Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Maduixa (talk | contribs) at 20:00, 15 April 2012 (→Harrasment via English Wikipedia e-mail system). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion


    IP range from Wichita spamming Talk pages with illogical barnstars and creating other vandalism.

    66.87.2.33, 66.87.0.115, 66.87.2.119, 66.87.2.2 and 23 other IP addresses in the same range, apparently the same person, has, since March 30, been anonymously spamming user Talk pages with barnstars for no apparent logical accurate reason. Examples particularly include barnstars for being "among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this month!" when the edit counter was broken for numerous days so no one knew how many edits anyone had made. My Talk page, for instance, received two of these spam barnstars in the space of 10 days (still there, if you want to check). I contacted the admin Materialscientist, who said, "It is a busy range with lots of vandalism/trolling. Technical solution is easy: rangeblock of 66.87.0.0/16 for a few weeks, and the edits are here [1], but in this case, I would prefer to have some consensus reached, e.g. at WP:ANI."

    I really think something should be done to stop this trolling behavior. I hope something can therefore come of this ANI. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 09:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree, an anon-only rangeblock of this address range for 2-3 weeks seems appropriate. Whatever they're up to, it doesn't seem to be beneficial to Wikipedia. -- The Anome (talk) 10:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is escalating to a disruptive level, then a limited time block is probably in order. I recently received a 'Smile!' myself, which wasn't unpleasant on its own. -- Trevj (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added Comment as nominator: I'm all for barnstars, but their value and purpose is diluted (could even say desecrated) when meaninglessly sprayed shotgun by a constantly changing and anonymous IP range for no good reason. The IP doesn't even have a substantive record of good-faith edits. Seems to clearly be trolling behavior. Perhaps a block should include an encouragement to create an account if the multiple-identity person wants to actually spread some Wiki-love (which seems obviously not the case here). Softlavender (talk) 11:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with nominator - there is far worse vandalism than this, and many more people should be praised for the work they do, but this is just random and devalues well deserved recognition. The IP editor clearly knows how to edit, and the right sort of phrases etc. to use, so they are not a novice, and could make useful contributions. My concern is that a block may result in far more destructive vandalism, when the block expires, or they use an IP out of the blocked range. Arjayay (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally can't see how anything can make the whole barnstar schtick less random and valueless than it already is/ Bearing in mind the fact that my previous post to this one was dishing out a barnstar maybe I should shut my trap?. :-) Spartaz Humbug! 14:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is silly spam, nothing more. I don't see how a random allocation of barnstars could devalue them. That's not how their value is measured. Like any token gift, it's always worth exactly as much as the thought behind it. If you got a barnstar for nothing, it's worth nothing. But that has no effect on the worth of others. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had a flower put on my page, then taken off, then put on again. Which is a bit confusing, but I'm really not getting this thread.
    Is it maybe possible that the IP is just eccentric and harmless?
    Seems like you can call anyone anything you like and threaten to burn their house down and all you get is a no consensus discussion about it. But if you go round putting flowers and smiles on people's talkpages, that's when you cross a line. Formerip (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC
    You also need to consider the effect on the person who received one of these anonymous barnstars. Chances are they smiled, said "that's nice" and moved on. Then if the barnstar gets REMOVED from their talk page without explanation, as happened to me, that's puzzling. Now that I know why, and realize that it was random and meaningless, I will go back and delete it again,. But IMO it really doesn't hurt anything to have someone going around distributing random attaboys. I agree with FormerIP that the practice seems eccentric and harmless. Block any further such spamming, if you like, but removing them seems unnecessary and a bit of a downer. --MelanieN (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I got a sun flower for reason I am still looking for. But yeah it felt nice.--Vyom25 (talk) 18:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's benign spam that hurts no one. I don't think it's any big deal, possibly aside from the misrepresentation of some as most active. If we got to the point that we're worrying about devaluation, much less desecration of barnstars (if that's even an appropriate use of the word), they're being taken far too seriously. I've gotten two spam barnstars; they made me smile for a minute, then shrug my shoulders. Frankly, we've got bigger fish to fry around here, particularly given the recent outbreak of incivility that's lead all manner of strife. --Drmargi (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had two 'awards' from this anon editor now. The behaviour is odd, but I was a little surprised to see that an ANI was raised. This would seem to come under WP:CIR, but seems 'mostly harmless'. I was initially a little concerned that editors who responded to the anon IP might then be targeted with further 'mundane' conversation that might lead to some form of con, but this doesn't seem to be the case.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • <<<This is silly spam, nothing more. I don't see how a random allocation of barnstars could devalue them.>>> You haven't clearly read the thread or investigated the situation. The IP range is giving totally random people barnstars and telling them they are "among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this month!" when they clearly aren't. This is not only spam, it's fraud. Softlavender (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the OP that this is disruptive (the 5% claim is flat out wrong, though I don't think I'd call it fraud). Unfortunately, though, looking at the contributions on that range you gave, I see a fairly large number of good faith contributions unrelated to this problem. At least for me, I think we need to whack the individual addresses for now and see if they get bored. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If an editor with a username similar to Jimbo Wales posted comments on user Talk pages about a cash prize for the top 5% of editors in return for a small down payment, that might be considered 'fraud'. I'm not sure this qualifies.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I just blocked [[User::66.87.2.96]] since I saw it active now. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe I missed it, but did anyone else seem to think that this is someone on a cell phone? My phone's IP (not similar to this IP) comes back to the same spot northeast of Wichita, and I'm nowhere near there. Notice that the actual data does not mention the city. Perhaps the map is defaulting to that location because it is near the center of the US? Calabe1992 00:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    That would be unusual, but I suppose it's possible. Geolocation services usually to err towards the nearest big settlement (ie. where a telco has a presence) rather than just sticking a pin in the middle of the map. bobrayner (talk) 10:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (I am one of the users in this IP range who made some of the good-faith edits mentioned by Qwyrxian.) Yes, this IP range is a mobile system. Use "whois" instead of "geolocate" and you'll see all 66.87.x.x IP addresses are registered to Sprint-Nextel at their corporate offices in Overland Park, Kansas. Each time a user connects, the system seems to issue a different (effectively random) IP address: blocking individual addresses will have no effect on the offending Barnstar Bandit. Blocking large ranges would block anyone using Sprint's network, a bit extreme for such cutesy vandalism. 66.87.0.37 (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (Same user here) I just disconnected and re-connected and was given this IP address 66.87.2.151 (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This IP 67.80.64.128 is pro active in giving such awards. This is far bigger racket then I first thought.--Vyom25 (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    i am thewolfchild

    Thewolfchild (talk · contribs) has been grinding an axe against Berean Hunter (talk · contribs) over a minor tiff in December. TWC has since jumped into a dispute at hunting, where Rwenonah (talk · contribs) had been blocked for edit-warring (again) and agenda-pushing, in a matter in which I and BH were involved. I warned TWC that their intervention on Rwenonah's talkpage [2] was inappropriate and unlikely to help out Rwenonah. TWC has since escalated into obvious personal attacks and harassment [3] against Berean Hunter and baiting, who isn't entirely blameless (BH claims socking and has unwisely reverted TWC's comments on Rwenonah's talkpage), but to a much lesser degree. TWC has a habit of cross-posting that makes sorting out diffs rather confusing. I've issued a warning to TWC [4]. Based on their response [5] I doubt any actions on my part would resolve the matter cleanly (we passed the Godwin's Law point a while back), so I bring it here. Most of the issue can be discerned on my talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    ("Are you finished? Well then allow me to retort"...)

    - Yes, Acro, I read it and I must say I am somewhat disappointed with you. Your account of the 'incident' is not entirely accurate now, is it? You are missing a few facts and you have 'bent' a few others. You have shown that you cannot be neutral. You have repeatedly demonstrated a clear bias in favour BH and against Rwen and myself. It is my opinion that you have a conflict here and that you should step aside and request another party review this matter, in it's entirety.
    I would suggest a panel of 3 admins. They should have absolutely no history or involvement with with you, BH, Rwen, myself, or any of the admins that were involved in previous blocks on Rwen. They should also have no prior involvement with Hunting, Zodiac, or any of our talk pages.
    They should review the incidents where you claim Rwen has made repeated edit violations, as well as any administrative and/or punitive action that has been taken in response to these claims.
    They should review the "minor tiff" that BH and I had in December, as well as all of BH's subsequent comments, edits and deletions. They should also review any other issues BH may have had with other users, including edit wars and personal conflicts.
    There should then be a thorough review of the incidents surrounding the Hunting page, including the edit war between BH and Rwen, the subsequent actions (and inaction) on your part as well as any other admins that were involved.
    Following that, they could review any comments I made as well as any and all comments made by yourself and BH.
    Then, perhaps a more clear picture of what has transpired here will be revealed, and some pressing questions can be answered;
    - Have you, Acroterion, conducted yourself appropriately in your position as an admin?
    - Was Rwen treated failrly and with respect?
    - Were his queries regarding his disposition as an editor handled promptly and properly?
    - Were his previous "infractions" adjudicated fairly?
    - Was/is the Hunting page up to Wikipedia standards? Or is it in need of revision? (by a neutral source)
    - Were Rwen's (initial) edits in complete violation of Wikipedia policy?
    - Was there a better way you could have handled Rwen's concern's about the content of the Hunting page?
    - Was BH justified in arbitrarily removing Rwen's edits?
    - Was BH justified in subsequently engaging in an edit war?
    - Was BH's conduct and attitude towards other users in keeping with Wikipedia policy? (in both the Zodiac page incident and the Hunting page incident)
    - Was BH justified in removing content from someone else's talk page? (ie: Rwen)
    - Was BH justified in posting comments that contain unfounded accusations, falsehoods and personal insults?
    OF course, IF this proposed review were to take place, it would have to be conducted by 3 honest, intelligent and unbiased admins.
    Following that, I would hope that the Hunting page could be revised as a better document. I would hope that Rwen, with a better understanding of wiki editorial policies, would be able to continue as a contributor.
    I would expect that the incident that occurred last December, between BH and I on the Zodiac page would be seen for exactly what it was; BH a little too quick to jump in, criticize and correct people and equally as quick to initiate reverts and warnings. That's perhaps why her attitude towards other users can be stand-offish and even condescending at times. That these actions on her part are from a lack of patience, which also leads to a quick temper, resulting in edit wars, complaints, personal attacks and insults, like "You're a troll!", "You're a sock puppet!", "You crawled out from under a rock!", "You're ignorant!", etc, etc. I would further expect that BH's actions during the Hunting page incident and subsequent dialogues on talk pages would also show a need for her conduct to be addressed. I believe that BH can be a positive and effective contributor to Wikipedia, and that only a minimal amount of correction and/or guidance would be required to set her on the right path. I'm certainly willing to let 'by-gones be by-gones'.
    I would expect that it would likely be determined that you Acro, could have administered the situation better. Beginning with your treatment of Rwen, you're handling of the Hunter page edit war incident, your unwillingness to address any of the misconduct on the part of BH and fianlly, the continued back-and-forth you have in engaged in with myself, where you have continually manipulated the dialogue to purposefully create discord. There was no "baiting" or "disruption" on my part, just simply my response to your response to my response, and so on and so on. I did not call Wikipedia a "regime" - I said I hope it doesn't become one. I did not insult any admins, including yourself - I simply said that I hoped that admins here, in general, can refrain from certain kinds of actions that would be deterimental to this site. AND, I certainly did not call anyone here a "Nazi", nor did I refer to anyone here as "Hitler". The place the 'Godwin Line' was crossed, was in your imagination. This is an accusation that you should really consider taking back. Nothing I said was deserving of such a comment.
    In fact, if my conduct were to be reviewed, I believe it would be 'on the margins' sometimes, but still 'on-side'. I freely admit that I use rhetorical sarcasm as part of my debates. Any comments I make are usually gauged in response to the comments made towards me. I believe it would be shown that the December incident went down just as I said it did. Following that, I noted that another user was having similar difficulties with BH that I had. I found this on BH's talk page and decided to post a simple comment, based on my experience with BH, to let Rwen know that this was not a unique situation. BH removed that - and that's her right, but when I re-posted my comments on Rwen's talk page (for the benefit of Rwen), BH went in and removed them - That was wrong. Following that, BH and I have a a couple of exchanges that at least I can admit were not in keeping with the best of ideals. Unfortunately, hostility sometimes breeds hostility. I have since disengaged from BH. However, that is where I had looked to you, Acro, to try and direct the whole affair towards somekind of resolution. But you failed. Ultimately, I believe that any review would determine that you are a good admin, and should continue as such. You may still have a little to learn, but I believe you have alot to offer.
    In closing, I'm glad that you have brought this to ANI. Whether or not the review I proposed is conducted, I believe that this entire affair bears some kind of looking into. Questions do need to be answered. Policies do need to be reviewed. Changes do need to be made. This can only benefit Wikipedia and all it's users.
    If the are any questions I need to answer, or anything I need to answer for, you all know where to find me. This will all but conclude my involvement with this. I don't see any reason for any of our paths to cross again, so I will wish all of you the best, in your endeavours.
    Have a nice day. - thewolfchild 03:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC) - (Love those Big Kahuna Burgers...)[reply]
    My initial concern was that Thewolfchild was using Rwenonah's block for edit-warring to continue a vendetta of Thewolfchild's against Berean Hunter. Nothing above changes my mind. TWC was warned for direct personal attacks against Berean Hunter: they haven't repeated that since my warning. It does (not very concisely) illustrate TWC's WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to WP, and is using Rwenonah's problems at hunting as a proxy to serve TWC's own ends. Acroterion (talk) 11:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, Godwin's Law was passed with "admins who would treat it like a regime, with their self-serving, egotistical, condescending, fascist attitudes" [6]. Apparently I'm not one of those, which ought to be true in this case, since I've taken no administrative actions where Rwenonah and Thewolfchild are concerned. Acroterion (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    Wow, Acro... you just keep going on and on about this. Your latest comments are, to put it politely, disingenuous, and only serve reinforce the need for you to step aside, as I had previously suggested.
    - You claim that I have a "continuing vendetta" against Berean Hunter (BH). I would suggest that to reacquaint yourself with the definition of vendetta. In December of last year, there was a minor incident involving some edits and reverts to one article. I believe that BH had acted inappropriately and I told her as such. Following that, I dismissed the matter, and that was the extent of it. By BH's own admission, I have been "inactive" since that time (hardly qualifies as "continuing").
    - Recently, I noted that BH had become involved in an edit war with Rwenonah (Rwen). I also noted that you took it upon yourself, as an admin to, to intercede in the matter. However, the actions you took seem to be prejudicially against Rwen (as by your own admission, you have a bias) and in favour of BH. Rwen has not only been blocked, but continually ignored. Compounding the issue further was that at the same time, BH's actions/violations were not being addressed. I then posted a comment to let Rwen know that his confusions and concerns with BH were justified as BH does have a history of conflict. BH responded to this, and I replied, and so on. My subsequent comments to BH were no more violative that hers. Again, there were only a few posting and then I dropped the matter with her.
    - However, you once again decided to involve yourself and, once again you came in heavily in support of BH. It is not clear exactly just what the nature of the relationship is between you two, but you seem to give BH an exceptional degree of latitude when it comes to policy, to the point where you are effectively turning a blind eye and giving her a free pass for any of her transgressions.
    - Now, just to be clear... you posted comments to me first, sir, not the other way around. I am fully within my right to respond, which I did, but unfortunately, you have a habit of manipulating comments, taking them out of context and then presenting them in a fashion that not at all reflects the original message that was being conveyed. You seem to do this to depict the other person as someone who is acting in a manner in need of re-dress, and of course, since you are an admin, you take it upon yourself to apply remedies. Each time you respond to me, I have every right to reply back. Especially when there is a need to clarify any items that you have deliberately distorted. Yet, following this, you accuse me of "baiting", "trolling", "disrupting", etc, once again, characterizing me as "the disease" and you as "the cure". Under a veil of authority and feigned principled superiority, you have "warned" me, threatened me and now created an ANI entry which is at best misleading, but in my opinion, largely apocryphal.
    - There is a standard which admins at a minimum should be held to, but should also aspire to exceed. I'm sure you have done some good work here in the past, but your actions here in this matter have fallen short of that standard. I have been repeatedly critical of you, and justly so, but I have also been respectful. As an admin, you should be well aware that criticism comes with the territory. Perhaps you need to develop a 'thicker skin', if you are going to continue on as a admin.
    - There are also some concepts you need to grasp, such as subtlety, sarcasm, hypocrisy, irony, neutrality and superfluous generalizations. You also need to learn the difference between fact and fiction.
    - Fact: if an admin were to use his or her privileges to serve their own ends, they are, in fact "self-serving". Fiction: your claim that I called any specific admin here "self-serving".
    - Fact: if an admin were to consistently and unreasonably hold the position that they are always right and everybody else is always wrong, they would, in fact, be considered "egotistical". Fiction: your claim that I called any specific admin here "egotistical".
    - Fact: if any person were to consider that being a admin gives them some sort of moral high-ground that elevates them above their peers, and therefore look down upon other users and treat them as lessers, they would, in fact, be considered "condescending". Fiction: your claim that I called any specific admin here "condescending".
    - It was my position (and still is) that any admin here should avoid any behaviour of these types if they are going to be an effective admin. Any admin acting in such a manner as prescribed above would be detrimental to Wikipedia. This statement is somewhat obvious (isn't it?) and was made as a generality. You need to recognize it as such and not take it as some kind of attack.
    - You also need to learn what "fascism" means, in general, then compare and contrast the way in which I have used it, specifically, here in my comments. You also need to reconcile my use of the word fascism with the other comments I made regarding Wikipedia (ie: 'meritocracy', 'neutral', 'transparent'). These ideals are in keeping with democracy, fair treatment and free speech. All of these principles are the foundation of what makes Wikipedia so remarkable. Therefore, I believe it would be fair to say, in general, that if any admin were to act in a manner that was in conflict with these principles and ideals, it would only serve to undermine the purpose and effectiveness of Wikipedia. If an admin were to impose his or her own will in a manner that puts their interests above those of other users and Wikipedia, if they were to misuse, or even abuse, their privileges in the process, if they were to do so despite a lack of consensus from the Wikipedia community, and if they were to try and enforce their own personal agendas without any personal responsibility, they would then be acting in an authoritarian manner and without accountability, they would be acting in a totalitarian manner. Authoritarianism and totalitarianism are two of the basic precepts of fascism. Any entity administered in such a manner would be tantamount to a regime. In these instances however, 'fascism' and 'regime' have simply been used as basic descriptors to illustrate a point and not as direct comparatives. To say that having Wikipedia run as a 'fascist regime' would be of great harm is simply a general observation that is stating the obvious and in no way proffers the opinion that Wikipedia is a fascist regime. For you to claim that I have depicted Wikipedia as a regime or any of it's admins as fascists is deceitful. This seems to be a stratagem on your part to reinforce your position while at the same time distracting from the of the concerns that have been raised about you.
    - Lastly, for someone who is so enamoured with Godwin's Law, you really do seem to have a poor understanding of it. The basic theory is that is if an argument were to go on long enough, that at some point one of the belligerents would accuse the other of acting like a Nazi, or compare them with Adolf Hitler. I fail see how Godwin's Law applies to my comment. I used the term 'fascist' in the most basic and general sense, as part of an opinion, in which I stated that it was something to be avoided. You and I were not engaged in an argument and I did not call you a fascist. You seem to hold that the term fascism applies to the theory becasue Nazi Germany was a fascist state, and while that application is debatable, I certainly did not, at any time, accuse you of acting like a Nazi, nor did I compare you with Hitler. You have incorrectly, cavalierly and grossly applied this theory to our discussion. In doing so, you yourself have breached the principle behind the law. That is, you have taken a simple disagreement, on an relatively minor issue, and in trying to apply a theory (that doesn't even apply), you have attempted to draw a comparison between this and one of the darkest elements of human history. You have demeaned and trivialized the horrific, to serve your own needs with your reckless and unapologetic behaviour.
    Did you have anything else to add, or are we done now?
    - thewolfchild 02:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Acroterion handled this very well indeed, especially considering some of the weird accusations you've made. But leaving that aside -- TWC, you say, within your giant wall of text -- "I have since disengaged from BH" -- do that. I reviewed the situation and it is clear you are wikistalking BH, so just stop it. Don't do it again. That will end the problem. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Antandrus: "Acroterion handled this very well..." - Really? Glad you think so...
    Antandrus: "...the weird accusations you've made." - Like what?
    Antandrus: "...giant wall of a text." - Sorry, I'll try to use more pictures and less big words next time.
    Antandrus: "(you)have since disengaged from BH -- do that." - Are you saying that I should do something... that I have already done? (or did you want me to go tell her off again, and then disengage again?)
    Antandrus: "...it is clear you are wikistalking..." - Really? It's "clear", huh? Then it should be easy for you to provide some proof to support this claim. Or, did you go to the Acroterion school of I'm-just-gonna-throw-out-any-baseless-accusation-I-please-without-backing-it-up?
    Antandrus: "...so just stop it. Don't do it again. That will end the problem." - >yawn< ...ok, thanks for stopping by.
    - thewolfchild 03:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you capable of posting responses that aren't absurd manifestos? Sheesh. Calm down. And you say that Acro "just keep[s] going on and on about this". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Lothar von Richthofen: "Are you capable of posting responses that aren't absurd manifestos?" - Yeah, I course I am. Just see the my 3 previous posts above...
    Lothar von Richthofen: "Calm down." - Um... do I seem angry or excited? Am I using any harsh, derogatory language? Have I made any threats? AM I USING ALOT OF CAPS? Am I using multiple exclamation marks!!!!!? Sheesh.
    Lothar von Richthofen: "...you say that Acro keeps going on and on..." - Yes, I did say that... because he does. He keeps repeating the same bogus complaints and baseless accusations. Quite frankly, I wish he had written more, to at least back-up some of his nonsense. But as it is, I'm left to refute what he claims happened and clarify what actually happened. All the while, asking some pretty simple, yet important questions that continue to go unanswered. Don't mistake thoroughness with ranting and raving.
    It's unfortunate that this discussion has left you so irritated. I hope your day gets better.
    - thewolfchild 03:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What we appear to have here is an argument-only account. It's plain that anyone who attempts to engage TWC for any reason gets treated to an ever-expanding Great Wall of Text on their own and Wikipedia's iniquity with digressions into an analyses of fascism and its role in the management of Wikipedia. My original post stands: a returning edit-warrior was reported by me to AN3, was blocked, and TWC, beginning with personal attacks against Berean Hunter, is using this as a pretext for verbose denunciations of all who come into contact with TWC. However, since they appear to have agreed to leave BH alone, this may be closed. Acroterion (talk) 13:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sooo... that's it? How... anti-climatic. You created this oh-so-ominous ANI, only to let it die on the vine? Just what was your intention in bringing this up, anyway? Wasn't there supposed to be some kind of review, discourse, accounting and hopefully resolution? You opened with your little paragraph of artifice and pulled off the neat trick of keeping it short while at the same time touching upon multiple issues, multiple users, multiple pages, and levying multiple accusations. To think that I actually took you seriously, was willing to take part in this kangaroo court, and going to the trouble of dissecting all your obfuscation so that I could provide some factual clarity. Quite simply, Newton's Third Law is at work here. I'm sorry if my responses were too overwhelming for you and you 'friends' to digest, but regardless of their length, there are necessary and reasonable. Aside from playing janitor with your comments, I also raised some issues of concern and posed some questions that needed to be asked as much as they need to be answered. I went even further and proposed the need for a (real) review of all issues and parties involved. I was ready to take part. I stand by everything I've done and I have nothing to hide. Funny how some other people here don't want the light shining on them. It seems you got punch-drunk early, and instead of presenting further, simply hung on to the ropes. Then a couple of your 'friends' came along and took a whopping 30 seconds out of their days to dump in some random, useless detritus, and then disappeared. Bean-Hunter is nowhere to be seen, leaving you without your cheearleading squad. Then you managed to regurgitate a little more, leaving me to craft another respose to these ongoing fables of yours.
    So, I can see where these ANI's can be useful tools in addressing some of the conflicts and violations that occur here on Wikipedia. It's unfortunate that your ANI sucked. I have shown that you were wrong, on multiple counts, both in your actions and your accusations. What did you accompish?
    Now are we done...?
    - thewolfchild 20:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC) - (I'm glad you didn't charge admission for this)[reply]
    No, I'm around...just busy. There is little anyone needs to say...you're doing a fine job at what you're doing.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    TWC and Civility

    After seeing this section on ANI, I took a peek at TWC's talk page, with these three edits in particular. Acroterion warned him and TWC's response was a simple "Whatever...". TWC needs to understand that civility is not optional. We just had an Arbcom case on this, didn't we? People make snide remarks from time to time, but these types of personal attacks are certainly beyond the pale. Ishdarian 02:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Honestly, I'm a bit sympathetic to TWC's plight here. He sounds frustrated and angry, and this being at AN/I can't be helping anything. Just because there was an Arbcom case which involved Civility doesn't give license to run around looking for editors who we can thwack over the head with the civility policy.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I completely understand where you're coming from. I'm not calling for him to be blocked, but a nice reminder from somebody outside of the current discussion could surely to no harm. Ishdarian 03:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not calling for TWC to be blocked: I after all could have blocked TWC myself. I'm concerned about the hair-trigger rhetoric and his use of Wikipedia as a battleground in which to pursue grudges, dragging in otherwise uninvolved parties such as Rwenonah. At the time of my original posting he was using Rwenonah's troubles to further TWC's own ends against BH, which was what caught my attention in the first place. At the original time of posting I wasn't sure where this was headed, and I wasn't going to be active on WP. TWC has avoided further incident since then. Acroterion (talk) 13:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Bad script

    This old script was listed at the user scripts list. It appears to attempt to write in code posted at an outside website, and seems to have been created by a single-purpose account to promote a company. I tested it before checking the code, and it blanked all pages to prevent viewing and editing. I had to disable Javascript to get rid of it. I doubt it was intended as malicious, but perhaps the script should be deleted regardless. It seems to be advertised outside of Wikipedia. Equazcion (talk) 22:23, 13 Apr 2012 (UTC)

    The script has not changed since October 30, 2009‎ (the day of its creation). User:Enawga installed it on May 14, 2011‎ in his/her monobook.js and has edited productively since – although not much.  --Lambiam 21:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The problems could just be in Vector, where I tested. Still... Equazcion (talk) 22:42, 14 Apr 2012 (UTC)
    Well, the reason it blanks the page is probably that mentioned in Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 97#document.write is not longer working. Anomie⚔ 02:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd think that would just mean the script wouldn't work, not blank the page. Regardless, I'd think importing code from an outside website == bad, since they can change it at any point, to whatever they want, without any indication showing on the wiki. That and the single-purpose account. Equazcion (talk) 02:51, 15 Apr 2012 (UTC)

    User:Ronz behaviour

    Many have commented on his behavior in the past. [8] Even Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, warned him last month. [9] He removed Jimbo's message with edit summary "harassment". He claims everyone is harassing him, he post messages threatening to have them blocked, he argues nonstop and distorts things such as at the Talk:Alicia_Silverstone where he claims "overwhelming consensus" when no one else has stated an agreement with him. He insist that a reliable source is valid when linking to an article there that says what he wants to quote from, but dismisses other articles on that same reliable source that say something he wishes to ignore. [10] Dream Focus 22:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Sounds like an RFC/U might be an order more so than ANI. I might be missing it but I don't see anything blockable in the above SÆdontalk 23:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well Dream Focus left alerted eight editors about this thread who have had conflicts with Ronz in the past but aren't involved in this specific issue. [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] Looks like canvassing to me. AniMate 23:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I was showing a pattern of behavior, he having conflicts of the same type with many people. A long term problem editor should be banned for his constant problems. Jimbo Wales himself commenting on him. "Your recent reverts to this article were in line with your past POV pushing behavior. This has to stop. The statements you removed were neither promotional nor inaccurate, and were both uncontroversial and easily sourced." I thought that and what others have said was relevant to this. And when you bring someone to ANI or wherever don't you usually ask for others to come and participate? He was warned about this behavior, and on the Alicia Silverstone article he removed things which were also "uncontroversial and easily sourced". If someone complains about your past behavior and warns them to stop, but they keep doing it anyway, I thought that'd get him banned. Dream Focus 23:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    He also didn't inform Ronz of the discussion SÆdontalk 23:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I did too. He just hit undo on the edit. Check his talk page history. [19] Dream Focus 23:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    My sincere apologies DF. I went to his page right after you posted this and so didn't think he'd have had time to revert it and I wrongly assumed that you forgot. SÆdontalk 23:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    DF, you didn't show a pattern of behavior. You didn't hunt up diffs to show that this is a problem. You left messages recruiting others who had conflicts with him to come here. That's canvassing. AniMate 23:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I still think an RFC/U is the best venue for this. If it's true that he's had this much conflict then it should not be difficult to find a second certification. SÆdontalk 23:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    There is absolutely a problematic pattern of behavior from Ronz. Dream Focus just didn't present it. The editors he "canvassed" are probably the tip of the iceberg when it comes to people who have had run ins with Ronz and his peculiar style of tendentious editing. An RfC/U would probably be good, but if he's at it again I don't see why people should have to deal with the hassle of that.Griswaldo (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Damn right about this being just the tip of the iceberg. This seems to be a continuation of the behavior detailed in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Problem_on_BLP_noticeboard. In that mess as documented by User:Griswaldo 18:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Ronz was
    On 22:08, June 19, 2011 I informed User:Will Beback ([22]) about Ronz apparent continuation of spamming user pages with templates.
    On 1:00, August 24, 2011 I told User:Elen of the Roads ([23]) of Ronz's apparent continuation of spamming user pages with templates.
    It is blatantly obvious this editor is continuing to violate-ignore-distort wikipedia policies (first WP:BLP, then WP:BITE, and so on). WHEN IS SOMETHING GOING TO BE DONE ABOUT THIS GUY?!?--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    When it comes to Ronz, you can't ever believe anything he says. Misuse of policies, edit warring and distortions of the truth is an understatement of epic proportions. You have to be a sociopath to commit the wrongs this guy does with the calmness of a sleeping baby. I've never met any other editor like this guy. This guy acts like he's an administrator threatening that editors will be blocked at the drop of a hat. Think I'm overstating, go ahead and read his contrabutions. He adds almost no value to any article he's involved with whatsoever (and I'm being nice). Time after time he seems to slither through fingers of countless administators, never getting banned. Far too many times, he gets the benefit of the doubt, be let go with a mere slap on the wrist. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 01:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree. Ronz has IMHO become the de facto a poster child of what can go wrong with Wikipedia--an editor that appears to game Wikipedia to the point the administrators just don't get the scope or length of the violations and so continues to tarnish the community.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A user is allowed to remove coments from their own talk page. If there really is a problem here, why are editors like BruceGrubb producing diffs from 2011 and 2010? And why also is TFI using inflammatory language like "sociopath"? Please produce some recent diffs from 2012 to show what is going on now. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 03:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Whenever Ronz comes into conflict with other editors it becomes a fiasco. It's a well known problem. I'm sure it's well known by you as well Mathsci. When I had a run in with him over Stephen Barrett I recall him claiming to quit just as things weren't looking so good for him in various community venues like this one. I don't have the diffs, nor do I have the time to find them, but someone who is more dedicated to this should dig them up, because that kind of slithering out of trouble is itself a problem.Griswaldo (talk) 11:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've not been directly involved in any editing where that has happened. There were problems concerning Weston Price which involved several editors commenting here. Certainly an RfC/U is in order if other editors have found systematic problems with Ronz. Mathsci (talk) 08:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    You want examples from this year? Fine, I give you ones for this freaking MONTH: [24], [25]=], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32] (that is NOT Ronz's talk page but another user's talk page he is messing with!); [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]] and that is NOT all of them!

    Instead of handling these matters on the relevant talk page he spams user talk pages--"It can be a tactic for dispersing the argument all over the 'pedia, and preventing it gathering momentum in any location" (Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC))

    "On the contrary, you've been contacted on your talk page—per best practices—and asked to stop bullying and harassing users. Your response has been to ignore these requests—by multiple users—and instead to make false accusations in return. That is the kind of "unacceptable behavior" you have been engaging in for some time now, Ronz, and it needs to stop." Viriditas (talk) 03:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

    "As far as I can see, Ronz is engaged in desperately tendentious editing, edit warring, user page harassment, and possibly wp:canvassing, all to cover the fact that he cannot make even a mildly convincing case that there is a BLP issue about Barrett. As other editors have reminded him, he is a bit sensitive on the issue of Barrett, and I can accept that, but he's gone a bit off the deep end with it this time." (Ludwigs2 18:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC))

    Harassing users in October 2010 and Harassing users in April 2012. How much evidence do we freaking need that Ronz is out of control?

    AGAIN, WHEN IS SOMETHING GOING TO BE DONE ABOUT RONZ?!?--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I see three editors with strong views that Ronz is disruptive, but no recent diffs of anything blockable. Please could one of you choose ONE diff (the most egregious, perhaps) from the last month and explain what the problem with it is? Most of the string of diffs above look like templated warnings and I can't immediately see why they are blockable offences. You need to present a case here, not just SHOUT DEMANDS FOR SOMETHING TO BE DONE. Please calmly give a good example of blockable behaviour with a narrative explanation of why it's a problem. Otherwise this is for RfC I think. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 09:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no strong opinion about what the appropriate course of action is at this time. In terms of particularly egregious edits, I would mention these two: [40] with the edit summary "rv - as with last time - undue weight, inaccurate info, promotional info, off topic", [41] with the edit summary "some info fails verification". All of those claims proved to be untrue, and the information is in the article and well-sourced today. The information removed was not inaccurate - indeed, Ronz re-introduced a blatant factual error on the date by reverting the edit. It is also worth noting the WP:OWN issues around this article, with Ronz having made 240 edits to the article, over complaints spanning a very long period of time, with the 2nd runner up making only 61 edits: [42]. What should have been a calm discussion of the issues with the article quickly degenerated into Ronz claiming harassment.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the Alicia Silverstone article he kept removing the part about her being an animal rights activist, despite she getting ample news coverage for that, and references found and added to the article to prove that, plus she doing a commercial for PETA that got ample coverage, etc. I add in sources to a magazine which interviewed her about her bestselling novel, which said she was an animal rights and environmental activist. [43] He then tags that with undue weight, and argued constantly on the talk page. He insist she be mentioned as being known only for one movie she did, Clueless, despite two other films she was in making several times the amount of money, and many news sources saying she was best known for other things as well. [44] He mentions an article in UPI which says she is best known for Clueless, and I link to another article in UPI which says she is best known for her work in the films "The Crush," "Clueless," "Blast from the Past" and "Excess Baggage," as well as the music videos for Aerosmith's hits "Cryin,'" "Amazing" and "Crazy." He then calls that "tabloid trash" claiming its not reliable. I find several other articles in UPI which state she is best known for more than one thing, and he argues against that. Originally the article did mention the other things she was well known for, not just Clueless, he removing it. I think the talk page of that article says it all. You have someone determined to keep out referenced information he doesn't like, and make it say what he does like, then claiming "overwhelming consensus" when he is the only one saying it should be there. Dream Focus 15:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Having read over that discussion, you are clearly in the right. He's engaging in an inappropriate synthesis by systematically excluding sources that don't support his views. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Just read some old posts you made on his talk page, one of which he reverted with the edit summary "harassment" as mentioned before. After that, he added in a banner at the top of his page about having recently been bullied or harassed [45] and its stay there ever since. That was in June 2011. Of course he's had the tag saying he is considering retiring for over a year now, so maybe he just forgot its there, or maybe he believes everyone is regularly abusing him. Dream Focus 20:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The retirement banner showed up just as some serious heat was coming down on him surrounding the issues I was involved in. He stopped editing and put that banner up and avoided further scrutiny. We let editors slither away from the consequences of their actions like that all the time and it really infuriates some of us.Griswaldo (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I figured that's why he was doing it. I've seen people leave for that purpose then return soon after. I'm thinking the other banner, claiming harassment, might be against some rule, not sure which one though. Dream Focus 21:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The retirement banner come up during the whole Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Problem_on_BLP_noticeboard fiasco. "A retirement template, he has a template for everything, doesn't he? We've been duped, and made fools of here by the process." (THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 02:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC))
    It is WAY past time to do something about this editor; his behavior is just as disruptive in April 2012 as it was in October 2010 and it is more or less the SAME behavior. I have seen editors banned for far less so why is this guy still here?--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I recall at least one incident last year in which Ronz goaded a long-term highly knowledgeable, highly valued contributor into a block by persistently exasperating behavior that stayed just within the margins of policy. Someone should probably take a look into the overall pattern of this editor's contributions and make a disinterested recommendation as to whether any action should be taken, whether it be an RfC or dispute resolution or something else. Of course Ronz is entitled to respond to such analysis before any action is taken, but he should also be on notice by now that several experienced editors here are concerned about his overall pattern of participation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    You have to mention a name so we can look into that. Dream Focus 21:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Brad, if I recall correctly Ronz does not show up to explain his actions when they are discussed either. It's another pattern of his. He'll delete advice or warnings from his own talk page as harassment and then stay away from AN/I.Griswaldo (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once again he has tagged properly referenced material with "undue" tags as well as add in something which seems rather bias. Different sources say Alicia Silverstone is notable for different things, and she gets coverage for far more than just the film Clueless. Long never ending discussion on the talk page does not result in anything. Additional input would be appreciated, otherwise its just an edit war between two people. [46] Dream Focus 23:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just added academic sources which discuss her environmental and animal rights works and he has tagged those as UNDUE and OR. I am not a happy about that at all. I get the feeling he has a thing for the film clueless. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a variation of the nonsense we went through with Ronz in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_79#Is_a_paper_.28possible_blog.29_by_a_psychiatrist_valid_regarding_old_claims_regarding_dentistry.3F and Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_21#Weston_Price_and_Quackwatch.
    Please note this comment from October 2010 and see how much is still happening in April 2012:
    "Ronz, there's still the above-mentioned issues to cover:
    1. disruptive editing: your refusal to provide a meaningful rationale for the BLP dispute, your refactoring of talk page comments without discussion, and your tendentious efforts to keep the from being closed as unfounded despite your refusal to provide a rationale.
    2. user page harassment: Your multitudinous posts to the user talk pages of the people you are arguing with (since the 20th I count 15 posts to BruceGrubb, 34 to Griswaldo, 31 to the Founders Intent, and 50 to me), mostly argumentative posts or warning templates.
    3. gaming the system: deceptive practices such as your attempts to make it look like I wasn't trying to cooperate with you, or your initial intent to avoid this ANI thread.
    4. apparent canvassing to help an edit war: why else would QuackGuru (who had not participated in the BLP thread to that point) suddenly appear to carry out a revert just moments after you reached your 3rr limit?
    As far as I'm concerned these all still need explaining. each individual act may or may not be explainable, but as a whole they speak to a definite intent to disrupt things sufficiently that you could block losing a BLP discussion that you had no grounds to begin in the first place. That is not responsible editing." (Ludwigs2 23:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
    I again ask how much evidence do we freaking need that Ronz is STILL out of control?--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    He has been around long enough to know what he should be doing, surely. Do you really think he is going to be listening to anyone? He doesn't seem to have done so thus far. Dream Focus 10:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Protected

    I have fully protected the Alicia Silverstone article for one week. There's entirely too much back and forth, bickering, changing, reverting, and disruption going on with this article. Since I've likely protected the Wrong Version, Any admin. is fully free to change, lift, modify, or extend this protection. I'm not precious about my efforts here, so I won't consider it anything confrontational in the least. — Ched :  ?  18:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Lecen, again

    I need to report a problem with User:Lecen. A pair of days ago he began a massive replacement of internal links to an article, which may be inappropiate for reasons explained at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#War of the Triple Alliance / Paraguayan War. I'm mentioning it only for context, not to duplicate it, and discussions about that issue should be discussed there, not here. The problem is Lecen's reaction to it. As I mentioned here, I noticed him and the other user I mentioned directly, and other people that may be interested at the article talk page (meaning, no canvassing of potential supporters). He replied with this message, just personal puns. He also calls me "MBelgrano", a former username I had, although he had been told not to do so (if it needs clarification, yes, I once used that username, and then requested a rename for a global account, it is not a secret at all, and I mention it at the top of my user page). Here, he accuses me of working in a tag team with MarshalN20, even when I did not canvass him into action. Even more, here he stayed neutral in a proposal I made, which proves we do not work toguether as Lecen suggests. He also said that we were "defeated", as if we were in a battleground. Here, he attacks Argentina in general, even mentioning the defeat in the Falkland War as "having their asses kicked". I'm from Argentina.

    MarshalN20 suggests me to report Lecen, and (while I was offline and had not replied anything yet) Lecen goads me into doing it. Here, he opposes a proposal of Marshal with the edit summary "it seems that the Argentine editors are eager to ignore anyone else except for themselves". Needless to say, Marshal is not Argentine but Peruvian, and I had not commented on his proposal yet.

    I should point as well that Lecen has already been blocked by "battleground mentality" a pair of months ago, according to this discussion, where other editors made similar complaints about his behavior. As it can be seen, I'm not involved with that case, and never said anything during it. Cambalachero (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: I have informed Lecen and MarshalN20 of this discussion Cambalachero (talk) 00:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    What I find most bothersome in this whole matter, aside from Lecen's bad reactions to any criticism whatsoever on articles he works in (IMO a clear sign of ownership problems), is his indication that part of the reason he wants to revive "Wikiproject Brazil" is to use it as a tool for "edit wars" ([47]). I think this is a clear abuse of the purpose of WikiProjects (per WP:PJ), which is simply to have like-minded individuals work to improve articles (not to be a guild of edit warriors).
    That being said, perhaps WP:PJ needs a list of what is "not" appropriate usage of Wikiprojects. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 00:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are mischaracterizing his stated reasons for wanting to bring the WikiProject together. It seems legitimate that if you are involved in a dispute about a Brazilian topic, you'd want easy access to other editors interested in those topics to offer second opinions, etc. I don't think it's right to imply his motivations are canvassing or meatpuppetry. --Laser brain (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Whenever more opinions are needed on a topic, we use that tool called WP:RfC (right?). That way you get the opinion of tentatively neutral editors (at least based on WP:AGF). The purpose of WikiProjects are for like-minded editors to help each other improve articles; not to serve as a tag-team in edit disputes (which breaks WP:GAMING). That is my understanding of what WP:PJ presents. If WikiProjects are going to turn into bases from which people can gather their members for "edit wars" (the exact term used by Lecen), then the whole purpose of them will be shifted towards a Shogunate where the strong WikiProjects impose themselves over the weaker ones (thereby breaking the whole purpose of WikiProjects).
    The interesting thing is that Lecen keeps doing it right in front of our noses (although now using terms like "conflict resolutions" or "dispute resolutions"): (1) [48], (2) [49], (3) [50], etc.
    Then there is also this disturbing discussion he held (or is holding) with another editor, all because he doesn't want other uninvolved editors to get into the discussion: [51]. You add all of this together, and his seemingly sarcastic comment ([52]) is no longer as funny as one might originally think.--MarshalN20 | Talk 04:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point. I agree that we should make clear that WikiProjects should not be used for gathering soldiers. --Laser brain (talk) 04:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    MarshalN20, you said "...which people can gather their members for "edit wars" (the exact term used by Lecen)". Nowhere I ever said that I wished to gather editors to make edit wars. In the link you provided I said that that's "felt when we are stuck in a ridiculous edit war/content dispute with another editor, or when we need reviewers for our articles" and to deal with it "you want comments on an article you wrote, or in a dispute over a content". Laser brain was capable of understanding quite well what I meant, that is, the need for noninvolved third-parties' opinion. I wonder why you insist on fabricating things I never said or misundertanding on purpose what I said. --Lecen (talk) 04:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Reading your complete message (and other messages) provides a clear picture of what you are planning to do with the WikiProject. Let's highlight those interesting bits found in your first statement ([53]),
    • "Being alive it's enough. Jokes aside, he and I are going to create a place for us to help each other. Let's say you want comments on an article you wrote, or in a dispute over a content, or you want us to review something you wrote, things like that. Unfortunately, despite our country's growth in the last 15 years, there are few foreign editors who seem intersted on Brazilian articles. That's more felt when we are stuck in a ridiculous edit war/content dispute with another editor, or when we need reviewers for our articles. We're utterly alone and that's what we want to change."
    The message here is obvious. On the good end, you are mentioning that you want WikiProject Brazil to help with reviews, article improvements, and form a good community of productive editors (nothing wrong with any of that). On the bad end, you are also advocating the usage of WikiProject Brazil as a way for Brazilians (note: "few foreign editors") to collaborate (note: "help each other") on disputes (or what you also call "edit war") against non-member editors (note: "another editor"). Seeing discussions such as Talk:Cisplatine War and Talk:Platine War, and your recent dispute with a neutral bystander ([54]), places it all into context. You are promoting an erroneous foundation for WikiProject Brazil, where Brazilians will work together in "edit wars" in order to prevent non-Brazilian editors from prevailing (note: "we're utterly alone and that's what we want to change").
    If we let your precedent stand, it shall set into motion more serious problems in other WikiProjects. I can already picture the formation of a counter "revival" for WikiProject Argentina (and other WikiProjects) which will turn a system meant for article improvements into a system for "edit warring". Hence, this really needs to be stopped right at the root.
    Of course, that does not mean I think a revival of WikiProject Brazil would be bad (in fact, the good intentions are there); however, the bad intentions are also clearly present in your messages. Whether this means you should be warned, blocked, or clearer policies need to written at WP:PJ; I do not know for sure (that is up for the administrators to decide). That something must be done and said at this time is, nonetheless, undeniable (before a negative chain of events unfolds).--MarshalN20 | Talk 05:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but no one complained about my behavior on the move request at Cisplatine War. On the other hand, two different editors complained about your and Cambalacheiro's behavior [55][56] ("Also, with calling my comment an outright lie, you are again assuming the worst in those who disagree with you. Judicatus just called you out for the same."). And your assumption that I'm planning a mass edit war backed by countless Brazilians who behave as mindless ants makes no sense and it's quite ridiculous. Who I am? Somekind of Messiah? Lastly, Cambalachero opened this ANI as a retaliation for my oppose the move and to his FAC.[[57]] How grown up. --Lecen (talk) 05:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The Talk:Cisplatine War and Talk:Platine War discussions are mentioned to show that you are currently involved in disputes with editors, thereby showing that your messages of "edit war" collaborations are not abstract ideas (but rather concrete and current). No one has complained about my behavior in either of the links you present (why are you trying to mislead others?). What you try to mask off as "ridiculous" is in fact a truth that your behavior and comments validate.
    The actions taken by your friend User:Alarbus may also seem "ridiculous" to anyone (who would be wild enough to create several puppet accounts? It sounds quite silly), but they were true. I am sure the administrators have also seen several "ridiculous" cases which, as it turned out, were realities. In the world of Wikipedia, anything is possible and nothing is ridiculous. In any case, my objective here is to stop the bad intentions associated with your revival of "WikiProject Brazil", and have provided evidence to justify my position. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 06:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, you were advised to report him to the Wikiquette board, which for all intents and purposes seems to be about as useful as a screen door on a submarine, but I felt it should be pointed out. This is where you come to get admin action, not for dispute resolution. Are you suggesting that Lecen needs to be blocked? --Laser brain (talk) 03:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So, given that he was previously blocked for "battleground" mentality, and given that he continues to personally attack users, if I were an administrator then I would block him again. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 14:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I came here to request a block. Lecen has been requested several times, by several users (not just me, and not just now) to be more civil with users that say something he does not agree with. All such requests were received with puns and mockery. In fact, he was blocked by this very same reason just a pair of months ago. Cambalachero (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So, is it just a coincidence that you opened a thread requesting that Lecen be blocked four hours after he cast an Oppose !vote on an article you nominated at FAC? Mark Arsten (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether coincidence or not, that in no way justifies Lecen's behavior. In fact, if Cambalachero simply posted this here in retaliation, it would hold no ground if no evidence existed to justify a block request (and plenty of evidence is there, regardless of how Lecen now tries to mask it). Would Cambalachero answering your question (either yes or no) in any way affect the outcome of this situation? I'd love to hear your response. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 23:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, as someone who has contributed a bit at FAC, I do know how vexing it is when someone criticizes an article you've put a lot of work into. So I can sympathize with Cambalachero here. But, requesting a block of an oppose voter won't really help his article get promoted--so I'd advise him to try to work with oppose voters instead. Try to fix what you can in the article and discuss with the opposition why you think their criticisms are unfounded. (Assuming it's not a coincidence). Coincidences do happen though. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, but wouldn't such a well-intentioned question best be asked directly on Cambalachero's talk page? Right now we're at a point in this discussion where the focus is Lecen's behavior, and (in that context) the question does not fit. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 00:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This has nothing to do with the FAC. Just see the hours and dates: Lecen insults at some place, at some other place, etc, and amid all that (and not as a start), he opposes a FAC. Seems like a clear case of WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Notice as well that he made that review after I reported his massive changes at the NPOV noticeboard (see link at the begining), so if someone did something in "retaliation", it was him. Cambalachero (talk) 03:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to use a modified version of Mark's question: So, is it just a coincidence that Lecen cast an Oppose !vote on an article nominated by Cambalachero at FAC after he opened a thread about Lecen in the NPOV noticeboard? Note: This question has no recommendation purposes for Lecen and, regardless of his answer, is suspicious enough to demonstrate a misuse of the FAC process.--MarshalN20 | Talk 15:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Please look in to blocking Truthcon from editing Bo Lozoff page

    HI. I have been out of the country for several months but when I returned I looked at the Bo Lozoff page again and it seems that Truthcon continues to take off important edits. I looked in to Truthcon's history and it seems he only edits the Bo Lozoff page. I am wondering if he is Bo Lozoff or at least a personal friend. I would like to request that he be banned from editing that page. It looks like he was already blocked from editing the page last year but it was only for a week. He is back at the editing wars. Can someone at least look in to this? Thank you. Molliegiles (talk) 02:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This is truthcon, and I edited a very small portion of the text that claims Bo Lozoff has admitted to any allegations that he abused anyone, verbally or sexually. Lozoff was very clear in the referenced article that he never abused anyone. The word "abused" is the key conflict here. The former edit clearly suggests he admitted to many allegations of abuse. He did not. He admitted to controversial and inconventional behavior and firmly denied ever being abusive.Truthcon (talk) 11:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Wrong place yes but I have noticed that both editors have no article space edits aside from Bo Lozoff, both editors in the past have been blocked for actions related to this article and one of them has "truth" in his username which is usually a red flag for narrow interest accounts. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I was told to take it here months ago (but then I went out of the country) by JFHJR . His email said: "Hi. I saw your post at the Bo Lozoff talk page, and though I think you meant well and raise valid concerns, you should instead post at WP:ANI or at WP:BLPN because you're discussing the behavior of another editor, not particularly the subject of the article or any of its contents. I've removed your comment from the talk page, but please don't take it personally. I'll keep an eye on ANI and BLPN, in case there's a way that I can help you further. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 19:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)" Was he wrong as well? I am not actually disputing that one particular thing, just noticing a pattern of Truthcon taking out or editing things others have put up on the page. If you look in to the history of the page you can see all of the edits Truthcon has made, including trying to take off important articles that help reference the page. I am no longer editing the page, nor do I want to, but I am not sure Truthcon should either. I just would like a few people to check in to it. Thanks! Molliegiles (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Having some experience on this article and, in particular, with Truthcon, I can say that in the past his editing style has been very problematic. Previously he has simply blanked content without even attempting to engage in any discussion. The positive change in that regard is promising, and I do believe that Truthcon is capable of participating in consensus editing. That said, he has admitted to a conflict of interest concerning the article, which seems to be at least as relevant as any Molliegiles may have on the basis of her expertise concerning certain disputed content, which is as far as I can tell the sole reason for which she has been asked not to edit the article, which does not make sense to me. To me, Molliegiles has been very reasonable and compliant with admin requests, to the extent that she has understood what is going on, being new to Wikipedia. Her treatment by admins so far seems to me a significant failure of WP:Bite. I don't think that she should remain blocked if Truthcon is allowed to continue editing. Floorsheim (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • For clarity, Molliegiles isn't blocked per se [59], although the unblock was conditional on not editing the article, only the talk page. In the 3 months since being unblocked, I don't see a single edit to any article, and the few user talk page additions are about this subject. That bugs me a little via WP:HERE. They say they have been out of the country for "several months", and I believe them, but it would be easier to agree if they were actually doing something besides editing or commenting on this one article. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • And ditto for Truthcon who seems to be here to give us the "truth" about Bo Lozoff. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nicely put, Ron Ritzman. The double standard regarding these two users is really what I object to. Thanks, Dennis Brown, for the clarification, but in effect, that means she is not permitted to edit the article. However, Truthcon is only interested in participating on this article as well, but he is treated differently. Why? --Floorsheim (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Truthcon violated WP:3RR (removing negative unsourced BLP info) and blocked for one week. Seems perfectly fine. Molliegiles was indef'ed for negative BLP info without sources after being given a few warnings. Completely different situations. Molliegiles was taken off indef and given this one restriction just two days after the block. I don't see anything inappropriate in the admin actions here, even if some might not have done the indef. If Molliegiles was editing a variety of articles and asked to be able to edit this article again after a probationary period, likely it would be approved, but that isn't the case. Having a single purpose account (or having a conflict of interest) isn't against policy here, its what you do with it that matters. You could always ask the blocking admin his thoughts on the matter. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Check the diffs. The content Truthcon was removing when he was blocked was sourced. As recently as Wednesday, April 11, he has done the same. Truthcon's first warning came five days before he was blocked for one week (and a year prior to the most recent removal). Molliegiles's came just over an hour before she was blocked indefinitely. Is it possible that she never saw the warning or that she didn't fully understand it? After all, she says she does have sources for the information she added. Could it be that she wasn't aware what Wikipedia's standards for viable sources are? Wouldn't a better condition on her unblocking be to point her to WP:RELIABLE and ask her not to add negative information that does not meet its standards anymore than to require her never to edit the article again? Based on her tone, it seems to me she would be happy to comply with the former. I think admins previously involved have mistaken unfamiliarity with Wikipedia on Molliegiles's part for bad faith, which is not consistent with WP:Bite or WP:Assume. If I had been treated like her, I probably wouldn't be that interested in editing any more articles, either. --Floorsheim (talk) 01:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, a topic that you could take up with the closing administrator first. If he agrees, then problem solved, if not and you feel that strongly about it, then you could initiate separate action. This is a bit outside of the scope of this discussion, however. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then I think that Molliegiles should open a separate request at WP:AN, rather than WP:ANI, to request the restriction be lifted. I still feel it would be better to wait until they have at least 3 months of edits in other areas first, both to show that the editor has dealt with the issues of previous BLP violations, and to offer a better chance of it actually passing, but that is just my opinion. This kind of action should be initiated by her, not tacked onto a pre-existing ANI, particularly since we would be overriding an valid action by an admin who isn't here to participate. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you all for weighing in. Please don't bother too much about me being blocked for good from this page. I understand why it was done and think that since I do have a conflict of interest it is probably best that I don't edit it. I just wanted to make people aware of Truthcon and his edits. It seems like Floorsheim has been aware and has worked with Truthcon, so perhaps he will be comply with the rules now. I just wanted some awareness is all. Thank you for that. Also, for the record, I am interested in editing other pages, however, it was this page that brought me to Wikipedia in the first place. I do love what you all do and hope to contribute to other pages. Though I must say it isn't an easy site to navigate and I seem to screw up often so that is a little intimidating. Thank you again for discussing this issue. Molliegiles (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • You might consider mentoring. This will help you get started in the right direction in regards to guidelines. Yes, it is confusing at first, but the standards are high, and I think Wikipedia is a reliable source of information because of it. I've been a small part of Wikipedia for over 5 years, and find it very rewarding, hopefully you will, too. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your positive attitude is noted and, to me, suggests further that, now that you're more familiar with the rules, you would be a positive contributor to the Bo Lozoff article. As Dennis Brown has pointed out, single purpose editing, while not encouraged, is not actually against the rules at Wikipedia despite what others have said. What is against the rules is editing for the purpose of advocacy, etc. As long as your interest is simply to see that properly sourced information is included in the article, which as far as I can tell it is, you should be welcome to edit the article. --Floorsheim (talk) 01:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, as Dennis Brown also points out, conflict of interest editing, while discouraged, is not officially against the rules, either--especially if the result of not doing in it is that properly sourced information is excluded from an article, cf. WP:IGNORE. --Floorsheim (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Inappropriate signing/impersonation by IP user

    User:221.244.40.2 has been adding added incoherent comments to article talk pages and signing them using an unrelated user's (User:Circeus) signature (here and here, and even re-adding the faked signature here). User:Circeus confirms that the IP user is maliciously using his user name (User talk:Circeus#Japanese IP editor adding your name to Talk page comments), and this is a long-term problem, and a slightly different Japanese IP User:221.244.40.2 User:219.23.5.48 was blocked for exactly the same long-term pattern of disruptive behaviour. --DAJF (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I've given him three days off. I don't know how quickly the IP rotates, you'll have to tell me if he comes back. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:A Quest For Knowledge and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

    WP:WQA is thataway. If that doesn't work, report here again, but try there first. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    There has been a rather convoluted discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#IRmep:_actual_reliable_source_evidence_re:_FOIA_docs in the course of which A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs) and myself had a sprited discussion about a point of interpretation of WP:SPS. Unfortunately he chose to frame his response in terms of my personal conduct -- I made it plain [60], [61] that I would regard similar personal attacks as harassment. He has now returned to the attack at the same board, with this [62] in which he blames me personally for any confusion in the discussion. This is unwarranted (I am not to blame for the confusion), a clear personal attack (he describes me as "the culprit" as well as accusing me of mistake and blunders), and harassment (in the face of my clear warning to cease from commenting on my conduct). Could someone please persuade him not to harass me in this way? Cusop Dingle (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Low level demeaning comments , although when used to demean an editor they are in a content dispute/discussion with, when they are repeated and over a period of time are a form of bullying - if, as appears in your diffs presented, discussion with the user has had no benefit then Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance - is your next location to report. Youreallycan 16:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Youreallycan. I've breezed through the discussion and didn't see anything particularly offensive. It is rude, but conversations get heated at times. The best thing to do is not try to "one up" the other, and hopefully things will settle down. Otherwise, at this level of comment, Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance is the solution if it continues. Unfortunately, we all have to tolerate a degree of rudeness in complicated discussions sometimes. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    "we all have to tolerate a degree of rudeness in complicated discussions sometimes". No, we don't have to tolerate rudeness, and we certainly don't have to tolerate harassment. [63] Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry this has happened. Rudeness and especially harassment which is usually deliberate aren't acceptable, and every time we look the other way we give permission for someone somewhere to experience more of the same.(olive (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

    Agreed and agreed, but the place to go for this is WP:WQA, not WP:AN/I. AN/I should be contacted in cases like this only if and when an attempt at WQA has failed (or, of course, in particulary egrerious cases where PA, not WQ, is the operative thing). - The Bushranger One ping only 21:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Troublesome user in an RfC

    WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Sometimes SPI takes a little while. Patience, young grasshopper. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    magic eight ball The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says: says LHirsig is a sock --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi. I don't really have time to go into the entire background of this, but basically we have a problem with a socking user (currently editing as User:LHirsig) on the Major depressive disorder talk page. The user in question initiated an RfC, which is fine, but his conduct towards myself has become increasingly aggressive as the debate turns against him. I've ignored it up to this point, but I'm now bored of the disruption and feel he's quite severely in breach of WP:NPA and possibly WP:OUTING. Can an administrator look at the RfC on that page and take appropriate action, please? Many thanks Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 17:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't see the problem. He has one misunderstanding with one other editor, he struck his comment after seeing how it could be taken wrong, the other editor was happy with the result. If anything, I found your comments from the beginning to be quite condescending, like you were talking down to everyone. Feel free to provide a diff if I've missed anything, but you seem to be the most "snippy" person in that conversation. No action needed for any editor, imo. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry if my tone came across as condescending. I have little time for socks, but I will take your comment on board. In terms of diffs, I would consider parts of the first paragraph of this comment to be a personal attack (particularly the part implying that I should identify myself so that those seeking healthcare in the region in which I work can avoid me), to quote one example. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 18:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict):I second User:Basalisk's concerns. While providing third-party input in this RfC thread I tried to reason with LHirsig on the subject of civility. LHirsig was civil towards me, but imo repeatedly uncivil in a pointedly personal way towards User:Basalisk. I felt the need to remind LHirsig about WP:NPA, and I too have some concerns about WP:OUTING in particular, as well as WP:THREAT (however implausible the latter may be). LHirsig obviously feels very strongly about a certain cause, but somehow lets that overflow into some rather ambiguous behaviour, to say the least, which imo is also disruptive. I would suggest a topic ban regarding articles relating to Vincent van Gogh and Medicine. (On a personal note, my experiences on this matter this morning, partially due to my difficulties in spotting a reference to "bitches" -- not LHirsig's fault -- prompted me to leave off editing for today at least.) —MistyMorn (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict):I've just reread the part of the thread I was involved in. This morning I got concerned about a possible threat, which turned out to be completely innocent. What had raised my hackles in this way was LHirsig's tendency to question Basalisk's competence as part of the "real" medical community. Since I feel that questioning someone's professional standing is tantamount to a personal attack I have tried to persuade LHirsig to be more careful when wording her comments, as they seemed to me ambiguous. Since I am unable to say what the intentions were behind the comments, I must assume good faith. —MistyMorn (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • You already have an SPI case open [64] (you should have linked that), and I have no idea if he is a sock or not. Regardless, that is beyond the scope of ANI, excepting cases more obvious than this. Assuming that he isn't a sock, then nothing at the discussion page warrants blocking or topic banning. If he is a sock, then it will be dealt with at SPI. Trying to get a user blocked in multiple venues is problematic, at best, as you created twice the administrative work for one problem editor, and you create confusion. You also create the impression that you are shaking the Magic 8 Ball until you get an answer you like. SPI is still your best solution, although the case is 4 days old there. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    WP:Deletion review for Slade Douglas

    Wrong venue, This is WP:ANI, please go to WP:DRV and proceed. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Adm...Malik Shabaz delete an article for a reason that was not valid as he/she stated, "it was due to prior discussion". This was a new article and had reliable source as the old one he/she referenced did not and as a result was rejected. As you noticed in their reply they refused to acknowledge the reliable source and attempted to perform a side show by reference something they could have simple removed from the article. It's amazing that certain users act in such bad faith and do not state the facts whereas based on wikipedia guidelines first attempt should be to assist the article and not delete it. A reply was made to Malik Shabaz in reference to the article "I will be sure to do that Malik Shabazz as clearly under notability guideline it states, "Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team". It strange that you reference the old and new article but not the reliable source on the new article as with the old article it reference ESPN but did not have a reliable source thus causing it to be deleted however as one can see the new article includes reliable source, (Feldman, Bruce "Blitz Package" May, 1, 2000) and for some reason you selected chose not to reference it as a source but Sandra Rose blog, this is clearly unreasonable considering all you had to do was remove the "He is currently a Los Angeles-based celebrity personal trainer". If you felt that way however the other information does meet the guideline according to WP:ATHLETE, Wikipedia's relevant notability guideline. Also your reason for deleting it was not accurate neither. I will take it to the WP:Deletion review since you have decided not to act in good faith in terms of your actions for deleting the article in the first place". Please read complete dialect below and clearly we both can agree that Malik Shabazz actions were not in good faith as he/she deliberately tried to conceal information that made the article meet the notability guideline. "Gained national media attention as an individual"..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandy 98 98 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    pasted discussion
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    A recent article was deleted about subject Slade Douglas, the reason for the deletion according to you was due to a prior discussion. However, the article was a completely different article as suppose to your reason for deletion. The article that you had reference was from 2010 as this article was indexed on/about Nov. 2011 about former American football running back. This is clearly an error and this is a respectful request for you to reconsider your stance.

    Per index: 03:54, 11 April 2012 Malik Shabazz (talk | contribs) deleted page Slade Douglas (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion (CSDH)) 01:23, 5 June 2010 JForget (talk | contribs) deleted page Slade Douglas (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slade Douglas) 07:14, 29 May 2010 Wrinkle8 (talk | contribs) moved page Slade Douglas to Slade Douglas (Personal Trainer) 07:08, 29 May 2010 Wrinkle8 (talk | contribs) moved page Slade Douglas to SladeDouglas

    However the article that you removed had nothing to do with the one you referenced as (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion (CSDH))

    The article you deleted was by User:WikiWriterWikiWriter/Slade Douglas which was indexed 1 November 2011 at 20:45 Please view below

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slade_Douglas

    Slade Douglas (born in Rockingham, NC) is a former American football running back and track and field sprinter for the Florida State Seminoles and a veteran of the US Armed Forces. He is currently a Los Angeles-based celebrity personal trainer. In Douglas's junior year at Florida State, he had a stand-out performance in the Seminoles' spring football game (three carries for 45 yards), prompting ESPN the Magazine to declare, "the defending national champions have a new weapon."

    The article also included reliable sources and was never put up for deletion as reference by you for your reason of deletion.

    Thanks for your assistance as we look forward to your reconsideration. As any and all assistance would be greatly appreciated. 74.126.231.189 (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.126.231.189 (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I reviewed both articles carefully before I deleted the new version. The problem with the old article was that Slade Douglas didn't satisfy WP:ATHLETE, Wikipedia's relevant notability guideline. That problem wasn't fixed in the new version. The wording was slightly different, but both articles referred to ESPN the Magazine and its appraisal of Mr. Douglas.
    As far as reliable sources are concerned, Sandra Rose's blog isn't a reliable source. As I wrote, both articles referred to ESPN the Magazine.
    If you feel I've made a mistake here, please bring the matter to WP:Deletion review. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I will be sure to do that Malik Shabazz as clearly under notability guideline it states, "Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team". It strange that you reference the old and new article but not the reliable source on the new article as with the old article it reference ESPN but did not have a reliable source as the source was indeed cited, (Feldman, Bruce "Blitz Package" May, 1, 2000) and for some reason you selected chose not to reference it as a source but Sandra Rose blog, this is clearly unreasonable considering all you had to do was remove the "He is currently a Los Angeles-based celebrity personal trainer". If you felt that way however the other information does meet the guideline according to WP:ATHLETE, Wikipedia's relevant notability guideline. Also your reason for deleting it was not accurate neither. I will take it to the WP:Deletion review since you have decided not to act in good faith in terms of your actions for deleting the article in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandy 98 98 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This isn't deletion review. You should see the instructions at WP:DRV. Equazcion (talk) 18:02, 14 Apr 2012 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Changez121

    User:Changez121. This new account user (regular IP editor, I suspect) is making large scale additions to Indian soap opera pages of highly detailed storyline updates (36 000 bytes) in a blog/texting style, removing valid page tags, pasting copyrighted lyrics and generally all ignoring guidelines. He/she has had multiple warnings. Please intervene. Thanks. Span (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This is an extremely new account and he now has a good number of warnings. Does someone want to post on his talkpage offering to give him a hand with his editing - I think this is just cluelessness, not anything worse. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Spangle, you are correct about the copyright violations. I have removed three -- so far -- and added a warning about this issue. I didn't see any previous warning about this. And, as EotR says, unfortunately, copyvios are not unusual for an account only a few days old. Let's wait and see what happens. However, if there is any repetition of copyvios, the user will need to be blocked. — CactusWriter (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    My sense is that this is an experienced editor previously worked as an IP working on soap operas, possibly now blocked. They know what they're doing. I think they're ignoring guidelines and warnings and treating WP like a personal blog. Span (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Span (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep an eye on things - if the copyvios continue, that will need some prompt action. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The user has now been blocked as a sock. — CactusWriter (talk) 02:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This new account suddenly appeared re-adding Changez's edits. Seems like a sock. Span (talk) 10:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sign the talk page and/or give the exact URL in your ANI Notice here. A newbie (if he a newbie) may face trouble to understand and find the admin discussion). User_talk:CIDss#ANI --Tito Dutta (Message) 13:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed the same thing when looking at WP:RFP/C. They both made similar requests there. WP:RFP/C#User:Changez121 and WP:RFP/C#User:CIDss. Looks like a duck from that standpoint. GB fan 14:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello,I'm not a sock puppets of any user and please don't block me my contributions are good and i've created an article Deepika Singh which is also liked and I Luv editing Wikipedia and i promise that i won't disturb any page and will be a better encylopedia and a better editor Thanx...— Preceding unsigned comment added by CIDss (talk • contribs) 14:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    An obvious duck. Given the obvious similarities in language between CIDss first edit [65] (a request for permission) and User:Changez121 first edit [66] (a request for permission) as well as the similar pattern of copyvio contributions, I have blocked CIDss as a sock. — CactusWriter (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Urgent semi needed for Modern Apizza

    Resolved
     – Protected for a month. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Long-term spammer using various distant IPs and spamming the same link, blocking is not enough. Requesting an indefinite semi-protection because this of this. RPP is wayyy too slow - it's too backlogged right now.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The admins again appear to be out for the weekend. I posted an RFPP a day ago and no action of any kind has been taken on it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I request that the YouTube link be blacklisted at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. I've already blacklisted it on MediaWiki.org, for reference.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Jim Hardie

    WP:SPI is the proper place to report sockpuppets, not WP:ANI. Nothing to be done here. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    reference Jim Hardie BlackJack JamesJJames I ran the Turmitin anti plagiarism software through a range of edits by this sockpuppet and it showed either a 'good' or 'strong' correlation between these three editors. There are one and the same person. Recall JamesJJames is an admitted sockpuppet of BlackJack. I wonder what more evidence you want.

    WP:SPI is that-a-way ... Pesky (talk) 10:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Same IP tried it on at Talk:SPI yesterday and was advised to file a SPI then. They seem to be pushing this everywhere except the right venue. --GenericBob (talk) 10:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Making the most vast assumption of good faith of which I am currently capable, they may be having trouble with the process of actually filing a case. Having never done so myself, I have no idea how muddly it might be. Pesky (talk) 10:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:New questions

    I am bringing this up here as I believe it needs to be noted. I recently brought it up on the user's talk page about the notability of an article he created, Gensokyo, which describes a fictional setting. This incited him to nominate the article for deletion, and after a few days of being up against several editors expressing concern about the topic's notability, said user began nominating other setting articles in what I believe is to prove a point regarding the notability of such articles on Wikipedia. Specifically, I believe this user is doing exactly what is written at the top of the examples. So far the user has nominated these AFDs:

    1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of locations in Atlas Shrugged
    2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of places in the Firebird series
    3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of A Series of Unfortunate Events locations
    4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Places of Dragon Prince

    And has proded several others: List of Dragonlance locations, List of Record of Lodoss War locations, List of Doctors locations.

    The user gave a comment on one of the AFDs which echos my, and others', comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gensokyo, and the rationales of the four current AFDs are given roughly the same rationale, doing to exact opposite of what it says not to do at the top of the examples. I, and another editor, User:Narutolovehinata5, asked the editor not to do this several times during the discussion: [67], [68], [69], and I believe the user will continue based on this comment. I also suggested to the user that merging in lieu of deletion reduces the number of AFD nominations. When another user contested the prod of Places of Dragon Prince with the comment "room here for a merge if nothing else", New questions nominated it for deletion, and in doing so, completely discounted the possibility for a merge into Dragon Prince and Dragon Star trilogies in order to further prove his point.--十八 11:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Those AfDs should all be merged together into a single group nomination, possibly along with future such nominations. You could note to the user WP:Summary style, which describes the way non-notable topics can become articles for logistical reasons -- they were split from articles that grew too large -- "List of locations in Atlas Shrugged" isn't notable alone, but it should be considered at part of Atlas Shrugged, the notable topic that, if merged with its sub-articles, would just be too long. Equazcion (talk) 11:17, 15 Apr 2012 (UTC)

    I'm afraid this could be my fault. I was the first one to suggest nominating articles for deletion. However, I did warn him that he should not do so to prove a point, and later told him not to nominate any further articles until the AfD is closed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that when I compared the article to other articles, concerns about notability of those other articles were expressed, and there was an opinion expressed that they would not survive AfD. I myself examined them thoroughly, and found them to be less notable than the Gensokyo article, and found them to have more problems in my own opinion, but since Juhachi did contribute to my reasoning, I duly noted that. Regarding Equazcion's suggestion that they be grouped together into a single AfD, I am not exactly sure what is the correct procedure for merging AfD nominations, although it should be noted that those AfD nominations were done on different days, so merging them will have to shift the days of some of those AfDs. In any case, I do not quite know why Juhachi is complaining about those AfD nominations since I think I already explained why those AfD nominations were done based on my own judgment rather than simply echoing what Juhachi has said.--New questions? 18:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Watchlist spam

    There is currently a watchlist notice that reads something like,

    The annual Wakefield Show invites you to share your knowledge of Acorn Computers and RISC OS with Wikipedia (entrance fee £5)

    except that the external link is formatted as oan internal one. I think this should be removed as advertising but it does not appear at MediaWiki:Watchlist-details. Anyone know where the source is located? For information, I have also started a VP thread proposing that there should be a guideline for watchilst notices. SpinningSpark 11:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmmm...It doesn't appear on my watchlist. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm assuming it's a UK-only notice. Equazcion (talk) 11:57, 15 Apr 2012 (UTC)
    Good point. I'm in the US. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's a geonotice. I've removed it now, let's see if anyone complains. SpinningSpark 12:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I found this thread enlightening . The admin in question approved the request based on discussion here. As a courtesy, I've left him a notice of this discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the suggestion at VP of a little guidance will fix this. There's no villainy here. It's not like it's advertising Mousecorp - it's the type of show put on by a local club at a Town Hall, with the suggestion that a bunch of editors meet up there. It's just phrased badly. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletion of old versions of my userpage

    Task completed by Boing! said Zebedee. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hello, could someone please delete the old versions of my user page up to (and including) this one [70], for anonymity. Thanks. --Pevos (talk) 12:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. I've actually deleted all versions up to and including 3 January 2012. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Ban proposal for User Bertrand101

    Fellow Wikipedians, It is with pleasure to announce that I am proposing a ban for Bertrand101 (talk · contribs), as he is nothing more than a sock-puppeting troll who's main intention isn't to contribute well to Wikipedia, but to destroy it to smithereens. Ever since his indefinite block, he's been doing nothing but restorting to Sockpuppetry, adding hoaxes, major disruptive editing and nothing more than pure troll-business. In my opinion, this is nothing more than a problematic editor and it's disappointing that such a disruptive editor was never banned in the first place. Hence I believe the community needs to step up and collectively say "you're done here" through establishing consensus for a full ban on him. Soviet King In Soviet Russia, page edit you! 12:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    ClaudioSantos

    As a result of this discussion at ANI, ClaudioSantos was topic banned for "a period of six months to include Abortion, Planned Parenthood, Eugenics, and Nazi related topics, broadly construed, including all biographies of notable persons involved in such subjects, broadly construed. This would include editing any section of of any biographies that deal with said subjects." This topic ban expired on April 12, 2012. On that very day, ClaudioSantos immediately returned to the subject area at Eugenics in the United States. In this edit he re-added a section to the article that had just been removed and for which a discussion was in progress on the article talk page. Note that this re-addition was before he joined that discussion a few minutes later. Still, the edit added information and sources, so not too terrible. Discussion proceeded on the talk page for a few hours, but no consensus was reached (leaving non-inclusion of the info as the default, since that was the state of the article prior to the start of the proto-edit war). While CS continued the discussion, rather than seeking dispute resolution when there was no sudden consensus for his version, about 1 day later he re-inserted the section (in this edit).

    If this were most other editors, this would be trivial--CS didn't even violate 1RR. But the fact that his very first series of edits into the topic consisted of reverting against consensus and essentially asserting his opinion in spite of solid rationale against it on talk (see Talk:Eugenics in the United States#Tuskegee syphilis experiment). I simply don't see how this can possibly lead to anything good. This editor has been blocked numerous times before in this general topic area in addition to the six month topic ban. To me, the immediate battleground return just indicates that this editor still does not get it.

    Actually, I just spotted one more thing: this discussion about possibly including this material actually began on March 17. That very same day, ClaudioSantos made edits to his user sandbox User:ClaudioSantos/Archives/Euthanazia. These edits added the references that he would later add to the Eugenics in the United States article. In other words, during his topic ban, he was still waiting and watching at least some of the articles he was banned from, and thus why the very moment the topic ban expired, he was able to jump in with a fully formed set of edits.

    I don't see any sense in counseling, warning, waiting to see how he proceeds. This user clearly has a problem in this topic area. I believe that either a permanent topic ban or an indefinite block are in order. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    So let me get this straight. There's a discussion going on at the talkpage, after Night of the Big Wind removed an earlier inclusion of this information in discussion with the editor who added it. And, ignoring that, Claudio Santos goes straight in and adds his version, then re-adds it after Binksternet reverts him, claiming he has consensus for the addition on the talkpage. Which he doesn't, as far as I can see from reading the talkpage. He's the only one supporting his view. If it wasn't that he hasn't added it again, after the second revert on the 13th, I'd indefblock him now. As it is, let's see what the community opinion is. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Not me but User:Trilobitealive was the one who firstly included the material and brought the sources, and he always and he still supports the inclusion of the content[71]. He have always argued for the inclusion of the contents. He did not reinserted those contents because he said he could have a COI[72] so he prefered that the other users do so. I have been very cautious to not engage in any personalized discussion, I have documented each of my comments in the talk page with reliable sources (see for example [73]), and basicaly I was solely providing reliable sources to support Trilobitealive's version or edits and the own sources he brougth firstly. After the first revert by Binksternet, I have quoted the sources to explain why the contents brought by Trilobitealive should still be included and I have waited more than 24 hours but nobody refused[74], so I reinserted the material, but as I was reverted by NightOfTheBigWind, then I have keep the thing in the discussion page until now. So first notice that I am not the only one arguing for the inclusion and also notice that Trilobitealive and me, those who support the inclusion of the contents, we are the only users who have suported each one of our arguments with solid sources, while the other users who are against the inclusion, they have not provided any source to support their position and moreover one of them just keep referring to me with a sort of PA for he was blocked[75][76] and comments focused on my past ban, thus off topics comments about me, that I have not responded. Instead of responding those PAs and personalized comments, I have kept in the talk page arguing to support and endorse Trilobitealive position and providing more reliable sources for that (please check the thread). I guess my previous ban, that I have respected, was for 6 months and not forever and was mainly because of reproaches about a sort of warrior approach and personalized discussion with some users for example NightOfTheBigWind here involved, I thought I was now doing the correct thing not responding his comments about my person. And let my clear it up: I have never inserted the material claiming that there was a consensus in the talk page, but if you read the thread: Binksternet who was against the inclusion nevertheless he has a doubt about what the sources really say so he asked someone to quote them[77], so I thought there was not consensus but doubts and questions, so I did verified and cited the sources brought by Trilobitealive and I have provided and quoted two new sources which supported the inclusion of the material brought by Trilobitealive and expanded the material, so I thought it could be included again, so I did (and may be I was bold). -- ClaudioSantos¿? 17:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't read every detail, but if User:ClaudioSantos was subject to a topic ban (just expired)[78], and he is still causing issue in the topic area, perhaps the real problem is that the ban wasn't long enough. Considering the editor's long history of being blocked [79] for warring and 3RR, the likelihood of future disruption is high enough that topic indef may be in order. Noting that the editor has managed to keep notes [80] regarding the topic makes me think there is an obsession with the topic that makes objectivity difficult, at best. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    But you are assuming that I am causing problems without reading the thread (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eugenics_in_the_United_States#Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment) nor my explanations here!!! To be topic banned does not mean that I must also not read that topic nor investigate and check the sources brought by other users. Please read the thread I have been very cautious to not engage in any personalized discussion and I have solely supported and endorsed a position and the inclusion of a material which was brougth by another user, not by me. Why this material which was brought by another user is "causing an issue"? solely because I had a topic ban before and now I am the one who endorse another users edits by quoting his sources and providing other reliable sources that support his edits? And let me notice: Binksternet who is involved in the discussion and is against the inclusion of the material brought by Trilobitealive and Trilobitealive who is of course in favor of the inclusion like me, none of them who are the other two users involved in the talk discussion, none of them have mentioned in that dicsussion page nor they have commented in my talk page, nor they have opened at the ANI any reproach indicating that I am causing an "issue in the topic". Please read the thread. -- 17:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
    • It may be difficult to work with ClaudioSantos because maybe his views aren't popular, but is sounds like he's been obedient in abiding by the topic ban. He sounds upset above (which shouldn't be surprising, really), but he also seems to be communicative. If there's a content issue, can't it be worked out on the talkpage? Pre-emptive blocks or bans seem... less than optimal, to me. @ClaudioSantos, I'd (highly) recommend a self imposed 0RR (aside from vandalism, obviously), simply based on your history.
      — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I can deal with that and effort myself to keep an 0RR. Actually I was assuming a 1RR and as you can see most of my edits are in the talk page. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 18:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • A quick glance seems to end in this conclusion - CS is able to abide by a topic ban, but without a topic ban becomes somewhat problemnatic. Therefore would it not be logical to extend an indefinite topic ban? GiantSnowman 19:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    How am I being problematic? I myself asked[81] the admin Qwyrxian (who opened this ANI thread) to check and keep an eye on the thread at Talk:Eugenics in the United States#Tuskegee syphilis experiment because I was not dispossed at all to engage in any personal discussions with any user as far as I was concerned due there was an user in that discussion basically referring to my past topic ban or referring to me, instead of he keeps discussing the topic and instead of he keeps sticked to the content dispute resolution. There was other users involved. None of these users involved in the discussion reproached any concern indicating that I was being problematic. So, I am surprised that my efforts to keeep discussing and sticked to the topic and my efforts to keep a self-impossed 1RR and my call for an admin-scrutiny of the discussion in order to avoid wars and personal discussions, ironically those efforts turns immediately into this ANI asking for a indefinite ban against me precisely asked for the admin who I called up to keep an eye in the discussion[82]. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 19:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Kkm010

    I have a number of concerns about the above editor.

    1. If their edits are reverted, they invariably simply make exactly the same change again in an attempt to impose the change. They have made their "Go * yourself" attitude quite clear on their Talk page: User talk:Kkm010#Very tedious behavior.

    2. Despite having been warned about this in the past, they continue to not use edit summaries, to mark non-minor edits as minor, and to use misleading summaries e.g. [83] and User talk:Kkm010#I object to several of your "minor" edits.

    3. Copying another user's signature, agreeing to change it, and then failing to do so: User talk:Kkm010#Your signature.

    4. Admiting to deliberately unconstructive behaviour: User talk:Kkm010#?

    Please can someone kindly ask this editor to respect the Bold-Revert-Discuss cycle, to use edit summaries properly, and to generally get their act together.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I can block both of you for a WP:LAME edit war if you like. And I don't believe the guy is forging BWilkins signature - it very clearly said his name, and linked to his userspace. His "crime" was lacking the courtesy to credit where he got it from, as BWilkins also told you [84].Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice. The issue of the user signature was to evidence competence issues, which this user clearly has, not an effort by the user at deception. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it is a bit of a lame argument you two are having. I agree he's not the world's most competent editor, but reporting a list of fairly trivial problems rarely goes down well here, especially when the filing party is edit warring with the listed party over whether a company that makes computer hardware can be described as being in the computer hardware business.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Roads (talk • contribs)
    My timing in coming here was I agree not the brightest from a tactical perspective. However it was not motivated purely or even mainly by the immediate difference of opinion which I have with this editor regarding the ASUS article - which comes down to a subjective issue as to whether the correct industry label is 'computer hardware' or 'information technology' (and I do have good reasons for my view) - but as much by a rising level of frustration borne of my very frequently having to spend time reverting pointless, low-quality and incorrect edits made by them. Their then resorting to edit warring to impose changes (and flat out telling me that they weren't interested in discussing the change) is merely the icing on the cake. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Just passing through, totally agree with Elen's comment and the other editor's classifying of ASUS as a computer hardware company, IT is way too overarching, ASUS make computer hardware, so where's the problem? Watch out for that flying piece of wood. CaptainScreebo Parley! 18:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The company also makes mobile phones, smartphones and networking equipment. Take a read of their annual report: [85]. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Abuse of Autoreviewer Rights

    WP:NMOTORSPORT would suggest notability, and he does provide one source. It's another situation where the question is - is it better to have a pile of stub articles, or is it better to have fewer, better articles. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you sure about notability? Of course people who have competed in MotoGP are probably notable, but these mostly haven't; they have only ever ridden in the "minor" leagues of Moto2 or Moto3, which aren't fully professional. I would have thought that these don't pass WP:NMOTORSPORT - anyone with more knowledge of the subject shed any light? Black Kite (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought the source was saying they had competed in Grands Prix, but I only looked at Álvaro Molina. If they've only competed in the second division, I'd say probably not. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    According to that data, Molina has only ever competed in Moto2 and 3 (250cc and 125cc). MotoGP is 990cc. Black Kite (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Second-level series are a bit murky at times, but certainly don't pass the "competed in one event at the top level" standards (bit tautological there!). I'd say that MotoGP riders = notable, Moto2/Moto3 riders = possibly notable (per WP:GNG like everyone else!). - The Bushranger One ping only 17:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering I got my autopatrolled rights revoked, seemingly on a whim and in the middle of a dispute, I'm curious as to why this user's rights haven't been removed yet, either... (oh, and incidentally, did anyone ask or notify Fastily (talk · contribs) about this?)
      — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Given that a further look at the articles reveals poor formatting, typos, 404 links and content which is effectively completely copied from a third party website, I have removed the user's autopatrolled status. I will inform them, though they appear to use talkpages very minimally. Black Kite (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The user also does not seem to pay heed to so many deletion notifications on his talk page. besides with a speed of 1 to 2 articles per minute its obvious that he is creating articles for all the persons listed on that site with no second thoughts about notable or guidelines, Thanks for looking into the matter, but some one interested would want to take a look at the articles that had been created as they have not been patrolled. (is there a way to mark the articles as unpatrolled again ? )-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 19:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Ed Schultz‎

    Nearly 24 hours ago I asked for temp. semi-protection of this article, due to continual BLP-questionable postings by IP's who continue to refuse to discuss their edit-warring. Someone, please take some action on this request. Thank you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd do it, but I don't see what's wrong with the info that the IP is trying to add. Could you explain. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say that a claim that Schultz had a conflict of interest in money he'd received, sourced only to a blog, was definitely worth removing. Not sure about the stuff that's sourced to Huffington. Black Kite (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The attempts to add various negative stuff were initiated on the grounds that the article is "biased", which is POV-pushers' code for "it's not negative enough". And the IPs' argument "What's there to discuss?" in the edit summary is a promise to continue edit-warring. Semi-protect the page for awhile, and they'll be compelled to take it to the talk page. Or they'll move on to the next thing they feel like edit-warring about. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I semi'd it for one day to sort it out. RxS (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. We'll see how it goes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Harrasment via English Wikipedia e-mail system

    User:Velimir Ivanovic sent me today an e-mail via English Wikipedia mailing system, insulting me. He is already banned from Serbian Wikipedia bacause of insulting other users and disruptive bahavior. We all really tried to make him understand that his ways are not welcome, but he wouldn't listen, and in the end, admins had to ban him for good from Serbian Wikipedia. Now he is using his global account to continue with his disruptive behavior in other language Wikipedias. I would like to ask some admin action that would prevent him from doing this, please. Thanks. --Maduixa (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked indefinitely without email access. Besides the customary block template, I copied text from sr:Template:искључивани корисник, so he would be able to know what's going on in Српски. Nyttend (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the quick response. I do appreciate. --Maduixa (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Are they any relation to this guy? --‖ Ebyabe talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 19:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No clue; Velimir appears to be a common first name, and Ivanović (How do I type that extended character?) or Ivanovich is a common Slavic surname. Nyttend (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think so. According to the conclusions we could draw from his behavior, he is just a primary school kid. Hope he grows up a little very soon. BTW, his sockpuppet Oliver Nedeljkovic has just been blocked at Serbian Wikipedia, so I suggest to keep an eye on User:Oliver Nedeljkovic. (BTW, to type letter Ć, you should change the keybord to Serbian Latin which you must preivouslu add to your keyboards in your Control Panel ;)).--Maduixa (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:SSI

    What's going on at Suspected Sockpuppets? Things have been stalled there for weeks, which, given IPs time out, is really, really bad. 86.** IP (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Response time on any number of admin issues has been seemingly stuck in the tar pits recently. Hard to figure what's up with that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think part of it is a lack of checkuser clerk activity; there are several cases that have been closed and just not archived. I know I took care of the one case needing blocks a couple days ago. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, perhaps we need more active admins. Just saying, I'd never seen RFA so empty before I left. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Submitting oneself for RfA is tantamount to nominating oneself for a character assassination. The standards are so high, it's little wonder that the number of nominations is falling IMHO. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 19:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I looked through some of the RfAs that happened during my absence and was kind of shocked. I don't think I'd pass RfA now, to be honest! It's a little weird. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I do agree with Basalisk Some of the comments at RFA seem to be soo harsh that even if the person might be eligible sometimes later he would think twice about the experience again.(Non-administrator comment) by the way-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 19:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The harshness there is one of the reasons I've avoided RfA. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Is adminship now a big deal? Keilana|Parlez ici 19:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Sock on an IP

    Any chance a a short term block on this ip range?[87] It is user:Nangparbat and he is getting on my nerves. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=487553354"