Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Dolphin drive hunting

Resolved

 – No admin-intervention needed

Could someone more experienced with policy matters than me (preferably an administrator) look over the past 24 hours or so of edits at this article and let me know if I've done anything against policy or otherwise improper? I'd also like some input on dealing with the recent edits and exactly what should be done when things like this come up. I've read a lot of policy on related matters but I'm not sure this is as clear-cut as some of the situations outlined there. Thanks very much. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 04:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I would also appreciate knowing how to deal with all this; I'm trying to do the right thing Wiki-wise but it is becoming very difficult. Everything I try to do gets removed. I am totally confused. Aravis195 (talk) 04:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Aravis, you're dealing with a Good Article--all the more reason to keep in mind Wikipedia's normal rules of operation: write it well, with reference to reliable sources. And leave YouTube out of it. Evanh, thank you. Drmies (talk) 05:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It continued, so this happened. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 07:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Drmies - I am just about giving up on pleasing Evanh, who seems to have appointed himself to remove every single edit I make, even some which I know, from checking rules, are legitimate and correctly cited. In fact, he has simply reverted the article to its original state without explanation to me. I am a writer and know how to write articles; I was learning how to write in Wikipedia, but Evanh has made further attempts impossible. This is not a good advertisement for Wikipedia. I am in a group which has deep and wide knowledge of our subject and it would have benefited thw efforts of conservationists of stature round the world. But thanks to one user, it has proved impossible to get past the second paragraph and our time would probably be better spent in a forum where quality and knowledge are actually respected.Aravis195 (talk) 08:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's say it once again: leave youtube video links out of your edits; period. You restored that link (as well as a bunch of other non-neutral point of view and items that provide undue weight), so it HAS to be removed (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You might be a good writer, but Wikipedia has specific rules as to what qualifies as a valid source for citation. YouTube almost never qualifies for that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

This is not good writing, let alone good encyclopedic writing. But it's clear to almost everybody, I think, that this is not (yet) a matter that requires admin intervention. The article is locked now because of this content dispute, and a block for edit warring for Aravis is thus prevented, I reckon; one hopes that Aravis will see that their edits are not according to consensus and not according to our guidelines. Any "deep and wide knowledge" is nixed by the lack of references to reliable source, and further attempts to turn the article into an activist forum are likely to be prevented by editorial consensus. Aravis, continuing down this path will ensure that the article will remain locked and that you yourself might be blocked. Please edit according to our guidelines, not according to what you think is right. Drmies (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree this doesn't really require admin intervention; I did comment at User talk:Aravis195 this morning with some details. There wasn't a need to clutter this board. Whether or not Aravis appreciates the help and acts on it remains to be seen; his penultimate edit (as of now) does not show a desire to continue here in any capacity. A shame, really; passion can often be channeled productively even if this place can be intimidating to newbies.  Frank  |  talk  20:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat by User:Uboater at Talk:U-8047_Replica_Submarine#Connection_with_trust

Dealing with UBoater

Editor objecting to inclusion of sourced content now says "Unless you remove the section, which is clearly in breach of the british law of subjudicy, I will have no alternitive other than to persue a libel by litigation cace against you." PamD 15:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

And a direct threat of litigation has also been made directly against Wikipedia and myself here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 15:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked. As usual for LT blocks, it is indefinite. But the user may be unblocked by any admin (without prior consultation with me) if they determine that the threats have been sufficiently withdrawn. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Could someone else please keep an eye on the blocked user's talk page. I've been in discussions with him, trying to get him to understand that he has to withdraw the threat without trying to renew it in the next sentence. The discussion is ongoing, but I'm going to need to leave the computer for a hour or two, and will thus be unable to respond in a timely manner to any more responses from him. So if one or more other admins would keep an eye out for further responses, and continue to assist him, including unblocking if the other admin(s) feel that a sufficient withdrawal has been made, it would be appreciated. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I took a quick look at his talk page, and I praise higher powers that I didn't press F7 (spellcheck) by accident. Had I done that, my computer would have self-destructed. It must be some sort of unofficial world record. HandsomeFella (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• It's perhaps worth noting that Uboater self-identifies as "Capt.Richard Williams", the person the disputed content is about, so it's natural that there will be an emotive element to this -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Their statement "I was arested, but have not been charged with any offense." makes it clear that it it is a personal matter. They are thinking in terms of British law, not Wikipedia guidelines, and I don't think you are going to change their minds on this. The user's contribs show they have a singular interest at Wikipedia, and their interest is in their own reputation. I don't see this getting to the point of unblocking because the user's self interest is greater than their concern about the process here, and they are basically giving an ultimatum that if we do thing their way, they will consider not seeking legal action. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Back. I agree that it looks unlikely now that they will withdrawal the threat sufficiently to meet WP:NLT. Should a heads-up be given to the WF legal team? UK vs US or not, I do not see him giving up on this, and that means that there will possibly be something or other coming at the project at some point over this. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Seeing how his last statement ends, "Simply remove the ofending comments and I will withdraw my legal challange," shall we simply ignore him? He's not abusing his talk page so I don't know if there's reason to block access to it, yet there's apparently nothing to be gained by continued engagement. --Golbez (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• I left a note, in one sentence. I propose we simply leave this be until the captain retracts. Drmies (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I have accepted a withdrawal of the legal threats, and unblocked Uboater, with a warning to avoid any more mention of any potential of future legal actions on his part. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Dealing with the article

• Legal threat though it is, the material is improper and a violation of BLP Do no harm. The arrest is over the tax concerns of the owner of the Uboat replica in an unrelated venture. Apparently it happened on the boat, but as our article explicitly says, it has no other connection. I can not see keeping this material here, and I have deleted it. if he wants to think we removed it as a result of his threats, we can not stop him, but he did have a justifiable complaint no matter how improper was the way he pursued it, and the removal is in accord with our policy. TransporterMan justifies the sentence on the basis no RS says it is unconnected. The true policy is that it must be removed until there is a RS saying it is connected. We do not include negative information of this nature while awaiting a source for it. DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a certain irony to all this, given that the editor in question first came to the attention of many editors by spamming another story about himself onto Royal Armouries Museum and various other articles. He is now unblocked and has the sourced news item removed - he appears to have won. PamD 08:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Would a cut-down form of wording: "Additional media attention was drawn to the boat when a man was arrested on board in January, 2012, in connection with an alleged multi-year £1 million VAT fraud." be acceptable in BLP terms, with the existing sources? It was the boat which made the headlines - if he had been arrested in an ordinary house the press would not have been interested. PamD 08:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Or the form the editor himself said he would be "quite happy" with: "Additional media attention was drawn to the boat on January 26th 2012, when Capt. Williams was arrested on board the boat and his personal possessions were searched. This arest was in connection with an alleged £1 million VAT fraud, dating back 7 years, involving false sales of disability equipment. The only connection with U-8047 TRUST, which is just 10 months old, is that Capt. Williams was on board the submarine museum at the time of his arest" (spelling, date format, and self-awarded title to be amended)? PamD 09:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Pam, you're missing the point. It doesn't matter what the user is happy with. It matters how we handle unimportant criminal events that happen to get a little publicity. If he wants to hide his arrest or flaunt it--presumably for publicity, it doesn't matter. He can be as foolish as he likes outside Wikipedia. We have our own reputation, and we're not a tabloid. Let's say of the the faculty whose bios I often work with wants to put in his bio, possibly for his street cred with his students, that he was involved with drinking or drugs as an undergraduate. It doesn't go in, unless he's so famous that everything about him is pertinent or its actually relevant to what he's famous for--e.g. Kary Muliss DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

But this is not a bio. It's an article about a (probably only marginally notable) minor tourist attraction. It featured in newspapers apropos of an arrest; an editor added that fact; a WP:SPA editor removed it; it was replaced (several iterations); the SPA threatened legal action if it was not removed; he was blocked, he was unblocked, it was removed. Ah well, there are more important things to fret about than this pretend submarine. PamD 22:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

BLP material is BLP material, regardless of what kind of article it's in. And it's not about whether or not he "won" - if he got what he wanted, and the result is what we would want in line with Wikipedia's policies, everyone won. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Beyond that, Mr. Williams is quite right in that the arrest is incidental to the submarine. For pity's sake, we don't include in building or location articles when arrests take place there, even of famous people, never mind of folks without articles. Were Williams to qualify for his own article, sourced info of his arrest would be pertinent. In the sub article, it's well below superfluous. No one would dream of including the info in, say, the Buckingham Palace article were he arrested there.

Beyond that - and worth an "Ahem!" - we are here to determine what is right to do, not to score points off of other editors. Of course WP:NLT violations are pretty much at the top of the scale for misconduct here, but to not apply perfectly reasonable edits to articles because someone who narked us off could claim victory? To use an uncle's pithy phrase, we shouldn't get our asses in it that much. Ravenswing 17:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Sundostund and multiple articles on presidents of Egypt

Sundostund (talk · contribs) has been making several reversions without comment about Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, the head of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (the military junta currently ruling Egypt), being the current "President of Egypt". I have disputed these edits and have repeatedly asked that Sundostund justify the edits on the talk pages of the affected articles, those articles being List of Presidents of Egypt and President of Egypt. You can see the talk page sections here: Talk:List of Presidents of Egypt#Acting president and Talk:President of Egypt#office is vacant. Sundostund has repeatedly reverted without making comments on either talk page. He has also refused to respond to my requests that he address the issues rather than repeatedly revert without comment on his own talk page (see here). Most recently, having again reverted without comment, I again requested that he address the issue at the relevant talk pages. His response was to once again revert without comment ([1], which follows an earlier revert made without comment today ([2]), and then to blank my requests on his talk page (one from a month ago that went unanswered and one from today, [3]). I dont know what else I should do, I would like to refrain from edit-warring but discussion is apparently not on the table with this user. I refrained from bringing this here in the past as I do not doubt the user's good faith, but when he refuses deign to even acknowledge my requests on the talk page I do not see what other choice I have. He may have reasons for repeatedly placing somebody who is not a president of Egypt in a list of presidents of Egypt, but as he has refused to say one word to me about that I am not quite sure what those reasons are. nableezy - 20:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

After being informed of this report, Sundostund has made yet another reversion without any comment, not deigning to provide so much as an edit summary for reverting (here). nableezy - 22:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• I do have my doubts about the user's good faith, and I certainly have doubts about their ability to work in a collaborative environment. In their last 1000 edits there isn't a single edit summary, not a single edit to a talk page. That is not good, and the longer I'm around, the more I begin to think that we should have a blocking template for refusing to talk. Note: editor was been blocked before, for edit-warring. I hope they will respond here soon. Drmies (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• I've come across the same pattern of unconstructive editing at List of kings of Iraq and now also at List of kings of Lesotho. On both articles, I upgraded the monarch list to include more information and to standardise the presentation of that info. I was reverted by User:Sundostund without explanation. I've repeatedly requested a talk page discussion. I've attempted to start such a discussion myself, both informally and currently by RFC. All in all, I can rely on this user neither to communicate nor collaborate. ClaretAsh 23:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Nobody but me, ClaretAsh, and Nableezy seem to care, but I consider this highly disruptive. They've cleared their talk page again, and I've reverted another one of their unexplained edits and left a level-3 warning for vandalism, since there is nothing templated available. I could leave a note on their talk page, but what's the point? Drmies (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I also had a very unpleasant encounter with Sundostund when I improved the untenable colour scheme of the article List of Prime Ministers of Saint Kitts and Nevis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). My edit was reverted without any edit summary, and my attempt to discuss the matter was ignored for two days. When I advised Sundostund that I assumed his silence meant agreement before I reverted his revert, he did not engage on the material points of my argument, stating (I'm paraphrasing) "I don't like it" and removing the discussion from his talk page. This editor certainly does not want to engage in collaboration or communication. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Pay for edits in Wikipedia

I came across a contract here. Together with the history of the article Blazetrak, it looks suspicious. Hermann.129 (talk) 08:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the deleted history, it rapidly becomes obvious here WizardlyWho (talk · contribs) is involved... The Cavalry (Message me) 09:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep. The job history rings a few warning bells (for example, this and this don't look too hopeful at face value). EyeSerene^talk 10:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there any relation to this? Also MooshiePorkFace (talk · contribs). Polequant (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Mooshie is definitely the same user, which would make Wizardly a sock of them, since Mooshie just edited the other day. Doc talk 13:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

What about this account? User:Foxj. Curious because matches the name and deleted the article in a rush.Hermann.129 (talk) 13:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

? Foxj is a six year, 28,000 edit admin account. They just performed a WP:CSD. Nobody Ent 13:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The name does match the elance account, though I'd hesitate at this stage to jump to too many conclusions. However, the deletion may have been out of process. It was deleted as "G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page", but according to this WizardlyWho accidentally blanked the page (also see deleted article history, admins only unfortunately) and was thanking Bentogoa for restoring it. G7 wouldn't seem to apply. I'm wondering if some checkuser input might be useful here. EyeSerene^talk 14:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Checkusers are aware, don't worry - it'll be sorted by the end of today. The Cavalry (Message me) 14:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks :) Also, on re-reading my above it's less clear than I intended. By my checkuser reference I didn't mean to imply that Foxj is running sock accounts. I was referring to the WizardlyWho and Mooshie accounts. Sorry about that. EyeSerene^talk 14:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed (and now blocked) socks are:

• BicycleFinish (talk · contribs), WizardlyWho (talk · contribs), WizardA1 (talk · contribs), and MooshiePorkFace (talk · contribs) --Versageek 14:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your alacrity but we shouldn’t rush this. (I got that from The Leader Phrase Book). What are these users being blocked for? Paid editing or sockpuppetry? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The block message for MooshiePorkFace (that fine article's author) says "abusing multiple accounts / promotional editing/COI", which seems about right. EyeSerene^talk 14:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, the block was for "Abusing multiple accounts for the purpose of promotional editing" - something we block for regardless of the paid/unpaid status of the individual. --Versageek 15:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Ah, sorry. G7'd it since I figured that blanking was a request to delete the page. I assume now then that the article is to stay deleted since it meets G5? — foxj 14:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

  Oh, and that is one insane coincidence. Believe me, I live further from Colorado than I care to admit. And my name is Joseph. Weird, though! — foxj 14:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

  Denver... Western Australia... one hell of a commute :) FWIW I don't think it's a major issue as it looks like a recreation of a previously deleted article anyway so, yep, possibly even G11 if not G5. I certainly wouldn't argue for it to be restored. EyeSerene^talk 14:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Pointing out my comment from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ukhealthman/Archive which is likely related. Quantum Capital Fund certainly also offered a contract on the site for a Wikipedia article.
This seems systemic. Should we watch the page just as systemically? Amalthea 21:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Meghan.reilly/Archive. Lot's of socks.
Coming from there I notice the history of Patrick Alain, which has two editors from the ongoing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Questionable pulse. Coincidence? Amalthea 21:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I was looking at the Patrick Alain article earlier and tagged it for COI. I'm not sure if it would survive AfD; although it asserts notability, it appears to exist in large part to promote The Leader Phrase Book (which I have AfD'd). Regrettably this does have an unpleasant air of sockfarming about it. EyeSerene^talk 21:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Patrick Alain now also at AfD, after a hard look at the referencing. EyeSerene^talk 22:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Further to the Blazetrak issue above, this user has also spammed a few articles with that website, although I see the account hasn't been active for a few months. ClaretAsh 23:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about that account or the other sockpuppet investigations; but the fact that the operator of the accounts lies, saying they were "new to Wikipedia" with one account, and claiming to be working on an "ongoing series of assignments that I'm completing for an Advanced Composition English class" with another shows that this user: a) Knows very well what is not allowed and is deliberately trying to deceive other editors, and b) Thinks they are "smarter than the average bear" to get away with it. Nefarious. There's some mighty intelligent bears on this project, I believe, and most of them are none too happy when a hack offers to subvert the rules for profit. Now... who actually is this editor on WP? That's the real prize... Doc talk 05:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to all involved editors in stopping these sorts of things. I will sleep better now (and soon, 2 0'clock!). Thanks again, roses etc.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 07:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• blazetrak.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.blazetrak.com
• thequantumcapitalfund.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.thequantumcapitalfund.com
• fournote.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.fournote.com

Tracking. These Blazetrak guys have attempted to abuse Wikipedia for promotional purposes previously -- Blazetrak (talk · contribs) and JulieMichelle (talk · contribs). Oh, and another SPI. MER-C 13:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Need a clue

Recently I put a POV tag on the article Mau Mau Uprising and pointed out some specific problems on the talk page. This has been met with some crazy derision on the talk page by the apparent "owner" of that article Iloveandrea (talk · contribs), as well as continued attempts at removing the tag without actually addressing the problems.

In fact, apparently, as a form of taunting the user slanted the article even more in response to the POV tag [4] ("Blacker laughs that Elkins’s figure..." - part of the POV problem is that Iloveandrea is treating one source, Blacker as some kind of holy book, while simultaneously pouring their personal disdain on another source, Elkins (who's a Harvard professor in history)).

On the talk page s/he started off with [5] "Mmm, I would simply reply with the words "shut up and do it yourself", but given your rather delusional take on things, I think I'd rather do it myself." and then went into more taunting [6]. When I asked again for the tag not to be removed (still politely) it got upped a notch:

• "Blah blah blah. I couldn't care less what you think, you arrogant fool. "
• ". I'll find a source to pour scorn on Elkins numbers, if that's what it takes to shut you up"
• "For now, I've deleted your precious POV tag, purely to irritate you. "
• "Do me a favour and take your sneering, magisterial self-regard somewhere else."
• "Seriously, arrogance like you just simply does not merit being addressed in a civil manner. "
• "You think for a second I believe you have a doctorate in economics? Ha ha ha! Get a life!"

etc.[7]

I could care less about the incivility and personal attacks as I've had much worse but I don't want to get into an edit war over the NPOV tag which very clearly belongs on the article. I also think that if the article is to improve then this editor's stranglehold, defended by this kind of belligerence, on the article needs to be at least relaxed a little. Finally, there appear to be some basic WP:COMPETENCY issues here, just with regard to interacting with other people. At the same time this is a little too extreme to just take to Wikiettiquette or whatever.VolunteerMarek 15:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Not to defend some definitely over-the-top reactions on Iloveandrea's part, but do I understand correctly that you do not think that you initially approached this like an arrogant jerk? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess you're referring to the "Clean this up please"? Really?VolunteerMarek 15:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm referring to the entire intial post to the talk page. If I'd spent significant time on that article, my back would be up too. Of course, Iloveandrea handled it in just about the least productive way possible. I'm sure others will come along and hand out warnings and blocks and opinions of relative blame and such, but the underlying problem is that the two of you have poisoned the discussion so that nothing said there can be productive. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you understand the difference between being critical of an article's content, which is what I did - and which is in fact encouraged, particularly in cases as slanted as this one - and attacking another person (over some stuff you found on their user page or whatever).VolunteerMarek 16:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct, I do understand the difference. You started this thread, I didn't; if you don't want outside opinions, don't ask for them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion's fine and I'm glad you provided it.VolunteerMarek 16:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, I'm not trying to start an argument with you here and I feel like we've butted heads recently too, but your statement goes both ways. You replied here, if you don't want to discuss your opinions; don't offer them.--v/r - TP 16:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's probably a good point. Sorry, Marek. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

An editor's user page is mostly their own business but this [8] [9] pretty much shows the editor is not interested in cooperating at all. Like I said, I don't care about the juvenile personal attacks, but I would like to be edit the original article, and that includes de-POVing it and putting in the tag in the mean time. There's no way I can do that unless this editor either "let's me" or at the very least discusses things rationally on the talk page.VolunteerMarek 17:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

That's a pretty blatant personal attack; I've warned them and would seriously suggest a WP:NOTHERE block as the attitude expressed in that statement is absolutely the antithesis of a desire to operate in a cooperative, civil editing environment. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd strongly agree with that. That's absolutely unnecessary and it needs to be ended 5 minutes ago.--Crossmr (talk) 23:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

For the record, they blanked the offending text - and the warning, too. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for making that warning. However, now the user has taken to marking all of their edits with the edit summary Undid revision 480943711 by Volunteer Marek (talk) regardless of whether s/he is reverting me (I actually haven't made any edits to the article since posting this many of the edits that s/he's claiming to be reverting), reverting someone else or just making unrelated edits to the article. This is an obvious display of WP:BATTLEGROUND and a violation of WP:POINT. Seriously s/he needs to cut this shit out, it's getting tiresome.VolunteerMarek 02:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

[10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] - none of these edits are actual reverting of anything I did (last one may be considered a "rewrite"). The edit summaries are pure taunting. I say that if s/he wants to label these edits as reverts, fine, let him/her - and block for breaking 3RR twice over.

I think I've been calm and reasonable about this but my patience is starting to wear thin.VolunteerMarek 02:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I have been (mostly) passively observing this situation since it was brought here, and I concur with VM. Iloveandrea has been displaying a nauseatingly immature battleground/OWNership attitude towards the article that is not justifiable by any perceived brusqueness on VM's part; indeed, Iloveandrea seems to get this defensive and clingy towards anyone who tries to insert themselves into the conflict: [19]. Honestly, whatever ILA has in terms of content to contribute is made near useless by this uncooperative and petulant manner of dealing with others. He has been warned of the consequences but has continued with his disruptive WP:NOTHERE behaviour in spite of it; I think it is time that some force be applied to prevent further disruption. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment-tampering by 209.6.69.227

-- and possible "!vote" stacking too. Whatever you think of the merits of having one or two articles more or less about Sandra Fluke (the woman who spoke to Pelosi but not Issa, and who various right-wing pundits have ridiculed), you'll likely agree that the AfD on Sandra Fluke has its oddities. General questions on this are raised in a section above. But here's something specific:

1. 02:01, 5 March 2012: 209.6.69.227 adds a "delete" comment
2. 17:43, 6 March 2012: 209.6.69.227 rewords an earlier "delete" comment by 72.181.154.217

Is the very vigorous single-purpose IP 209.6.69.227 the same as 72.181.154.217, or not? If so, then the second "!vote" should be struck. (Yes, yes, in principle it's worthless even if written by an entirely separate person, but the admin who wraps an AfD sometimes talks of votes.) If not, then 209.6.69.227 shouldn't be tampering. I thought I'd ask (on the IP's talk page). I wake to find no response there, but elsewhere more comment-tampering.

I invite one or two uninvolved admins to keep a close eye on this IP. -- Hoary (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

can't possibly be regarded as vandalism. Simple addition of the correct WP reference. No change in content.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.80.65.234 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Based on IP info, and those changes, I'm actually not certain they're the same person. That AfD definitely's going to get some vote stacking though... from every side. But I don't think this is a sock. Shadowjams (talk) 02:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Note, I just commented there but I hadn't been involved before my comment... just full disclosure. Shadowjams (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if I understand the "Geolocate" business correctly, the one-time commenter whose comment was tampered with is in Texas whereas the tamperer is in Massachusetts. But I'm not sure that the latter has got the message that other people's messages can't be altered so that they say what you'd prefer them to say. -- Hoary (talk) 03:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, geolocation is usually fairly accurate, but not always. Common sources of inaccuracy include large telcos (which occasionally have a big pool of IP addresses that get allocated to customers across a wide area), coffee-shop wifi (the database might think that your IP address belongs to another outlet or even to the head office of the retailer), and business networks (in the office, you probably get to the internet through a proxy, which could be in a different office or even a different country). bobrayner (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

again, adding the reference to correct WP category not vandalism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.80.65.234 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone other than you, 192.80.65.234, mentioned vandalism? -- Hoary (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Persistent spamming of Snuff

An IP Hopper (almost certainly the owner or an employee of the company) has been attempting for two years to add a link to a Swedish snus kit retailer to the page on nasal snuff. The IPs involved so far have been 81.225.49.116, 81.225.51.71, 81.225.52.94, 81.225.48.207, 81.225.48.49, 81.225.54.132 and 81.225.50.164. Repeated warnings have been ignored (one time by blanking the warning from the talk page [20]) and they switch IP addresses when a final warning has been issued ([21], [22]). Apart from the occasional attempt to add the same link to the Snus article, this spamming has been their only contribution to Wikipedia.

Although a week's semi-protection has been added to the Snuff article, would it be possible to place an editing ban on the IP range 81.225.x.x instead ? I think this would provide a more permanent solution. Barry Wom (talk) 10:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

That range would block 2048 addresses. Although it's not an excessive number, rather than do that I've added the website to our spam blacklist. Hopefully this will deter future attempts. EyeSerene^talk 12:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I have a feeling they will still attempt to mention the product without the web address, but I'll keep an eye on it. Could the semi-protection now be lifted from the article ? Barry Wom (talk) 12:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Done :) A rangeblock remains an option, but I think this is worth a try first. EyeSerene^talk 12:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• snusfabriken.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Tracking. MER-C 13:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Looking at the article history without semiprotection, the article is edited much less frequently that the good faith edits a rangeblock would stop. Protection and blacklisting are the best options. WilliamH (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispersion of discussion by User:OpenFuture

I'm currently try to discuss with User:OpenFuture (a kind of Barnstar user), however he/she wrote belligerent long messages on multiple pages to confuse discussion, in my eyes. I've already guided to him/her to use article's talk page regarding public nature of discussion, however he/she ignored my directions.

Please advice him/her to stop belligerent attitude on discussion, and also advice to use article's talk page to avoid dispersion of discussion.

• Starting point on article Clavia: my advice to search image he/she want: [23]
  • his/her immediate reversion: [24]
• Multiple discussion place: User_talk:Clusternote#Edit_warring
  • his/her 1st personal message: [25]
  • my reply and my 1st guide to use article's talk page: [26]
  • his/her 2nd message ignoring my guide: [27]
  • my 1st warning message: [28]
  • his/her 3rd & 4th message ignoring my guide: [29]
  • my latest warning message: [30]
  • his/her 5th message ignoring my guide: [31]
• Proper discussion place: Talk:Clavia

best regards, --Clusternote (talk) 10:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Notified user with this diff--Hallows AG (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any need for administrator involvement. This is a content dispute about whether some images should be used in an article. The note on your talkpage was a warning against edit warring, and that is the proper place for it. If anything I find your method of communication to be rather confusing not OpenFuture's. It takes two to edit war, so both of you should stop. If you don't have agreement on the content then there are other options such as WP:3O and WP:RFC. Polequant (talk) 11:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. A short note: I only did one revert, and I wouldn't have done that if the user had engaged in constructive discussion instead or followed WP:BRD. He is still not engaging in discussion, it would perhaps help if some admin told him to. I don't know how to deal with editors that play the game of WP:IDHT, it's very frustrating. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I was troubled very much in the extensive and rapidly offensive messages by User:OpenFuture. I am very anxiety about Wikipedia having overlooked the problem of the offensive messages by this kind of belligerent user. --Clusternote (talk) 12:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I have reviewed all of OpenFuture's edits around this topic on the various pages where the disagreement has been discussed. While they are firm, even vigorous, they are not belligerent, extensive or offensive. I can understand that you took offence that an image you had uploaded was described as poor quality - but that doesn't mean OpenFuture has been attacking you. I suggest we close this thread, and the two of you discuss the images needed at the article talk page. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Question for the OP. What's a "barnstar user"? while searching I can't find any previous mentions of this term.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Probably you can see the barnstar on several user's talk page. That's all. --Clusternote (talk) 13:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Besse Cooper

Resolved

 – (I hope.) Editor seems to have backed away from the article after an admin caution. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

A user is engaged in a tedious edit war with several of us over whether becoming the 15th oldest human is a "milestone". Since he won't stop and discuss, I'd like the experts here to provide an opinion on the matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, at first glance I do see three improper uses of the rollback tool on non-vandalism edits by DerbyCountyinNZ. Also, I'm not too crazy about the confrontational tone he takes in discussing the issue but that's just me. I really don't like the term "fanboy". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Ron, but I also don't think this is ANI material. WP:3O...WP:EW perhaps, but not necessary here. Let's try User talk:DerbyCountyinNZ first...so far it's only been edit summaries, which hardly ever resolves anything.  Frank  |  talk  13:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll be interested in the opinions of admins who have actually looked at that user's approach to things. I also notified him, so if he ignores it and doesn't come here, you'll know better what we're dealing with. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

C'mon, Bugs, did you look at the page's history? I know full well the approach; I just don't think the dramahboard is the place to address it. I've commented on the real matter at hand at Talk:Besse Cooper.  Frank  |  talk  13:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Just a note that there was an arbitration case surrounding this topic a year ago, so the people in this area haven't always managed to resolve their disputes. It may not be an ANI issue yet, but more eyes there would definitely help. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, wasn't that more about reliable sources?  Frank  |  talk  15:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

That was one of the major issues, too, but what really brought things to a head was the fiasco that was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Goossenaerts. It's not hard to see why. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any comments on that page from Derby, FWIW (which I realize isn't much).  Frank  |  talk  15:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Repeated ban vio

There have been repeated interaction ban violations by Darkness Shines... A block was issued on one (which was removed when he convinced the blocking admin that he wont do it again). I have clarified this with the same administrator (Salvio giuliano) so that I'm not taken as wasting community's time or initiating an interaction through the report. Salvio has said it is a clear ban violation but I've to report it here for further action as he's not available. There have been clear massive taggings on my contributions at other articles too. Tagging the whole article for improvement is one thing, but these were specific tags on my additions repeatedly. [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]. I didn't know then if they were violations and ignored them, but now since I've clarified them, these should be reverted as ban violation (or I should be allowed to revert such vios if they are declared as such). The current one I reported is here: [38]. There was also an intentional overwrite of full article [39] and then a self revert... there've been too many self reverts recently... I ignored them as it can happen when rollback is mistakenly clicked or one doesn't know whose contribution it was, but this one was deliberate overwrite of full article for whatever reason. Please refer to the clarification discussion here which I had with Salvio for the context. Can some one please drop the ANI notice too as I don't want to violate IBAN. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Notified. Dru of Id (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• currenly on my mobile there is nothing in the iban which says adding tags was. It allowed. I do not think it a violation. Will comment further when I get home Darkness Shines (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Was DS blocked for this at all? Or, if I may be so bold, DS, why the fuck would you want to do stuff like that? Were you drunk? Never mind, I don't want to know. Salvo, you seem to have been appointed as the arbitrator here. If you can get those two, and the associates, away from here, there's a barnstar in it for you. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Salvio said he's too busy to do anything about it now.--Atlan (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
    • No block was issued for the said edit. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Agree with Drmies, except... Why is TopGun editing so many articles Darkness Shines has started in the last week (I believe all of the examples above)? Surely, if adding {{cn}} tags is an interaction ban violation, then finding multiple articles created by the other editor and editing them in a way designed to annoy them is one too? Perhaps it's time to block both indefinitely (well, that's me, I suppose others might want to be lenient and start with 1 week or 1 month) as "far too focused on scoring points against the other and getting away with it"? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I asked for a clarification previously at ANI... and I was told, IBAN didn't mean first come first serve and we could edit as long as we didn't interact. I made sure of not interacting. Some of the articles were either mutual, one got a history merge and another was related to articles I was working on. Salvio has acknowledged that I was not hounding. I'm minding my own business. But I didn't even report those tags for so long till I clarified this with Salvio today on another one of those. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually User:Mar4d is looking for trouble big time with DS. See the history of the articles started by DS: 1 and 2. It is quite annoying as Mar4d has i. e. edit warred this unreliable blog-alike source into the infobox which is run by an involved party which refers to one side as "freedom fighters". Any attempts explaining to him that an impartial source is needed have brought no result so far. Can someone please provide his/her input on the validity to use that source for the infobox? JCAla (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

How's that related here? --lTopGunl (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Home now, I will point out that if TG did not know that adding a RS tag was a violation then how would I? He just wrote above that this was just clarified. Quite simply That is all I have to say. BTW Drmies yes I was quite quite drunk and had been for about a week. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

  Well, that's just great, and you're really helping your cause. I hope you know what to do next time. Drmies (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)x2 If I may, WP:IBAN states that undoing the other editor's edits is violating the Interaction Ban. Adding to them is not. This technically is not an interaction ban violation although I am curious why DS was editing while being drunk like that. However, bringing up this thread is an interaction ban violation on TopGun's part.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,422,448) 19:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

  Bringing this thread up is not a vio... reports of violations and clarifications are not violations. I was recently told to self revert a text which was deleted by DS, added by another editor and then again reverted by a third... that was not as of his edits but an addition of another editor deleted by a third. I was told it was not a technical violation but a violation in the spirit of the ban and blocks will be issued for such. This is a similar case. And I brought this thread up after administrative advise. If these edits are a violation, they should be reverted or I'll assume I can make similar ones in future. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

  Editor X is not permitted to:

  • edit editor Y's user and user talk space;
  • reply to editor Y in discussions;
  • make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly; or
  • undo editor Y's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means).

  But if administrators told you that this was OK, then I am going to leave it at that.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,438,475) 21:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, they did. [40]. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

  Cyberpower678, you need to read a bit further. There are exceptions to the ban and this report, requests for clarification, etc. all fall under those exceptions. --regentspark (comment) 21:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

  And I completely missed that section, Facepalm . I am going to seclude myself into a dark corner and feel ashamed of myself for making myself look like an idiot.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,440,246) 21:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Yes, drink more so I pass out, then I will be unable to make such a fool of myself Darkness Shines (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Propose a total interaction ban between these two. If one of them edits an article, the other MAY NOT edit the article, the talk page or bring up the article anywhere on Wikipedia. They may not discuss each other anywhere on Wikipedia. Should they have concerns about an article or about the other editor, they may post a request to a neutral admin, detailing their concerns. ONLY at the request of that admin may they add to their initial request. They obviously can't stop it on their own, so this makes it EXTREMELY difficult for them to edit WP at all. Too bad for them. Ravensfire (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • That is a ridiculous proposal... not only will it create complications where we're both editing but also be against the rules of an interaction ban. If some one violates a ban he should be blocked. I've initiated no interactions. I'm in my full right to report a violation... this will prevent me from making valid contributions because of the edits he is responsible for. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Or else we're going to see this again and again. I had HOPED that the original 1RR would have sent a message to leave each others' articles alone. I had hoped that the IBAN would have helped enforce that message. Clearly, TG is poking DS, and then coming to ANI when it finally happens. DS is just as wrong in their own actions. That is NOT how this community works. Either it's IBAN + no common articles or block them both indefinitely - this puerile bullshit cannot continue (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

What poking? Diffs? I've not participated in this. It is him who tags and reverts around my contributions. Btw, have you even read the report? I came here because an admin told me to do so. Is there anything other than entrapment you guys know of? If this happens, wikipedia will soon be left with only the Arbcom and the vandals. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know if these were copyvios or whether that comes in the exemptions of IBAN (I didn't see any), but this edit directly removed content (ref) which I modified in the article.. unprovoked & uninvited. [41]. So I'm not the one interacting or poking. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• This is stupid, I did not even look at the article history, I looked at the contributions of a new user[42] as it struck me as a little strange that his first edits were to create an article, given the amount of socks pervading this topic that is hardly a surprise. And he popped up on my radar along with the article with this edit[43] And they were most certainly copyright violations Darkness Shines (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've had enough. Every few days one of this pair is dragging the other to a noticeboard for violating some rule or restriction, usually immediately after they've made the same violation, and the petty point-scoring is as irritating as it is mature. I completely agree with Floq's comment—can anybody give me one good reason why these two shouldn't just be blocked until they grow up and realise that Wikipedia is not a battleground? Because I'm seriously considering it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

WTF? I have brought two complaints here to the best that I remember, and I withdrew one of them. I am not dragging anyone here nor am I point scoring, I removed a copyviolation. Just fucking block me and be done with it, I have done fuck all wrong. I added a rs tag to a primary source and it got brought here, that was my huge crime I remove a copyvio and it gets brought up here. FFS read what he wrote I don't know if these were copyvios he should have bloody checked instead of whinging here. I am as sick of this shit as you. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I just checked the archives, I made one single complaint which I withdrew as a show of good faith. The other posting I made regarding this IBAN was a request for clarification[44] Darkness Shines (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Why the heck are my edits being modified or messed on with when I'm not doing the same. This definitely needed reporting. The talkpage notification I got for IBAN does not say that I could tag the contributions or revert copyvios as exemption (even this wasn't my contribution I formatted the references and they got blanked). I'm an established editor. You have failed to maintain the IBAN and instead blame me for bringing the report here that too when one of you says 'its a violation go to ANI'! And then proposing article bans... If my contributions weren't hounded in the first place We'd never have most of those mutual articles. Yet my proposal was rejected as retaliatory without checking out the diffs. Wikipedia will be shooting itself in the foot if the community agrees to escalate this ban when the administrators have failed to maintain it in the first place and neglected the violations. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Right, this is straight from the human rights watch report[45]

  Since the government crackdown against militants in Kashmir began in earnest in January 1990, reports of rape by security personnel have become more frequent. Rape most often occurs during crackdowns, cordon-and-search operations during which men are held for identification in parks or schoolyards while security

forces search their homes. In these situations, the security forces frequently engage in collective punishment against civilians by assaulting residents and burning their homes. Rape is used as a means of targetting women whom the security forces accuse of being militant sympathizers; in raping them, the security forces are attempting to punish and humiliate the entire community. This is the content I remove

Since the government crackdown against militants in Kashmir began in earnest in January 1990, reports of rape by security personnel have become more frequent. Rape most often occurs during crackdowns, cordon-and-search operations during which men are held for identification in parks or schoolyards while security forces search their homes. In these situations, the security forces frequently engage in collective punishment against the civilian population, most frequently by beating or otherwise assaulting residents, and burning their homes. Rape is used as a means of targetting women whom the security forces accuse of being militant sympathizers; in raping them, the security forces are attempting to punish and humiliate the entire community

This is a blatant copyvio, how the hell can I get reported for this? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to block both User:TopGun and User:Darkness Shines at least 6 months

It seems that based on the community opinions, that community imposed 1RR and IBAN is not working because although minor improvements through these restrictions have been observed, these two parties are still dragging wikipedia down into their battlefield. I am hereby proposing, as a neutral editor, that in order for things to calm down, that a block of at least 6 months be placed on both editors in hope that by then they will have calmed down.

Voters have 3 options. Support, Support Indefinite, Oppose.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,557,263) 15:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose: hiding admin failure to maintain the IBAN and negligence on not blocking on IBAN vios under the carpet, disrupting constructive contributions and seems to be the pretty much easy solution for you guys since you cant handle it yourself even though you impose it. Blocks should be made for the violators. There's nothing wrong with reporting a violation. And ridiculous to have one admin send you to ANI to report a vio and another one block you for the same. [46] --lTopGunl (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
2. Oppose: In my opinion, DS is more aggressive about pushing his POV than is TopGun and this would be unfair. However, regardless of who is at fault here, there is a lot of useful content, particularly on Pakistan and Bangladesh - both undercovered areas on wikipedia, being added by both of them. My suggestion is that we issue a topic ban on Pakistan related articles to DS and a topic ban on India and Bangladesh related articles to TopGun. Mar4d and JCAIa are around to help ensure honesty in the other work they do. Hopefully, wikipedia wins! --regentspark (comment) 15:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
3. Oppose: I think TopGun can be reasonable when he wants to be. I'm not so sure about DarknessShines. Either way, both have undeniably created good content on some articles and I think this remedy would be too harsh. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 19:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Alternative topic ban proposal

TopGun is topic banned from India and Bangladesh related articles and DarknessShines from Pakistan related articles. I believe that this is the better solution for wikipedia and that this will effectively separate the two editors, who are both adding useful content. --regentspark (comment) 16:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. This should effectively separate these two. I have nothing much to add, rgpk has covered most of what I wanted to state; both are useful editors otherwise, so this topic ban should work out well. Lynch7 16:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
2. Support. Part of the reason for these users edit-warring with each other is presence on common pastures. Far too much time is given in editting these conflict issues articles which could definitely be spent in improving the national WikiProject articles instead. Their edits in overlap area between countries are accompanied by conflict with a variety of users on a number of issues, hence their productivity is low too. I'd much rather see Top Gun editting Pakistan related articles which have no chance of him getting into edit wars then be banned outright or even blocked for multi-months. Similarly, I'd really be happy to see DS volunteer to improve a variety of WikiProject India articles too. AshLin (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
3. Support: I think this will be more effective than the current interaction ban which doesn't seem to work. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 19:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose mine: I have substantial contributions to India-Pakistan conflict articles... these issues are not because of these topics rather because the IBAN wasn't being enforced properly. If the IBAN is strictly enforced, this can be dealt with. None of my contributions in India or Bangladesh related topics have been violations of IBAN or with any other issues as such... this with the only aim being that of separating us will be unfounded. The IBAN is enough to keep me from not interacting with DS on any topic at all. But I doubt it is for him so I'll support the ban on his side as I'm not the only user he battles with on Pakistan related topics (others have also asked for his topic ban). I provided a long list of diffs of hounding before the IBAN proposal too, they should be counted. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

   TopGun, you can continue to work on Pakistan articles but not on things that overlap with India or Bangladesh (like the Kashmir abuses article). You are a valuable contributor to Wikiproject Pakistan, an underserved area, and I'd hate to see you kicked out of here. But, let's see what the community says.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RegentsPark (talk • contribs)

   The "not" for contributing to these areas has not been justified in the proposal atleast for me. Simply to separate me from DS without having any evidence of my disruption in these topics is not understandable. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Question: The justification given in the proposal is that of an interaction ban as it does not show an disruption on my part on those topic areas... how is that relevant to a topic ban. To keep two users separate you have to enforce a topic ban properly rather than putting on a topic ban just to keep them away even though the disruption is not due to the topic areas rather due to violations of interaction ban. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• It is hardly possible to write articles on any with some reference to the other. For instance, Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War could never have been written as it obviously refers to Pakistan. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• DS, there are many hundreds of articles on India and Bangladesh that make no reference to Pakistan whatsoever. But, let's see what the community says. --regentspark (comment) 16:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Soapboxing, personal attacks and edit-warring

User: ERIDU-DREAMING (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Page: Right-wing politics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
ERIDU-DREAMING is a single purpose account that edits almost exclusively on "Right-wing politics". He has edit-warred on the main article and posts long essays on the talk page, without providing sources and is offensive to other editors. Other editors have discussed these issues with him, but there has been no change of behavior. I would like to seem him warned against soap-boxing and personal attacks. (Edit-warring if it continues can be handled at the edit-warring noticeboard.)

Examples of soapboxing: SPOT THE SOPHISTRY, A Leftist Definition, False Definition, Do Leftists comprehend the Right? These are just discussion threads begun by ERIDU-DREAMING within the last month. All of them are expressions of opinion, hostile attacks on other editors and without sources for improving the article. A review of the talk page and archives shows that this is part of a consistent pattern.

Other examples of personal attacks:

• "a numerical majority of Leftists - such as the Far Left The Four Deuces, the manifestly Left of centre Rick Norwood, plus moderate Leftists such as R-41 and Little Jerry)"[47]
• "Your judgement about which sources are reliable and mainstream seems to be entirely determined by your Leftist political beliefs, which is also Falconclaw's observation. I would add that it is pretty evident that your knowledge of the "Right" is approximately zero. I suggest therefore that you limit your contributions to Left-Wing politics"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Right-wing_politics#Why_was_the_bias_tag_removed.3F

Another editor and I have have discussed the matter with ERIDU-DREAMING.

• I would appreciate it if someone would just close this section down with the Wikipedia "hat" template, because it is so obviously intended as a soapbox - and these are opposed by Wikipedia.--R-41 (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[48]
• The purpose of the talk page is to discuss changes to the article not the subject in general. Your comments are soapboxing and I request that you stop. TFD (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[49]

TFD (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. It is true that I have contributed rather more to the talk page on Right Wing politics than planned, and in the last few days I did get excluded for a day because I reverted a controversial change to the article. The Four Deuces (as usual) tried to get me banned for life (later he made up the claim that I was taking on different identities even though he knew this to be false given the nature of the edits) and he succeeded (for a time) in getting the ban extended to a week - until this was reversed) and I recall that it DID take several weeks of discussion on the talk page a few months back before the claim that the Right = Fascists was addressed. During that time The Four Deuces hid my posts, deleted my posts, accused me of being a sock puppet, in fact it is hard to think of something he has not accused me of, in order to promote his claim that the Right are extremists. It is to the VERY GREAT credit of Wikipedia that somebody eventually enforced a process that corrected him.

I took him through the major scholarship in this area but anything which contradicted his (I have to say) extreme views was dismissed by him as marginal scholarship, even though I used the leading scholars in the field!!! To avoid being accused by him of being a sock puppet I registered as Eridu Dreaming.

I ask any disinterested reader to view the section about which The Four Deuces and R14 are objecting on the grounds that it is soapboxing to see if they agree with them that it is not an attempt to directly address a substantive question (namely is it correct that Classical Liberals can be described Right-Wing) and instead is nothing more than an emotional and irrelevant outburst which justifies R-14 moving the text, hiding the text, and in the case of The Four Deuces, bringing me to this tribunal, in order to get me banned. I DO admit that I said that Rick Norwood (one of the editors) hates Republicans, but he assured me some of his best friends are Republicans, and so I withdrew it! But my intention (at all times) is fairness and accuracy. I DO believe that some are importing (unconsciously in most cases) their political prejudices into this particular article.

All I can say is that it is much better than it was!

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

That is a curious mixture of truths, half-truths and untruths. Could you please provide differences to support the statements you make. For example, I did not try to get you "banned for life". I reported you to the 3RR noticeboard and the blocking administrator considered an indefinite block.[50] You need to be careful when making accusations against other editors, which is why I have brought this matter to ANI. TFD (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The great thing about Wikipedia is that it PRESERVES the editing record (yes that means your record The Four Deuces) and so you had better be very careful if you start playing the innocent, or for that matter accusing me of half-truths and falsehoods. To address your specific example, if your intention is not to get me banned for life, fine, but it certainly WAS your intention when you (falsely) accused me of being a Sock Puppet, and as soon as only a couple of days ago you were (again falsely needless to add) accusing me of being a dynamic IP, which sounds a pretty serious allegation to me, even though you knew full well that the IP in question could not have been me since that editor took a different position from me, and as far as I am aware carried on after you had got me blocked! I appreciate that you do not like having your Right=Extremists view challenged, but Wikipedia is (or at least should be) about trying to give fair and accurate account of the topics (including political topics) in question, not using them as an opportunity to express your prejudices. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 01:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion about sockpuppetry can be found here. You admitted sockpuppetry but no action was taken because you had registered an account. TFD (talk) 03:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that is what is called a LIE. Why would I say I was a sockpuppet if it is untrue? Why if (as you claim) I confessed to being a sockpuppet was no action taken? If you feel obliged to make false accusations try to make some sense. I used to make a few contributions to Wikipedia (it never occurred to me to formally register) but when THE FOUR DEUCES started deleting my contributions on the grounds of his completely made up charge that I was a sockpuppet (of somebody called "Yorkshireman" I recall) I decided to formally register as Eridu Dreaming to stop this happening. I have made no attempt to pretend to be anybody other than myself, why would I do such a thing? Does sockpuppetry means the time (before I registered as Eridu Dreaming) when I would every now and then contribute to Wikipedia? The charge (not for the first time) is completely made up.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I am another user who has noticed that ERIDU-DREAMING's contributions as noted by TFD above are all examples of disruptive editing and repeated uncivil behaviour. ERIDU-DREAMING has violated Wikipedia policy on Wikipedia:Disruptive editing - particularly Wikipedia:Tendentious editing by denouncing the opinions of users he describes as left-wing, he has been hostile to users he has described as left-wing - including launching personal attacks against them and refusing to consider their input which is in violation of Wikipedia:Consensus and has essentially stated that users he deems to be left-wing do not have valid points because they are left-wing and assumes that users are acting in bad faith to misrepresent right-wing politics, this is blatantly discriminatory. He has called users "far-left" and called one user a "Republican hating Democrat" - though he since withdrew this when I complained that this was extremely offensive. He asked a sarcastic and condescending rhetorical question "do leftists comprehend the right?". ERIDU-DREAMING has engaged in slandering, condescending, and offensive behaviour and is in violation of Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks.--R-41 (talk) 04:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems that R-14 is charging me with 1) Disruptive Editing 2) Uncivil Behaviour.

No doubt R-14 will denounce this as grossly patronising (and he may be correct but it is that is not my intention) but in my opinion R-14 often makes thoughtful contributions to the "Right-Wing" article that directly address some of the issues. However (as he has admitted) he does sometimes lose his temper and resort to shouting (so to speak – typing in bold letters) if he does not get his own way!

The "disruptive editing" claim relates to the fact that I deleted a sentence which claimed that it is “generally accepted” that the Right = advocacy of hierarchy justified by tradition and natural law. Now the irony is I originally put in that sentence (or at least its original version) but now realise that it is false, since it does not apply to ALL on the Right; which now also has the meaning of Classical Liberal. R-14 uses a couple of sources which claim that the Right is a preservationist politics which seeks to defend privilege, and got very cross when I pointed out that if somebody says something (even in a sociology textbook!) that does not mean that it is not controversial. What he calls “disruptive editing” another editor might call an attempt to improve the accuracy of the article.

As for “uncivil behaviour” I personally have NOT been offended by R-14's outbursts, accusing me of “cheap emotional sophistry” of “worthless crap” of being a supporter of Thrasymachus (a proto-Fascist) and of course of “soap boxing” (justifying it seems hiding my text, moving it, but failing to address any of the points raised by it) although I am guessing that had I behaved in the same way towards him he might have accused me of uncivil behaviour! The strongest thing I called him I recall is that he is on the “moderate Leftist” which since he had earlier identified himself as such hardly seems to amount to an insult.

I do believe that there is a problem if a few editors assert there is a “consensus”, when there evidently is no such thing, especially if the topic is inherently controversial, as politics tends to be; and I am concerned that the small group who agree amongst themselves about the definition of the Right are all on the Left politically, and they have ignored (SEVERAL) editors who disagree with their “consensus” about the meaning of Right-Wing.

P.S. As for the "insult" that I described THE FOUR DEUCES as "Far Left" I think his latest comment "As I said before, the term "right-wing" entered the language (both French and English) c. 1900 to describe the faction that sat on the right in the French assembly. Following the Second World War it was used by (left-wing) social scientists to describe groups they saw as fascist. These groups denied they were right-wing and no sane politicians today call themselves right-wing." gives a fairly clear idea where he is coming from politically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ERIDU-DREAMING (talk • contribs) 14:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 13:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

One problem is that the talk page is all-too-frequently used for soapboxing - and not just by ED. Comments such as That is because well-informed people can see that the right-wing media are a bunch of nut jobs. and no sane politicians today call themselves right-wing by other editors would seem, IMHO, to be "soapboxing." So much for this mal-use of this noticeboard. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I never said that ERIDU-DREAMING was alone using emotional sophistry, the user Rick Norwood that ERIDU-DREAMING identifies as left-wing has used sophistry commonly during heated arguments between him and Falconclaw - Falconclaw is the primary culprit of sophistry on the article, almost every comment he has posted has been sophistry. So ERIDU-DREAMING's accusation that I have personally attacked him is false, I have criticized the improper discussion behaviour of multiple users. I never said that the right-wing necessarily "defends privileges" as ERIDU-DREAMING alleges, I provided scholarly sources that state that right-wing politics accepts social hierarchy (as an inevitability and reality) based upon natural law and tradition.--R-41 (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU-DREAMING has repeatedly personally attacked users due to his characterization of them being "left-wing", he now is making excuses for calling TFD "far-left" simply because TFD takes a very traditional outlook on what right-wing means - the original right-wing of the post-revolution French legislature. This doesn't prove that TFD is "far-left", and even if that was his political persuasion, why does that enable ERIDU-DREAMING to denounce him and all the users he labels as "left-wing" as automatically having invalid arguments and should be ignored because they are as he says "left-wing" and therefore must be trying to discredit the right-wing - that is in direct violation of Wikipedia:Assume good faith because is assuming a conspiracy by left-wing users, and calling for ignoring left-wing users is calling for censorship. This is purely uncivil discriminatory behaviour that is completely against the policies of Wikipedia:Consensus and his repeated use of soapboxes that are designed to specifically denounce those particular users who he describes as "left-wing" is not only a violation of Wikipedia:Consensus, but is Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and Wikipedia:Tendentious editing.--R-41 (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

If you want to exclude me from the charge of sophistry, fine, but your source DOES claim that to be Right-Wing is to seek to defend privilege "contemporary sociologists, for whom 'right-wing movements' are conceptualized as 'social movements whose stated goals are to maintain structures of order, status, honor, or traditional social differences or values' as compared to left-wing movements which seek 'greater equality or political participation.' In other words, the sociological perspective sees preservationist politics as a right-wing attempt to defend privilege within the social hierarchy."

I think that is pretty clear. (ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)).

And the incivility in the other direction is also apparent (calling anyone a "nut job" is, I rather consider, "incivil") The fact is that all who engage in such incivility on that article talk page should be estopped from such behaviour, not just one person on one side. And the issue boils down to one simple fact: There is no "one size fits all" definition of "right wing" in the first place, and no "one size fits all" definition for the "political spectrum" at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Dennis Brown - Disruptive Editing, Hounding & Forum Shopping

With great regret I must report that an editor Dennis Brown is commiting disruptive editing in violation of WP:HEAR pretty much thumbing his nose at admins who have settled and [51] archived an AFD case and closed two redudant ANI charges based on the same AFD case (his & "others" forum shopping for duplicate outcomes) [52] and [53] where he again tried to bring up the same argument a THIRD time. In addition to the disruptive editing (which I will discuss below) by him that has happened after the AFD was settled, this clearly was forum shopping by him to try to get an additional result after the initial AFD discussion and other redundant/duplicate ANI discussion was closed. He attempted on that (third complaint/second ANI proposal) he called "Bot archived too soon" to resusitate the first case after multiple admins basically told him it was over.[54]. Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards, or to multiple administrators, is unhelpful. It doesn't help that he is trying different forums in the hope of finding one where his constant complaining about ONE issue will get multiple outcomes he is looking for.

It's been hard, but I have restrained myself and held my tongue hoping that this one sided attempt by him to harass me would end. Clearly it has not. I have patiently waited and not reverted his malicious edits and I haven't responded to his repeated attempts at forum searching (even when he did not notify me that he was doing this third attempt at regurgitating the same dead horse argument, as required by ANI). But it is clear that this is a pattern and that he does not plan to stop because he did not get his "my way or the highway" desired outcome from ANI and dispite he got what he wanted from AFD, which was a very good article being deleted (which I have my suspicions was done by a faction that sided with him through false consensus).

He is told (by) Nil Einne (talk) at 19:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[55] that:

"As stated, if you repeatedly reopen a discussion people may tell you to stop and failing that, take action...You should also bear in mind it may negatively affect people's opinions of you if they feel what you're doing is unneeded, but again this is no different from opening a discussion in the first place. Perhaps most importantly, you should consider that a lot of the time the 24+ hour limit works well. Given the activity of ANI, if no one has replied in 24 hours, it very often means the discussion has reached a natural ending point, even if it's technically unresolved. I had a brief look at the very long discussion and from the little I saw, I admit I think this is probably the case here...I don't think any adminstrative action against the other editor is likely yet, therefore there's nothing more for ANI."

But he won't let it go.

I'm coming here because in the last discussion I tried to reason with this very angry editor Dennis Brown who told me not to talk to him on his talk page (he has a warning on his user page for no one to leave messages for him on his talk page). I cannot go there and leave a message for him, because he will get angry an spin it into an attack. So that's why I am coming here.

After the closed AFD Discussion and and after the closed first duplicate ANI discussion, and during his third attempt to cause trouble on the ANI board by trying to drum up a third forum, Dennis Brown tracked this user's recent contributions and blanked or reverted many of them clearly as part of his vendetta against this user. I am concerned not just because he seems to be hounding this user specifically and selectively reverting my contributions, but because on the articles he is changing, he is making gross deletions to biographies of living people. He is randomly blanking huge sections of content even on a page of a well known Academy nominated actress, another well known actor, and an Award winning film distributor:

• Here he blanks all the credits off a biography page [56] that I had originally created here [57]

• Here at he blanks the entire credits of an Academy Award nominated actress that have clearly been built up by various users over a long period of time [58]

• Here at he removes major credits from a cult actor's page with no regard as to the cult value of each credit he is arbitrarily deleting [59]

that I had contributed here on 14 Feb 2012 01:38 [60] and here [61].

• Here he removes more content from another page I contributed to and which he then tags as a stub: [62]

• Here he removes another credit from a page [63]

• And this morning he has started blanking sections of another page I have contributed to, removing titles and credits at will to another living biography:

• here [64]
• and here [65]
• and here blanking an entire columns of credits [66]
• here [67]and
• here [68]

These edits show a pattern of targeted disruption and an unwillingness of this editor to accept the outcome of the AFD and ANI. While editing of content on Wikipedia to make it more encyclopedic is encouraged, deleting valuable content and basically vandalizing of articles especially biographies of living people is not. I think he is in violation of "no angry mastodons" WP:NAM trying to bait this user into reverting his hostile and vengeful edits, in order to try to stir up more trouble. The user is clearly Wikihounding by singling out one editor, and going to multiple pages or topics I may contribute to and/or create, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit this user's work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to this contributor because he didn't get an outcome he wanted out of a duplicate complaint that he made on an ANI forum.

One reviewer Ravenswing said here: [69],

"Dennis - you've expounded at tremendous length here, on various talk pages and at the AfD as to your POV on Catpowerzzz's style. Either you've made your case or you haven't, but it isn't a filibuster in the other direction either.

Because this problem is continuing, because this user is well versed in Wikipedia and knows the damage he is doing (he is not unaware) and because he is clearly out for revenge, because he also doesn't seem to listen to admins who have continually suggested to him that his AFD case has been resolved and that his blatant forum searching is not a good idea and that basically he should "let it be." I think this user needs to hear from admins, possible be blocked and his reverts (and possibly those of others who are in his faction) need to be restored. This is tendentious behavior in that he continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point, which is to drive away a productive contributor per WP:DEPE. - Catpowerzzz (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment For reference, the recent ANI regarding Catpowerzzz can be found here. It may also be helpful to review Nil Einne's post on Catpowerzzz talk page following the ANI discussion:

"Whatever the 'wrongs' of others you've been involved with, it seems clear several uninvolved people, upon looking at the history, have concerns about your behaviour and your explainations generally haven't helped (if anything they appear to have made things worse)."

The AfD to which Catpowerzz refers can be found here. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• This is our collective fault, really, for not solving the problem in the last ANI thread, but foolishly hoping that things would die down after the AFD ended. I suggest correcting that error now by telling Catpowerzzz in no uncertain terms to stop this, and back it up with blocks if it continues. The report above is so full of unfair descriptions and mischaracterizations of other people's comments that it can't be the result of errors in judgement, it is the result of intentional misleading. I do not see any problematic edits on Dennis Brown's part in the diffs above. When an editor has shown that their edits are problematic, it is not harassment to look at their edit history and fix the problems they're causing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• Here we go: Catpower blocked for 12 hours by way of the boomerang--i.e., persistent disruption and now a bogus charge. Immediate cause is this edit and its summary--a false charge of vandalism. Given Catpower's editing pattern I have no reason to assume that they won't persist in such vindictive edits, where a content dispute is turned into a vandalism accusation. That the ANI report here is without merit is clear enough; perhaps Catpower will now understand that this should be over, that they should start listening to sound advice (some of which was removed here). As for the block and its length, I encourage your scrutiny. Drmies (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Not long enough. I suggest one hour for each word in his OP as an appropriate formula.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• (Nodding at Floquenbeam's description), I previously characterized this behavior here [70]--I've never used quite that language before, but there's a persistent and even malicious misrepresentation of events. Thanks to Drmies. As a betting man my money is that this will continue until the blocks become more severe. Then I'd suggest keeping an eye peeled for socks, especially at Chris Innis and associated articles. JNW (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, more eyes on those articles, please. See also the conversation at the editor's talk page: this combination of promoting and playing the victim really bothers me. Also, JNW, thanks for bringing this to my attention in the first place. Seriously: fuck thank you very much. I'm going to need a very expensive Belgian tripel. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Anything I can do to brighten your day. Belgian it is. JNW (talk) 01:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• I figure I should at least weight in for the record, being the object of the complaint. I feel that the edits I did to the articles were proper and improved them, and I still do. Many of the movie links were actually pointing to different movies by the same name and the article was more list than prose. I did exactly what I would have done with any article, adding a reference, turning lists into prose, etc., taking extra care to make it obvious that the edits were contribution, not retribution. I did ask about reverting the ANI archive here, but concluded that if an administrator didn't feel it should be brought back, I wasn't going to be aggressive and do it myself, even after I was basically given formal "permission" to do it. While disagreeing with the lack of conclusion in the prior ANI, I do understand the reluctance to formally close it: it was a long, messy, ugly and long-winded affair, with everyone agreeing on the problem, but with no simple, obvious solution. All that matters is how we move forward. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• Holy crap, do I resent my advice to Dennis being brought in to attack him ... the more so in that his response to it on my talk page was "Yes, you are correct that I can get a bit too wordy and perhaps redundant at times, and your point is well taken. I appreciate your direct but polite input." Funny, it doesn't seem that Catpowerzzz mentioned that response. If, as he implies, he might wash his hands of us on this account ... well, I can live with that. Ravenswing 03:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Tendentious editor needs to be blocked

Penguinluver1431 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been censoring portions of articles to fit a far-right agenda. They have been warned repeatedly and had the guidelines explained, but these warnings and explanations have been removed from the talk page.

• Covering up for Sarah Palin.
• Removing Obama's religon.
• Censorship at Fox News Channel controversies
• Censorship at Ave Maria University, continued, and even outright lying in the edit summary to remove references.
• Censorship at Template:Terrorism, and more censorship at Template:Terrorism
• Acknowledged warnings about this behavior by removing the warnings and removing other warnings
• Resuming edit warring at Ave Maria university
• Removing a final warning from another editor
• Removing the Christian Terrorism category from the Joseph Kony article because it's "misleading" somehow
• Removing more warnings
• Resuming edit warring at Ave Maria University
• Removing Keith Olbermann's American nationality (as if being left-wing revokes it or something)
• Removing an explanation of how to not push an agenda here, which included relevant policies and guidelines
• Removing a second final warning
• Once again removing the Christian terrorism category from the Joseph Kony article, again claiming it's "misleading"

It has been explained repeatedly that this sort of behavior is not acceptable here. Penguinluver1431 removes the warnings, so they have been acknowledged. Time for a block. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• The removing of warnings doesn't violate policy, but does indicate he doesn't care about them. Some of these edits fly in the face of prior consensus; others seem to just go against common sense. Plus there's the issue of edit warring. I would suggest something in the two weeks to three months range, and then indeff if he comes back to do it again. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse Floquenbeam's indef block--they beat me to it. Drmies (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• (e/c) Rather than block for a shorter period and see if that changes their attitude, I've instead blocked indef, and if they can convince someone they've changed their attitude, we can unblock. This account has been POV pushing for a long time, with long gaps in between edits. I don't think a shorter block to get their attention will work. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Beat me to it as well. Endorse the indef. Swarm ^X 21:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I never said that removing the warnings violate policy, but cited them as indicating that Penguinluver1431 knows Wikipedia does not approve of those other actions (if he/she didn't remove them, he/she could pretend they didn't read them). Thanks for the block, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Distruptive editing of a user

Hollyckuhno] (talk) This user has been editing the Star Cinema page distruptively as they are not accepting the edits of other users and only wants it their way and like the other users I asked to be banned from editing then, this user is continuing the same vandalism of adding films that has no proper references. Ifightback (talk) 10 March 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.3.47 (talk) 00:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Disruptively?

Hi, you're accusations about me being disruptively editing the article Star Cinema is very malicious. How could you say my edits are disruptive when I am actually the only one who step up to made the article encyclopedic. Before as you know it, the article of Star Cinema sounds like a directory and an advertising than an encyclopedia. Now, if you are referring to your edits about the upcoming releases of Star Cinema, then you might as well know that the sub-article is being reconsider to be remove since the sources are unclear and unverified. Please know your grounds before accusing someone. -Visit Me (message) 22:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hollyckuhno, that is a really confusing signature you have. I strongly encourage you changing it. Drmies (talk) 02:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• There is nothing to do here for an admin. There's a bit of edit warring going on, and the IP is trying to strong-arm the other editor with threats of "ban notices". Going through the edit history to see who stands where in relation to 3R is much too tedious, so let's say this: both of you stop edit warring or you'll get blocked. Also, to make sure that you don't get blocked too easily, start explaining your edits, both of you. I am going to grace both y'all's talk pages with edit-warring templates and edit-summary reminders, lest you forget. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I am sorry about my attitude regarding the issue and I am also aware of the 3RR rule. I am merely protecting the article from vandalism. If you will investigate carefully, the version prior to mine does not conform with the standard and tone of Wikipedia so I revised it. This user is also adding informations that are doubtful] and obviously biased so accusing me of disrupting the article is very hurtful. I will tolerate edits as long as it merit and conforms the standard supported by reliable sources and with a neutral point-of-view. Thank You. -Hollyckuhno -(message) 13:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Issue

Resolved

 – Floquenbeam blocked IP and tagging and reversion issues have been taken care of.

I am currently (and probably forever) under a 1RR restriction. What so I do when an IP votes in an AFD and I tag it as a SPA? [71] He reverted the tag + the fact that I pointed out he was posting from a proxy server. I reverted this [72] (It is usual to tag such I am sure) and the IP reverted again[73] He has also added an shared IP edu to his talk page, but I see no evidence that it is such? Am I allowed to restore the SPA tag? Darkness Shines (talk) 01:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I would say no. It's not obvious vandalism which reverting again will get you blocked. For the sake of it, I reverted it for you. I do agree with what you have to say though.

I'm adding to the fact that this user is being disruptive and just got blocked. I removed the IP notice as well. Is there anything else otherwise, I would consider this resolved.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,476,228) 01:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• To answer the general question, I guess that's one of the annoyances of being on 1RR. I would say just make it someone else's job to tag SPA's, or don't bother reverting if they revert. I wouldn't block for that revert, but others might. To address this specific user, I've blocked the IP to prevent further disruption, but I don't know a proxy server from a... proxy server, so I didn't do anything about that. Someone who knows about technical stuff can block for longer if that's appropriate. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

And thanks to both of you. Darkness Shines (talk) 02

07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson

Without initially naming names, the Thomas Jefferson talk page has, in my opinion, been difficult concerning the discussion of Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson. Discussion has often turned into caustic argumentation and bullying of opinions on dissenting or differing opinions. Personal attacks seems to be the norm rather then respectful discussion on the subject matter. Editors team up on other editors and appear to be in collusion of opinion with each other. What can be done to stop the bullying, sarcastic argumentation, and Ad hominem insults? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Probably nothing short of empaneling several experienced editors who don't particularly care about the subject to come up with a consensus on some of these phrasings. Ravenswing 06:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks Ravenswing. This has been attempted many times without any conclusions. Certain editors accuse the article is biased and will not compromise until their views are in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe the best remedy is having an administrator or administrators monitor the Thomas Jefferson talk page and control the situation. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• It's not the job of administrators to be arbitrators of peace. Admins are only equipped with tools to enforce policy and consensus. Yes the situation has gotten out a bit heated on that talk page, but if policies such as WP:Civil or WP:3RR have been breached, then perhaps those situations should be dealt with individuality. Until then just keep up the discussion and eventually a compromise should be reached.--JOJ ^Hutton 18:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

User:ArchieOof

User:ArchieOof is a relatively new editor who I think needs some counsel and assistance. After what I considered to be a series of hasty page moves, I posted a short (and what I thought was civil) note on his talk page[74] only to experience a barrage of edit-warring, accusations of wiki-lawyering[75][76] and assumptions of bad faith,[77][78][79][80] as well as indications of an intent of future disruption.[81] I think ArchieOof needs to learn about civility and consensus, but I am clearly not the person to help him in this. StAnselm (talk) 06:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, would an administrator be able to move Martha of Bethany back to Martha? User:ArchieOof moved the page without consensus, but it takes administrator privileges to revert the move. StAnselm (talk) 09:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

You are on the right track. If it is impossible for you yourself to move it back, make sure you get a an admin to do it for you, before you or anyone else initiates a formal requested move discussion. I was involved in a similar situation, but made the mistake of starting an RM before we got the page back to its former stable state. This resulted in about two months of arguing, a mile long talk page, three different votes, a resolution that defaulted to the current page name in the event of "no consensus" which only later was overthrown by an admin after even more lenthy discussions; all just to get the page back to where it was in the first place. It was a monumental waste of time and resources for dozens of editors. --Racerx11 (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Co-incidentally, there's a discussion here on this very subject. Moonraker12 (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

PoV pushing of user HudsonBreeze

User HudsonBreeze has been removing cited material from the following articles meaningless edit summaries or stating reasons for removal on talk page;

• List of war crimes
• Sri Lankan Civil War
• Genocides in history

His/her activity seems to be not to be in good faith as comments in another talk page seems to be so. Cossde (talk) 11:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Quarkgluonsoup

Enough is enough. Quarkgluonsoup (talk · contribs) is repeatedly removing from the lead of The Exodus any mention of the lack of archaeological evidence, despite taking part on the talk page about possible changes to the lead. This started when xe raised a '911' call at Wikipedia talk:Christianity noticeboard/Urgent and insisted that any discussion of the article be at the 'Urgent' noticeboard and not at the article's talk page. Xe finally relented and joined in at the article talk page, then insisting that User:Lionelt be allowed to talk first. I note that Lionelt posted to Quark's talk page asking that Quark stopped reverting, but this was ignored. The 911 stuff was irritating, but as he's been told several times to stop and I even said it might be time for ANI before this last removal, I'm bringing it here. Dougweller (talk) 11:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

it gets worse. In seven minutes on March 8 Quarkgluonsoup erased over 2000 words of text from the major article on the American Civil War see see log. He merely said in his his half-line edit summaries that there was "way too much detail here" on slavery and on the Constitution. Actually slavery and on the Constitution are the main issues that scholars have been debating for 150 years regarding the causes and meaning of the war. Rjensen (talk) 11:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I was going to revert that but ended up reverting all his edits simply because they'd left a huge mess of red citation warnings. Dougweller (talk) 12:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

His attempt to steer discussion away from the talk page is of course out of line. I can sympathize with his sentiments about the Exodus article to a degree, but he's obviously on a campaign to play up the Christian faith of various politicians and related figures (e.g. retagging Abigail Adams as congregationalist instead of Unitarian, when she can be cited for an unambiguously Unitarian statement of faith). The pattern of his edits is verty problematic. Mangoe (talk) 14:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

He reverted Dougweller's fix; I have reverted that and issued a final warning. Black Kite (talk) 16:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Government security badges

Is it appropriate for the project to host scans of government security badges? What about college and university ID badges? Please see Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 February 27#File:James H Trainor NASA Badge 1.jpg.--GrapedApe (talk) 14:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying we don't need no stinkin' badges? Because, I think that's what you're saying. If so, you might be better off saying it at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, but I may stand corrected. --64.85.221.180 (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Spamming by User:Yellowpigeon

Resolved

 – Socky sock

Yellowpigeon (talk · contribs)

Spamming the VP/proposals with some nonsense about linking to some site, the 'only place on the internet' that has discussions forums that s/he likes. Funny enough, the user has commented only on this issue, creating an account within a couple of days of the forum website being created.

I've warned the user about spam. I've removed the spam from the VP multiple times. I've also been called a 'terrorist' and a 'troll,' amongst choice epithets also leveled at others.

I reported to ARV but nobody seems to be watching, and the user is becoming increasingly abusive. Permablock needed. User will be notified on my next edit of this discussion. → ROUX ₪ 15:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours for edit warring. Longer blocks left to the discression of other admins. — Edokter (talk) — 15:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no doubts that Yellowpigeon knew what he was doing all along, and isn't the innocent new user JamesBWatson would suggest he is on his talk page (no offence, James). I think it's a clear-cut case of this needing to be indef; my suspicion is that when the block expires he might well just go back to his same previous behaviour. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I concur. There is no way in hell this is a new user (witness the repeated comments about usual Wikipedia behaviour and terrorists and so forth), nor is there any credible suggestion that the proposal was made in good faith; the user is very clearly affiliated with the website in question and is attempting to drive traffic to it by leveraging Wikipedia's umpty-million daily pageviews. Edit-warring to retain spam, while disingenuously claiming that it's a valid proposal? Please. I wasn't born yesterday. → ROUX ₪ 19:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• The following are  Confirmed:

• Kukfittrovas (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Yellowpigeon (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Xcvxvbxcdxcvbd (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• As such, I changed Yellowpigeon's block to indef. Tiptoety ^talk 19:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Urnfield culture numerals

(I have no experience in the English Wikipedia, as I usually edit on the Spanish Wikipedia, and don't know where this dispute goes. If this is not the correct place, please tell me where I should put it.)

This is a dispute over Urnfield culture numerals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) between:

• Dbachmann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and
• ecelan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

I'll make a quick review of what has happened until now:

1. User Dbachmann modifies the article Urnfield culture numerals, eliminating large parts of the text [82] and the source [83], asking for sources. Dbachmann comes then to my talk page and accuses me of making up a hoax [84].
2. I included the source 5 days later [85]. Then answered on my talk page to the accusation of Dbachmann, adding some more information about the source [86].
3. The next day user Dbachmann moves the article to Frankleben hoard [87] and effectively overwrites the article [88] with what seems to correspond to the German article de:Bronzehort von Frankleben (not unrelated, but not the same subject as the Urnfield culture numerals at all).
4. A discussion ensues in my talk page (complete thread).

There are several issues in this dispute:

• as the accusation of making a hoax, which to me is against WP:GOODFAITH,
• or the the clear breach of WP:ETIQ, when user Dbachmann applied to me Hanlon's razor [89], calling me stupid or a crook (I can choose).

I could go on, but I'd like to centre the question on what I think is an evasion of Wikipedia rules: Dbachmann has effectively deleted a sourced article without using the tools that he is supposed to use. I don't know why he didn't directly delete the article, as he seems to be an administrator, but the correct way of handling this would have been a WP:RFD. God knows the article was not perfect, and there could be a dispute over the relevance of the subject, but the way this has been handled seems to me a way around the rules of Wikipedia, around the way Wikipedia should work.

Let me make it short: is it allowed to delete an article by moving it to another subject and then overwrite it with another text corresponding to the new title?

Thank you for your time. --Ecelan (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Metrication in the United Kingdom

Metrication in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

On Monday, I protected the above page for a week because of a long-standing content dispute between editors. Some of the editors requested via my talk page that the article be unprotected on Friday, which I promptly did, switching it down to semi-pp. Since then, it's all gone rather pear-shaped, with lots of invective on the talk page and so on. I'm not wild about fully protecting the article again, but it'd be nice if another admin could have a look over the article and see if there's anything we can do to nudge the contributors towards productivity and away from the path towards the dark side. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Consensus of editors conflicts with wikipedia's NPOV policy.

On the one hand, the editing of wikipedia articles is to be based on Wikipedia:Consensus.

On the other hand, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy states:

"Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it."

What should happen when the majority consensus is in conflict with wikipedia's NPOV policy?

My question is not hypothetical. I have multiple real examples where the majority consensus at Presidency of Barack Obama is in violation of wikipedia's NPOV policies.

This has already been discussed on the article's talk page for years, but the problem is still happening, so I am coming here for some answers.

As one example, the article states:

"The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act requires all recipients of the funds provided by the act to publish a plan for using the funds, along with purpose, cost, rationale, net job creation, and contact information about the plan to a website Recovery.gov so that the public can review and comment."

I'm not complaining about that. I have no problem with that.

What I am complaining about, however, is that the majority consensus is against allowing the following additional information to be included:

"Although Obama had promised that the website recovery.gov would list all stimulus spending in detail, a 400 page report issued by the Government Accountability Office stated that only 25% of the projects listed on the website provided clear and complete information regarding their cost, schedule, purpose, location and status."

Not allowing that second part is a clear violation of NPOV.

As another example, the article quotes Obama as saying:

"There will be no more taxpayer-funded bailouts. Period."

However, the majority consensus is against following up that quote with this additional information:

"In March 2012, Obama announced a new set of bailouts for speculators who had caused the housing bubble."

Again, to not include this second part is a violation of NPOV.

As another example, the article includes a section called "lobbying reform," which cites some of Obama's claims and policies to reduce the influence of lobbyists..

However, the majority consensus is against including the following:

"In June 2010, the New York Times reported that Obama administration officials had held hundreds of meetings with lobbyists at coffee houses near the White House, in order to avoid the disclosure requirements for White House visitors, and that these meetings "reveal a disconnect between the Obama administration’s public rhetoric — with Mr. Obama himself frequently thrashing big industries’ 'battalions' of lobbyists as enemies of reform — and the administration’s continuing, private dealings with them.""

To not include that information violates NPOV.

Likewise, the article has a section called "Wall Street reform," but the majority consensus is against including this:

"Although Obama claims to support the Occupy Wall St. movement, in 2011 it was reported that he had raised more money from Wall St. than any other candidate during the last 20 years. In addition, as a Senator he voted in favor of the $700 billion Wall St. bailout. Also, in October 2011, Obama hired Broderick Johnson, a longtime Wall St. lobbyist, to be his new senior campaign adviser. Johnson had worked as a lobbyist for JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Fannie Mae, Comcast, Microsoft, and the oil industry."

Again, to not include that violates NPOV.

The article includes a section called "Ethics," but the majority consensus is against including the following:

"Although Obama had promised to have 'the most sweeping ethics reform in history' and had often criticized the role of money in politics, after he was elected he gave administration jobs to more than half of his 47 biggest fundraisers."

The article also contains a section called "Transparency," which contains multiple wonderful sounding promises and policies from the president. However, the majority consensus is against including these third party criticisms:

"In April 2009, antiwar activists who helped elect Obama accused him of using the same "off the books" funding as his predecessor George W. Bush when Obama reqeusted an additional $83.4 billion from Congress for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - a provision which Obama had voted against when he was a Senator."

"In May 2010, it was reported that the Obama administration had selected KBR, a former subsidiary of Halliburton, for a no-bid contract worth as much as $568 million through 2011 for military support services in Iraq, just hours after the Justice Department said it will pursue a lawsuit accusing the Houston-based company of taking kickbacks from two subcontractors on Iraq-related work."

"Although Obama had promised to wait five days before signing all non-emergency bills, he broke that promise at least 10 times during his first three months in office."

"In December 2010, Transparency International reported that corruption was increasing faster in the U.S. than anywhere else except Cuba, Dominica, and Burkina Faso."

"In July 2009, White House reporter Helen Thomas criticized the Obama administration for its lack of transparency."

"In June 2009, Obama fired Inspector General Gerald Walpin, after Walpin accused Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson, an Obama supporter, of misuse of AmeriCorps funding to pay for school-board political activities. In a letter to Congress, the White House said that Walpin was fired because he was "confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the Board to question his capacity to serve." A bipartisan group of 145 current and former public officials, attorneys, and legal scholars signed a letter that was sent to the White House, which defended Walpin, said the criticisms of him were not true, and said that his firing was politically motivated. The letter can be read here. Fox News host Glenn Beck gave Walpin an on-air state certified senility test, which Walpin passed with a perfect score, meaning that he was not senile."

To not include these things violates NPOV.

Each and every one of these examples is something where the majority consensus is in violation of wikipedia's NPOV policy.

Since this has been discussed multiple times on the article's talk page for years, and the problem is sill happening, I am raising this issue here.

What can be done to get the article to follow wikipedia's NPOV policy?

Peas 447 (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• This doesn't necessarily appear to be an incident that needs specific admin attention. This appears to meet the prerequisites for a posting to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. You may well be better served there. Rgrds. --64.85.221.180 (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's quite a tl;dr, but let me try to address some of your concerns. To the best of my knowledge, I've never edited the Obama article, except possibly for the occasional huggle revert.

• "Although Obama had promised that the website recovery.gov would list all stimulus spending in detail, a 400 page report issued by the Government Accountability Office stated that only 25% of the projects listed on the website provided clear and complete information regarding their cost, schedule, purpose, location and status."

  This is synthesis, creating the connection between what Obama said and what happened where it doesn't exist in the cited source. The source says "The website used to track stimulus spending does not meet the transparency requirements laid out by the administration last year, according to a report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO).", which is not at all the same thing as your proposed text, which basically says "Obama promised this but has failed to live up to his promise." The source says nothing about Obama in particular, nor does it support the 25% figure you attempt to use.

  "In March 2012, Obama announced a new set of bailouts for speculators who had caused the housing bubble."

  Again, synthesis, combining what the source says with that the person who wrote the text believes. The cited source does not say that house-flippers or speculators "caused" the housing bubble, and the cited sentence picks out one element of the story - that speculators may get some bailout funds - and ignores the actual story, which is that the administration (again, the administration, not "Obama") is extending the availability of mortgage assistance in general, not that it'd adding property speculators in particular to its program.

  "In June 2010, the New York Times reported that Obama administration officials had held hundreds of meetings with lobbyists at coffee houses near the White House, in order to avoid the disclosure requirements for White House visitors, and that these meetings "reveal a disconnect between the Obama administration’s public rhetoric — with Mr. Obama himself frequently thrashing big industries’ 'battalions' of lobbyists as enemies of reform — and the administration’s continuing, private dealings with them."[3]"

  Synthesis and perhaps a tad of wishful thinking. Nowhere in the cited article does it say that these meetings are being held "in order to avoid" disclosure requirements. It says that some meetings are held at a coffeeshop, that meetings held at coffeeshops are not part of the visit log, ands that "some lobbyists" think this reveals a disconnect between what Obama said and what he does. That is most emphatically not what the test you propose for the article reflects; your version is tailored to introduce "facts" not present in the source - that this is being done on purpose, with nefarious motives.

I could carry on, in regard to each of your proposed sentences, but really the response is the same for each one: you are attempting to introduce synthesis into the article by writing sentences subtly representing (what I assume is) your point of view and then backing them up with sources that support bare facts but don't support the interpretation you're attempting to perform on them. Please re-read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, if WP:NPOV isn't helping you understand what the issue is here. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

There was a recent posting on free republic.com with the exact same list done in Wikipedia mark-up. That probably explains where this material is coming from this "new" editor. (can't link directly due to spam filter) Yobol (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. The "activism" thread is at that website dot com /focus/f-news/2853412/posts. Banned user Grundle2600 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is recruiting meatpuppets there to help him force his POV/OR-synthesis version back into the Presidency of Barack Obama article. I semiprotected it last night to put a temporary halt to this. Antandrus (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

This has to be a mistake

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Image restored. Favonian (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Banglapedia.svg was deleted as F5 in 29 December 2011, while it was used in the article Banglapedia consistently. I checked the last version before that date, and it was removed after it was deleted by a bot. In no way it could have been F5, and, I, the major contributor to the article was never notified (Arman, the uploader is long inactive).

P.S. Where else do I report a problem like this? Our goddamn "process" has become too labyrinthine for our own good. No wonder the project's growth is slowing down so much. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Um, I suppose if you're looking to review a deletion, you should go to the outrageously named deletion review? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a regrettable mishap. An editor temporarily deleted the file to get rid of an old, corrupted version. While the image was deleted, a bot removed the reference to it from the article. When the image was restored, it was orphaned and tagged for deletion. Not ideal, but no reason to exaggerate the consequences. I have restored the file and the link from the article. Favonian (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Adding LGBT material to BLPs

Pass a Method (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

Pass a Method has been adding POV material related to LGBT rights to various articles, including Brad Pitt, Daniel Radcliffe, George Clooney, Miley Cyrus, and Michael Lahoud. He has been adding material to the body of the articles, but more seriously, he has been adding material to the infoboxes and adding categories, including saying that someone's occupation is LGBT-rights activist (for example, [90]). As in the preceding example, he's also been using a bizarre edit summary: "temp", whatever that means (template?). I've been removing most of his edits, although in some cases, I've reworded and adjusted them rather than completely removing them. I've posted a message to his Talk page, but his only response has been to edit yet more articles in the same agenda-pushing manner.

I'm not sure what kind of administrative intervention is appropriate, perhaps just a forceful warning from an admin to see if that's sufficient to get him to stop. He's not an inexperienced editor, although his edit history is a mite strange (lots of articles related to male sexuality and religion).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Temp is short for template. I have explained the rest on my talk page. Pass a Method talk 18:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've seen User:Pass a Method engaged in POV-pushing like this before, essentially adding material that is sex-related in some way, which is unsourced or improperly sourced, synthesis, or with undue weight. I've looked over a lot of the recent additions, and they are at the very least presented with undue weight. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• It's not a mite strange to only or mostly edit sexual and religious topics, but Pass a Method is problematic when editing sexual topics at least. He is an inexperienced editor when it comes to this and some other aspects (such as policies and guidelines). Boing! said Zebedee became aware of this problem through me, when I reported some of Pass a Method's troubling edits to another editor. Among other things, Boing! said Zebedee saw inappropriate category placement, as well as inappropriate additions to the Elvis Presley article. Here are other recent examples showing Pass a Method's problematic editing with regard to sexual topics, which led his temporary block and eventual threat to create a new account.[91][92][93] I've been suggesting that he be topic-banned from sexual topics for months now. 50.17.15.172 (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• The threats to open other accounts and to avoid recognition are very troubling.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Just to keep it in one place, here's Pass's explanation on his Talk page: "Radcliffe and Pitt are possibly the most notable LGBT rights activists, but neither the template or lede acknowledged this. This is why i felt it should be added to either the lede or template. As for adding it to the "occupation" line, i had since corrected myself and added it to the "known for" line."

I don't know what "most notable" means in this context. Obviously, there are people who spend their lives in political activism. Perhaps Pass means that Pitt and Radcliffe are more notable than some other actors. Even if that's true - and I don't know how to source something like that - as Boing says, there's a problem with weight in the lead. If you're going to report on the non-acting aspects of Pitt or Radcliffe in the lead, then you have to do it in a neutral way because both are involved in other causes besides just gay rights. And putting it in the "known for" field is almost as bad as putting it in the occupation field. I particularly like this edit where Pass equates Radcliffe's acting to his LGBT activism. It's pretty weird to say that an actor is known for, uh, acting. To me, the edits to the infobox and to the cats are the worst because they put labels on the subject without any context. The lead information is more a function of weight and balance. The Radcliffe article has been locked because of Pass and my battle over content. If this had just been a content issue in one article, I, of course, would not have taken it here, but it was being systemically applied to many articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• This is also him under an IP.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

User Ajax42

See the refactoring of my comments on the talk page of Ajax42 (talk · contribs). His article edits have been editwarring and were oversighted, and my warning has been twice turned into a travesty of what I wrote. If he did this to someone else I'd block him, but as I'm the one he's refactoring... Dougweller (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked. Any admin is free to extend or overturn. Danger ^{High voltage!} 19:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)