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.

---

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

User:Jaguar

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Jaguar

Hello, a user has asked me to consider whether it would be feasible to move this section back here from the subpage, as he feels that they were making real progress and the move to the subpage might hinder that, which seems a viable concern to me. I am however not familiar enough with the usages of ANI to know what's best, so I'd love if somebody more familiar than me could handle this issue. Kind regards, Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The thread is over 181KB. Some threads listed here are around 90KB. --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 19:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not have any opinion on moving the thread back, but if there are conclusions coming, they should be posted here.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Just thought a quick update would be worth posting. Although a community consensus was to mass delete the stubs, one plucky editor has volunteered to spend the next few months trying to fix the issue. There's a discussion regarding that going on at the moment. Blackmane (talk) 09:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

A decision had already been made and a strong consensus reached - to delete the Chinese stubs - when the page was on AN/I. Moving the page just meant that it devolved into bickering between the usual suspects (including me). I really think we need to implement that decision, and solve the Chinese stub problem, before indulging in further scope creep. (There is a wider issue than just China or Jaguar, and some disagreement over norms, so an RfC might be a good idea after this thread is resolved). If somebody actually wants to write 8000 decent articles which meet wikipedia standards, that would be a colossal task - and keeping the existing unsourced microstubs in the meantime wouldn't make their job any easier (since we can't even be confident that names are accurate, even a list of existing articles is more hindrance than help). It's not the first time that one of these crises has been met with "Wait! Somebody else can fix them all!" but it would be a first if they actually did get fixed. bobrayner (talk) 09:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be happy if the articles were incubated or sandboxed; that way the vast majority of !voters who said "delete" can see the articles removed from mainspace, but the remaining "keep" !voters also get a chance to work on them. bobrayner (talk) 09:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm with you on that one. Blackmane (talk) 09:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Dr Blofeld suggested incubation yesterday; I hope that's still acceptable to the good doctor now.

Would it be possible to put some kind of sunset date on incubation/userification? I don't doubt that the articles' defenders are earnest in their proposal to bring the articles up to standard, but past experience is not very heartening. Since the community agreed to delete, I wouldn't want unfixed articles to loiter indefinitely in limbo. 6 months maybe? bobrayner (talk) 11:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem here is that someone looking up an obscure term gets nothing instead of a starting point for further research. Rich Farmbrough, 12:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

"It's useful" is something which often gets mentioned at AfD, but it doesn't overturn WP:N. Anybody looking up the obscure term will gain nothing from finding one of the articles as they stand, since they merely repeat what the seeker already knows - that a settlement exists with that name. Probably exists. (I just took one to AfD and a Keep !voter helpfully added coordinates to the article. Google's satellite view shows an empty field at those coordinates). A worryingly large proportion have been found to contain errors - if an article only says one thing and it's wrong about that, I doubt it's a good starting point for further research. I can understand why some people might disagree with the overwhelming consensus to remove those Chinese stubs, but it was a consensus nonetheless. bobrayner (talk) 13:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by User:John J. Bulten

User:John_J._Bulten (JJB) changed WP:SS to add that notability didn't matter for article contents in such a way that there is the implication notability is explicitly not required for article spinouts and reiterated it after I removed with [1]. I discussed this with him and others who have engaged in a wall of text and keep on taking everything in some strange way and wanting to spread discussion to other places rather than centralize at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Splitting articles arbitrarily. A request there to remove it led to him reiterating it. At [2] I pointed out JJB was being inconsistent saying they thought notability was always relevant and asked JJB to remove the edit or explain why they were standing by it. They responded by editing to show they wanted the bit about notability being irrelevant [3] and not putting any explanation in where requested but trying to split the discussion again back to that guidelines talk page.

JJB has bee involved in a related business Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Agent00f before doing these changes.

I believe these actions indicate pointy and disruptive behaviour by John_J._Bulten . Dmcq (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

My first response is here. I invite recommendations but may not be available immediately. JJB 01:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I have repeatedly told Dmcq that charges like the first sentence of the OP are false, that Dmcq is inferring something not stated (as Jclemens just agreed with me on). The VPP discussion has been fruitful. Though it may also assist with MMA mediation (Agent00f), it has been discussed by many editors now who recognize its global policy value. Dmcq's charges to spread discussion to other places will not be supported by any diff, as every suggestion I have made to use other pages has valid grounding. Dmcq's charges of inconsistency arise because of the misstatement in the first sentence: I do affirm notability is always relevant. Dmcq also unaccountably calls me "they" though my name is John. I do believe editing a guideline belongs on the guideline's talk page, yes. What should I do? JJB 01:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The charge that "others" engaged in 3 behaviors is perhaps conflated, as the 3 charges refer specifically to me, and the many others from VPP (should I name and invite some or all?) should not be tarred by that. The charge that I did not explain "where requested" objects to my explaining changes to WP:SS on its talk page rather than VPP. JJB 01:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Dmcq also failed to notify Agent00f of mentioning him on this page (now corrected); and my other significant objections appear at the first link I gave, and at the current last section of Wikipedia talk:Summary style. JJB 01:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed odd behaviour with JJB as well with his proposals to make large (mostly pointless) changes to WP:NPOV: Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#Recommended_changes with very bizarre interpretaions of what consitutes opposition: despite large opposition he moved ahead to make his large sweeping changes to NPOV with: As I suspected, these matter-of-fact changes were not opposed, yet because of what page this is they were not implemented either Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#Forward (look at this in conjunction with the history as well: [4]). Also here he re-inserted a new addition to the page [5] with the reason of [6] On this page we start with silent consensus. You now have a vocal consensus of two (Unscintillating and me). .

Note also that JJB has returned only recently from his year long ban for sustained edit-warring, misuse of edit summaries and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground etc Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity#John_J._Bulten. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think you (Dmcq) are attributing motive that is not in evidence. Quoting or paraphrasing WP:NNC in WP:SS is actually a very good idea, and you've brought non-edit-warring policy dispute to ANI rather than discussing it on the appropriate talk page. If I were you, I really wouldn't want to bring something to ANI where I'd called a good-faith policy clarification attempt vandalism--even if it was just an automated edit summary. I also think the best thing to do here is for everyone to discuss their positions and objections, without benefit of or need for blocks, protections, or any other administrative tool use. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
• This is odd, as he and I had a long discussion about this very topic here [7] where he had already concluded that WP:SS didn't require notability for spun out articles. This was his rationale for allowing individual MMA articles to exist without having to demonstrate notability. I maintained that all articles required passing WP:V and WP:GNG independently and disagreed with his conclusions. I'm curious as to why he would change WP:SS to reflect something he said it already stated, and why he wasn't following the good advice at WP:BRD by discussing it once his changes were reverted. I don't have time to review this completely at this time, but felt his previous discussion may shine some light on the subject. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow. On NPOV I have not continued prosecuting my improvements. On WT:N I also admitted when a superior argument was made just after my edit. On Longevity my history is an open book, but the last editor who brought up old news at ANI didn't get anywhere. On Dennis my initial statements to him were more supportive of "not requiring N", but I believe I always upheld that "N is relevant". I didn't change it to reflect something I said it already stated; I added something to it that WP:N already stated. On BRD I affirm it and I believe evidence will show I upheld it. On Dennis's hint that previous discussion may shine light, I affirm that my attempt to pseudomediate at MMA is related, but so are many other topic areas, as other editors have affirmed. JJB 01:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC) User:Hasteur has just committed a WP:TALKO violation to this page, rearranging my comments differently from the intended presentation. JJB 01:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*1 It's called making it easier to read. TRY IT Hasteur (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Specifically granted under Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. Hasteur (talk) 01:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC) — Hasteur — continues after insertion below

Please do not charge my single-paragraph style as "error". JJB 01:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

If you post "wall of text" single-paragraphs, it's likely that many readers will just skip over them, because they are difficult to read. Paragraph breaks not only give you the opportunity to present your points cogently, grouping like ideas together, but the visual break provided helps the reader navigate through the text. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*2 I think JJB has missed the point of the notification clause. In no way did Dmcq state the name he linked to a ongoing conduct discussion about the user. JJB did however mention the user, so his notification was appropriate. Sidebar: I bet money that the first posting the editor makes will be to claim a conspiracy to suppress his/JJB's viewpoint by a cabal out to destroy all of Wikipedia. I'm not bitter, just no longer innocent to the type of posting that this micro-consensus posts when they get challanged with no good reasoning.Hasteur (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

"The editor" (Agent00f) was mentioned by Dmcq as part of an RFC/U link (which you started), which is pretty good mention. I don't believe your prediction about "the editor" is appropriate for this board. JJB 01:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

No, when objections were raised at WP:NPOV you waited until the comments stopped coming and then started again: [8]. You clearly have not upheld BRD because you were adding content for which there was no consensus for, in fact the consensus was against it. Also here is where I revert you bold additions: [9], here you re-add them again [10] IRWolfie- (talk) 01:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I must also categorically reject IRWolfie-'s characterizations, and disagree with Dennis about my having a "rationale for allowing individual MMA articles to exist without having to demonstrate notability." Rather, I was investigating whether N considerations could result in a mediation solution, not firmly deciding on any particular consideration. If specific explanation of my use of BRD at NPOV is needed, I will be happy to oblige. JJB 01:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC) However, I am taking a brief break now. Feel free to pile on, I will respond or ignore when I get back. JJB 02:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

In this comment [11] you pretty clearly say that MMA articles shouldn't have to pass WP:GNG if they are filtered through WP:SS. "But first, standing alone does not mean standing alone for N, in context it means standing alone for V; and second, not every article must pass GNG, which is why we have SNG and local consensus as well." I'm sorry, but the whole point of your conversation there was to find a way to have MMA articles, via WP:SS, that didn't have to pass GNG. I didn't get it at the start of the conversation, because the idea is rather "out there" in terms of interpreting policy. Your stated that rather "firmly" there, there was no ambiguity in your position. I'm not making a comment on this current case, just saying you already had indicated that you were convinced that WP:SS was a way to avoid having to pass N / GNG (WP:N), and trying to persuade me to this point of view, which I rejected. This is why once I saw you were tinkering with WP:SS, this threw up a red flag, and even though I wasn't going to be on Wikipedia tonight, here I am. I'm not expressing an opinion on this ANI itself (and won't), but your recollection of the previous conversations is less than perfect here. The coincidence is simply worth pointing out, and others may consider or discount as they please. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Well then I think he flatly contradicted himself in a statement he made in that VPP discussion "Masem 1: It is true that Dmcq raises the bogeyman of "all spinouts become automatic keepers", though there is no evidence I ever held this view" in this diff. Dmcq (talk) 03:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, as current WT:N discussion confirms, N is not GNG; N is the superset of GNG or SNG or local or AFD consensus of N independent of any guideline. So it's not a heresy to admit not every article must pass GNG, firmly and unambiguously. I was hoping that SS might be a way to find a middle ground between two hot camps. When I first started editing SS I advertised that one reason for doing so was a then-current conflict. Again, if either of you can "connect the dots" for me and show that I made the claims you inferred, I would appreciate it. JJB 04:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• I will leave to others to connect as I feel it is obvious to anyone who wants to pour through the conversation[12], I'm not going to offer an opinion here and haven't looked at all the information, and I'm only noting a pre-disposition and possible motivation as it was relevant. Having such strong feelings about WP:SS as well as the desire to connect it to MMA to allow keeping all articles is a conflict for you. It doesn't automatically prohibit you from editing it, but your fundamental understanding of the policy is and was flawed, and at the least it is biased/ Self-restraint would have been a better option. I like you JJB, even if we disagree on many things, and your interpretation is certainly imaginative, but it is inconsistent with the policy itself. I would think it better if you didn't tinker with it as you have a demonstrated bias here. We all have biases on one subject or another, and it is wise to simply avoid those areas. If you are going to forcefully use a policy as a basis for keeping all your articles, do not go and change the policy so that others will question if it is only to make it fit your world view. It is a bit of common sense. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Since Jclemens encouraged discussion, I'm disappointed you've drawn obvious conclusions that are also not worth your connecting for my benefit. MMA was merely the catalyst to reveal a problem, acknowledged at VPP, relating to spinout notability. Ending 5-6 years of delete wars that I documented there would also improve the encyclopedia. I have no desire necessarily to "allow keeping all articles": I'm merely looking for methods that might bridge the gap.

I went into RFC and into RFC/U unbiased. Communicating with Agent00f revealed a concern that could be tested by policy discussion. Communicating with Hasteur revealed, let's not go there, but it was a different experience than with Agent00f. Communicating with you revealed that you don't always see things any more neutrally than I do (a first example is that you see those other two editors differently than I do; a second example is that you affirmed Hasteur for calling my migrative resolution proposals "Stockholm syndrome"; if you want more examples I'll go back to your talk).

I announced my involvement when I started editing SS. As VPP reveals, the widespread nature of the issue merits discussion not fixated on MMA. My edits to SS were either minor, accepted by Dmcq, or were exact quotes from other guidelines, so I don't know why my "fundamental understanding" is flawed and don't know that you want to enlighten me. Your phrase "keeping all your articles" charges me with WP:OWN without evidence. But see my next comment below. JJB 11:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

JJB is continuing disruption by trying to move or fork the centralized discussion to the talk page of WP:SS see [13]. The topic clearly could affect the wording of WP:SIZE and also involves bits copied from WP:NOTABILITY and might affect it too. The discussion was clearly at WP:VPP#Splitting articles arbitrarily and there is no point having talks at Wikipedia_talk:Article_size#Discussion_about_split_of_large_articles_at_an_arbitrary_point where he also tried to have separate talks, or continuing at Wikipedia_talk:Summary_style#Policy_check. Dmcq (talk) 09:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• This is just more MMA related disruption, the tactics of the MMA fans is to create as many points of discussion as is possible, use SPA to debate the community into submission, to try and change community guidelines and policy in such a way as to allow them to have there one article per event and have the encyclopaedia the go to place for MMA related news and gossip. Mtking ^(edits) 09:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

As such, we should never discuss it again. Deor (talk) 10:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

In the last graf of Dmcq's diff, given to allege I'm trying to move or fork discussion, I acknowledge Dmcq's idiosyncratic views about proper discussion pages by beginning, "So at whatever page we continue to work this out ...." I am no MMA fan nor SPA. I am merely someone discovering the effects of sticking both feet into attempts to pseudomediate MMA. JJB 11:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, you can not mediate at MMA. You clearly have a bias and are not objective in this matter. This is fine and you are certainly welcome to participate, but your bias is very, very evident, as has been demonstrated in a number of venues. Mediation implies neutrality and your actions clearly indicate you are not. I certainly would never go and change the guidelines for something I was "mediating" in, as that is clearly a violation of neutrality and trust. No mediator would dare do such a thing. That you would present yourself as neutral is disturbing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I entered the discussion neutrally. I discovered data that appeared to tend in one direction and gradually affirmed that data as more and more accumulated. The first datum was that the diffs presented were nowhere near the type of misbehavior usually seen at RFC/U, and your inability to see that makes your own bias evident IMHO (perhaps you had no bias when you began, of course). You seem to believe it is unnecessary to bring more evidence to convince me of my bias, it's so obvious to you. Also, no party considered SS as a guideline for MMA resolution, so there was nobody holding out trust for me to not improve SS. However, I have been cautious about the word "mediate" in the past so am refactoring it.

My recommended closure is that you rejoin VPP, or else ask me to link you an essay on spinout notability for joint collegial discussion such as we enjoyed at your talk. JJB 11:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

As I'm not involved in the MMA debate, my bias isn't being called into question here. The conversation we had shows that I did consider your argument, and much of what I'm seeing at the PPV confirms what I told you there. Even if I were to consider you neutral (and I don't), editing the policy pages for policies that are being used to bolster your solution is clearly a violation of that neutrality, and yes, is disturbing. Regardless of what side of the argument someone is on, or if they are in the middle, changing the "rules" to match their outcome is not acceptable. To me, that act alone disqualifies you from calling yourself neutral, as it looks like you are trying to manipulate the "rules" to be consistent with your desired outcome, even if that outcome is a compromise. That is a rather huge, cardinal sin in mediation, and a fatal one. You just don't do that in mediation. Ever. That you fail to understand this shows that either you don't understand what neutral or mediation means, or that you have a bias and are manipulating the policies to fit it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

\The other possibility is disruption whilst understanding the policies and without having a bias. Dmcq (talk) 12:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

What do people here make of 'There is still one other page that discussion may still validly "split out" onto later, viz., User talk:Dmcq.' in his latest diff on the WP:SS talk page? I had just written "Thanks for that offer, in general I'm happy to go on about how things work or ways to do things or a bit of general waffle or even a few days of a one to one dispute, but I have this thing against meatpuppetry and canvassing and groupthink so for longer or wider disputes I try for transparency as far as possible - so I try to practice what I preach as far as talking about articles or policies is concerned" on Jclemens talk page about talking there separately. Dmcq (talk) 19:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

That is an oblique hint that your behavior linked from that diff (continuing to discuss on other pages) not only refuses to discuss a guideline change at its talk, but also is starting to cross the line into needing a user warning. Since you ran here, such a warning is also appropriate here, if necessary; but per Jclemens only a warning. I have been waiting for you to discuss policy substantively on any page. (I see your new 3 grafs at VPP now, so I'll try back there again.) JJB 19:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I have clearly described the objections to the insertion [ http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_%28policy%29&diff=494667789&oldid=494654943 diff] which also includes JJB's reply. If some admin would like to make a decision about my complaint against JJB of disruption I would be very grateful. Dmcq (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Since no one else will, then I guess I need to make it clear, although I thought I had in a more gentle manner earlier. Anyone who is involved in a dispute discussion, and their central point is based upon a policy, should not edit that policy page. Period. If you arguing how WP:SS is why your proposal is "right", then you do not go and modify WP:SS to make it fit your view. Common sense would tell you that you don't even go and modify anything for the policy during a conflict that is based on it, as you have a conflict of interest at that time. JJB, do not edit any policy that you are using central to dispute resolution, which at this time means WP:SS, until the MMA dispute around it has concluded. Dmcq, since you are involved at the pump discussion and other RFC/U venues, you should also refrain. I will only to revert to a state prior to when both of you began editing it, and I will consider further editing to be disruptive. Right now, I'm not taking any other action except to revert and tell you both to stop editing it, directly or by proxy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope that stops it whilst the MMA business is going on and I can't see why things shouldn't then get back to normal. Dmcq (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• • At the talk page of WP:SS he is intimating that I am not removed enough to make this determination. If any other admin wants to review, please feel free to. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
    • For the record I support the revert, in fact had considered making the very same edit, this shows a clear change in tactics to move the discussion to other parts of the 'pedia so as to demonstrate MMA events meeting guidelines and policy by changing the guidelines and policy to say what they need them to say. Mtking ^(edits) 03:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• It is not a good idea to propose far-reaching general policy interpretations for the purpose of achieving one's end on a specific localized issue. Myself, I do think we ought to sometimes split on the basis of complexity & logic rather than Notability, but I think it would be unconstructive to suggest doing so to accommodate more fully any one particular area where I have a special interest. I agree with Dennis & Dmcq about the intent of JJB's changes here, and I agree that they should not be discussed in the MMA context. Trying to do things that way would result in unstable policy, and damage the encyclopedia as a whole. DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• Another admin has chosen to fully protect the page from editing by anyone as an extra precaution, which I support. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Ashton 29 copyright violations

Ashton 29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a habit of uploading copyrighted photographs taken by people other than themselves and claims it as own work. This issues with copyright may also apply to their text based contributions since for example most of Brett Whiteley Studio article is from Brett Whiteley Studio web page. Also back in October 2011 Merbabu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) tagged the use page with {{sockpuppet|Jackp}}, going by the behaviour of both editors and the areas they edit (stalker) it seems possible but may not be enough. Bidgee (talk) 11:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the sock puppet suspicions, that's based on uncanny editing habits that include boasting about Sydney being a global city, and a film editing streak. Also, Adelaide and South Australian topics. Both editors have contributed a lot to Chloë Sevigny and other female actors, and also horror films including The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. --Merbabu (talk) 12:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Any Admins going to do something or we just let them continue? Bidgee (talk) 09:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Ashton 29 has previous socking history. I'm uncomfortable with sockblocks outside SPI myself, but I dare say that there are editors more familiar with that who will block on the provided evidence. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Persistent addition of inappropriate wikilinks

99.90.225.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

I am here to report an issue with user 99.90.225.159. The sum of this editor's activities on Wikipedia is reviewing lists of band members (in articles on musical groups) and cast members (in articles on films) and putting wikilink brackets around any names that don't already have them - without checking to see if the links go to articles on the people in question or not.

As seen on his user talk page, he has been warned about this at least five times already. I have added warning #6, but given that he completely ignored the first five editors, I see no reason to think he'll listen to me. Moreover, he has been a lot busier at this careless wikilinking than those six warnings might indicate; I have just finished reverting dozens of wikilinks that go to a disambiguation page, a nonexistent article, or the wrong person entirely, all of which apparently escaped the notice of the editors on duty at those articles. And that's just reviewing his edits over the past month. I'm not sure what I should do here, but I'd really like to have this pattern of editing stopped.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Red link says that this is fine. We want red links if there is even a minor chance that an article might be written some day, as it encourages others to create that article. Half the articles I created were due to stumbling across red links. Had they not been there, then I wouldn't have known that I needed to create the article. Some discretion is needed, but in general, red links are helpful. They may have had other unhelpful edits (this an IP, not necessary the same person for the last 6 months) but I don't see the red links as a problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Agreed that there's no problem with red links per se; the problem is that the user is not checking whether the non-red links he is adding go to the correct article. Without doing this the user is creating more problems than he is solving. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Exactly as Psychonaut said. As for it being different editors using the same IP address, I think if you review the editor's contributions, you'll agree that multiple people consistently performing such similar edits is well beyond the realm of coincidence.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree it looks like the same person throughout, and it does seem that they're putting brackets around names without actually checking where they lead. This reminds me of the problem I raised here, so I know how frustrating it can be for other editors, particularly when the person concerned seems unresponsive. I would suggest attempting to initiate some dialogue with them (something friendlier than the existing warnings, which encourages them to respond). If still no joy, I think we should consider whether WP:CIR applies. January (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

So what we have is someone trying to help, but it's a disambiguation problem, moreso than anything else. They don't realize that there are dozens of John Smith's, for example. Rather than spank them, did anyone suggest how they could double-check/determine if they're linking to the right person? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

That said, a wikilink in a good place, but pointing to a disambig page is better than no wikilink at all. And speaking of John Smith, think I will go there, see What links here and just fix some of those myself. My good deed for the day. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

See?! ANI can be a place where useful stuff occurs (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Independent review of Xenos2008's block and ultimatum

Moved back to original thread on WP:AN. – Fut.Perf. ☼

Long-term abuse, needs all contributions checked.

I just finished cleaning up after a three-day rampage by 70.138.99.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) of adding factual errors to articles and attempting to rewrite history. (Yes, I filed at AIV.) My concern for AN/I is that this same IP editor has been making contributions to the same types of articles since November 2010, and has only been blocked three times for it, and the articles this person likes to edit are obscure ones about songs and albums, so I suspect that many factual errors and removals have gone "under the radar" since that time. I caught several un-reverted changes from 13 April 2011, in fact. This editor likes to make subtle changes, like change "lead vocals" to "[[singing|vocals]]" but the fact remains that this is mostly subtle vandalism. The editor is also obsessed with the notion that Alyson Court created the TV show Big Comfy Couch, when she is indeed not credited with this. Any help here would be appreciated. Elizium23 (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm just being paranoid here, but the concentration on childrens' characters looks like the banned prolific socker User:ItsLassieTime all over again. Hopefully not. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see any similarity in the articles or topics visited by these socks, and ItsLassieTime was known to use talk pages and edit summaries on occasion, which this IP editor does not. By the way, my AIV request has been quietly declined with the rationale "no need for this when there is an open AN/I issue", and the editor has continued to edit past the most recent "fourth warning", and this most recent activity is within one day of the last block expiring, so I leave it in the capable hands of the kind admins patrolling AN/I to do the right thing. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 01:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

That IP is in fact just off a three-months block and immediately resumed vandalizing. The Garbage Skow (talk) 01:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I've had multiple experiences dealing with this IP and Elizium23's description is accurate. A lot of factual errors have been introduced by it. The IP should be blocked for good, and to the extent possible, every edit it has made should be backed out. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

 Blocked for a period of one year Some of the edits look good (mostly gnoming), but many introduce factual errors. Deliberately introducing even one factual error is grounds for a block. This is almost certainly the same person as earlier this year and nobody else seems to be using the address, so block length escalated. There is enough evidence that I think bulk reverting is indicated (leaving that for someone else), but if a third party says that any particular edit checks out, please do not edit war over it. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

A very large number of new, unsourced articles about Tibetan villages

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

---

For the past few days I've noticed a very large number of articles like Valuxai, Togqên, Tiangacun. All of these seem to be about villages in Tibet. All of these articles are unreferenced with no obvious clues as to their subject's notability. There's no obvious way of verifying these images, we do not even have the location of these centres of population. I'm tempted to nominate the lot for speedy deletion, however I wonder if there's some policy or purpose for keeping these unreferenced stubs? --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

All seem to be: X is a Y in FOO. Content of another: "Xiayanjingxiang is a village in the Tibet Autonomous Region, in China." The creator's userpage lists fifty-one. I see a speedy of one--"Doxong"--was declined on a technicality (villages not listed under A7). Uhh a similar matter (un/under-sourced quantity of substubs on places, related to China) has come up here recently... --92.6.202.54 (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC) ^{(formerly: User:92.6.200.56)}

Yes, I suppose the whole lot could be listed as an AFD discussion. It might just be better to have some words with the originating editor and ask him/her not to bulk-add unsourced articles. I just wanted to be sure of the policy before I approach an editor or begin some kind of deletion. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting some push-back against notability tags[14]. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Has anyone tried to just verify the information? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Google maps took Tiangacun, Tibet and points to [15] Granted, Google maps isn't the greatest sourcing tool, but it does rather show this one exists. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

In my (limited) experience, AfD discussions on populated places invariably come out on: all populated places that are referenced in a reliable source are inherently notable. Even if not all contributors agree, then still a sufficient number do to result in "no consensus". If I was to encounter the name Xiayanjingxiang somewhere I might look it up on Wikipedia, and then even the scant information that it is a village in the TAR is more satisfying than a red link. As I see it, the main issue is the lack of sources.  --Lambiam 23:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Not one for ANI, one for AfD. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Or one to try to verify, again. I tend to prefer geographical areas in an encyclopedia as long as we can determine that they are not hoax or bogus, and that they simply exist. WP:BEFORE requires we make a good faith effort before going to AFD. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd ask the King of Tibet, User:Dr. Blofeld. He has all kinds of geographical gadgets that can separate the wheat from the chaff, plus a ton of knowledge. Drmies (talk) 04:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Good idea, I will go do that if you haven't already. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Tiangacun appears to be real, and have an (unlinked) interwiki page at zh:唐古乡, population 5,000. Teeny-weeny. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's a good source (NSB): TIbet (西藏) is second in from the left on the bottom row; drill down, you get the prefectures, then the counties, then the townships, then the villages; should be all there; see also AfD Zhujiecun, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 15:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Disruptive and uncommunicative IP at Secular humanism

There has been a longstanding introductory sentence to the article - "The philosophy of secular humanism... embraces human reason, ethics, and justice while specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, pseudoscience or superstition as the basis of morality and decision-making.." 89.100.207.51 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) first sought to remove the reference to "justice" (first example here), and, on being reverted, sought an WP:RFC for the change here. There was some support from other editors that the reference to "justice" needed to be better sourced, but agreement that the RFC was premature. The IP did not comment at all - and has not done since - on other editors' responses to the RFC. The IP then - here - rewrote the introductory sentence, adding in supposed sources (in fact, in some cases irrelevant and certainly not balanced). Again, despite requests from other editors that these changes be discussed on the talk page, the IP has not done so, but instead has reinstated their RFC request. Other editors have made the point that the references added are partial, and inappropriate for the lede, but have restated their willingness to discuss improving the article, particularly through better and more balanced sourcing to support the opening sentence. As it seems to be impossible for the IP to be effectively blocked, is the only solution to protect the page? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Why on earth should I be blocked? I researched the topic, I found a broad range of sources, I added them to the article. Why is it that you're unhappy with that but perfectly willing to accept a completely unreferenced lede? "Other editors" haven't "made the point" that the references are partial. You have made the claim that the references are partial. The "supposed source" as you like to call them were completely relevant. Why do you think that they're unbalanced?89.100.207.51 (talk) 22:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Ledes are not supposed to be referenced; they are supposed to summarise sourced text in the article. Editors agree that the definition of the term needs to be better sourced in the article text. The way to do that is to discuss sources and article text on the talk page, and then agree a lede through consensus - not by adding random, barely relevant or irrelevant, sources, to the opening sentence, and changing the longstanding wording agreed by consensus. Consensus can change, but it needs to be done through discussion on the article talk page. You have not yet contributed to that discussion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing random, irrelevant or barely relevant about the sources. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 22:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

If you want to discuss the sources, please do so at the article talk page. This page is about your behaviour. You need to withdraw your unilateral edits to the opening sentence, and discuss your suggestions on the talk page, with other editors, to move towards a new consensus. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

So... You can complain about me adding "irrelevant" sources, but I can't say "but the sources are relevant"? I don't think that's the way it works. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

You've been properly advised that you can discuss the sources and the changes you wish made to the article on the Talk page. Until then, stop insisting on editing the article. I reverted your latest change.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

In response to Ghmyrtle's point above, as far as I can tell (and I'm no expert), an IP coming here through a proxy server (dynamically assigned by an ISP), can still be blocked, even if it is not completely effective. One possibility is a soft block. Normally, page protection is reserved for disruption by multiple IP addresses, not just one. Thus, if a block of this particular IP is warranted (say for edit-warring), but after the block, they come back, then at some point page protection would be the right route. Otherwise, we would be penalizing a much broader number of IPs than the particular one assigned by the proxy server.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm tired of dealing with this. The ip is having problems on a lot of articles. Take a look at his talk page's history. Nearly every edit is him being warned, or him reverting the warning. On Secular Humanism in particular, he has continually inserted his own novel definition, edit warred to keep it in, and actively refused to discuss his change on the talk page. His only participation to talk has been to argue that he doesn't have to discuss it. He has also created an RfC (despite refusing to discuss the matter himself), and is edit warring to keep it open. Every editor who has so far commented agreeing that it should be closed, but up to now, I've been the only one to actually close the RfC or engage him on his edit warring over it. Since I'm not interested in being disruptive, his edit warring has been "winning" to keep his content in the article and his inappropriate RfC on talk. Combined with other disruptive editors I've dealt with very recently, it's exhausting... can someone else please step in? (I appreciate Ghmyrtle and Bbb23 correcting the lead. Can someone else block 89.100... for consistently edit warring (or warn him again, or semi the article), and close the improper RfC?) Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

And in case someone doesn't want to look through his contrib history themselves, here's a few diffs. History of one article, showing 17 combative reverts within just the last 50 edits, spanning back to April,EW warning on April 15, EW warning on May 18, and edit summaries like this are not appropriate. Those are just the first 4 things that popped out at me in less than a minute of looking.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Where exactly have I "actively refused" to discuss on talk or "argue that I don't have to discuss it"? I weighed in on discussion here [16] here [17] and here [18], then waited for others to weigh in. I also discussed the issue with you on your own talk page here [19] and here [20]. By delisting the rfc, you prevented fresh pairs of eyes from getting a chance to look at the article. And how is an rfc inappropriate when the regular editors have failed to write an appropriate lede? A responder to the rfc has now inserted referenced info relating to secular humanism and justice into the text body, which nobody had done before the rfc, and which was what the rfc was to draw attention to. Keeping editing of an article exclusively to regular editors is a recipe for WP:BIAS. I never inserted "my own novel definition". I researched the topic, and added three differing descriptions referenced to reliable sources. It wasn't my definition. It was the definitions I found in published sources. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

That is grossly misrepresenting facts. Your first diff was to open the RfC, your first edit to the talk page ever, and your second and third diff are you arguing that the RfC was justified. Every editor has told you that you're handling this the wrong way. You've responded to them by edit warring without discussion. That's disruptive.

Don't take credit for Donald's work; he agreed your proposal was inappropriate, and he actually took the time to collaborate on a solution and found sources to support it. Considering that everyone agrees the RfC was unjustified, and it's only open due to your insistence on edit warring, and the issue it intends to address has already been handled, it would be a measure of good faith for you to listen to their advice and close it. Short of that, I think a block for consistently edit warring across multiple articles is warranted (or a final warning to that effect), and someone else should properly delist the RfC.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

User:SkyTree90 engaging in edit warring on Yamanote Line

I have a concern with this user's behaviour. The editor seems to be interested in edit warring on the article Yamanote Line, incivil, and also may be a sockpuppet of User:TheRationalDude. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 21:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Why are you not using the talk page? It is very simple, please discuss issues regarding the line on the talk page. There is not a single consensus on yamanote line's talk page suggesting it should be considered suburban...it is also included on the list of metro systems which is equivalent to rapid transit (the page even says so). If you want to discuss technical issues please use the talk page. As for the therationaldude, that is my account which I forgot my password too, which is why I haven't logged on it since I logged on this one. In fact I would like to report C3F2k for making edits with "The consensus was reached 6 years ago; too much stuff has changed since then".....since when is "too much stuff has changed since then" a good reason to edit? What has changed? Did the yamanote line suddenly add new suburban stations, cut frequency and add grade crossings? Once again please use the talk page. SkyTree90 (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen you discussing about it either. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 22:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I made a post in the talk page, and asked you to post there. I also discussed it at length on the list of metro systems. Simply saying "too much stuff has changed since then", is not any reason to suddenly say it is a commuter rail. Please use the talk page...isn't that what it is for? SkyTree90 (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

You reverted my edits, and also broke WP:3RR. For that reason alone, I think you should be blocked for edit warring. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 22:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

You did not discuss anything about it being a commuter rail, ignored my request to discuss this on the talk page, and simply said "too much stuff has changed". Once again, please use the talk page. There is no consensus anywhere on the talk page that is a commuter rail. The list of metro systems also lists it as rapid transit. So once again I request you to please discuss this in the talk page with me. That is what it is for. I am not sure why you do not use the talk page. SkyTree90 (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Here are my responses. 1) When I meant "too much stuff has changed", I meant in terms of Wikipedia policy. 2) You have still edit warred and you do need to realize that's bad. 3) I know what talk pages are for. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 22:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Therefore, please use the talk page to discuss this issue. That is really all you should have done. There has been no consensus that it is commuter rail, there is however a consensus that it is rapid transit...both on the yamanote line talk page as well as the list of metro systems. If you want to discuss why you consider it commuter rail please present your case or a compromise on the talk page. You also edit warred so I am not interested in a "you are bad" type of argument, I will concede I edited more than 3 times but I was not aware of such a rule. Thanks for bringing it up and I apologize to wikipedia for breaking such a rule SkyTree90 (talk) 22:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

There's a complaint about breaking WP:3RR, but indeed, the editor has never even been warned or advised as to what 3RR is? Always assume ignorance please. I have provided a very belated welcome template. Both of you need to stop discussing in edit-summaries, and discuss on article talkpages (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! SkyTree90 (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Possible paid advocacy/socking

Classified ad here shows potential for paid editing for author Jon Gordon. The job was awarded to an Elance contractor. Today (the 27th of May) an article was created forJon Gordon by an account that was created on the same day. Well written but I'm not sure meets notability. Also, the Elance contractor has completed Wikipedia jobs as late as June 23rd 2011, but the account that created the article for Jon Gordon is new. Maybe abusing more than one account? Editor has been notified of discussion. LawrenceDuncan (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Note This Elance contractor was also hired to write an article for Sahpreem A. King. Evidence hereLawrenceDuncan (talk) 22:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've seen several conversations on paid editing, but there is no consensus that it violates any policy here. I don't like it, but I don't run the place, so not sure what we can do at ANI. If you suspect sockpuppeting (which admittedly, looks like an interesting possibility), WP:SPI would be the venue to connect those two via a Checkuser, and ask for a check for sleepers. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• If the articles are compliant with Wikipedia policies or the mercenary is actively seeking help making their articles compliant, there need be no action taken. If neither, the articles should be deleted and the mercenary dealt with. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Suspected canvassing

Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (talk · contribs), with whom I am in disagreement over a particular matter, posted this notification to the NPOV noticeboard recently. Whilst believing frequent visitors to the page are likely to perceive the overt bias of the post, I also felt that the wording of the notification may be in breach of WP:CANVAS. Thus, I duly informed said user whilst at the same time removing the offending part of the notification in the interests of neutrality. He objected and immediately reverted me. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me like Nicholas was canvassing with the last sentence of his post and that you had no right to remove it per WP:TPG. Instead, you should have followed the guideline: "The most effective response to quite recent, clearly disruptive canvassing is to politely request that the user(s) responsible for the canvassing stop posting notices. If they continue, they may be reported to the administrators' noticeboard, which may result in their being blocked from editing."--Bbb23 (talk) 01:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I take on board Bbb's comment and accept that I may have acted inappropriately. However, I did inform Nick immediately. It is only now, faced with his unrepentant restoration of his canvas that I now raise the issue here. Please also note that this issue has been around the houses, having been posted to BLPN almost three weeks ago, and closed without a definitive consensus on the issue. Probably feeling out!voted at the talk page, he attempted to canvas support for his position. Is it not the case that the canvassed !votes should be discounted? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

OC, the discussion on the talk page of Donald Tsang's biographical article is not a !vote, so rest assured that I don't feel "outvoted". My comment on the NPOV noticeboard is an objective statement of fact, and not an appeal to gather support. In any case, I am here to write an encyclopedia and not to fight any battles. I will defer to the general consensus here and will amend my statement if the need arises. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 05:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

When in doubt, avoid any sentence which could be indicated as specifically promoting any position. Cheers. Collect (talk) 05:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

OC, I understand your point about striking the !vote, but I can't find anything in the canvassing policy or in WP:!vote supporting such an action. Perhaps it is done in practice, don't know. Canvassing is mentioned in the !vote guideline, but it doesn't say what should be done if it happens. My belief is the last sentence in Nick's post was campaigning. I also disagree with him that the discussion on the Tsang Talk page isn't a straw poll, even though polls are disfavored in "article development". I suppose you could add a comment to the poll about Nick's canvassing, but it seems a bit inflammatory in the circumstances (at least to me). I think the best solution to this spat is for Nick to strike his comment and acknowledge he was canvassing, even if that wasn't his intent.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

IP user with issues

user

last article diff last diff-user page. Will roll back the article edits but not sure if it's proper for me to do the same with the user's page. Thanks, We hope (talk) 03:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Taken care of, it seems. As for the user talk page, that's a matter of personal judgment. In this case, I think George Ho would have been grateful. If it's obvious vandalism, revert. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

User:KoshVorlon

KoshVorlon (talk · contribs) recently started a handful of AFDs of list articles, which included Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of successful coups d'état and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of assassinated people (2nd nomination), which just stated as the rationale "Per WP:NOTDIR WIkipedia is not a list" [sic] and "Delete per WP:NOTDIR Wikipedia is not a directory" [sic]. Unsurprisingly, both AFDs received nothing but "keep" !votes, most of which criticized the nomination for being a WP:VAGUEWAVE and for not understanding what WP:NOTDIR itself says in its own introduction ("Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles...").

After eight unanimous keeps, all of which cited relevant guidelines and policy to explain why the nomination was incorrect in claiming NOTDIR forbade all lists, an admin closed the coups d'etat AFD as a WP:SNOW KEEP. KoshVorlon had not further participated in the discussion to rebut any of the comments or to elaborate his rationale. He nevertheless twice reverted that admin close,[21],[22], inexplicably claiming that it was "contrary to consensus" and so was invalid, and that the editor who reverted his improper undoing of the close was himself violating WP:TPO by, in the process, removing a comment KoshVorlon had added when it was "open" (which was only because KoshVorlon himself had opened it).[23]

In the other AFD, we again had nine keep !votes, and again criticism of the substanceless nom. When KoshVorlon finally responded,[24] it was to claim that NOTDIR forbade all lists, that this was policy and we had no ability to override it, and that our comments were inappropriately attacking his nomination. "As consensus has decreed Wikipedia articles can't be lists, you should all be showing consensus why it should stay or else it goes." Three commenters responded, explaining why he was misunderstanding NOTDIR, quoting the relevant intro that he somehow missed, and pointing to numerous guidelines regarding lists (not to mention WP:FL) that clearly would not exist if there was a consensus against lists.[25] KoshVorlon responded by claiming, well, okay, lists of links to articles are okay, but "This is not a list of links to articles, it's simply a list," which NOTDIR policy forbids.[26] Which is simply false anyway because every entry in the list has an article link, as was immediately pointed out.[27]

Most recently, he has been edit warring to hide critical comments in the open AFD by multiple editors in the assassination list AFD as "ad hominem" attacks,[28],[29],[30] still also claiming that his view of NOTDIR was correct and that no one in the AFD had shown cause to override that "consensus".[31] All of these have been criticizing his conduct and comments in that AFD and so are in my view appropriate; in any event, it is inappropriate for him to hide entire comments he does not like.

As I and a couple other commenters have observed, this is either trolling or an epic-level inability to read and understand policy, including that which he himself is citing, or an inability to even accurately read the content he is proposing for deletion. I've seen that many of his recent edits, at least, have been vandal reversions that I can find no fault with, but I can't help but wonder how the issues that have arisen in AFD must color his other contributions. Regardless of whatever he is thinking, the clear tendentious WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and completely selective quoting of policy is a problem regardless. We have a definite issue whenever an editor is unilaterally insisting upon his view of policy regardless of everyone else agreeing with him, and obviously his reversion of the deletion close rather than posting at DRV is contrary to policy. I think the pending AFD should be SNOW-closed as keep, a temporary ban on starting AFDs, and we should first see if he will consider mentoring and prior review of his posts in Wikipedia space before considering a broader ban there. postdlf (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Did not read this all, but affirm the AFDs seemed misguided at the time. JJB 13:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

We wouldn't be here if that was the only problem. postdlf (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Snow closed Afd, support Afd ban, and a minnow to OP for edit warring over {{hat}} -- putting a hat template on a subsection attracts attention to it per beans, so edit warring over it is just silly. Nobody Ent 14:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• KoshVorlon clearly has some misunderstandings with respect to WP:NOTDIR and WP:AFD in general, but I really don't think it has risen to the level where any action is necessary, whether it be topic bans or blocks. He has nominated a whopping total of 4 articles in the last 2 weeks, and before that it was a year since his last nomination. I think Kosh needs someone to explain some things to him on his talk page (which appears to be happening already), and then go about his day. This isn't an ANI situation yet. -Scottywong| confer _ 14:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• If you can't take the heat, don't take an article to AFD. The last comment he hatted was clearly nothing that should have been hatted (although none actually deserved hatting, just basic "pepper" in an AFD). I'm not sure that a ban is needed, but more than a minnow is required. I don't have a problem with bringing it here, although it is borderline, but someone needs to explain several things to him, including when to to revert a closing admin (ie: not when you are the nom), when to hat (not just when someone disagrees or offers a strong objection to the nom) as well as the obvious WP:BEFORE, which includes reading the policy on lists first. The hat warring was particularly WP:LAME. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I hatt'ed out the comments because the Afd was turning into ad hominem attacks which are inapropriate for any board.

C'mon, don't you think you're going a bit overboard here? We already have a policy that forbids lists, I submitted a list for deletion. The next step is showing cause for it to remain, rather than doing that, you and the other individual I hatted launched into ad hominen attacks on the nominator. In fact, you're still doing that now, referring to my AFD comments as "trolling". Check my contributions, I don't troll here. I remove vandalism and occasionally nominate articles for deletion.

BtW - that close you referred to up top where I stated TPO was violated, really did happen:

I was writing and at the same time, the NAC was being performed on it. So yes, my comments got removed while it was opened.

 KoshVorlon. Angeli i demoni krushili nado mnoj...  14:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Kosh, as Scotty points out, you don't submit a lot to AFD, so let us explain: I would suggest your threshold is a bit low when determining what is an attack and what is a peppered observation. While the comments were more incivil than they needed to be, you hatted the vote part, hatted one that wasn't an attack, and got into a lame revert war. Lists are not forbidden, or we wouldn't have a policy that covers them. Most people would agree (and have) that the AFDs were ill nominated. Then you reverted a close of an article you nominated at AFD, which is improper. I don't think you were trolling, but I do think you don't understand the guideline on lists. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't have much to add, but I do think Scottywong has got it right here, this isn't quite ANI level yet. Given that fact that Postdlf was also edit warring, I think he might do best by having a cup of tea and a little break from Kosh. Kosh, your recent nominations have been problematic, as was your edit war, for reasons I've explained on your talk page. Hopefully we can all move on without too much more fuss. Worm^TT≡talk≡ 14:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

That's nice to think, but I think the previous comment from Kosh points to a rather deep problem here, not simply an AFD-specific problem: he is still insisting that when a non-admin undid Kosh's own reversion of an admin's close of the first AFD, that this was itself a non-admin close, and that when this restoration of the close removed a comment that Kosh added only after he himself had reopened the AFD, that this violated WP:TPO. So he can find talk page guidelines and knows the phrase NAC, but cannot find or understand deletion policy that you do not revert admin closes but instead discuss first and then start a DRV. This demonstrates a pretty serious inability to understand and apply policy on the same order as his misinterpretation of NOTDIR in the face of unanimous disagreement, which he thought entitled him to revert the admin's close in the first place. I don't like conflict on WP, and I was hoping this would either go away or someone else would start an ANI, but we do the project a disservice when we just let things drop when they are clearly unresolved and there is clearly problem behavior that he is showing no sign of yet understanding is a problem. postdlf (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Dennis we do, WP:NOTDIR. This is policy and thus community consensus. The AFD never showed that this consensus must change. When a consensus exists, and anyone wants to change it, the onus is on them to show that it must be change. This didn't happen in either AFD. And yes, I know I submitt very few AFD's... so,yes, I'm not over-experienced in that area so I won't be submitting those articles again.  KoshVorlon. Angeli i demoni krushili nado mnoj...  14:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have advised KoshVorlon on three occasions in the last few days (here,here and here) that WP:NOTDIR does not forbid lists; other people have also done so. But he continues to insist that WP:NOTDIR represents a consensus by Wikipedians to forbid lists, despite the total consensus to the contrary of the Wikipedians who have discussed the issue with him. He has also made the bizarre assertion that List of assassinated people is "not a list of links to articles" (in that article's AfD discussion) when it manifestly is a list of links to articles. I am concerned by his total failure to listen to what people are saying to him and I cannot understand the assertion about the list of links, though I acknowledge that the behaviour does seem to be on a small scale at the moment and the user seems to also be making worthwhile contributions to Wikipedia. I'm not sure if any sanctions are appropriate. Dricherby (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• It's not IDHT.... Please note WP:NOTDIR says:
  
  

Wikipedia articles are not:
Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote.

It's here in black and white. Just so we're clear.... I will not submitt any afd on any article that's a list since we seem to disagree that policy says what it says. I will not comment on any afd that's submitted as a list as well. That sound good ?  KoshVorlon. Angeli i demoni krushili nado mnoj...  15:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Your signature is getting a bit out of hand again, as it spans multiple lines when you post. Can this be reined in a bit? Y'know we've been to ANI about this before as well. Tarc (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• My concern in the AFDs was that somebody could so fundamentally misunderstand a policy which is right there in black & white, ignoring the fact that other editors, including myself, provided a number of examples which demonstrated that his policy interpretation was completely wrong. Anyone can screw an AFD nomination or misquote a policy by accident, I know I have. The fact that KoshVorlon's nomination was faulty is not an issue as it was obviously in good faith. But to repeatedly insist that the sky is green when other people are showing you that it's blue.... Competence is a requirement to edit Wikipedia and if an editor in unable to comprehend policies even after reading them and having them explained then perhaps it's better if they part ways with the project. I take no pleasure in saying that and I believe KoshVorlon means well with his editing. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 15:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • From your bolding, you're not reading it as intended: (Lists or repositories of) loosely associated topics ~. Wikipedia has list articles intentionally; what it is trying to avoid is lists of trivia. Dru of Id (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Indeed. I explained the distinction between "(Lists) or (repositories of [stuff])" and "(lists or repositories) of [stuff]" when KV asked about it on my talk page. I'm reasonably sure he read what I wrote there because, after I made it, he made a minor edit to his own comment there (perfectly acceptable; just fixing a couple of broken links). But, still, he insists that his interpretation is correct and doesn't even acknowledge that other people (exactly the "consensus" that KV holds so high) have stated otherwise. Dricherby (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• I appreciate the undertaking not to get involved with AfDs on lists (assuming this extends to WP:PRODs, as well). That allays my most significant concern. Dricherby (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I hadn't thought of that, but I'll add Prod's to that list too. Kosh ^{Angeli i demoni krushili nado mnoj} 17:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Removal of comments from talk pages

• And now a separate issue, though related to the hatting in AfDs. In this edit to a talk page, KoshVorlon removed the (unsigned) comment of another user and a subsequent (signed) comment of a third user from a talk page with the edit summary "rm Garbage". However, the comment was certainly not garbage in the "patent nonsense" sense of WP:SD#G1; it was merely an implausible assertion. A further comment has been removed at [32].

  Also, abusive comments that VorlonKosh posted to an IP user's talk page (though he subsequently thought the better of it and deleted them). Dricherby (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

OMG ---- yes I removed this:

−

−

As we can clearly see, there is more evidence surrounding his natural death in 2006, than Obama's FUCKING LIES.

−

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/05/19/242057/osama-bin-laden-died-of-natural-causes

First, it's polemic, second it's using the talk page like a forum, third, it's an attack on a living individual, fourth, | it falls under General Sanctions, broadly construed . The original poster put it right back in and I advised I wouldn't touch it again.

The second item you mentioned is not recent, but yes, I admit that was harsh,that's why I redacted it. the "rm garbage" means just was it says, garbage was inserted into an article. I used "garbage" rather than "vandalism" as vandalism has a specific meaning, I tend to use this term except when it's unambiguous to avoid the drama above.

KoshVorlon Angeli I demoni krushil nado mnoj 11:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I most certainly was not the original poster [33]. I did respond to the comment here: [34]. The original post was over the top for sure, but calling my post 'garbage' is way out of line, again, unless I am missing something. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh and the next time you want to accuse me of violating WP:FORUM WP:BLP or any other policy here at ANI I would request a notification. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Not "inserted into an article": I am specifically talking about your deletions from talk pages. I see nothing in the Obama article probation (my emphasis) GS that refers to deleting material from talk pages. Please read WP:TPO: "you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission" (emphasis in the original). Deleting prohibited material (libel, personal attacks, etc.) and removing harmful posts (personal attacks, trolling, vandalism) are usually fine but note the specific exclusion: "This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial" (emphasis in original). Specifically, calling Obama a "f***ing liar" is simple invective, in my opinion; even if you disagree, it would suffice to have deleted those words, rather than the whole comment. It is not for you to decide what topics can be discussed on talk pages: whether or not Bin Laden died in 2006 is clearly relevant to the talk page on that article, regardless of your (and my) opinion that the claim lacks credibility. It is also not for you to decide the truth or otherwise of the comments you deleted from the other talk page I mentioned. If you believe that something in an article is wrong and it's unsourced then deleting it is usually reasonable; the same does not generally apply to talk pages. Dricherby (talk) 12:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

DBrodbeck --- Your correct, I was responding to Dricherby, but yes, I should have alerted you as well. Big-Ass Trout accepted for that.

Dricherby, calling Obama a "f*cking liar" is BLP. BLP applies everywhere, and rather than stir more drama about how I read policy (and believe me I get it, I read it more incorrect than correct) I 'll just leave it at this. I see a BLP, I'll remove BLP. BLP trumps TPO. I let it remain rather than stir more drama, and yes, I'll let someone else pull it from that article.

KoshVorlon Angeli I demoni krushil nado mnoj 13:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

"BLP" means "Biographies of living persons". "F***ing liar" is not a biography. While I would not object to the removal of those words from the comment, I see no justification for removing the whole comment. Dricherby (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Suspicious editing of population figures by 46.19.99.6

The IP user 46.19.99.6 (talk · contribs) has been making a prodigious number of edits lately — mostly to population figures for ethnic Armenians and Georgians in various countries. None of these changes appear to be sourced, and I suspect they are simply random vandalism. I don't have time right now to fix the problem, but I'm reporting it here in hopes that someone else can. I've put an ANI-notice on the IP's talk page. — Richwales 14:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Edits like this, this and this change numbers from something matching the inline ref to a new number which I could charitably call "made up" or "impossible to reconcile with sources". Sometimes I wish we could semiprotect all demographics... meanwhile this change breaks an infobox whilst trying to reallocate Gao from Mali to Azawad. bobrayner (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

They've been doing it for quite a while. This edit on 7 January sneakily changed a date from 1996 to 1976. The source says 1996. Is it practical to clean up all these errors? bobrayner (talk) 16:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Is this something that could be nuked? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Their latest edits, today, seem to be a little odd but it's not actually inserting false numbers so I'm not going to demand a block or whatever. Instead of templating I've left a personal message on the talkpage.

I'm no admin, but... doesn't nuking deal with pages rather than edits? In this case they've generally made subtle tweaks to established pages. Clicking "undo" manually might work but in many cases it'll conflict with later changes by others. They've done under 200 edits. It may have to be a tedious manual job... bobrayner (talk) 08:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

User:A:-)Brunuś

...has spent their morning CSDing template documentation. I was about to mass-rollback, but was concerned that it would rollback everything, not allow me to specify date ranges.

Anyone want to investigate? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

This editor has been the subject of two recent ANI discussions on this issue, here and here. He was blocked for 31 hours for disruptive editing. His Talk page is replete with notices indicating problems with occasional short (and often odd) responses from him. Why is he allowed to continue editing here? As for the mass rollback, if you determine that a few of them were poorly created, I see no need to look back at every one. (I notified him of this discussion.)--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. Is this a competence issue? I'd recommend removal of Twinkle for its misuse and consider banning him from templates or CSD (AfD) of anything.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think TW can be removed; a TW ban may be possible. Tiderolls 15:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Update: he's now indeffed - his edit-warring to keep his welcome to Jimbo around pretty much shows me that there's a gigantic lack of WP:CLUE. His reason for tagging template documentation for deletion is apparently "because someone created subpages". Seriously. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

While G2 would not be an applicable criteria, it appears that the version of the sandboxes that the bot restores does not transclude the documentation. If the documentation is going unused it probably should be deleted. Potentially reasonable goal, using the wrong bureaucratic process. Monty₈₄₅ 15:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

My problem does not center on the tagging as much as the lack of communication. The user may actually have a valid reason for their action but if they are unable to explain it to me then I have concerns. Tiderolls 15:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Bwilkins -- why open an ANI at 1102 am on an editor that you're going to indef at 1141 am before they've even commented at the ANI? Nobody Ent 16:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The additional behaviours outside of the tagging that happened after. My original entry was to deal with the CSD tagging only (on a technical basis, not behavioural). I then saw new, inappropriate behaviours that led to the block (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

this? It's the only edit they made between ANI and blocking times.Nobody Ent 01:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Not saying that this is Bwilkins' reason, but my experience last time was that I tried, and tried to get them to come to ANI or talk on their talk page and they refused, and kept on speedy tagging, forcing me to block. This editor will NOT talk until blocked, in my experience. No comment as to timing (he didn't edit after being notified), just saying there is a clear history of refusal. Bwilkins did note that he found the Jimbo revert, which was bizarre at the very least, and may have been the proverbial straw. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• I spent the morning going through his contribs, which is how I found the first Jimbo welcome message. I was concerned about all the template CSDs, but saw that someone else mentioned it. I notice he likes to dig through user pages and CSD subpages as well. Much of what he does is perfectly in line with our goals, but much is disturbing and aggressive. For the record, I did the last block on him last week, which is why I've been monitoring him. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• I grudgingly support the indef block. User is indeed incommunicative until blocked and competence may well be an issue (deleting the main page?). His unblock request cites Asperger's, but I don't know if I should believe that or if that matters. He hadn't mentioned it before and continued in the exact same vein that got him blocked last time. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

  Speaking as one who has it myself, Asperger's Syndrome is not a valid excuse. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

  • I addressed this on his talk page (but didn't "review" since I'm too involved), and no, the reason doesn't matter, as disruption is still disruption. I was hoping it wouldn't come to this, but I've been involved since day one with him, and as much as I hate blocking in general, I just can't see another solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Unblock declined - I pointed him to other Wikiprojects to build bones of Fido for the WP:STANDARDOFFER. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support block. User is not doing anything positive to the project, and is completely incommunicative (until he uses Asperger's Syndrome as an excuse for his actions). Remember, he was blocked previously for this until he was indeffed... 'Nuff said here. →Bmusician 02:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Block evasion & copyvio

This IP user was blocked last night for 1 year (blocked proxy). They are back today as this IP user doing the same thing which got them blocked in the first place -- copyvio. I've reverted their additions but someone may want to block.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Judging by use of proxies and user talk page spamming, this is almost certainly another sock of Joe Circus. Jakew (talk) 16:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked 2 weeks (Copyright violations: Block evasion of 200.35.144.72) by Reaper Eternal.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

There appears to be a proxy operating on port 3128. I'll leave it to a more experienced proxy checker to verify my results and up the block if necessary. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed, reblocked. Materialscientist (talk) 21:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• 41.237.230.86 is also him on an open proxy (confirmed with nmap). Lots of interesting open ports. This needs elevated block.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

User:VivaWikipedia

This user is not new as such, but has only recently become what I would call active, and seem to be focusing on a lot of I-P topics. The user is currently attempting to add Occupation 101 on Rachel Corrie as a reliably-sourced documentary (while the documentary's page itself says it particularly spoke to those critical of Israel), and is proceeding to argue with anyone who thinks otherwise without really supplying any sort of argument (see Talk:Rachel_Corrie#Occupation_101_RS as well as my talk. I also reverted some editorializing on Norman Finkelstein and From Time Immemorial from this user, as have others on other articles. I'd normally say this was a content dispute, but there's a 1RR restriction on Rachel Corrie per ArbCom, and there also seems to be a generalized issue of VW editing I-P topics from a POV perspective, or simply not understanding policies before editing those articles. See [35], [36], [37], and [38] for examples. There are several issues here, and thus I am unsure whether this is a guidance issue, uncorrectable tendentious editing, something for AE, or perhaps something else entirely. MSJapan (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I just found out about this right after I responded to the AN3 report. I've blocked VivaWikipedia for 24 hours after violating 1RR on Rachel Corrie and issued an ARBPIA notification. If other people think further sanctions are warranted, I'm fine with that as well. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a fairly standard case of an inexperienced editor in the I-P topic area falling afoul of one policy or another and getting beaten around the head with the ARBPIA sanctions by experienced opposing editors and a willing Admin. If we really want to encourage new editors into the topic area we need to take time to explain the rules not just use honest mistakes to take them out of the picture before they have even had an opportunity to learn the ropes. Dlv999 (talk) 17:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

This editor is aware of guidelines but persists in editing in a tendentious manner. See this edit where he removes "controversial" and cites the Wiki manual of style. Yet a few days later, he adds this word in the exact manner that he previously objected to, this time the book being one that he disfavors. WP:DONTBEAHYPOCRITE is something that should be tacitly understood by all editors and "experience" should not be necessary to recognize this; nor should such tendentious editing be characterised as trivial inadvertent infringements.Ankh.Morpork 12:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

User_talk:Jason_Collin

During the last week of April, this user created autobiographical articles under a couple of variant names, had issues with speedy deletions, eventually leading to a temporary block. Since then, he has been instead developing the autobiographical article on his User Talk pack (after stripping out the previous content about the Speedies and the Block). It has gone through well over 100 edits, additions of various photos, etc. Given the variety of birth names and places that it has gone through, it can not be described as solidly reliable. It has also acquired various claims of relationships with celebrities who are wikilinked and logged as brother, sister, ex-spouses with the subject. Attempts to engage with the user have been ignored. This Talk page does not seem to be fulfilling anything like its normal purpose, of aiding in discussion on the construction of a reliable encyclopaedia, and indeed may be heading in the opposite direction, by adding WP:BLP issues regarding other people. AllyD (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I've zapped the WP:FAKEARTICLE per WP:BLP and left a note... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

User:E4024, again

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

---

Several days ago, E4024 (talk · contribs) received a "final warning" [39] regarding his disruptive and incivil behavior (previous ANI thread here [40]). Unfortunately, if predictably, he has resumed precisely the behavior he was warned against, namely edit-warring [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] and insulting other users in his edit summaries [46] (a jab aimed at me), [47], [48], [49]. He even has the gall to threaten me, if ever so politely, on my talkpage: [50]. Perhaps most disturbingly of all, however, this user seems unable or unwilling to discuss content issues in talkpage, immediately making things in a discussion personal. This can be seen here [51]: I open the thread, he replies, I reply, and then BAM! he forgets about content and goes on about my "problems" [[52]. There is nothing about content there, and he did this completely unprovoked. After seeing comments like these [53] [54] (and many others), it is my distinct impression that this user is too steeped in Turkish nationalist ideology and too aggressive a personality to participate in building a neutral, collaborative encyclopedia. He has been warned several times before (Qwyrxian's warning above is one of many), and while he makes all the right noises after being warned (lots of "please"s, "thank you"s and "all the best"s), he soon resumes his previous behavior when he thinks the storm has passed. Clearly warnings don't work, it is time for something more drastic. Athenean (talk) 18:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Two weeks enforced vacation feels about right - so enforced. Moreschi (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Definitely sounds right. Thanks. Athenean (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Not quite. After DeCausa enquired about the term "copin" which E4024 used in his reply to Moreschi to refer to you and other editors, a possible Gay slur from the French word "copain" for "boyfriend", E4024 corrected his misspelling to "copain" and erased DeCausa's edit. And he did this after DeCausa told him that "copain" was a possible gay slur. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

If he's using slurs, I'd suggest the block either be reset or increased. And if he persists on continuing to use them, revoke his talk page. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

@Dr. K., I'm a bit lost. How is copain or copin a possible gay slur? I don't see either listed in the gay slur list. Also, copain doesn't mean boyfriend, it's a casual word for friend (more than an acquaintance but less than a friend, but not romantic in any event - the French don't use the word friend as much as English-speaking people).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't speak French but that's what DeCausa told E4024. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Not sure if this is a slur but either way he's probably allowed a bit of extra leeway rant-wise after being blocked. Personally I do not think he will return with an improved attitude, and if not an indef block is likely to be looming in his immediate future anyway. Moreschi (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• I did raise this on Moreschi's Talk, but on reflection it's probably best ignored and put down as a "heat of the moment" thing. Arguably I'm culpable for "stirring it" with my post - but I was genuinely puzzled because it seemed pretty obscure, in the circumstances, to use quasi-French. (In answer to Bbb23: I do speak French and no it means boyfriend. Even if I'm incorrect, he changed it in response to my post, which shows his intent) DeCausa (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Nawr, probably nothing sinister there: Copains are just males one likes, quite similar to "mates" in the UK, and "pals" or "buddies" in the US. Copain can mean "boyfriend" too, of course, but without any other context to imply it, one shouldn't assume so. --OhioStandard (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Not quite, particularly in the context. But see my post above. Probably best ignored. DeCausa (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Not quite? Suggest you go ask at fr.wikipedia and see what they have to say. --OhioStandard (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

He spelt it "copins". I said to him, in terms, did you mean "boyfriends" because if so it's spelt "copains". In response he changed "copins" to "copains". (a) it's clear what he meant (b) I work for a French business and use "copains" all the time to refer to my female colleague's partners...and surprisingly they seem to know to whom I'm referring. DeCausa (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Google translates "copain" as "boyfriend". In any case I can follow Moreschi's logic, but it still seems to me that the context is clear: Calling Athenean and other editors "boyfriends" is a clear gay slur, IMO. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Precisely the logic everyone here is using. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Jeremy. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm a man. I have a male friend. He can properly be called my copain without any implication of romantic interest between the two of us. As OhioStandard would say, this other man and I are pals. As for DeCausa's comment, that's not been my experience in France, although I suppose it might be understood in context. If I wanted to refer to someone's romantic partner, I might say ami/e or petit/e ami/e.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

FFS: the context is I said to him he's mis-spelled the word for boyfriend in French and he changed it to conform with the spelling I claimed meant boyfriend!!! Sheesh... DeCausa (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

What's FFS mean - for French sake? No need to get all tied up in a knot, I've read the diff, and it could be interpreted the way you interpret it, but it could be interpreted differently. What a surprise that editors interpret things differently, compounded by the fact that we are interpreting a mix of French and English.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

In the interests of clarity...for fuck's sake (maybe a British accro?). I think there's too many people around here tonight (myself included) with time on their hands...Good night all. DeCausa (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Good night. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

What would be disturbing is if he used the word copine, which is the female equivalent of copain, to refer to males.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

This has turned into a French tutorial on human relations. Awesome. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes! Very WP in its tangentialness! DeCausa (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, it wouldn't be an encyclopaedia if it weren't also educational, even tangentially. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• FWIW, Google translate translates the plural copains as "guys". WordReference, a more reliable and informative source than Google translate, gives three translations for copain: "friend", "crony", and "boyfriend". In the context in which it was used by E4024, "the accuser and his copains", the most likely intended meaning is "cronies". That is not a gay slur. The interpretation as "his boyfriends" in this context is far-fetched.  --Lambiam 02:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
• Putain putain, c'est vachement bien. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• There you are. Under the nose of the civility police you are uttering all these profanities but since very few in the civility police corps are French speaking you get away with it. Maybe you're on to something. While you're at it perhaps you should inform a few of the chronic targets of the civility brigade about this new almost undetectable method of swearing. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Daniel Case disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point

Van Cortlandt Park – 242nd Street (IRT Broadway – Seventh Avenue Line) has been move warred several times because of a lack of consensus. User:Daniel Case is the most recent move warrior, but because of his assertions [55] [56] that "consensus doesn't matter", he has become a liability to Wikipedia. I warned him to undo his latest move war in violation of consensus, but he again asserted [57] that consensus doesn't matter. He seems to be operating under the misconception that Wikipedia is a Bureaucracy and the MOS is policy, but neither is the case. He should be blocked to prevent further disruption to Wikipedia until he can collaborate with other editors. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Background

This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation and the station naming convention spells out the consensus of how the hundreds of article titles have been formed. The naming convention is the result of much discussion over how to handle these similarly named (and often ambiguously named) stations.

At issue is the spacing of the endashes in the titles. The station articles were developed beginning in 2006 and 2007, with the naming convention being developed in mid-2007. In 2009, it was pointed out to the project [58] that the MOS recommended spaced endashes, and a discussion was started to see if the naming convention should be changed. Consensus developed supporting this and several hundred articles were moved to new titles. Over the course of about two years, thousands of links were also updated.

Somewhere along the way, the MOS guideline changed.

Now, TwinsMetsFan, Daniel Case and Dicklyon are all under the impression that because the MOS guideline has changed, they can ram an extremely disruptive arbitrary change through, without the consensus of those editors it affects. The project has considered this change for several months, but no new consensus formed. Therefore, the current status quo should remain.

One article was even renamed following the current consensus during this time. [59]

Can another administrator look at the naming convention, and recommend a non-disruptive and collaborative solution? Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of who has correctly interpreted this style question, move warring is inappropriate. I've protected the page. Please discuss further moves on the talk page. - jc37 19:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree the move warring is not the way to handle this, but it takes two to war, and the complainer is the other one here. The "consensus" he points to is from the days when the MOS recommended spaces around en dashes in such contexts. That all changed last year, in a large wide community effort to decide on what the guidelines for en dash should say. In the new scheme, the spaces are not recommended. There is generally not a consensus to allow local groups to make their own style recommendations, so it's time to update these titles. Dicklyon (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Two things–there has to be more to this story so I await more input and — or – all I can say is, GEEZ, ANOTHER dispute over dashes and such? Unbelieveable how much people fight over these things, so let's just go file ANOTHER arbcase and settle the fights over MOS once and for all, if that's even possible. PumpkinSky talk 19:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The relevant discussions are at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_New_York_City_Public_Transportation/New_York_City_Subway/Station_naming_convention#Outdated_naming_convention and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_New_York_City_Public_Transportation#Update_naming_convention.3F (the former article is where the guideline update is, and the latter is where Acps100 moved the discussion to get more eyes on it). Acps110 seems to be the only one objecting to updating the naming guidelines for the subway stuff to agree with the MOS. Dicklyon (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Since the MOS was updated by a wider set of the community, I would support updating the article names to reflect the updated guidance on dashes. WP:CONLIMITED would seem to apply here, and the project (actually one member of the project) should yield to the wider consensus and remove the extraneous spaces around the dashes in the article titles. That's just my $0.02 on the matter, Imzadi 1979 → 19:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Full agreement here. As this is related to an arbitration case, ignoring the guideline can lead to some very serious consequences. --Rschen7754 20:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I would declare invalid any vote if it may force millions of edits. Wikipedia is done by volunteers, their time is expensive. Vcohen (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

This has WikiProject Ownership written all over it. Bzzt. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd be more inclined to call a certain line in the proposer's paragraph personal attacks. It is extremely rude from a personal standpoint to call someone a liability and be OMG BLOCK NOW without any justification, and that everyone should listen to your demands immediately. That's about the jist of the problem here, not the problem at hand. Mitch32^{(There is a destiny that makes us... family.)} 20:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Personally, i like spaces around dashes. But the MOS decision was otherwise, and this is the sort of purely formal matter where settling upon a consistent style is better than having one's own way. there's no one right way, and to insist on doing something in a non-standard way when there is no real substantative reason to is disruptive. DGG ( talk ) 20:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• In principal, I've never objected to the use of endashes, whenever they're appropriate. If the MTA were to rename Sutphin Boulevard (IND Queens Boulevard Line) station as Sutphin Boulevard – Hillside Avenue (IND Queens Boulevard Line) station, I wouldn't object to the use of an endash for a second. Having said that, they're kind of hard to make, and a lot of editors get too uptight about them. While we're at it, somebody on the commons added one to Flushing Main Street (LIRR station) and that doesn't have a dash, hyphen or endash. Also for the record, the renaming of Atlantic Avenue – Pacific Street (New York City Subway) as Atlantic Avenue – Barclays Center (New York City Subway), as much as I hate the idea, has nothing to do with the subject. MTA just changed the name of the station. ----DanTD (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Response from Daniel Case

I appreciate all the support I've gotten from knowledgable and experienced editors like DGG and Mitchazenia (among others) who, it should be noted, are close personal friends through our shared active involvement in WM-NYC (in fact, one of them was going over this with me in the flesh yesterday while visiting my house).

I don't like edit warring of any kind, especially when, as in this case where the warring requires the administrative ability to move over redirects, it becomes wheel warring. We as administrators are supposed to be above that so that we may, with minimal hypocrisy, intervene in such disputes to protect the encyclopedia. I therefore deeply resent that Acps110 put me in the position where I had no choice but to do so.

So, I reiterate my previous accountings of this dispute, especially since PumpkinSky said there had to be more (There is):

• At the end of 2010 I finally began processing pictures I had taken during Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes the Subway almost two years earlier, with the intent of adding them to articles and improving them. I was especially interested in doing so for Van Cortlandt Park–242nd Street (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line), as it's one of the stations listed on the National Register of Historic Places. As a member of WP:NRHP, I wanted to improve it and the nomination was available as an excellent source that had thus far not been used. I was able to develop it to the point that I (as with many other articles) successfully nominated it for DYK. It has reached a standard that I would like to see all our NYC subway station articles, indeed all our articles on mass-transit stations anywhere, reach.

• I participated in the en-dash RFC last summer, as did many other interested Wikipedians, including some of those who have contributed here. This is what Acps110 refers to when he says "Somewhere along the way, the MOS guideline changed." He has been provided with a link to that discussion at least twice (his talk page two months ago, the article talk page two days ago) but apparently, judging by his initial refusal to acknowledge it and his subsequent dismissals of it, has not bothered to read it.

• Since I generally consider my main reason for being here to create and improve content, as well as those front-line administrative tasks that should be a regular responsibility of anyone with the tools, I had not kept track of its outcome and assumed that the requirement that en dashes between spaced elements themselves have spaces on either side had been kept. That impression was, as it turned out, incorrect. In March, TMF moved the article to unspaced. Fifteen minutes later he was reverted by Acps110. I was perplexed at first, but after briefly discussing this with TMF, I understood. I later reverted Acps110's move and left a note on his talk page. He did not respond, there or on my talk page, and I erroneously assumed the matter closed.

More later, I have to eat. Daniel Case (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

OK ...

• A discussion was opened at the project's naming convention talk page. No one responded to TMF except for Dicklyon almost two months later, who announced he was changing the policy. Within hours, Acps110 removed the discussion to the main NYCPT talk page where, he said, it would attract more readers. It did, but they mostly discussed a side issue, and it petered out after two weeks.

• Two weeks later, Acps110 declared no consensus and moved the article back to the spaced dashes. He also reverted Dicklyon's change in NYCPT NC policy without, as far as I can tell, asking or even telling TMF or Dicklyon that he was doing so (an interesting tack to take for someone who claims (inaccurately) that consensus is one of the five pillars. But I digress ...) And ... you know the rest.

More later ...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Case (talk • contribs)

In conclusion

While I generally try to avoid these sort of drama bursts, I admit that I have seen my name dragged out to AN/I before. When you take a very proactive role in fighting vandalism, reviewing unblock requests and other front-line tasks, it comes with the territory. But ... this is the first time someone's devoted several paragraphs at an AN/I to argue that I should be blocked (a decision that even the hardcores here know usually ought to be left to the participants).

I have to admit that, at first, rather than being disgusted, I'm amused by Acps110. With his Consensus über Alles position, he seems to be a living relic of Wikipedia circa 2003. Encountering an editor like him here and now is like stumbling across some old hippie organic-farm collective in 1985. Or going to a Dead show at that time, man! I didn't believe such people still existed here.

But, that glow of nostalgia cannot hide the fact that there's still a problem. Wikipedia, he wishes to remind me, is neither a battleground nor a bureaucracy. Fine, but he needs to remember that it isn't anarchy, either.

He is correct in one small thing: MOS is not policy, it's a guideline. I allow that I was mistaken in asserting the former. But it is still a guideline with wide acceptance by all editors, a guideline that we generally allow the kind of broad exception that Acps110 seeks only with consensus from a wide group of editors, not just those in a tiny band of the rainbow. If not we would not have had the lengthy discussion of how to amend the en dash section that we did.

Had I come across his recent history in a dispute between two other users, I would have the following concerns with Acps110's editing:

• I am having a great deal of difficulty trying to find a good-faith explanation for so many of Acps110's actions. Particularly the change to the NYCT naming conventions policy page. It seems he was waiting to close the discussion TMF started about changing the policy, a discussion in which what little that was mentioned was relevant went solidly against retaining the current naming convention in light of the MOS change many months prior; and as Dicklyon noted above no one had spoken in favor of retaining it. Acps110 claimed he was waiting for some sort of resolution that not only settled on changing policy and (ultimately) renaming all the non-compliant articles. If so, staying out of the discussion entirely and doing nothing to keep it going is a strange way to do it. Slinking back two weeks after the last post and declaring that no consensus was reached is thus a very thin reed to base your subsequent revert to a project policy page on.

  Similarly, in this AN/I he opened it with a harsh, accusatory and inarticulate indictment of me, then followed the same drive-by pattern of eschewing the ensuing discussion.

  And then there's resuming the move war in spite of my attempt to discuss it with him almost two months earlier with no apparent reply. I do not see what justifies that. I really wonder if this stealth tactic (which I admit I have resorted to in some disputes in the past; that's how I can see it this way) is a way of gaming the system to ensure the preservation of the status quo.

• He clearly fails to assume good faith on my part. In my experience, when the other editor says they're following policy, it's worth it to stop, discuss and check out what they're justifying it with. They might just be right. And you can respect them in the morning, and they you.

  I provided him, as I have shown, multiple times with the relevant links, assuming he would want to inspect them. He completely ignored them then, and only recently has tried to desperately stab for reasons why it just doesn't matter, all rooted in higher, more abstract policies rather than the more nuts-and-bolts aspects of the MOS where a more productive discussion would have taken place.

• For all this heat, he has shed little direct light on why, exactly, he opposes the move. Gathering from the above and this, he does not seem to want to have to do the work. Vcohen seems to support him in this.

You're right, I want neither to do this work nor to have to do it. Vcohen (talk) 08:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, they're both wrong. After the adoption of the current fair-use criteria in 2006, a lot of people and a few bots did a lot of work finding and (often) deleting third-party copyright images that did not comply. I know ... even though I opposed that policy (and still do to some extent), I was one of them. It wasn't fun, but we got it done.

We do not refuse to implement policy changes the community has decided on just because it will be hard work.

• During the intervening weeks from when the March move war occurred and the present, Acps110 does not seem to have made any attempt to open a discussion at the appropriate MOS talk page about possibly creating an exception for NYC subway station names. I can see where you might be able to argue that. But that would have been the proper way to handle this. MOS:FLAG evolved from this sort of discussion, so it's not impossible to succeed.

• I also find this sentence very telling: "Somewhere along the way, the MOS guideline changed." The level of disengagement this so indifferently reveals is disturbing. The guideline did not "change" by itself, as if it were some chameleon in the deep woods. It was changed by the community through a long discussion process which IIRC was advertised in the main watchlist notice for a while. Many editors took part. If you missed it or otherwise disregarded it, that's on you at this point and you forfeit the right forever to call it undemocratic.

  Acps makes it sound as if it were a random event somewhere, when in fact it's how the community does things.

• Lastly, there is the abusive, incivil tone, with some personal attacks scattered in: I don't know what you are smoking, but ... It really pisses me off" and the language above, as noted by Mitchazenia.

I would not presume to suggest what action should be taken. I have no issue with the page protection; I was considering the possibility of requesting it myself. I understand that there are possibly ArbCom sanctions that might apply, so I have set forth the above. I leave to those uninvolved in this dispute to discuss and come to whatever decision they see fit ... God knows I've been on the other side enough myself. Daniel Case (talk) 02:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Serial sockpuppet at Occupy articles

I have already filed a SPI case here. More can be seen by the almost dozen other sock puppets in the User:CentristFiasco archive here. The same edits to the Occupy article/s, the same User pages created. It's an obvious duck(CentristFiasco -- Associate J.), but with the backlog at SPI, I don't expect to hear anything for days or weeks there. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• MuZemike already duck blocked him, less than 90 minutes after filing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. MuZemike is a good bird(not a duck). I didn't mean to cast aspersions at anyone volunteering at SPI(Clerks or CU). I just saw the list with the note atop and jumped to a conclusion. Thanks again. Dave Dial (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

They are actually all good guys, just understaffed and overworked. It takes more work to determine a sock than it does to create one. I've been debating training over there myself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Non-helical models of nucleic acid structure

I have a somewhat complicated situation that I could use some help resolving. User:Notahelix, a new editor, contributed an article Non-helical models of nucleic acid structure, a topic which is of legitimate historical interest but would be considered a fringe theory today. The article has NPOV and COI issues which are extensive but fixable. However, when other editors and I began to edit the article to fix the NPOV issues, Notahelix responded on the article talk page with incivil remarks and personal attacks. Furthermore, he seems to have misunderstood Wikipedia's copyright policies on submissions, as he has tried to remove the article's text and is now making borderline legal threats. I have done my best to be civil and explain our policies to him, but this has not helped and I would like help from editors more experienced with this sort of situation. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• I don't remotely know enough about the subject matter to really get involved, but I will say that Ohiostandard has left a very helpful comment on the editor's talk page, and suggest that we try to use the very same talk page to resolve this. The editor doesn't understand the policy here and is obviously livid at the moment. Dealing with it here is probably not the best solution (although bringing it here was fine). I would ask for one or two more to work with him on his talk page and try to resolve the issues, particularly of civility, in a calm, rational way. He has never been blocked, started here just a few days ago, so lets be careful to not WP:BITE the newcomer, yet we still need to address the incivility. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• I just removed a link from his userpage to the article in question. I also note that he redirects to User talk:Voice of 5-23 without providing a multiple account rational on either, which is problematic. It appears our friend has a great many misunderstandings of policy here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• The editor was advised to change his username, on the ground that User:Notahelix was promotional, and he put through a request to do so. Perhaps due to a misunderstanding he re-created the User:Notahelix account later on 23 May and went on using that one. So now he is the owner of two accounts. So long as he remains logged in as Notahelix, he is probably not seeing messages left at User talk:Voice of 5-23. I have undone the talk page redirect so that messages can once again be left at User talk:Notahelix, and left a new notice for his other account. EdJohnston (talk) 01:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• He did reply to a comment here [60] so he was aware of at least some of the messages, and since his talk page redirected to that talk page, I'm guessing he did see the messages. Now what about the incivility? I guess we wait and see if your new message gets his attention. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Notahelix has clarified on the article talk page that he was somehow unaware that contributing to Wikipedia involved irrevocably granting Creative Commons/GFDL licenses for it. He's mad that his article is being changed and is demanding that it be removed. Is this an appropriate demand? To whom should he make his case? Should I advise him to start an AfD, or is one of the other noticeboards the appropriate venue? Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 01:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not an appropriate demand. In between the edit window and the save page button is the clear statement: By clicking the "Save Page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.. It is literally impossible to miss. If he somehow did, there's no reasonable way it could be made any clearer; that's just how the cookie crumbles. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

We might be able to WP:CSD#G7 it, and honestly I don't think we'd be losing much. T. Canens (talk) 05:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The number of edits by User:Antony-22 make G7 inapplicable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and AFD would likely keep it. I think we have answered the question regarding suitability if he is unwilling to contribute under CC, as he appears to have a great misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is and is not. I've also removed the redirect from the Voice user page to the article for cross space linking. 2nd time I've had to do this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 10:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• My gut instinct is telling me to delete this (or stubify, whatever), and let Antony (or someone else) rebuild something neutral should they so wish. Notahelix doesn't seem like the type who can be easily reasoned with, and I think the article will need a complete rewrite from scratch if it's going to vaguely conform with policy. Per Notahelix's posts on the talkpage, such a rewrite is obviously going to cause huge drama, and he clearly regrets posting his little thesis here in the first place. I think the minimal-drama course of action is actually to delete, while making it clear to him that we retain the copyright should anyone wish to use parts of it later. None of the CSD criteria really apply, so this would be something of an IAR use of admin buttons, but if people are OK with this I'll go ahead and do it. Moreschi (talk) 13:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin

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

---

• Arthur Rubin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Arthur_Rubin#Disruptive_editing
• Article in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Recovered_memory_therapy&action=history

Arthur Rubin is calling good faith edits based on policy "near vandalism" and asserting that he can blanket revert all edits, including good edits, just because some of the edits are disagreeable to him. The guy has a long history of disruptive behavior and warnings from what I can see. He is no stranger to these boards: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=arthur+rubin&prefix=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27+noticeboard&fulltext=Search+noticeboards+%26+archives&fulltext=Search

He has been around a long time. He knows comparing good faith edits to vandalism is disruptive. He knows blanket reverting is disruptive. He knows lying about policy is disruptive. I will not be bullied by or lied to by him just because I'm a lowly IP editor. I do not want to engage further with him and let myself get baited. Could an admin familiar with his conduct history take a look and perhaps provide a clear warning? Thank you. --76.180.172.75 (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear IP address: since you say you've been around the block for a while, would you perhaps mind linking to other account names/IP addresses you have edited under, and where you acquired your knowledge of policy, procedures, and ANI? At the moment you are setting my spidey-sense off, but I'd prefer it if my nasty suspicious mind was laid to rest before looking at this matter in more detail. Plus, it's just generally nice to know where everyone is coming from. Moreschi (talk) 22:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what all the IPs I've edited under are. They should all originate from Niagara Falls, Boston, and Manhattan. I think they should all be Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner/Adelphia, and Earthlink IPs. There are also university IPs but I'm not willing to disclose those publicly for obvious reasons. My knowledge has come from various links provided by other editors and searching. I typically find policy pages by typing Wikipedia: and then the first couple letter of what I want to find. It gives some suggestions. Sometimes it takes a few clicks around. The disruptive editing and behavior pages have links to the admin boards though it is a bit confusing about what exactly goes where. The account I made is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Donewithanonlynching which I have not used and probably wont because it is a little inflammatory in retrospect. I think I made a similarly named account a couple of years ago that has a couple of edits but I don't remember the name of it. I think that covers the bases but if I can give more info or there are more questions please tell me. --76.180.172.75 (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If an editor makes a series of edits, many of which are unacceptable, it is often easier to revert them all. It is not necessarily inappropriate to do depending on the circumstances. It requires some judgment as to how intertwined the edits are and whether you believe the edits were made in bad faith (broadly speaking). Your comments here and on Arthur's Talk page do not speak very highly of your attitude, i.e., accusing Arthur of lying, bullying, etc., not to mention whining about being a "lowly IP". My suggestion is you make edits to the article incrementally (one at a time) and then, if Arthur or another editor reverts you, you can deal with that change on the article Talk page. Or, if you prefer, you can discuss the changes you've already attempted on the Talk page, but focus on the content, not on the editors or the attitude. Although not required, I also suggest that you create an account so you are not IP hopping when making changes - makes it very hard to have any continuity in a discussion about your changes.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to create an account, nor should I have to. If you've been around then you'll perfectly understand why I occasionally get testy about how you folks treat IP users. That's really here nor there though. As kindly as I can put it at the moment, you should actually know a policy and how it's been applied before deigning to pontificate and posture. Editors have been blocked for refusing to stop performing blanket reverts like that. Mischaracterizing edits and misleading about policy have been treated as aggravating factors leading to longer blocks and less tolerance for misconduct. Could I have used a better tone regardless? No doubt. Does that have anything to do with his conduct and history? Absolutely not.

This is a long running pattern as far as I can tell and I only took about 10 or 15 minutes to look at his block log and search these boards using the search form above. If you could be bothered to put in the small effort you would see the same thing. I really should have just walked away and forgotten about it. I read enough of these boards to more than know better than think most admins would bother to look at his history and actually do anything about it besides lecturing the anonymous editor. I won't be bothering to check this thread anymore. If Moreschi or another clued in admin has any further questions or warnings for me, they can be left on the account page mentioned above. --76.180.172.75 (talk) 01:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I assume you mean the log of Arthur being blocked. I've looked at it. It has a number of blocks for edit-warring in 2008. Then there's nothing until 2012, at which point he was blocked for 24 hours for edit-warring and misuse of rollback. He was unblocked when he "agreed to wait for consensus". In any event, my suggestions to you as to how to proceed still stand. Even assuming you have a right to be "testy", it doesn't help you achieve your objective here to be so. Based on your comment about not checking this thread, I'll close this topic.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

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

User:HassanLechkar

Resolved

 – Blocked indefinitely

This nice fellow has just provided me with my monthly death threat via edit summary [61], which hardly bothers me. However, given the content of his userpage, some of his other edit summaries, and the fact that he created a rather elaborate page from scratch in a single edit, List of programmes broadcast by ETV Kids (Southeast Asia), I'm led to believe this is a kid who's been blocked and is now rather clumsily socking as his father, putting back the content he initially got in trouble for. I guess the article is a copyvio or improper cut-and-paste, but I can't figure out the specifics. Anybody recognize the user or article from the last go round, probably about two weeks ago? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Indef blocked... regardless of the history, no one should have to put up with that. Skier Dude (talk) 05:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Oversight needed, erase personal information

| Revdel'ed. Nothing to see here. --Rschen7754 04:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)}}  New request added, but not for oversight, at 11:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

At Talk:American Legislative Exchange Council, please make the following personal information invisible to non-admins:

• Revision as of 20:24, May 28, 2012, 209.6.69.227
• Revision as of 03:14, May 28, 2012, 209.6.69.227

And my own removal: [62]

Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 03:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Drawing further attention to it is not the best option. If it were me, I would take it to a trusted admin, behind the scenes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You're at the wrong place, bud. File an oversight request via email pbp 03:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Purplebackpack, don't be a fool. Binksternet is not a "bud" and he knows this shit well enough. Bink, I took care of it; please check to see if I got the right ones. And leave a note for the IP, if you haven't already, that this can't be done and will lead to a block for outing. Bugs, you're right, but we all know ANI is probably the quickest way. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Drmies. Your quick response gladdened me. Binksternet (talk) 04:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

We don't know that. I've found using the oversight form to be very quick, and seeing as you're not on the list I'm wondering what the basis of your opinion is? Nobody Ent 12:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Binksternet is asking to Censor information that proves Binksternet provides FALSE information. The information Binksternet removed was with regard to a FAKE newspaper that B asserted was "(Credibility check okay on The Rochester Citizen news. Replace ALEC blog response with WaPo brief summary. Adding Cronon refs and text.) " I have no objection to personal information being removed, once it is agreed that it IS personal information. HOWEVER, information that the Rochester Citizen is in fact NOT a newspaper, but someone's personal attack blog run out of their attic, and thus cannot be used as a WP:RS involved proof, which is ample, that it is NOT a newspaper. I was not "outing" a WP editor, and logically I was only "outing" a person if everything that proves it is NOT a newspaper is accepted as fact. You cannot "out" a WP:RS newspaper. Everything that is being removed was information about an alleged newspaper. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 03:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Baloney. I am simply trying to clean up after you. You were putting personal information onto the talk page including the address where someone lives. This is not allowed, so don't do it again. Binksternet (talk) 04:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

"Information" doesn't need to include address and number of bedrooms. Sheesh. Drmies (talk) 04:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Address is the address of the Rochester Citizen, and on the website of that same blog you allege is a newspaper. The fact that it is a residential area that does not allow businesses, including newspapers, and that it is the host site of activism that you allege it is objectively and with editorial oversight (in a newspaper of one) reporting on as a WP:RS merely proves that it is not a WP:RS.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 05:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a line between evaluating the reliability of a source and conducting aggressively inappropriate opposition research. You crossed that line several miles ago. MastCell ^Talk 05:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

If the address of the "Rochester Citizen" is a private residence, then it (the Rochester Citizen) is not a reliable source unless the article is written by a recognized expert in the field, regardless of whether it is also the address of an editor. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

If the newspaper is indeed being run by a single person from their house, then posting the address here is utterly inappropriate. If posting the address is appropriate, that means it's a legitmate business, Q.E.D. You can't have it both ways. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

A business being legitimate does not necessarily qualify it as a reliable source. Meanwhile, if the blog page stated its street address, it could be fair game. But it appears that it does not, and that the IP went fishing for it, which is not quite the same thing. As the street address was an individual's home rather than an office building, it's not appropriate to be posting it here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Problem is that "legitimate" is being used to mean different things. The Rochester Citizen is put forward as a significant newspaper by both the person that it is and the WP editors warring to get it used as a WP:RS. It is the name of a blog, but of a blog that claims NOT to be a blog, but a newspaper. Legitimate newspaper, no, legitimate corporate shell for the blog, with a published corporate address and phone that just happen to also be the address and phone of the unnamed blogger, yes. Posting of the address is appropriate because the address is the address that is SELF-identified as the address of a newspaper. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• New request: Three editors besides myself have commented about how hard the ALEC talk page is to follow. That's due almost entirely to our IP 209.x friend's apparent contempt for talk page norms, as documented in a section of that page. (link/snapshot) As long as this is here, I'd like to ask if someone would have a friendly chat with 209.6.69.227? There's really no reason he should be permitted to keep interfering with everyone else's ability to easily communicate with each other on the page, just for the hell of it. --OhioStandard (talk) 11:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Is it correct that they removed Binksternet's comments? If they do so on a fairly regular basis, or if they continue to do that, that's blockable. Drmies (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Stalker account

I'd appreciate it if someone would take care of Ywreuv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an account which apparently exists largely or entirely for reverting my edits. User has been warned and removed the warning. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Viriditas has given him a final, final warning. If he does it again I'll block him indef pronto. Moreschi (talk) 11:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I wish, though, that Viriditas would have been more formal in their warning. This account has other problems, soapboxing not being the least of them. One wonders if their POV is not a kind of conversion therapy, given the user's user page, but I guess that's neither here nor there. Drmies (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

User:222.181.161.248 's abuse

New user posting threats and accusations of what might be seen by some as racism on my talk page. May be a sock, may not be but a warning would seem to be in order. I am thick(albeit pale)-skinned enough not to be offended but I would think it a good idea if this editor was not permitted to launch his vitriol at editors who may be more sensitive than I am Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• a) Don't forget to sign your post on their talkpage, b) I don't yet see where you tried to resolve the issue directly with them, c) I don't see any "abuse" in their post - a little uncivil, but nothing to block about, d) you have full authority to warn them (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Benetkaci

Benetkaci (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

This user is assuming ownership of an article he has created, Benet Kaci. All edits of 29 May 2012 involve blanking of biographical information and several summaries in which I have been accused of vandalism each time I have restored the details. Introducing foreign language text in place of English here (English name: Đakovica) and responding to invitations for discussion like this. He has provided no information as to why he is blanking the birthplace entities and I explained their importance in the text he removed from his talk page. This is a user impossible to work posiviley with. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 13:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Brief note for BWilkins, please be aware I have not accused the editor of vandalism, and I have avoided sending template messages (except for ANI) because they contain the term "vandalism" within. I know you have dealt with grievances like this in the past so I didn't wish to place myself in a wrongful position. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 13:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why you directed that at me ... I never made any such suggestions :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Evlekis distorts the informaiton and changes the naming of the city of my birth, alleging it is word for the English, while I've put the name of the city according to official data of the municipality where I live. He also states names that do not exist such as Yugoslavia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benetkaci (talk • contribs) 13:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

This is interesting. The editor claims to be the subject. It is possible, nothing preventing it but I don't think it makes a difference does it? Historical accuracy still applies as do English names for places. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 13:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a note: I have Welcomed the user (using Welcome-coi as opposed to Welcome-auto). I have temporarily full-protected the article. We appear to have a new editor, who is the subject of an article they created (bad, bad, bad...but not blockable). The subject appears at first glance to be possibly slightly notable - but someone else can verify - so I have not tagged it for deletion, or even speedied. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It may be the best decision. Mind you, I shouldn't complain given that I was the last person to edit. I know from experience that a freeze on a page is not a sanctioning of that particular revision which is why I have asked the new editor to start afresh on the talk page of the article. I have made a short start to it anyhow. I wasn't so much seeking a block but I wanted to draw attention to something that was going on far longer than it should have done (I too was in the firing line for reverting). The editor however mentions the statistics per local authority publications but again, there is still this question of endonym vs exonym. In Germany there is München but in English it is Munich. There is a lot that can be said but I am really hoping the editor does not have a bad taste in his mouth and will join the discussion, I have some ideas that can prove amicable and favourable - especially if he is the subject. Thanks for sending him the welcome note. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 13:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

user:Archivesharer

Archivesharer (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

User is a WP:SPA and subject of a sockpuppet investigation [63]. Edits suggest conflict of interest; more importantly, user impugns actions and motives of editors with whom they disagree, accusing them of character assassination, and makes veiled threats of lawsuits, or at the least, encourages the article's subject to consider such actions. [64], [65], [66], [67]. 99.153.142.225 (talk) 13:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Editor is also guilty of crimes against English and logic. I looked at the diffs you provided and find them difficult to understand--probably because there are a few basic misunderstandings displayed in them of a complete failure to understand how this joint works. I am somewhat hesitant to block; I hope that CU evidence will have some bearing on the matter. Another admin may disagree and think that the edits by Archivesharer themselves are disruptive or threatening enough to block. Then again, if Michael de la Force is deleted the problem might go away, but there can be no SNOW keep now unless the lone dissenting vote is stricken for whatever reason. Drmies (talk) 14:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Mostly it's WP:GRAPES--a prolonged rant of "if they take my article away then the whole place sucks." The AFD rationale is sensible, and the reaction to it is becoming more strident. 99.153.142.225 (talk) 14:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)