reverting you, in contravention of your restriction at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Ban Appeals Subcommittee#User:Factocop unblock conditions.

  Uncle G (talk) 23:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

apologies Doc, but I thought this was the administrator's notice board...I must be lost. I have encountered Mo on a number of occasions and expected him on this occasion to respect the discussion outcome but sadly not.Factocop (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

That revert is a clear violation of the unblock conditions. I shall impose a 24 hour block. Please refer any future violations to AE for discussion and sanction. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

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

User talk:72.228.190.243

I probably should have just blocked them for the portion I had to hat, but I tried to assume a little extra good faith. At this point it is easy to see they are unfamiliar, thinking they are, and are just trolling. I'm kind of busy right now so will just leave this in the capable hands of the community. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Some sterling examples of this editor's prose, directed at Dennis Brown:

• Reading your home page you strike me as a crushing mediocrity, a dabbler and a piddler. Is that a personal attack? Only pushing stuff as main space content as your confrere did could cause me to speak as I did above though.
• I'm resisting an urge to be nice to you because I think it's important in times like this not to.
• Sounds like you'll be talking to yourself unless there's a cabal of petty administrators that trade favors in their hissy fits.

Anybody in the Hissy Fit Cabal of Petty Admins feel like blocking this person? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't really care about what he said to me (I get called worse on the highway, and sometimes on my own talk page, meh...), but I did mind him telling another editor "Oh shut the fuck up, I only know you as the idiot you apparently are by virtue of your degradation of this site/project with your asshole activity in defending your stupidity" which is why I gave the warning. His response is what shows he is trolling. Since he aimed it (ineffectively) at me, I just figured someone else should take action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken you're both editors I've had run ins with before. You're not an unbiased set in this case. But if you do ban me please do this account, the IP will only satisfy your bitch ass Wut. This is the only account I've ever used and it's perfectly within established policy for me to use IP accounts in non-admin editing. I waste far too much time on this site and a Schelling constraint inhibiting same would be welcome. All the more so if it pits me against the wee folk.Lycurgus (talk) 02:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

One thing is for sure, you are very likely 72.228.190.243, and yes, I would support an indef for the reg'ed account and 4 weeks for the IP (long hold dynamic IP) until we can figure out why you think you have "admin" editing, and the other oddities that aren't consistent with an established editor. I'm not sure if this is compromised account, or an editor having "issues", but something is up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh get a fucking grip. I insist you make it indef which I take to mean indefinite. I will definitely cease to edit this site if you can do that, though there may be a lag between my IP use and recognition that the account has been blocked. I don't want to contribute any further labor to a community that can be run by individuals like you, just need a little help in that. because up to this point I think it's better than that. Lycurgus (talk) 03:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

You are acting pretty weird at the moment, Lycurgus. And on top of that, you're flinging abusive insults against a bunch of people around on pages that get you probably regrettable attention.

You've made some good points over the last few months, in contributions, but also done some very strange things, and started making a lot of insults. The term "trolling" is rather pejorative but you are creating or finding yourself in the center of an unusual amount of inter-editor conflict, for no evident good reason.

What are your objectives in editing the encyclopedia now?

I disagree with the sockpuppetry / IP stuff; you are clearly admitting owernship of the IP, no attempt to hide it evident. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum and Cornellier

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 report concerns a recent interaction between User:Malleus Fatuorum and User:Cornellier. Cornellier started a Good Article Review of the article on ferret legging, to which Malleus Fatuorum is the primary author (by edits). In response, Malleus made several personal attacks against Cornellier. After making it clear what he thought of Cornellier on both a related article page (an ignorant idiot who can't tell his arse from his elbow) and on someone else's talk page ("now I've got some fucking idiot basically claiming that I've invented the sport of ferret legging"), he proceeded to state on the review page that Cornellier "appears to be calling me a liar and of having invented this article and its sources", and of the review that ("maybe it's just payback time for something or other"). Reading the review it's clear the insults, disparaging remarks and accusations were unwarranted and a distortion of Cornellier's posts. To his credit Cornellier seems to have ignored them - the next person might not be able to resist such provocation. Chromium Oxide (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting second edit. --Rschen7754 23:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)This is your second edit, ever. Your first was to WP:WER. It looks like this has already died down, but surely you understand how unusual it looks for a "new" user to bring Malleus to ANI? Since they have hashed it out, I see no point in laboring it here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Note: I've indefblocked the account. Seems like an obvious sock and SPA to me. --Rschen7754 01:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there's no reason to block a user simply for being new, but doing things a more experienced user may do. Perhaps Chromium Oxide is a longtime IP editor just creating an account? In any case, remember not to bite the newbies! RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 01:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I doubt this guy is new. Anyway, a SPI was already filed. --Rschen7754 01:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Where is this SPI? RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It's under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chromium Oxide. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm rather skeptical of a new account that immediately complains at ANI about a personal attack directed at another user. That and the wikilawyering request to be unblocked and subsequent rants on his talk page[197] make me think Chromium Oxide was just here to cause drama. postdlf (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

...and this is rather beyond the pale. postdlf (talk) 04:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

CrO₂ appears to believe that there's a conspiracy of sorts to do him in. He's posted a list. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've declined the unblock request, this is an obvious and disruptive sock of somebody not wanting to edit from their regular account. Dreadstar ☥ 05:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I've modified the block to revoke their talk page privileges; no point in giving them a forum for their screeds. postdlf (talk) 06:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Careful, CrO₂ will add you to their list of bad admins. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Reopening thread

Granted, CrO₂ does seem to pass the duck test, however I think a discussion on the merits of his original complaint (without regard for who the complainant is) is warranted. I'm just trying to figure out if we've suddenly decided that calling someone a "fucking idiot" and/or "ignorant idiot" is ok, particularly for someone with a mile-long block log for personal attacks and incivility. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 07:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

You must not have gotten the memo. Yes: it's okay. It's openly tolerated, so "don't poke the bear"! Why reopen this thread? Dèjá vu. Doc talk 07:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I didn't get the memo. I was still going off the old one. Which one are you looking at? ‑Scottywong| soliloquize _ 08:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Scottywong, are you implying Malleus was rightly blocked by all the blocks in his "mile-long" block log? Or rightly blocked for just some of them? What? What is your message exactly, by writing that? (How you you want readers to interpret it? Because Malleus has accumlated some blocks, that were all or nearly-all unblocked without his even appealing, therefore, Malleus is of a character of xxx? What is it you are exactly saying here? Be specific rather than drop ambiguous hints that I for one cannot understand and am expected to "fill in the blank" for you. It's your blank. Fill it in, please.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Are you implying that Malleus isn't widely known for having problems with civility? Perhaps his various appearances (and sanctions) at arbcom would sum up my message? Here, I'll spell it out for you so there's no ambiguity: Malleus has a years-long track record of delivering blatant personal attacks (in violation of WP:NPA) and incivility (in violation of WP:CIVIL), and this episode appears to be yet another in a long line. He's been blocked dozens of times for it, probably more times than any other editor in Wikipedia history. He's also a very prolific and talented content editor, and therefore the blocks frequently get overturned out of fear that we might lose his content contributions (not because the block was incorrect; seriously, what are the chances that dozens of admins erroneously blocked the same editor?). If we do nothing in response to this episode, then we send the wrong message (not only to Malleus) that this type of behavior is ok. It's not ok. Clearly. You can have a disagreement with someone without resorting to name-calling. This is my message. Now I'm off for the night. ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 08:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

He's been blocked dozens of times? Really? (A minimum of 24 blocks?) However many, wasn't he unblocked for 99 percent of them, even without his appealing? So on what factual basis can you imply he was rightly blocked? (Because you wish it so?) "Donzens of times", "a mile long", "a long line", that is not very quantitative or accurate, is it? (What did you like to achieve with the hyperbole? Be specific, please.) Also, is there any precedent at ANI, where there is no complainant? (If the original complainant is removed through SPI block or removed thru other block?) If there is no complainant, how will ANI apply its much-loved charge then, the WP:BOOMERANG, if there is no editor who is there to receive the BOOMERANG?? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

"What are the chances that dozens of admins erroneously blocked the same editor?" Is that meant as an argument of proof? (Because, it's not. It's a fallacy.) Also, the chances you refer to, are quite high, and there are probably many reasons for this. (One is that, since Malleus is "famous", any admin editor no one has ever heard of, has the chance to become instantly known in the community, simply by issuing the block. From obscurity, to instant fame. "I blocked Mallues" might as well be printed up on T-shirts and sold. The temptation for instant fame might be great, did you ever consider? Admins are human, not robots, and subject to such temptation, could easily find "justification" for a block. It's easier than winning the lottery, the fame is "guaranteed" by the push of a button.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Someone needs to close this before Malleus retires again in protest. Seriously! He may not actually come back if we don't end this latest dishonest lynching. What an impasse... Doc talk 09:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

"I'm sorry. Are you implying that Malleus isn't widely known for having problems with civility?" First, you're not sorry, you're sarcastic. Second, answering a Q with a Q, is not answering at all. (Didn't you know? And if you did know, why would you do it? Oh, I forget ... part of your sarcastic response.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

"Perhaps his various appearances (and sanctions) at arbcom would sum up my message?" Did Malleus receive "various" sanctions? Really? How many? Also, appearing at arbcom, apparently you like us all to think, that equates to ... guilt? Wow. (Is that what you want us all to think? I for one, wouldn't and couldn't think that, unless my brain had melted down to a gray goo first.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

"He's been blocked dozens of times for it, probably more times than any other editor in Wikipedia history." I don't know if that's true, but if Malleus has been blocked more times than any editor ever, it is not something Malleus did. (It is something the blocking Admins did.) So don't credit Malleus with it; credit the Admins instead. Also, the fact that Malleus has so many arrows in his torso, is probably one of the most sacrificial and helpful things anyone has put up with for the sake of Wikipedia, in its history. (Why? Because by being the subject of incivility enforcement, Malleus has caused a focus on the policy, discussion on the policy, and that focus and discussion has discovered its cracks, its unsound properties. Like examining a moon rock, brought back from the moon. We learn things that way. We've learned that the policy re CIVIL was thought intact, but really, it was not. And its enforcement then, without definition, cannot possibly be fairly applied across the board. Malleus has allowed himself to be used as 'lab rat', poked and prod'd, for the sake of advancement of 'science' (language, considerations, concept, definition, fairness, re "what is incivility"). And he (Malleus) has not quit over this roasting and re-roasting, as the community struggles to get its act together, now that the problems are known. (IMO, it would be more appropriate to *thank* Malleus, for being the lab rat without quitting over it, which has allowed planners to see the deficiencies in the current civ policy. The deficiencies eventually would have come out; so it is better they have come out sooner, than later. So less people get burned by flawed policy.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Situations where "fucking idiot" is acceptable?

@Dennis: In what situations do you think calling someone a "fucking idiot" or "ignorant idiot" is acceptable? If you think that such gross violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL are allowed, can you please start discussions at WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL to alter these policies to allow such conduct? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 08:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's one Wikipedia:Don't be a fucking idiot, obviously necessary redirect. --My76Strat (talk) 08:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Scottywong should find other interests than gunning after Malleus and other editors whom he attacked before becoming an administrator and playing Eddie Haskell. "Just trying to figure out", sheesh! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) 09:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes agreed - "Just trying to figure out", sheesh! - I can't believe this troll food was reopened by an administrator - - Youreallycan 10:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing on Dalit

...by User:Smith012

User:Smith012 is an old but infrequently used account (started editing under this name on July 3, 2009) that seems to have degenerated to an activist WP:SPA on South Asian Caste related articles. These articles fall under wikipedia discretionary sanctions (discussion here), which can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. Over the course of a lengthy period of time, his edits have repeatedly failed to conform to WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:SYN. Here, he even revert-warred with a bot I warned him once on his talk page [198], and tried to engage in dispute resolution on the article talk page [199], but he has ignored my requests [200] and continues to edit in a disruptive manner. Some kind of preventative measure, up to and including discretionary sanctions, may be necessary.Handyunits (talk) 05:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

...by User:Handyunits

This user is violating Wikipedia policy on neutral sources, deleting referenced sources without justification. I have requested a third opinion and have reported him as a vandal to an administrator. I have requested dispute resolution in the form of a third opinion and have taken the issue to the talks page for other editors but so far this user has not complied in the interest of the article and continues to provide no justification. I have warned him about misconduct on Wikipedia and provided him a warning and i have requested a dispute resolution for the second time on the talks page. However this user is not seeking the resolution. Smith012 (talk) 13:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Jay Westerveld

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 some other editors take a look at Talk:Jay Westerveld#profession after snowboarding career (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs).

The article was protected due to a content dispute. I started a talk page discussion and attempted to keep the talk page discussion on track, but it appears to have devolved into a mess of personal attacks, BLP violations, and accusations of sockpuppetry. I would rather not take action myself, as I was involved in the content dispute that lead up to the page protection. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• Sigh. OK. I laid out some rules of engagement on the talk page. I may have used a conjugation of the verb "dictate". With the article on full protection nothing will change, so I have modified this to Pending changes, and will place a note on WP:BLPN to invite uninvolved editors. Barek, as far as I'm concerned you're not so involved that you can't act; basically, I've threatened anyone who makes another personal attack with a block. I hope I don't have to police that page. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Snarky reply from User:Alan Stenberg. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Irony, it seems, is alive and well. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Diff of Talk:Jay Westerveld: Good thing this is a wiki; there's some great material here I am gonna save for later use -- Dianna (talk) 03:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

As long as you give proper attribution. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Hold on. This article is now on Level 2 pending changes protection, which is something the community agreed would not be used. More importantly, it is being used to prevent a single editor from editing the article. When that is the case, the appropriate step is to address the issue with that editor directly, not put the article on protection. This is even more important in the face of BLP violations, which are apparently endemic in this article; even now, half the "facts" about this editor are unsourced, and there continues to be a coatrack about Glenmere mansion in the article, and other references don't even mention the article subject. Here's an alternative: block the BLP-violating account or take the time to actually explain to them why their behaviour is unacceptable, and if recurrent socking is a concern, semi-protect the article. Risker (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Risker, it was not being used to prevent one user from editing the article--maybe I need to read up on the ins and outs, or maybe I should have checked the status of those editors, but I thought that both sides (and their possible socks) would be prevented from editing it. Correct me if I'm wrong (I often am), but pending changes and semi-protection would have the same effect given that neither Semperfly (talk · contribs) nor Alan Stenberg (talk · contribs) have reviewer status. And I thought (again, I might be wrong) that both sides would be aware of how their edits are not acceptable. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

There are a couple of issues here, the first being the use of PC-2, which did not receive community consensus for its use. The second is that neither of the two editors you've pointed out have actually been educated in any way about what they're doing wrong. We're protecting a poor quality BLP instead of educating the editors or removing them from the project. The two editors involved are editing only on this subject and, given the fact that they've both shown up at the same time, are likely to be bringing an external battle to our project. PC is not intended to be the shortcut to dealing with problem editors, or with massive BLP violations or edit wars. It's intended to deal with articles that have frequent vandalism or insertion of nonsense. This article does not meet the criteria. Risker (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll be glad to change to semi-protection. As for education, I think Barek has left enough material on the talk page, but OK, I'll repeat the salient points there. Another editor with BLP experience has stepped in as well. I'll start an SPI. I was unaware of those PC restrictions, but no longer. I think that covers it. Drmies (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

On a relevant note, edits by Alan Stenberg (talk · contribs) have been remarkably uncivil, ranging from WP:PA to WP:OUTING and good old fashion WP:HARASS. See one user talkpage and earlier series of contribs on another user talkpage in addition to this gem. One of his already-blocked socks, Bog Turtle (talk · contribs) also levied this legal threat; Checkuser hasn't confirmed a connection yet, so SPI results aren't yet in. User talk:Alan Stenberg indicates he was previously blocked for abusive editing, and I've warned him regarding civility and his real-life conflict of interest surrounding Westerveld. Think a longer block is in order? JFHJr (㊟) 22:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

As all parties were previously warned[201], I'll be re-blocking him given his current behavior. As this is his second block, I've extended the block to 72 hours this time. My internet access is sporadic at best at the moment, so if others want to change the duration there's no need to discuss with the blocking admin (ie: me). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Jay Westerveld still pending-changes level 2 protected

The article about Jay Westerveld is still pending-changes level 2 protected, despite Risker pointing out on the 23rd that there is no consensus for use of that form of protection. Can a reviewer please remove this protection from the article? Thank you. Yaris678 (talk) 13:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll second that request. (We actually are reviewers, and we need an admin to do it.) Rivertorch (talk) 17:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Does it need to be semiprotected instead or is just the move protection alright? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:35, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The troublesome editors have all been asked to play nicely. It should be fine with just the move protection. Yaris678 (talk) 00:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Confusing SPI result

Is the SPI result at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Enverbius really saying that both parties in the dispute are socks of each other? --71.231.75.104 (talk) 01:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I also found it confusing. Asked DQ for some clarification. I'm under the impression it's two sets of socks. JFHJr (㊟) 01:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

That's not what DeltaQuad said. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 01:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Apparently the subsets are groups of confirmed, and they likely among each other. JFHJr (㊟) 01:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Everyone seems blocked. This can probably close for now. JFHJr (㊟) 05:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

It may be continuing ... FaFaFohi (talk · contribs) has made his one and only edit at Talk:Greenwashing (a related merge discussion) - the idea that immediately after all existing socks are blocked, a new user would manage to discover that talk page discussion as their first and only edit and use similar arguments to socks of user:Alan Stenberg suggests some loud quacking is happening. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked FaFaFohi (talk · contribs) as an obvious sock of Alan Stenberg (talk · contribs). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Iamthemuffinman

Iamthemuffinman (talk · contribs)

Folks, just to let you know I have indef blocked Iamthemuffinman with talk page access revoked, for a series of events that should be clear from his talk page - essentially, personal attacks at User talk:MisterShiney, and escalating threats (including a threat to sock) on his talk page. Anyone who knows him will remember his past battlefield approach and personal attacks, his vandalism spree, his global account lock, and the goodwill a number of us extended to him to allow him back. In the circumstances, I think my actions are justified. I'm bringing this here to ask people to be on the lookout for any socking from him - it's late where I am, and I'm off to bed now. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

No comment on the appropriateness of your actions, since I've not taken a look and I'll AGF, but in WP:UTRS ticket #3075, User:MBisanz said that anymore disruption will result in a restore of the lock.--v/r - TP 19:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

He has apparently also abused the email system, so I have removed his access to that too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

And I've let MBisanz know. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Note also a statement of intent to evade the block [202]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, thanks - I meant to link to that -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Editor was given a slap on the wrist for very offensive behavior, then continued the rampage and made it clear they will just abandon the account and start socking, thus forcing stronger action. I see nothing controversial in the admin actions taken. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Given statements made at User talk:MisterShiney and Editors past and subsequent behavior, this seems needed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
• Thanks for the note. I'll do the lock when I get home (it's very hard to use CentralAuth over my phone). MBisanz ^talk
•  Done MBisanz ^talk 02:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It looks like we have some socking as was suspected here. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marstarbartion, which I'm guessing needs to be renamed now if iamthemuffinman is the sockmaster. --Biker Biker (talk) 12:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iamthemuffinman. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Unable to move an article

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

---

Resolved

Just wondering if an admin could have a look at whether Givton Hanoch could be moved to Hanoch Givton. I note that three articles have been deleted at the latter title due to the identity of the author. Hack (talk) 05:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hanoch Givton was deleted thrice this year because it was created by a WMF-banned user, User:Nnimrodd (presumably socking since that account is also indef-blocked)... this raises concerns as to whether User:PellRubin is the same person trying to circumvent the WP:SALTing of the previous title. Salvidrim! 05:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The article has been deleted by User:Spartaz in accordance to our banning policy. If you believe the topic to be notable, you are free to request of a copy of the deleted article to perhaps recreate it yourself, or write it from scratch as it wasn't extremely fleshed out. Salvidrim! 05:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

From scratch please, as the author has been banned by the foundation. The subject does appear notable but I'd be concerned the recreated page would be a magnet for the banned user. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

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

User:SnrRailways

In re Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive779#Bot scale link changing by User:SnrRailways; he clearly did run an unauthorized bot, but changing [[A|B]] to [[B]], where B redirects to A, is something done automatically by authorized bots. Just because "A" is something he hates, doesn't mean that that that particular edit was wrong. If he changed [[A|C]] to [[B|C]], that would be different.

I'm not necessarily saying that the block should be overturned, but the bot performed a legitimate, approved, function. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It's SOP to block unauthorized bots due to the security risk. --Rschen7754 06:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Doing the right thing in the wrong way is still wrong. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Lukabeograd

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

User is returning every six months or so to anachronistically credit Yugoslav results in various sporting articles exclusively to Serbia. This includes results both from the pre-1992 SFR Yugoslav era and from the 1992-2006 FR Yugoslav/Serbian and Montenegrin era.

Such edits make up the large majority of the user's contributions. They are subtle and do not necessarily get noticed within reasonable time (some of the changes I reverted this morning were three months old). But they are POV and problematic. See, for instance Water polo at the Summer Olympics. Lukabeograd's change is this. Note the presence of Croatia, another part of the former Yugoslavia, on the list, demonstrating why this is problematic (there is no reason to prefer the one over the other).

The point has been flagged up on the Lukabeograd's talk page three times before today, including two formal warnings of Arbcom discretionary sanctions applying to the Balkan region (WP:ARBMAC). I raised the issue with the admin who issued both Arbcom warnings and he asked me to bring it here for another admin to review. I've raised it here instead of at WP:AE because AE would seem to be a touch extreme and faff-filled (but if someone feels the need to transfer it, please do). Kahastok talk 15:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Sanctions are appropriate; the only question is whether it should be a block or a topic ban, and the duration. Whichever it is, even though it would be the first sanction, it should be long enough to take into account the user's historical sporadic appearances here. I'd say 6 months, although anything short of indefinite may be a waste of time. The user, who has only made 54 edits on Wikipedia, has never talked since they've registered an account. As an aside, the warnings should have been logged, but that doesn't preclude sanctions. I thought about acting on my own but figured I'd see if anyone else wants to comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Nitpick: I don't think my reading of WP:ARBMAC#Logging of sanctions matches yours. It says we have to log "imposed sanctions" in the section called "Log of blocks and bans". I never considered the warnings an imposed sanction - it can be considered a sanction of sorts, even a formal sanction what with the boilerplate template, but it's hardly anything imposed because you don't have to be an admin to issue the warning. Over the last five years, I've probably warned a gazillion people without updating that log because I see no reason to clutter it before a block or a ban. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

A gazillion, huh? When do you have time to do anything else? :-) Honestly, I never thought about whether it was required to log a warning (and I'd only log it once), just that it was, I dunno, a good idea, but perhaps that's just me. Now that you've brought it up, though, I don't see anything that says you must log warnings. I particularly like this sentence: "This is an incomplete list of editors who have received the warning (by means of the template {{subst:uw-sanctions|topic=b}} or otherwise) required for the imposition of discretionary sanctions." Anyway, we can now go back to the meat of the report (not that I didn't enjoy this little detour (no sarcasm intended)).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Individualism

wacky stuff going on at Talk:Individualism can somebody intervene. Thanks. --Penbat (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm unimpressed by the promised wackiness. I undid the revert of a revert with a clear edit summary and posted a message on the user's talk page, but I leave disappointed and in search of truly wacky stuff. Salvidrim! 12:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

did you see the history for the talk page --Penbat (talk) 12:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hah, I stand corrected! It is indeed sufficiently wacky. I have sent you a small notification and will give the user a sterner warning about removing other users' comments on talk pages, if it continues, some sanction may be in order. :) Salvidrim! 12:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I am however compelled to point out it is considered preferable to notify involved parties when bringing an issue to AN/I; in this case I've mentioned it on the user's talk page. Salvidrim! 12:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I think he still doesnt get it [203] --Penbat (talk) 12:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Bah, he may not be the most civil, but the talk page post is a start. User:Lova Falk is trying to engage the user in reasonable discussion, let's start by seeing if it devolves into personal attacks before being pessimistic. Salvidrim! 12:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It didn't really work out the way I hoped it would. Lova Falk talk 16:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

i doubt if he has even noticed his talk page but even so....User_talk:118.36.229.221--Penbat (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

IMO its a text book case of trolling. User 118.36.229.221 is thumbing his nose at any reasonable rational comment or suggestion, reveling in the attention and even starting to mess with narcissism as well.--Penbat (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this very well might be a case of trolling. Would you please look into it? Lova Falk talk 18:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Best way to deal with a troll is to ignore them so they get bored and go away, ref "dont feed the trolls". Whether he needs blocking is up to the administrators.--Penbat (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack

I think there is a personal attack in this contrubution and violation of this policy.--Rapsar (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I see no personal attack and it probably is not good bringing up that as an example, but I see no malicious intent or insinuation here. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

That is not a personal attack. Criticising another editor's position or actions never has been. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Please look at WP:WIAPA; simply saying that you're incorrect is not a personal attack. Nyttend (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hounding

Following a disagreement with Nableezy in which he opined that a source that published content stating that it is a historical fact that Jews across the world are shunned, cowards, a nation of agitators, are slaves worthy of punishment and are worse than feeding vampires was nevertheless a reliable source, he proceeded to summarily nominate my sandbox for speedy deletion. I find this unnecessarily combative.

Nor is this the first time of such practise. Nableezy had never edited Inter-Services Intelligence support for militants created by Darkness Shines in March, yet he felt compelled to request a speedy nomination in December after a disagreement with Darkness Shines. Ankh.Morpork 22:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I, uh, actually think he's right. Attribution isn't enough; we can't have non-free text on Wikipedia unless it's in the form of a brief quote, and while it wasn't super long, I can't reasonably call that page brief. If other admins disagree, they're free to restore, as always. You had good intentions, of course, and I'm not saying he was right in going through your sandboxes to find a "gotcha", but that kind of stuff shouldn't be held on-wiki, even if attributed. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

He may be right; I certainly do not fully understand the copyright rules. But I resent his habit of seeking to antagonise editors with whom he is involved in a dispute. Ankh.Morpork 22:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

AnkhMorpork already took this to EdJohnston's talk page, but Ill respond here as well. The above user copied, word for word, a lengthy op-ed from a copyrighted source. The "sandbox" has since been deleted as an unambiguous copyright violation. The user repeatedly questioned the use of a news article published by the Palestinian wire agency that also published the op-ed on the basis of this op-ed having been published. I did a google search on the author's name. Lo and behold a Wikipedia "sandbox" shows in the results. I clicked that link and found it to be a copyright violation of the original, and I nominated the "sandbox" for speedy deletion for that reason. AM, despite the big red box explicitly saying that if you are the creator of the page you may not remove the nomination, proceeds to remove the nomination. So, in total, a user violated the copyright of another person, violated our policies on copyright and then violated our policy on speedy deletion. At least he has dropped the personal attack that I maliciously hounded him this time around, so kudos for that. nableezy - 22:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I find his ideas in that discussion deeply troubling. I can't read Arabic, but he does seem to be first avoiding the question, then acknowledging that (a) the source is outspokenly racist, and (b) he still considers the source reliable. On the other hand, I don't think we're allowed to reproduce the text of a news article into our sandboxes, because copyright rules would apply. And 'hounding' would generally be more than once, and with less cause. Is it possible that you were wrong about the sandbox and he was wrong about the source? Does he have a pattern of anti-semitic edits that the problematic discussion is part of, or is there something else happening that caused him to want to use that source? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

FisherQueen, I never once said that op-ed was reliable, in fact I explicitly said that it was not and that it should not be used. That an op-ed contains such material does not however render a well-established wire agency as a whole unreliable. The "source" that AM is bringing here has never, as far as I know, been cited in any article by any user anywhere on Wikipedia. What AM brought was not a news article, but an op-ed so that he could attempt to disqualify actual news articles reporting on things that he would rather keep out of an article (that Israel killed a Palestinian fisherman). Is the Washington Post suddenly as a whole unreliable because they publish the rantings of Jennifer Rubin? Because that is the argument AM is making, and it is that argument that I objected to. nableezy - 22:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

"Well-established"? It was created in ...2005. Compare how the left wing Haaretz reported an incident regarding a man suspected of attempting to place an explosive device" and how this was distorted by Maan who described an innocent farmer. It is an inaccurate and antisemitic news agency and anything but reliable. Ankh.Morpork 23:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I really dont know whay you repeatedly bring up things that undercut your argument. Ma'an specifically says that [a]n Israeli military spokeswoman said forces fired on "a suspect apparently placing an explosive device." That Ma'an does not accept as Gospel what the IDF says doesnt make it unreliable, despite your imagination. And finally, this isnt RS/N. This is AN/I. The only incident that I can see here is that a user violated both the law and out policy on copyrighted work, then violated the policy on deletion by removing a speedy deletion tag from an article he created. nableezy - 23:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Fine. Compare how Reuters reported this death, noting how militant gunmen had opened fire on Israeli forces which they then responded to, and how Maan failed to mention any of the clashes that were taking place. Ankh.Morpork 00:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

They seem to report it much how the Guardian does. Or CNN. Both of which, like Ma'an, say that it took place during an incursion. And oh by the way, that wasnt the article Ma'an had about this specific child being killed. That would be this article that says the following:

Medics said the boy was hit by machine gun fire, either from Israeli helicopters or tanks that took part in the incident.

Israeli military vehicles briefly penetrated the southern Gaza Strip earlier Thursday morning, leading to clashes with Palestinian militants.

The Popular Resistance Committees said its gunmen had confronted an Israeli force of four tanks and a bulldozer involved in a short-range incursion beyond Israel's border fence with the Gaza Strip.

So Ma'an did in fact include what you falsely accuse them of not including, and your charge of it being an inaccurate and antisemitic news organization displays your partisanship more acutely than it does theirs. Having once again provided me with an assist, do you want to stop here? nableezy - 00:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Do wire agencies ordinarily print opinion pieces of this sort? I'm only familiar with English-language wire agencies, but I'm having trouble imagining Reuters or AP sharing an editorial that was openly racist in this way. Is the Ma'an News Agency reliably neutral in matters associated with the conflict between Palestine and Israel? The information I'm seeing indicates that its editorial position sides firmly with Palestine; wouldn't it be better to look for a source that everyone could agree was fairly reporting on the facts of the conflict? If this is a significant incident, surely it was covered on the Israeli side as well, so the accounts could at least be compared for facts that everyone agrees are accurate? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not aware of any source being reliably neutral in matters associated with the conflict between Palestine and Israel, including Israeli and Palestinian news agencies. However, we use Israeli news sources on a regular basis, they are probably the most cited sources on most articles in the topic area. There are any number of op-eds published by sources as Haaretz of the Jerusalem Post that I personally find repugnant. That doesnt mean that I can summarily dismiss their actual news reports. nableezy - 23:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

This astoundingly ridiculous argument is unfortunately what editors in the A-I conflict have to put up with. If the obviously Israel-leaning Arutz Sheva can be utilized in articles then pro-Arab sources should also be utilized. Never mind that the latter regularly publish antisemitic crap of the highest order, as linked above. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Unless Jennifer Rubin is dead I believe it is a BLP violation to have that she "rants" in this thread, could someone remove it please. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Having taken a look at the Jennifer Rubin (journalist) article, if the article is essentially true then "rant" is rather mild. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

"Fisherqueen" asks: Do wire agencies ordinarily print opinion pieces of this sort? Expert (me) answers: Yes. Poor little Wiki lambs, you must deal with outlets that run both news and opinion. Godspeed!Dan Murphy (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Please show an instance of Reuters or AP running a similar opinion piece. Ankh.Morpork 00:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

...just like I said above... and from an "expert" to boot. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Modern ignoramuses can start here [204]. All wire services move opinion pieces, some in large numbers, and have for decades. This place is pathetic that it gives equal voice to experts and propagandists (yes, I'm talking about "ankhmorpork" and "brewcrewer" when I write that). If they suggest that wire services don't move opinion pieces they're either lying or ignorant. One or the other.Dan Murphy (talk) 00:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You know what, here's the massive opinion section at Reuters for the propagandists (anonymous ones, notice) who claim that Reuters has no such section. [205].Dan Murphy (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't so much asking whether most wire agencies run opinion pieces, but whether most wire agencies run opinion pieces which are openly racist. I don't recall having seen anything of this sort from AP or Reuters. In fact, even deeply spurious, biased 'news agencies' like WorldNetDaily wouldn't, I think, publish something quite this racist. I didn't realize that I was both a dear little lamb and an ignorant liar. Can I be both? And is it okay for the three of you to call me names just for not realizing that all wire agencies publish material that I, in my ignorance, have only seen coming from actual hate groups? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I really dont see how it is at all relevant what an op-ed contributor to Ma'an wrote to the question of if Ma'an's news reports are reliable. Above AnkhMorpork makes the false allegation that Ma'an distorted the events surrounding the killing a Palestinian youth by Israeli forces by leaving out "context" when Ma'an said exactly what he claimed they did not. Why would it matter what some op-ed in the middle of a rather rough time to be living in Gaza said? Does it matter that an Israeli paper repeatedly cited in that article and used extensively throughout articles on the topic hosted an op-ed during this same period that said We need to flatten entire neighborhoods in Gaza. Flatten all of Gaza. The Americans didn't stop with Hiroshima – the Japanese weren't surrendering fast enough, so they hit Nagasaki, too.? No, it doesnt. Nobody has cited the source that AnkhMorpork is objecting to, and if anybody were to cite it they should be blocked. But he is waving around a single person's opinion that was printed as an opinion of a single person as a means to disqualify an entire news organization and to discredit them (speaking of BLP Darkness Shines, if you want to be technical about it) as inaccurate and antisemitic. You dont see a problem with that? nableezy - 01:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

If the translation is correct, and if the alleged "news organization" allows such garbage to be presented, then the alleged news organization has no credibility and cannot be used as a source. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Says you, not our policy on verifiability or the guideline on reliable sources. The BBC apparently feels they can be cited^[206][207] as does the Guardian^{[208][209][210]} as does al-Jazeera.^[211][212] They are not disqualified as a source on your say so, sorry. We have guidelines here that say that this news organization is a reliable source. That they published an op-ed, regardless of what it says, is a red-herring. nableezy - 02:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

If you feel comfortable throwing your support behind an organization that tolerates Nazi-style anti-Jewish racism, then you're beyond hope on this issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll concede that they're a reliable source for vile commentary about Jews. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the quality of commentary expected of you. Your reputation precedes you, and you surely do not disappoint. Did the BBC throw [their] support behind an organization that tolerates Nazi-style anti-Jewish racism? Did the Guardian? Did the New York Times?^{[213][214][215]} Does somebody calling for an entire area to be wiped out like Hiroshima on the opinion pages of the Jerusalem Post make the Jerusalem Post unreliable for its news reports? nableezy - 04:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Whatever, there aint a point in debating something on a board like this, if AnkhMorpork, or you, would like to challenge a source routinely cited by other reliable sources on the basis that they allowed an op-ed to be published you can do that somewhere else, and Ill be more than happy to bat away any other line that you think is clever there. nableezy - 04:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Has the alleged "reliable source" in question ever allowed an op-ed condemning the reign of terror that Palestinian extremists have waged against Israel for the last 40-plus years? Was that obscene anti-Jewish editorial accompanied by a disclaimer disavowing it? I'll wait for your reliably-sourced confirmation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Youll be waiting for a while, I generally dont answer stupid questions. You can choose to either argue against the points that I made or you can try look, and yes just look, smart by asking asinine questions. Maan is cited by numerous other reliable sources, it meets all the criteria set in WP:RS. What an op-ed says doesnt change that. Just like an op-ed in the Jerusalem Post that appears to call for genocide against those dastardly Palestinians and their reign of terror doesnt change that their news reports meet the standards set in WP:RS. nableezy - 14:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Your comments here, though lacking in fact and reflection, are sufficiently revealing of your true character. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Lacking in fact and reflection? What are you smoking? Im the only person who has brought any facts here. AM says the source didnt include context, I show that it did. You say alleged "reliable source", I say here are links to top-rate news sources using the source. You say I am throwing [my] support behind an organization that tolerates Nazi-style anti-Jewish racism, I say no, I am using news sources that other news sources are perfectly willing to cite. You say the reign of terror that Palestinian extremists have waged against Israel for the last 40-plus years and I giggle. So whose comments again are lacking in fact and reflection? nableezy - 16:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Keep digging. The bottom is down there somewhere. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

One last question for you to ignore. If a newspaper were to run an op-ed that said You can put a mask on the Palestinian wild beast, such as a speaker who speaks fluent English. You can put it in a three-piece suit and a silk tie. But once in a while – when the moon is born, when a raven defecates on the head of a howling jackal, or when the pita-bread with za’atar has gone wrong, the beast feels this is its night, and out of a primal instinct it goes ambushing its prey., would that newspaper actual news reports no longer be considered "reliable"? nableezy - 05:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

You lost me at the bakery. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Uh, time out. This is not the incident, time, or place to re-fight the whole I-P conflict again. The deletion due to copyright violation appears proper on first inspection, arguing over the source's bias / reliability is not useful here and now. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I thought this discussion was about hounding and not the deletion due due copyright. Easy to see why it got twisted based on the nonstop rebuttals and poor attitude shown all around in the discussion, though. Cptnono (talk) 07:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Easy to see that the two factors are not easily separated, Captain. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

In general - If X was appropriate (judgement, within policy, improving or un-damaging the encyclopedia), and user A does thing X (originally by user C) then that's OK. If X requires admin tools and A was in conflict with C over other issues, that's one example where it's not ok. If A is actively hounding C that's another not-OK example. Best practice in those cases is for A to notify others and let them review and do it. X not actually being appropriate is another not ok, of course.

That said, the actions here did not use admin tools, there might have been conflict but I don't see any well-stated evidence of going beyond that into actual hounding, and there seems no articulated argument that X was not appropriate. The situation is not described in terms that rise to the level of an actual problem, though some perceived there might be one. Hounding is not conflict, it requires a much more active, deep harassment.

AnkhMorpark perceived he was abused, but has not provided evidence that he was in fact hounded (or even harassed in the actionable sense, or sustained sense).

If there is evidence of actual harassment or hounding, or a good case that under policy the deletion was a problem, those are valid things to pursue. What has been presented was a dispute, but not (based on evidence I see) abuse, harassment, or hounding. There is no good evidence the deletion was wong. Ankh feeling wronged explains the report, but that does not mean the actual events rise to the level that any policy violations or abusive conduct happened.

I recommend another admin archive this, as it's generating much heat and little light now, and there seems to be no actionable incident for admins to respond to. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Editor violating BLP and making unsupported suggestions of a rape victim on RD

User:Wrk678 made this silly post about a at the time living person [216]. They readded [217] it when someone attempted to remove it. They then made more silly suggestions (the victim may have died by this time so perhaps technically not a BLP violation) [218] despite the fact our article which had been pointed out to them offered fairly obvious explainations as I later pointed out here [219] (before just deleting the entire section). If that's not enough for a indef, I have been monitoring this editor since I first saw them since I have good reason to believe based on similarity of question type (e.g. on chemicals and harm to the body) and writing style and other obvious similarities that the editor is yet another sock of User:Kci357 who was finally blocked for good for good after exhausting the communities patience at the encyclopaedia proper, to be reallowed back in after implying they would behave only to quickly return to said behave and get blocked again. [220] BTW despite their denials [221], I'm confident Kci is a sock of User:Kj650 and many other identities besides at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kci357/Archive, quite a few of which were never blocked simply abandoned hence the fairly incomplete list. I never bothered open a CU since I believe it will have to be based on behaviour evidence alone and the editor's behavious seemed to be borderline acceptable (in particularly they seem to have stayed away from deleting stuff from articles they disagree with even when it's sourced while adding their own unsourced stuff). Nil Einne (talk) 13:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked him for a week for that obnoxious trolling. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

(His allegations that a young woman who was brutally gang-raped and murdered, and a schoolgirl who was shot in the head, must have been faking it and/or actually harmed themselves, seems extremely misogynistic - and I would not object if someone decided he is not the kind of person we want here at all.) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

On a similar note, if anyone thinks I have overreacted then please feel free to adjust my actions accordingly - I confess to feeling revolted by this person's despicable claims. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

BTW I just realised I neglected to inform them of this discussion, but by this time they've obviously been blocked and so can't respond directly. I informed them anyway since someone can copy it over it over if needed. Nil Einne (talk) 14:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hell no Boing. you were spot on with the block. I had responded to that post but ended up self reverting as I felt it would just encourage his trolling. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Page move mess

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.

---

Pretty unexciting stuff I'm afraid, but could an admin cleanup the page move mess between Wikipedia:JumpSoft --> Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/JumpSoft --> JumpSoft. There is a substantial amount of page history at Wikipedia:JumpSoft that could do with merging into JumpSoft. I haven't requested this via CSD tags because Wikipedia:JumpSoft is not a valid redirect to article space and therefore ultimately needs deleting. Pol430 talk to me 17:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• It's exciting now. There are links of different colours. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh yes, that's much prettier. Ta very much Pol430 talk to me 19:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Vandalism on Tom Rice and also possible threat on my talk page

I have worked hard on the Tom Rice article, but yet Moriori deleted most of the information I made on 00:56, December 23, 2012‎ [Dif] that I felt was need to create a good article and the reason Moriori deleted the information according to a message left on my (talk) page that improve it from a bloggy, pov, poorly written mishmash to a reasonably encyclopedic article (an ongoing task). I took it from this abomination to this. I was trying to make the Tom Rice article to the Tim Scott article. Also to me the following left on my (talk) page sounds like a threat to me: "I have reverted you and suggest you don't revert me again. Instead, if you believe I am wrong you can report me elsewhere or ask for comment elsewhere." and this is because I accused Moriori of vandalism which I have felt she has committed on the said article. Sk8terguy27_Talk 00:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC) User Moriori has been notified that he/she is subject of a discussion here.

• Content/sourcing dispute. NOT vandalism.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  00:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• 8-paragraph word-for-word copyright violation, 10-paragraph word-for-word copyright violation, and 9-paragraph word-for-word double copyright violation that also presents campaign literature as fact. This is "reasonably encyclopaedic"? It's not in any way encyclopaedic. Read our Wikipedia:copyright policy and do not edit in this way again. Every edit page that you've ever seen here has told you not to do this. If you are not able to write original, free content, prose of your own, do not write. Uncle G (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • If I was informed of the copyright issue I would have re-written it, but no someone decided to delete all my hard work instead of letting me know there was a issue or fixing the article themselves. How can it be campaign literature as I don't have any campaign literature in frobt of me? Sk8terguy27_Talk 01:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
    • It is not "hard work" to copy and paste multiple paragraphs en bloc from someone else's writing. It's the opposite of hard work, in fact. And of course you had campaign literature in front of you. You even named it. And, I repeat, you were informed of the requirement not to violate copyright with every edit page that you have ever seen at Wikipedia. The fix for copyright violation is to revert to the last prior non-infringing version, not the creation of derivative works. Taking your misappropriation of writing that wasn't written by you entirely out of the article is quite the right thing to do. Violate copyright no more. Otherwise I or another administrator will simply revoke your editing privileges for the protection of the project. Wikipedia is damaged by "writing" that is actually the filching of other people's non-free-content writing. Uncle G (talk) 01:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
      • I'll rewrite the article at some point in the future and write it in my own words and not violate anyone's copyright. I have re-wrote articles before that didn't violate anyone copyright and what proof do you have I violated copyright? I try as hard as I can to re-write articles, but sometimes parts of an article have to be copy and pasted as it is hard for me to rewrite somethings. Sk8terguy27_Talk 01:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
        • Sadly you do actually need to be able to rewrite all things (unless you both quote AND attribute very SHORT sections, like half a sentence). So although I would love it if Uncle G were to mellow his tone a bit (what is hard work for some may not be hard work for others), unfortunately he is right that if the only way you can create or substantially expand an article is to copy and paste things, then you would be better advised not to get involved in article expansion at all. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• If you think it best for me to retire from editing I will. Sk8terguy27_Talk 02:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

First of all, nobody said you should retire from editing. They just said that you should stop copying and pasting directly. Think of it this way: By having you copy and paste something, Wikipedia could be sued for copyright violations. Then Wikipedia gets shut down. That's kind of extreme, but it could happen. You are free to edit, but take the information and use it to formulate good neutral paragraphs of your own words before putting it in an article. Copyright means just the opposite, you do not have the right to copy it. You can't copy it into an article and then change a few words, we have tools that catch that too. The editors aren't saying retire, they're just saying stop copying things. Sorry, saw this and had to go all editor retention. gwickwire^talk_edits 03:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Based on reading this and a look through your edits, a copyright investigation is looking likely, as it seems the majority of your "work" violates copyright. Already cleaned up one article and am finding more. Wizardman 04:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) More copyvios/plagiarism found at David Bennett (American football); nearly all of the material has been ripped directly from [222] and [223]. --MuZemike 04:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I've given a final warning, which I think is quite generous. --Rschen7754 04:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I concur with your opinion that it's quite generous. In this 14 Oct edit sk8erguy27 wrote: "I have worked hard and put many hours in this article and I don't want to re-do this article, so please do not make any unnecessary changes or remove and image unless it violates copyright law." This is a demonstration that he wasn't clueless and knew that what he was doing may infringe upon copyrights. A WP:CCI case needs to be opened, and the user indefinitely blocked, with the provision that the ban be lifted if he can prove to the community, somehow, that the pattern will stop. A warning? With all due respect, I don't consider the soft approach to be the most suitable course of action in this situation. PhnomPencil (talk) 10:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

(He's demonstrated a knowledge of copyright and demonstrated he couldn't care less. AGF does not apply here.) PhnomPencil (talk) 10:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd argue that all he demonstrated by that 14 Oct edit was an awareness that such a thing as copyright exists, not an understanding of it nor how it's relevant on Wikipedia. In my opinion the final warning is more than enough action against the editor for now, given that he now appears to have (slowly) understood the seriousness of the situation, finally stopped adding copyvio material, and has started following some of the advice he's been given. (He was advised to request WP:ADOPTION and has now done so; his last apparently copyvio addition was on 26 Dec, only a few days after the failure of the RfA that apparently brought all this to light.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Alright, maybe I've received a hundred too many essays completely lifted from another source and have thus ended up despising that action more than is warranted... I trust those involved know how to handle this situation more than me (but I've got to say, I think we're too soft on serial copyright infringers; if it's a big enough problem to be CCIed, they've hurt the project enough to be indef blocked, IMHO). PhnomPencil (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

In the real world, intent is an element of almost any crime. As Demiurge1000 said above, I agree that he was just being ingnorant and now that he knows it is a problem, he is taking measures to get educated. And I also agree that if he screws up again, he has the intent and we should throw the book at him. Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Just a quick note that it now looks unlikely that a CCI will be required for this (though some other cleanup is), more details here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Can an Administrator Please Look Into Fixing This? (Edit Filter False Positive on Robert B. Bell)

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 an administrator please look into fixing this?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter#Filter_False_Positive 68.50.128.91 (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

No, that content has been proposed and rejected before many times. Look at the history of the article. If anything we should be watching the article more closely, but I won't propose protecting the page as it seems to be only a rare occurrence. Still, the filter is working properly and this is definitely not a false positive. Looking at your own editing history I now believe youre only pretending not to know why the edit was stopped, but for the benefit of others I'll leave my answer up. ☮Soap☮ 01:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Editor Lljjp

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.

---

Something's not right with this account that was created a few minutes ago: Special:Contributions/Lljjp. Could an admin examine this? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Bongwarrior (talk · contribs) was kind enough to block Lljjp. As you can see at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mangoeater1000, this has been an ongoing problem with this user. Thanks for noticing the edits, though. 72Dino (talk) 23:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk page harassment by sock of User:Mangoeater1000

An SPI has been created for User:Lljjp as a sockpuppet of User:Mangoeater1000, but now this user is continuing to bombard my talk page with accusations after being told to stop. Need some assistance from an admin to make this stop. 72Dino (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The user has been blocked, so this has been taken care of for now. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Yerevanci fabricating claims that images uploaded as non-free are actually public domain

Earlier today, I removed about a dozen images identified as non-free from List of architects of Baku. About half those images were included in the list section; the other half were in a gallery displaying the work of various listed architects. None of the images had NFCC rationales supporting their inclusion in that article. No argument has been advanced suggesting that such use can be allowed under applicable NFCC policy.

One minute later,User:Yerevanci began restoring all the images to the article, declaring them to be public domain. In response to my remocal of the images, he altered their underlying file pages, changing the original identification of the images from nonfree to public domain. Yerevanci was not the original uploader of the images, and there is no reason to believe, especially given the very short timespan involved, that Yerevanci made any significant efforts to verify the applicability of his boilerplate tagging. In general, the public domain claims he makes with regard to the images require that either the date of death of the photographer or the circumstances of the original publication be established; however, for all of these images, the identity of the photographer has not been provided, and the original publication has not been ascertained. These are simply photographs found on various websites, with no discernible provenance, of 20th-century subjects. Absent more information, we cannot presume these images to be PD. The original tagging was careful and correct, and Yerevanci should not have summarily altered it or restored the images.

Yerevanci is a combative user (see an earlier section on this page, for example), and the article is already entangled in the sort of disputes that often spread across articles even tangentially related to ethnic controversies. Some of his other image uploads/uses are clearly problematic at best (eg, putting a nonfree image in a BLP infobox). I suspect community intervention is likely to be more productive, perhaps necessary. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

As I understood, there is a huge confusion here. Please take a look at the death dates of the architects. Most of them have died in 1940s and 1950s and I, being an Armenian editor of Wikipedia for over 3 years, am familiar with most of these men. The Russian and Azerbaijani copyright laws set the age of the copyright at 70 years, which takes us back to 1942. Most architects in the list have worked as architects before the Russian Revolution of 1917 and de facto worked until 1914, the start of WWI. Therefore, it is very likely that these photos have been taken before 1942, thus are in public domain. I am admitting that I din't not manually check each one of them, because there is an 80 to 90% chance that they in PD. --Երևանցի _{ասելիք կա՞} 00:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

That's not good enough - we need 100% evidence that they are PD, not just your personal reasoning regarding likelihood and your 80-90% estimate. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, if they aren't in PD, then go ahead delete them. What's the problem here? I just gave the reasoning of my moves. --Երևանցի ^talk 01:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Be aware that the copyright period is based on the copyright owner which is likely the photographer and rarely the subject. Without knowing who the photographer is or when they died, we'd have to assume a long copyright term (120 years from date of publication, IIRC). They definitely aren't PD. --MASEM (t) 01:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, the Russian copyright law (which includes Azerbaijan and whole territory of Soviet Union) says that copyright doesn't include works

“ originally published anonymously or under a pseudonym before January 1, 1943 and the name of the author did not become known during 50 years after publication.

source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Russia

”

If you can find the authors of these works I wish you good luck.--Երևանցի ^talk 01:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You, Yerevanci, have to proof the first part: that they were published anonymously or under a pseudonym. Because no source is listed, we have to assume them non-free and treat them that way until you positively proof that PD statement. --MASEM (t) 01:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You, my dear friend, are free to do whatever you think is right. If you think that a photo from pre-1918 era isn't in PD, then delete them. Don't make a big deal out of nothing. Again, as a person who is very familiar with the topic, I'm absolutely sure that it's almost impossible to find the original authors of these photographs. --Երևանցի ^talk 01:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Copyright starts from the point of publication, not creation. I don't doubt these are pre-1918 images, but there's no indication (due to a lack of source) that they were published around then. They could have been first published in 1970, for example, and that would make them well within copyright. This is why you need to positively show these images are in the PD, because we can't make assumptions otherwise like that. The fact these lack any source declaration does not help. --MASEM (t) 03:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You folks are attempting to enforce an interpretation of copyright and Wikipedia policy that would basically make it impossible to upload almost anything, since the degree of certainty you are demanding is generally impossible to achieve. I assume your good faith, but in point of fact, your actions significantly harm this project and make it less useful for our readers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

No, not really. First, we're not saying this pictures can't be used, that without any confirmation of the original likely source, we have to assume them non-free and treat them as non-free. They can be used on the article pages about the various architects in line with NFCC, but they can't be used in tables or galleries. If they were PD, then that would mean they would meet the requirements of Commons, and my experience there is the lack of a strong declaration of a source for these will cause Commons to reject them, irregardless of the apparent age of the photo. --MASEM (t) 03:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I have been editing Wikipedia articles for over 3 years and have uploaded hundreds of images to the Commons and you can check and see that I provide as much information as possible, but in this case I simply do not know of a way to find out the authors of those photos and the dates of their first publication. Believe me, I've done a enormous amount of work for this project and I do know what you're talking about and do respect that. But you should also understand that English-language sources are much more in number and much more available online than Armenian, Azeri and Russian or any other language sources, which makes it very difficult for users like me, that work on articles outside of the Anglophone world, to find detailed information for every historic photo. Let me give you an example for a clearer view. The Library of Congress has millions of images that have pretty good description about their history, including the author or the publication date. There is no such resource that I can use for my work. See the difference? This is all I can say. If you eventually decide to delete them, I can't blame you, because we have no actual way of finding the required information. --Երևանցի ^talk 04:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are some works whose copyright status is hazy enough that we cannot be sure. Despite a good-faith effort to find out and/or possible rationalization, we don't have the authority (legally--as I understand it--or per WMF-based more strict and conservative policies) to overcome that problem. Orphan works really are a problem, but there's nothing that we can do about it ourselves here. We really do need some actual evidence (doesn't have to be on-line, but does have to be actual). DMacks (talk) 04:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactly - the problem is that when we mark an image PD or CC-BY, we're enabling its free, unrestricted reuse by users of Wikipedia. If we are wrong about that tagging - putting a work into PD/CC-BY that is still under copyright - we are violating copyright law. On the other hand, there is minimal harm of marking what really is a PD/CC-BY image as nonfree, certainly nothing that would put WP in legal trouble. Hence, we require strong prove of an image's PD/CC-BY nature. Mind you, we do assume good faith at times since for older images tracking the exact first publication can be impossible, but this always requires at least one other source that has also published said works so that a review of their history can be started. Most of the images in question lack this source. --MASEM (t) 04:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, the issue isn't whether or not to delete them - if they're properly labeled as NFCC and used in a valid context (eg to illustrate each architect in a biographical description), then that should be fine. What is not fine is to mark them as PD when we cannot actually show for sure that they are PD. So, as long as they are labeled correctly and used appropriately, I don't see any problem with keeping them as NFCC. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Intentional Vandalism

This user has range of ip addresses here.Already used many for the same cause and some of them get blocked too.Some diff,s are with this range [224],with other range [225].Did all disruption with same tone and in common articles as Vidya Balan,Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara‎ ,[[Wanted (2009 film)]‎].---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 07:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I just hit the most recent one, let me see if there's a blockable range. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Just the ones you gave are from widely spaced ranges, so I don't see any way to do a rangeblock. At the moment the best solution may be just semi-protection on the targeted articles. I see that Floquenbeam has already protected the 3 you mentioned; are there any more targets? Qwyrxian (talk) 07:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Two ranges are for sure while i dont know exactly how ranges are described at wiki, I will put some more differences if i found further.Thanx---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 08:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

One range with common starting 101.63.98.70,,101.63.86.238,,101.63.44.114 etc,
Other with 115.240.38.133,,115.241.247.149,,115.242.69.83,,115.241.203.78 and 115.240.123.33.They all worked during near time intervals with similar type of edit summaries and their network provider is same from india.May be from a company or organisation.---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 08:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

He's back [226].---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 11:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, we cannot put a rangeblock on such a vast range of IP addresses. Visit WP:RFPP to request page protection for common targets (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to disturb you, but there is no specific target for me. You can find which page I have targeted and revert the vandalism. 115.241.178.64 (talk) 13:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Why not fix it yourself? In fact, why do the equivalent of colouring in a library book at all? Freedom to edit does not mean freedom to edit in a stupid manner (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Boomage

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

---

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

Many thanks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi all,

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

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

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

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

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

Good afternoon Boomage

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

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

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

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

Hello albert square

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

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

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

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

Hello again Boomage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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:Official Lists

• Official Lists (talk · contribs)
• "Legal action is being taken against the person who edited this section on 16 Dec 2012 as the changes are untrue or defamatory."

Can someone please enforce the no legal threats policy against this POV pusher? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Is anyone else concerned that this account's name or editing indicates it could be shared between multiple individuals? Salvidrim! 12:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes. Orangemike was. Uncle G (talk) 13:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• Indef blocked for legal threat. KTC (talk) 13:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Joy doesn't have the half of it, alas. There's a whole theatrical company of single-purpose characters here:

• Art Experts (talk · contribs) — claims to be Ingrid Detter de Frankopan‎, also complaining about the piped wikilink to fellow#Oxford, Cambridge and Dublin in that article, and blocked for always speaking in the first person plural at Talk:Selby Whittingham
• Univ editor (talk · contribs) — points to Times
• Cassadina (talk · contribs) — removes assertions and implications of a name change
• Official Lists (talk · contribs) — statement of taking legal action, as above
• ELIGO INTERNATIONAL (talk · contribs) — says "We are the official spokesman of Lord Nicholas Windsor" in an edit to a now-deleted user page
• Legalfund (talk · contribs) — makes the same edit on the wikilink to fellow#Oxford, Cambridge and Dublin, more than once, and reverts to an Official Lists' version of an article
• LadyinSable (talk · contribs)

They all have interests that span only a small set of articles:

• House of Frankopan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Lawrence Frankopan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (current AFD discussion)
• Ingrid Detter de Frankopan‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Lady Nicholas Windsor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (2007 AFD discussion)
• Lord Nicholas Windsor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Louis Frankopan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Uncle G (talk) 13:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Ah, the smell of sockfarms in the morning... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'm aware, I just didn't intend this to be a full case summary, I merely wanted someone else to pull the plug because it was me who they were targetting in this particular edit, so if I had done it, there might have been a WP:INVOLVED problem. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Boomage

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

---

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

Many thanks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi all,

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

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

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

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

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

Good afternoon Boomage

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

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

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

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

Hello albert square

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

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

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

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

Hello again Boomage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.