Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User Fastballjohnd

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

Note- This account also has two socks, Drjohndacquisto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Johnd34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), plus an IP 98.167.164.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which has been used for the same purpose as the main account. A sock puppet investigation[1], resulted in the indefinite blocking of Johnd34 and Drjohndacquisto and a two day block on Fastballjohnd.

Fastballjohnd has exclusively done edits involving former Major Leauge Baseball player John D'Acquisto. The editor has on more one occasion, here[2] most recently, claimed to be the retired athlete.

In the 1990's(after his playing career was over) John D'Acquisto had several run ins with the law. They are chronicled in the article with supporting references. Here[3], here[4], and here[nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=NewsLibrary&p_multi=APAB&d_place=APAB&p_theme=newslibrary2&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0F8A15FC51053B7C&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM]. Beginning in August 2008 Fastballjohnd began editing the John Acquisto article. Part of his edit[5] was the following

He was sentenced to prison in 1996 for trying to pass off a forged certificate of deposit and was also indicted on charges of defrauding investors of about $7 million and on 39 counts of wire fraud and money laundering. In that case it was found that D'Acquisto was not responsible for any of the charges in the 39-count indictment and out of the 39 counts 37 were dropped and two were taken with no additional time, for misrepresentation. It was later found that the people who perpetrated the civil lawsuit and criminal investigations as well as the convictions against John D'Acquisto were arrested and are still serving jail sentances in Europe. The consensus is that John D'Acquisto was set up and used to cover up a larger scheme by others; according to the court documents in his sentencing memorandum [1], he never stole any money or committed fraud.

That edit was reverted[6]. In January 2009, Fastballjohnd again edited the article [7] giving a version of events that noone has been able to verify. I, and I only became aware of these edits about a month ago, have tried verifying the claims of Fastballjohnd using Google News archive, High Beam Research(which thanks to WP I have a subscription), and Newspaper Archive. My searches have found nothing verifying fastballjohnd's edits.

From Jan 2009 to May 2012 other edits were done to the John D'Acquisto article. I won't run them all down, just the highlights.

• [8] Feb 2009 claim that news article was incorrect
• [9] edit by Drjohndaquisto account putting in liks to court documents.(link is dead)
• [10] Johnd34 putting in link to google documents.(link is dead)
• [11] Additional commentary added by IP account. This was reverted here.[12]
• [13] IP blanks the part of the article referring to John D'Acquisto's legal problems. Then the IP edited in a new version.[14] Again this was reverted.[15]

It was shortly after that I got involved. Note I did make edits to the article before June 2012 but they were not involved in any way with Fastballjohnd's or his sock's edits concerning John D'Acquisto's legal problems. If you want to see them, click here[16] and here[17].

Then on June 16 2012 I became aware of information edited in by fastballjohnd and did edits here[18] and here[19]. I made one last edit here[20].

After becoming aware of Mr. D'Acquisto's edits, I brought the matter to the attention of the Baseball Project here[21] and asked[22] for WP administrator The Bushranger to advise us. Which he did[23] and he wrote As for his editing his own article, both the conflict of interest noticeboard and, given he's used three accounts, WP:SPI might be applicable.

So I took it to the COI board and got no response[24]. As I stated earlier, I instituted a sockpuppet investigation[25]. When I did each of these, I left messages[26][27] on Fastballjohnd's talk page to notify him.

On June 29th, Mr. D'Acquisto aka Fastballjohnd responded[28] on his talk page, I wrote back one day later[29].

Fastballjohnd edited the John D'Acquisto article again[30] making claims again which I reverted because they can't be verified. I asked The Bushranger for advice again asking if I should come to ANI, The Bushranger replied[31] that he thought it had risen to that level. So I brought it here today....William 14:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

As this user has not yet been notified, I have done so. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 14:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Now that I've done that, I want to weigh in. On the one hand, you have a whole bunch of COI edits. On the other hand, he is sourcing them; by the same principle that allows us to take sources under a paywall, we should be taking these. I guess the problem is that the COI makes it harder to just WP:AGF and take his word for it. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 14:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. I did mean to notify him but forgot. In his last edit he claims a 1999 San Diego Union Tribune article would back up what he's say. The SDTU archives are behind a pay wall and I'd be willing to put up the small amount of cash to peek at the articles but the words I used for the search don't give me much confidence that I'll find anything verifying what D'Acquisto is saying. Plus If he was exonerated, this would have made news outside the SD area. His pleading guilty made the news wires....William 15:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

His sources are always broken links or like here[32] inaccessible. Their inaccessibility I pointed out[33] to him but got no reply. He instead changed his tune to it being reported in the newspaper. It's very hard to AGF considering the COI plus broken links and shifting edits....William 16:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed remedy

I propose that all other accounts being used by Fastballjohnd be indef blocked if they haven't already, that Fastballjohnd be formally restricted to a single account (no legit alternates), and that they be banned (not just discouraged) from making edits to articles in which they have a conflict of interest. Fastballjohnd is still permitted, of course, to make edits to talk pages of articles in which they have a COI, as long as those edits do not violate WP:BLP or any other relevant policy or guideline (such as WP:TPO or WP:CIVIL). - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 04:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• Restored from archive with post-dated datestamp. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Why is this here, and not at WP:COIN? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 05:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It was brought to COIN and I mentioned that up above. Nothing happened....William 10:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Note also that the POV-pushing socking puts it a bit beyond the usual COIN case. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Just found another of his socks but it is stale. Compare this edit by Jddsc3434 with this edit by 98.167.164.178 which has been Fastballjohnd's persistent IP since last September.

Isn't this thread a bit premature though? He has only made three edits since the SPI case ended...two as his account and one as the IP over several days. Shouldn't he be allowed a bit of rope? A CU advised to refile an SPI if the IP continued to edit. If it were me, I'd overlook the one IP edit and be patient.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Fastballjohn is in denial. He says[34] that is his only account. That was after the sockpuppet investigation. He has a clear COI and he thinks the rules don't apply to him. Not doing anything now is just postponing the matter IMHO....William 17:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Berean Hunter here, there have only been a couple of edits and no indication as of yet that he is not complying with WP:SOCK. He is claiming sources, and WP:V clearly says contentious facts must be verifiable not easily verified. Since the edits appear to be in good faith, and COI editing is clearly not prohibited by policy, action here would be premature. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 15:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Chembox edits by User:Plasmic Physics

User:Plasmic Physics has been editing {{chembox}}es and {{drugbox}}es for some time, at least some months, replacing and removing valid information, and introducing fact tags to chemical names that could be easily checked via the sources or via various free chemical software. For example, this diff introduced a broken param (ImageFile_Ref), removed part of the IUPAC name (6S,9S,12S,15S,18S,21S) and added a fact tag asking whether this was the preferred name, although he changed the param from "IUPACName" (any IUPAC name) to "PIN" (preferred IUPAC name) himself. He also added a fact tag to the name "Argireline" asking whether this was a non-proprietary name although the chembox documentation says the "OtherNames" param can take any name, and "Argireline" occurs in both sources of the article. He also changed several chemical identifiers (InChI, SMILES); I didn't check in this specific article but at least in some cases his changes introduced wrong information -- see User talk:Plasmic Physics#Please do not upload bad information and expect others to correct it (and also the previous section of his talk page). This is just one edit of dozens, maybe hundreds.

Recent related discussions are at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals#What is going on in the chemboxes? and Wikipedia talk:No original research#IUPAC names for chemicals, especially for drugs. The issue has been discussed on WikiProject Chem, and with Plasmic Physics, on and off; but nothing ever seems to change. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

We have been trying to counsel this problem editor for many years. Here is a representative exchange of the recent episode:

user:Beetstra "you have removed a lot of information which should be restored. ... Do you expect other users to do it [correct the hundreds of erroneous edits]] for you?"

user:Plasmic Physics "Well, yes. I made those edits in good faith." Vandalism is one thing, and can often be readily detected and corrected, but technical misinformation requires time-consuming detective work. So the effects of Plasmic's work are perverse. And this editor actively defends "this turf," pushing away those that try to edit these tables as illustrated here. In my several years of editing here, I have not witnessed a more damaging editor.--Smokefoot (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

This user has a history over several years of making hundreds of contentious edits without consensus (particularly WRT chemical nomenclature issues), often doing more harm than good. See, for example, User_talk:Plasmic_Physics/Archive_1#Trilithium.281.2B.29_Ion_Azanetriide for an example of exactly the same thing from over four years ago. All attempts to dissuade him / engage him in discussion are fruitless, and he really does more harm than good. Check out his archived talk pages for many many messages from annoyed editors. Chris (talk) 08:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a note: I never misinform, I only over inform, and if that is the case, I'm happy trim the over-informed infobox upon request. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

And yet the presumption among WP:CHEMISTRY regulars appears to be that your edits all need second eyes to screen out lots of mistakes (which are often buried among complex article-diffs due to their also including stylistic and other personal-preference changes). You readily admit to making them and make no effort to avoid making the same type of mistake even after you are alerted to the problem (this pattern applies to many content disputes in which you have been involved). These sorts of disputes have been happening fairly regularly over your entire several-years' work in this content area, and often take many iterations of discussion during which you continue to make the same edits (WP:BRD behavior problem, often compounded by WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and maybe WP:OWN), which is why this is disruptive (and now landing here on ANI due to our exasperation) and a high cost and not just a mistake here and there that everyone makes.

My latest example (as Smokefoot says, "technical misinformation requires time-consuming detective work") is User talk:Plasmic Physics#Please do not upload bad information and expect others to correct it centering on addition of "SMILES" values that contain lower-case letters (which by definition of SMILES represents an aromatic ring). There you yesterday recognized that your value was not correct ("a simple copy error") and then today performed this edit in which your SMILES string has the same type of mistake. In an edit with a summary "Isolating stereomer data." that does not make any changes or additions of stereoisomeric information (which is all difficult to see by eye because of so many field-reordering and capitalization changes that mostly have zero visible effect). DMacks (talk) 07:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

What same mistake re you talking about? I wish you'd be less vague. As I've said, you don't yet understand how SMILES work, so stop critising how I use it. The mistake I admitted to, was missing the C button when I copied the SMILES using the Crt+C shortcut. This resulted in a previously copied SMILES being pasted. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I articulated this on Plasmic Physics' talkpage as well, but I am going to reiterate it here. Regarding diff:

• Preferred IUPAC names are not yet supported by the IUPAC, they are still debating it, it is still under development (I am following the discussion there). But, the IUPACName is changed to PIN, while removing all the stereo-chemistry information from the compoundname. For as far as I can see, this is a piece of peptide, which hence is the optically pure material (i.e., with specific stereo-chemistry information) that is mentioned there (and that is the one actually shown in the image). Plasmic Physics changes the name, and immediately requests a citation for that name, which is, with PIN by definition, original research based on rules which are incomplete. In the request for the reference, is asked "Is this the prefered IUPAC name? If not, move to OtherNames"
• The caption for the image is changed to include the stereo-chemistry information, which was removed from the preferred naming of the compound.
• As stated, the compound is a specific form of the compound, which is reflected in on of the identifiers for it, the ChemSpiderID. Plasmic Physics there adds a name with stereo information, while that was removed from the IUPAC name, and not included in the preferred IUPAC name. The ChemSpiderID is for the specific compound, but it is now pulled out of line with the names of the compound.
• There is an other-name mentioned "Argireline" - which is also mentioned in the article and at least in two references. Still, not doing the research, a {{citation needed}} is slapped on it: "Is this a genuine, non-proprietary name?"
• 2 other identifiers are added - the pubchem ids. The first one (which is typically used for the compound discussed in the page) corroborates with the new preferred IUPAC name, without stereo information. The other one (which are the additional pubchem ids) corroborates with the stereospecific one. So the main PubChemID corroborates with the Preferred IUPAC name, the main ChemSpiderID corroborates with the image, and the second pubchemID mentioned.
• If I see it correctly (I don't have the software to check), the InChI and SMILES (which are representations of the molecular structure of the compound, and they include the stereo-chemistry information) are both changed - likely to the one that is corroborating with the Preferred IUPAC name, and which does not include the stereo-chemistry information.
• and a lot of other data - which by now is completely unclear whether it is for the compound displayed in the image, or one of the other stereoisomers.

I know that the data in the chemboxes and drugboxes is confusing somewhere, and some people have put a lot of effort in it to get the data together, but this is bringing the confusion back. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The IUPAC name was moved to the PIN because it is not the systematic name. Moreover, the stereo segment of the name was removed to generalise the article. Since it is a IUPAC name, but not the systematic name, it could only be the PIN by default. It is common to use an image for a stereoisomer if a racemate image is not available. I have already stopped to add new citation templates, or at least ones that displays.

Stereo data was added to the image name to describe the image.

The chembox fields can be translated into coherent statements. In this case, the OtherNames field can be translated into the statement "Argireline is another name for this compound." I challenged that assertion, and requested a source stating an equivalent statement. The sources in the article is alledged to contain the name, but does not directly say "ABC is another name for DEF." Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I have earlier reverted the changes I discussed here, but Plasmic Physics does insist to have the data changed without discussion - he performed another edit moving data around. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The "Regarding diff" Beetstra is discussing here, for bullet-point 2, PP actually moved the stereochemical designations to the image alttext (not caption), removing it from the visible content. Moving these data to be specific to the image alone rather than the chemical entity topic of the article and infobox is in keeping with Beetstra's other comments that PP does not recognize that this entity is intrinsically this single stereoisomer (i.e., did not read the refs and/or doesn't understand really basic biochemistry). DMacks (talk) 08:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The page was fixed according to Beetstra's demands, specifying the stereomer, and only the stereomer, which is the usual practise. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• I encountered Plasmic Physics at Barack Obama where the user added the extraordinary text "While it is not confirmed that Obama is indeed a freemason, he has been witnessed to make public use of several documented freemason 'grips' when meeting certain dignitaries." three times with no sources last March: diff, diff, diff. The subsequent pointless and time wasting discussion can be seen here ("I need proof that the fact which I attempted to add is either gossip or original research, or at least the requirement of for it to be not construed as such. Plasmic Physics (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2012") and here (permalink). I have re-read those discussions and the only reasonable conclusion is that Plasmic Physics was enjoying a personal joke by provoking volunteers. That situation (aka trolling) should not be permitted to continue, particularly in articles on technical topics where skilled editors are in short supply. The community needs to defend useful editors and save them from days of pointless "discussion". Johnuniq (talk) 08:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

So what's the expected outcome here? A block? Topic ban? For Plasmic Physics to apologise? C'mon, people. ANI isn't simply for categorising editors' wrongdoings. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Editor has been repeatedly requested to discuss proposed changes with the WP:CHEM community to gain WP:CONSENSUS for his plans prior to editing sprees, but generally does not do so (and even continues disputed edit-patterns after being advised of the discussions others start). I would like to see uninvolved admins clearly instruct him (with block if not) to work with the WP community and not against it, including discuss-first if controversial, pause-and-discuss/BRD, etc. I would like to see the editor work to undo the mistakes he has made before doing any further additions at all. Given the technical damage, this may well mean simply reverting to "pre-PP-edits" state--the nature of the concerns and amount of cross-checking required of the whole edits (given that there is a trend of problematic edits) strongly weighs against the possible loss of some good bits he may have added as part of these edits. For me and I suspect for several other admins here, we would have blocked long ago for disruption, except we're involved in the content. DMacks (talk) 08:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Which plans, I was not told. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Your plans. You must have decided at some point to go through the chemboxes and put a citation needed template next to every uncited name, or to go through and insert your own version of IUPAC names in and all these things you've done in the past. The problem is that you make edits of the same kind to so many articles without seeking consensus from the chemistry community first. Chris (talk) 10:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't plan any of those things. You guys said that I can only insert IUPAC names, if I source them, so I did. So I thought that it's only fair that I am also allowed to question names, so I did. Scientific accuracy is important to me. Question, why are the mojority of the identifiers referenced/verified to death, but the names are to be let alone? I don't know what specifically the community wants to discuss? Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

@Chris Cunningham: I was hoping someone independent would contemplate suitable action. It would be good if someone who understands the situation with the articles Plasmic Physics (talk · contribs) has been editing recently would comment on whether the positives outway the negatives. If not, perhaps an indefinite block should be recommended (that is, the user be blocked until showing an understanding of the problem and how to avoid it in the future). Certainly the situation I outlined with the Obama article is unacceptable, but I don't know if it is that bad in other areas. Johnuniq (talk) 10:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

In that incident, I was accused of gossiping and/ or original research. As far as I know, I'm not schizophrenic, I would know my own motive better than anyone else. So, if anyone tells me that my motive not my motive, then would naturally require a source for that bizzare circumstance. Of course, no one can, thus I asked for what is needed so that my edit edit does not appear as gossiping and/or original research - that they would not do either. This resulted in a stale mate, they just kept parroting the same accusation back at me, without giving any advice. I did eventully get an answer. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree with DMacks here. I think that it is time that uninvolved administrators take a look at what is going on and consider options. Most of us are too involved to take action, but I think that a look at WT:CHEM and especially the 2010 and 2011 archives of that talkpage is .. quite telling that something needs to change. Suggestions? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I would propose a ban on editing pages that fall under the auspices of WP:CHEM. Failing that, a ban on editing chemboxes, drugboxes, and anything to do with chemical nomenclature, including inserting or changing any chemical names. Chris (talk) 10:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

First, I wasn't allowed to add unsoured IUPAC names, now I'm not allowed to challenge names. The names I added wasn't wrong, just not good enough. Why is such a need to monopolise naming? Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You ARE allowed to add unsourced IUPAC names. What is your problem? Boghog (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not, that is how the problem started. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

{{Citation needed}}. Even if your statement is true, a wrongful action is not a morally appropriate way to correct or cancel a previous wrongful action. Boghog (talk) 06:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not trying to cancel or correct a previous action with the template. I'm used the template in good faith, for what it was designed for. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Here are some of the discussions of this editor's actions, many of these discussions are long. They illustrate the great amount of time invested in trying to steer this editor.

• Jan. 2011: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2011#Plasmic Physics
• Jan 2011: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2011#Systematic Name
• June 2010: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2010#user:Plasmic Physics
• Nov 2010: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2010#Plasmic Physics (continued from above)
• Nov 2010: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2010#Excessive number of chemical identifiers
• Nov 2010: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2010#Categories: Arsenic
• Nov 2010: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2010#Plasmic Physics edits
• Dec 2010: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2010#Chembox
• Dec. 2010: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2010#Block for Plasmic Physics
• Dec. 2010: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2010#Controversial use of the term ‘Oxoazinic acid’ in the chembox of Nitric acid
• Dec. 2010: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2010#OR introduction of systematic names
• Dec. 2010: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2010#Cleanup of overspecialized silanes categories created by User:Plasmic Physics

--Smokefoot (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Having looked this over, I think either a topic ban or rapidly escalating blocks is appropriate. Plasmic Physics may be well-meaning, but it seems that they have a serious WP:COMPETENCE issue. T. Canens (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

What type of competence? Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Someone asked for an uninvolved admin who understood the subject at issue. I'm here, and I meet the requirements. I think you know enough chemistry to understand what you're doing--this is not a matter of Competence, but of stubbornness in refusal to follow the consensus. PP, unless you will undertake to immediately change back all chemistry infoboxes and associated material you have worked on to the standard way the project does it, I am going to ban you from the field of chemistry and biochemistry at WP, broadly construed, indefinitely. The only reason I do not do it immediately is to give you a chance to fix the damage first. Additionally, the Obama edits and the almost equally odd defense of them, will lead to a rapid indefinite block altogether if there is further disruption. You cannot add an asserted fact about a living person and challenge its removal on the basis of our having to prove it's false. That it's a contentious and unlikely fact about a famous person in an extremely conspicuous WP article, makes it inexcusable as a violation of basic BLP policy. I await your statement of intentions by this time tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

What is this "standard way" that you are talking about?

I did not challenge the comment's removal on the basis of your having to prove it wrong, I challenged it because of poor reasoning and false accusation. In any case, that is an old, resolved issue. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

"Standard way" is a bit vague. Once I know what that is in no uncertain terms, I can get under way. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• The erasure of names from chemboxes has been ongoing for over a year. See [this diff] in the 1-propanol article. If he is allowed to fix these edits, someone will need to track what he is doing. He seems to end up with his own interpretations of what he is supposed to accomplish.JSR (talk) 12:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban

I am not sophisticated in chemistry, and there is a lot to sort out. There's a problem, and it needs a clear remedy.

The primary complaint above is about chemboxes and drugboxes. The editing is not vandalism, but it is disruptive.

There appears to be a significant desire that chemboxes contain accurate information. Changes are scrutinized, so even accurate information triggers significant community effort. Editors adding or changing information must be careful about the accuracy of their edits and mindful of their value. An editor who even occasionally enters bad information creates a significant burden on the community because more watchers will feel obligated to carefully examine the edits. Even with close scrutiny, there is a risk that some inadvertent bad information will remain.

Apparently some of PP's edits are good, but a significant number are problematic. Some good edits may have little value (e.g., a systematic IUPAC name that is not used). The edits are often technical changes to involved notation that require significant effort to verify (e.g., a SMILES string).

Editing problems with PP have been going on for years. There are questions about PP's technical understanding of the box arguments (e.g., IUPAC v PIN) and even of article subject matter (e.g., DMacks and stereo-isomer issue).

PP edits are in good faith. PP has apparently adopted some restrictions (such as sourcing chem names). He engages in discussion. There is also doubt about what level of sourcing is sufficient for chemical names.

An appropriate solution appears to be topic ban on the boxes. I'm open to a wider ban, but the focus of the complaint appears to be edits to chemboxes involving uncommon systematic names.

Proposal. Plasmic Physics is indefinitely topic banned from editing chemboxes and drugboxes. Plasmic Physics is strongly cautioned to avoid article edits that add any chemical name if that chemical name is not actually widely used in the literature. A systematic name does not imply widely used.

Glrx (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Do we have to !vote now, or what? Chris (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I have not added an unsourced systematic name or any other name for many months now (around 13 or so). Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying that surely you must have a better focus for proposing a ban, than on edits of a type I no longer perform. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Some of PP's chembox edits have generated a lot of work for other editors over a period of years, and the ban addresses the cited problem. The ban is limited; PP may still edit chemical articles. Glrx (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support Better to have a formal agreement as the examples above demonstrate that discussions with the user can be pointless. DGG gave a strong statement above and he may feel that a topic ban is not necessary. If DGG is receptive to receiving an alert if further problems that may occur, perhaps that is all that is required? Johnuniq (talk) 03:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support I think it's an excellent idea to try this, probably better tailored to the case than my own proposal. Johnuniq, I am assuming you take responsibility for letting me know if more is needed. DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Three users involved in vicious uncivil and disruptive behaviour

User:Bryonmorrigan, User:W.J.M., and the anonymous user User:66.234.60.131 engaged in repeated uncivil comments, repeated personal attacks, and combative behaviour in complete violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:BATTLE. These violations of Wikipedia policy can be seen throughout the discussion here: Talk:Nazi Party#Naziism.

Bryonmorrigan and W.J.M. in particular were responsible for driving the discussion into a viscious battleground between them where they both engaged in insulting each other. This unconstructive behaviour was disruptive and renewed combative conversation has started between Bryonmorrigan and the anonymous user 66.234.60.131. Bryonmorrigan has been warned many times in the past to stop his repeated instances of battleground behaviour and use of uncivil comments and personal attacks, he has refused to heed those warnings. W.J.M. was equally irresponsible in responding by fighting fire with fire, replying to Bryonmorrigan with uncivil comments and personal attacks. I recommend that strong disciplinary action be taken, preferably equally to each user - to avoid issues of one user being less disciplined than others - preferably an indefinate block for all the users. If different levels of blocks or warnings are deemed necessary by others, I will accept that.--R-41 (talk) 03:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, upon looking at Bryonmorrigan's talk page where I posted the address for him to arrive here, I noticed another uncivil conversation above on his talk page with a user he was arguing with, in which the user implied to Bryonmorrigan a warning he would get in trouble with his behaviour, to which Bryonmorrigan responded in an acronym "DILLIGAF" and he provided a link for what it means to here [35], where it says that it is a military shorthand for "Do I Look Like I Give A Fuck?" - again revealing Bryonmorrigan's regular grossly uncivil behaviour.--R-41 (talk) 03:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Since R-41 has provided no edit differences to support his case, I recommend that this discussion thread be closed. No one has actually posted to the Talk:Nazism thread for over a week, and nothing there appears to be incivil, battleground, etc. R-41 has brought numerous baseless complaints against other editors recently and should be aware that baseless accusations may lead to sanctions. TFD (talk) 05:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

And since it is your opinion that the reports from R-41 were "numerous" and "baseless" and since I find them neither "numerous" nor "baseless", I suggest your personal battleground with R-41 is showing <g>. Bryopn's styles of saying things like Grow up, and deal with it. You're selling, but nobody's buying (from the talk page cited) is less than helpful. [36] uses a similar style of ad hom argumentation. The defense that Bryon is not a "frequent editor" (only 50 edits/month) does not affect whether or not his behaviour in posts poses a problems of any sort. This does not presuppose what any discussion here will end up at, only that the OP here should be granted the assumption of good faith. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

And while we are at it, give him a generous trout-slapping for the use of 'viscious' in a section heading in an encyclopaedia . There is no such word - see [37] and [38]. Or it this a neologism relating to evil, immoral or depraved actions carried out while immersed in treacle? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

perhaps if everyone would just agree to stop using such colorful langauge and focus on the sources, prose of the article. dilligaf about your opinion of an edit? do you really need to classify a good faith edit as childish, absurd, or really anything? simply make your case or why you revert, site a source, or a wp:dontdothat. reading all the extra text is hindering the progress of the article for some editors, or not. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I meant "vicious", AndytheGrump. I don't know why I often misspell it. By vicious I mean extremely hostile. Please focus on what is being addressed.--R-41 (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

A warning may be in order but really I have to agree with Darkstar1st, that the focus needs to be on improving the article (staying on topic) and improving the grammar and citing. Kierzek (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I find TFD's claim and threat grossly insulting, when he/she claims I am making "R-41 has brought numerous baseless complaints against other editors recently and should be aware that baseless accusations may lead to sanctions". My recent address here about User:Yiddi resulted in Yiddi being indefinately blocked by User:WilliamH. Considering that I am in the midst of several discussions in which I am in disagreement with TFD, and that TFD is growing frustrated and angry with me over those disagreements, I don't trust his judgement here. TFD can review the conversation here: Talk:Nazi Party#Naziism, Bryonmorrigan, W.J.M., and the anon user mentioned above, are being highly uncivil and combative towards each other. Here is what the anon user said to Bryonmorrigan as a jibe [39], and this is Bryonmorrigan's response [40], just as uncivil and pointlessly fanning the flames. There is this uncivil exchange between Bryonmorrigan versus W.J.M., both users are condescending to each other. Bryonmorrigan boasts that he is educated and accuses W.J.M. of being uneducated and responds to W.J.M.'s uncivil jibe that Bryonmorrigan is like a creationist, by accusing W.J.M. of being like a creationist, see here [41]. W.J.M. later responds and swears at Bryonmorrigan, see here [42] Plus look at this recent diff from his talk page [43], Bryonmorrigan responded to a user, with an acronym "DILLIGAF" and he provided a link for what it means to here [44], where it says that it is a military shorthand for "Do I Look Like I Give A Fuck?". How is that anything but highly uncivil? Lastly, TFD is incorrect, the discussion is not at Talk:Nazism, but at Talk:Nazi Party, where Bryonmorrigan and an anonymous user have revived their confrontation in the middle of the discussion posts.--R-41 (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Bryonmorrigan is well known for his repeated uncivil behaviour, he has been warned repeatedly to stop and has refused to heed those warnings. Review the conversation for yourself, here: Talk:Nazi Party#Naziism. Bryonmorrigan, the anon user mentioned above, and W.J.M. clearly engaged in uncivil combative behaviour and personal attacks, see these diffs for their behaviour: [45] and this [46] by the anon User:66.234.60.131, [47] by Bryonmorrigan, [48] by Bryonmorrigan, and [49] by W.J.M. And here is a recent diff from Bryonmorrigan's talk page [50], showing Bryonmorrigan responding to a user, with an acronym "DILLIGAF" and he provided a link for what it means to here [51], where it says that it is a military shorthand for "Do I Look Like I Give A Fuck?". His behaviour and W.J.M.'s behaviour is grossly uncivil. I want to wait to have an administrator review this before non-administrator users make a decision as to its validity.--R-41 (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Below are 10 of the pointless discussion threads that R-41 brought to WQA and ANI since January. The 8 ANI requests obtained no support for administrative action, or even warnings. R-41 expressed regret at filing one of the WQAs ("I apologize for having brought you into the stupid mess at WQA" 23:30, 31 May 2012).[52]

• "User Writegeist is Wikihounding either me or user Collect" ANI 00:35, 14 July 2012[53]
• "Requesting an interaction ban between Writegeist to me (R-41) and the reverse from me to him" ANI 04:13, 9 June 2012[54]
• "User:Bryonmorrigan being combative and uncivil towards User:Collect" WQA 14:07, 30 May 2012[55]
• "Article on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh" ANI 01:23, 25 May 2012[56]
• "User:DIREKTOR is threatening an edit war at WikiProject Yugoslavia" 15:49, 19 May 2012 [57]
• "Article on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh is extremely POV and denying that it has participated in violence" ANI 23:51, 14 May 2012[58]
• "Wustenfuchs, disruptive editing at the article "Yugoslavs" ANI 03:09, 1 March 2012[59]
• "Failure to assume good faith by User:AndyTheGrump, repeated uncivil behaviour and personal attacks" ANI 07:37, 5 February 2012[60]
• "Incivility issues with user Trust is All You Need" WQA 17:31, 20 January 2012[61]
• "Etiquette issue with User:AndyTheGrump and acknowledgement by me, User:R-41, that I unacceptably swore back in frustration at him/her" ANI 01:15, 14 January 2012[62]

TFD (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

And you TFD, have been in trouble for initiating false accusations against several users. Such as accusing me of choosing sources to push a POV with zero evidence some time ago on an allegation that three sources I presented - that presented completely different arguments, you had no evidence. You then Wikilawyered based on a technicality, saying that because you said that I was putting in sources to advocate a POV on a talk page, that technically you were innocent of falsely accusing me of POV-pushing because it is about articles not talk pages. I regarded your false accusation and Wikilawyering as contrary to the principles of Wikipedia, and I asked you what was the "POV" that I was pushing. You could not answer that question because the three sources had completely different topics. Several other users said that if you did not have any evidence to show that I selected those sources for POV, that you should apologize to me, you did not listen to those users' request.

You have got into trouble over such false accusations several times, User:Nug who witnessed your evidence-less accusation against me, told me and showed me the following:

• You were warned here for making a false accusation [63]
• You nearly faced a proposed 1-3 month ban on political articles on Wikipedia, for your false accusation of POV and personal attacks until you apologized for your false accusation, see here: [64]

This: [65] and [66] that you noted, resulted in both users advising me that the issue could better be addressed at another noticeboard that could address the specific issues involved, they did not say that what I mentioned was "pointless", as you claim TFD. This [67] that you noted was a constructive attempt to get Bryonmorrigan to be less uncivil through Wikiquette assistance, until the user WQA volunteer Writegeist arrived and insulted the fellow WQA volunteer User:IRWolfie-, in which IRWolfie- reported Writegeist here and I supported IRWolfie-'s report. You have taken a quote by me out of context, not including what I said immediately after, I mentioned having regret about reporting to the WQA because of the incompetence of the WQA volunteer Writegeist who insulted his fellow WQA volunteer IRWolfie- and spent more time saying cynical remarks than helping with the issue, I felt Writegeist's cynical remarks and his insult to IRWolfie- made the WQA address a waste of time. Writegeist got mad at me for me getting frustrated that he insulted a fellow volunteer that he should have cooperated with, and Writegeist has often talked about me and User:Collect on his talk page to other users after discussions with me and Collect ended, and the other users were not involved. AndytheGrump gets uncivil to users he disagrees with when he gets angry, even Writegeist whom IRWolfie- reported and I supported the report, mentioned to me that AndytheGrump gets highly uncivil at times. And this [68] was never closed or resolved but left open. A number of users whom I have reported in the past for violating Wikipedia policy, I have sought to resume normal conversation with, you mention Direktor, I have cooperated with Direktor in the past, and I have cooperated with TIAYN since the report as he/she has not been uncivil since then. TFD, I regard your intentions here towards me as strongly influenced by your frustration and anger at me, stop this, this is a conflict of interest - you are in the midst of a strong dispute with me over material on Talk:Fascism - it is affecting your judgement of me. Just look at what Bryonmorrigan and W.J.M. have done, it is completely unacceptable.--R-41 (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• On the afternoon of the 20th inst. I was proceeding in a southerly direction on this page towards an alterkay kerfuffle involving my acquaintance Mr. Can in what is now Blue Square when I noticed a Mr. R. Fortiwun loudly complaining about the behaviour of several other people, accusing them of "viscious", "uncivil" and "disruptive" behaviour in a discussion about the Nazi Party. (In fact, as we now know, they were just doing The Fish-Slapping Dance that's traditional at all discussions about political parties.) Recognizing Mr. Fortywun as someone who had recently alarmed me by threatening to urinate on my new limited-edition Nike LondonOlympiPimp trainers if ever he saw me, I hid behind a nearby Wikipedia pillar (the Neutral Point Of View one, as I recall), and kept watch. As I recall, a Mr. Deuces then intervened, reminding Mr. Fortiwun that he had made numerous previous complaints about other people and suggesting that this latest one would be best ended. Now a Mr. Collect, apparently an acquaintance of Mr. Fortiwun's, roundly rebuked Mr Deuces, stating that the numerous complaints were not numerous. A passer-by carrying a trout, name of Mr. Grumpy I think (the passer-by not the trout), made a humorous remark and went on his way, after which someone who gave their name as a 1974 John Carpenter film made a plea for more moderate language. They was followed by another passer-by, maybe a teecher, who called for better grammer. Mr. Fortiwun, apparently rather agitamated, then made two statements. In one he spoke of a "claim" and a "threat" by Mr Deuces that he said he found "grossly insulting" because, he said, he (Mr. Fortiwun) had succeeded in having a Mr. Yiddi suspended from work or perhaps it was from the ears, I don't remember. I do not know what he said in the next statement because at this point, growing weary of all his repetitions, and having sat down behind the NPOV pillar, I fell asleep. I awoke to Mr. Deuces enumerating the numerous complaints by Mr. Fortiwun which Mr. Collect had said were not numerous. Falling asleep again, I awoke to hear Mr. Fortiwun complaining about all the people he had already complained about and now also complaining about Mr. Deuces, and also, at considerable length, imagine my complete surprise, complaining about me. Knowing a little about Mr. Fortiwun, [[69], [70], [71], and afraid that he might target me for a gas attack, which he had done once before, I ran away as fast as I could. I think it would be best if this was closed now and everyone ran away too went on their way. Writegeist (talk) 04:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

R-41, you are bringing up comments I made about the editor "who witnessed your evidence-less accusation against me, told me and showed me the following" over a year ago, which he complained about at Arbcom and resulted in no action. He has been sanctioned for "abuse of dispute resolution processes".[72] But the issue here is that you consistently bring requests to this board that have no reasonable prospect of success. TFD (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Well I hope your happy TFD, a very reasonable report about three users clearly repeatedly violating Wikipedia principles, especially Bryonmorrigan, has turned into a witch hunt against me. I said on your talk page to consider if someone else brought this up - there still would be three users grossly violating Wikipedia policies. TFD, I hope you enjoy adding this to your list of what you regard as "pointless" reports, remember that you drove it into this. Now Bryonmorrigan will once again escape for the upteenth time for gross violations of Wikipedia policy, along with W.J.M. who swore and repeatedly insulted Bryonmorrigan.--R-41 (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I have told Writegeist to leave me alone and stop interjecting in conversations with me, after a confrontation that Writegeist started as a WQA volunteer in insulting a fellow WQA volunteer, User:IRWolfie- and saying nothing other than cynical remarks resulting in that user, not me, reporting Writegeist, I supported IRWolfie-'s report. Writegeist has regularly talked about me and User:Collect behind our backs in condescending ways, I hold Writegeist in complete contempt and despise him, that's why I told him to engage in no further contact with me. But again TFD, I hope your happy you have ruined a reasonable report by turning it into a witch hunt against me, I used to cooperate often with you TFD and held you in high-esteem, but you have become cynical and condescending to me in the past year and a half. I feel like I am not wanted on Wikipedia, and as a person who deals with major depression perhaps it would be best if I leave, and I am sure that Writegeist in his vicious hatred of me, desires me to quit Wikipedia.--R-41 (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss your state of mind or to make personal attacks that speculate about other users' emotions of desires. Suffice it to say I have absolutely no "vicious hatred" towards anybody whatsoever, and no desire for anyone to "quit Wikipedia". This thread should be closed. Writegeist (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

It should be closed even though I have provided all these diffs [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], and Bryonmorrigan using an acronym "DILLIGAF" and he provided a link for what it means to here [79], where it says that it is a military shorthand for "Do I Look Like I Give A Fuck?" - that is what he said. Is this supposed to be acceptable?--R-41 (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment 1st point: The wall of text from the involved parties is not helpful. Neither are dozens of dffs. Why dont you discuss your compliants in short and concise sentances with only the most relevant diffs? 2nd point: Some people swear in diffs. That in of itself is not necesarilly a personal attack. "Do I look like I give a fuck" is not even close to an attack here. If it offends you, its best to ignore it or else you will just see more of the same. Fasttimes68 (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

What about these 2 diffs: the anon user 66.234.60.131 calling Bryonmorrigan a "liberal/communist" as an insult, [80] followed a few posts later by Bryonmorrigan accusing the anon user of being like a Nazi and the Taliban. [81]--R-41 (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

−

More so on the anon, but techincally they were only speculating. What is it that you wish to achieve from ANI? Fasttimes68 (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

To demonstrate to the users that they need to discuss the topics in discussions; not accusing each other of stupidity, and stop stereotyping each other with political labels. Bryonmorrigan has been repeatedly warned to not engage in uncivil behaviour, he has refused to heed those warnings, something needs to be done - at least for him.--R-41 (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Other than DIILIGAF or the latest diff, is there anything else? Only show the diffs that best make your point. Fasttimes68 (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

This diff by W.J.M. condescendingly responding to Bryonmorrigan by saying "No shit Sherlock" and accusing Bryonmorrigan of being delusional, and insinuating that there is "something wrong" with Bryonmorrigan, the accusations that Bryonmorrigan is having "delusions" and insinuating that there is "something wrong" with him are personal attacks, see here: [82]. And the following diff by Bryonmorrigan to W.J.M. in which he is patronizes and belittles W.J.M. by telling him to "grow up" and referring to him as "sport", see here: [83]. "Sport" as a slang reference to someone, is something that adults in English-speaking countries often say as an affectionate term to refer to a male child, see here for its usage: [84], but Bryonmorrigan used the word "sport" to patronize and belittle W.J.M. as being immature, W.J.M. does not appear to be a child but at least an older person judging by his more complex language use.--R-41 (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

All rather small beer. R-41, your best course might be to permit other users at least some of the latitude you permit yourself; a consideration they also grant you, incidentally, by not frogmarching you to the noticeboards for every perceived slight. And anyway, overzealous vigilantism is probably as counterproductive at WP as in RL. Writegeist (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Writegeist, you seem to be the one who is here for vigilante justice. While I am no vigilante, I will admit is that I am too passionate when I see injustice, I considered your nasty-sounding comment to IRWolfie- to be such. Because of my left-wing views, I unfortunately have a natural tendency to be disgusted and aggravated when I view people as behaving as if they are superior to others. If you don't like what I'm doing, then report me. Contrary to what I suspect is your view about me, I am a person who is deeply concerned about the well-being of others, I only wish I could have the tolerance of Gandhi in responding to those I perceive as acting on bad intentions.--R-41 (talk) 08:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Enough has been said and this is going nowhere; it needs to be closed. Kierzek (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Abuse from Raeky and Mann_jess, regarding the "Evolution As Fact and Theory" page

The two pages I'd like ANI to review are these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Evolution_as_fact_and_theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Snootcher

I apologize for the long walls of text, but that seems to have been the strategy of two users named Raeky and Mann_jess. It seems that an edit war has taken place, and both of these persons have tried to portray themselves as some sort of moderation force on Wikipedia. You can read for yourself the troubles I have had with these two individuals.

To recap this brief history between us, I read the "Evolution As Fact and Theory" page and wanted to make suggestions to improve it. I believed Raeky and Mann_jess when they came off as Wikipedia rules enforcers, so I accepted their revisions to my edits. (They closed my subsection titled Phantam Citations, accusing it of a rules violation.) After I learned that these are just two online bullies who are trolling, baiting, engaging in edit drama, and other poor behavior, I decided to post my four suggestions in as concise a manner as I could. (A new subsection titled "Suggestions to Improve This Article.") However, they have stepped up their efforts, and now there seems to be an edit war underway.

I am contacting ANI after I tried to resolve these matters peacefully, which you can see in the Edit History of the Evolution talk page. I also connected to the volunteer help line, and they suggested contacting ANI after seeing what Raeky and Mann_jess were doing in the edit history.

I have never interacted with Wikipedia before, so you can imagine my surprise when Raeky and Mann_jess were quick with these bully/troll tactics. Please refer to my User Talk page for the worst of the worst, and to the Evolution talk page for their actions. Please get involved and stop people like these two from doing this to folks. Thanks.

Snootcher (talk) 04:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

suggest WP:BOOMERANG-block. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Already done, Seb; I've been watching this for a while and warned the user, but in vain. BTW, Raeky is a bit overzealous and wordy; cooling down is always better than escalating. Someone feel free to close this, unless they think there is something to it. I don't. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Sorry Seb, I'm reopening. Can someone please go by this user's talk page and address their (malformed) unblock request? Seb and I are not professional or fair enough, it seems, and I have no intention of again trying to explain to this editor what's going on. Drmies (talk) 05:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Someone who has a lot of patience, and can take things really slow, with lots of comments and constructive (even positive) criticism, is about the only thing that's going to help at this point. If anyone wants to step up to that task, it would be extremely helpful. Short of that, this user is just going to end up indeffed, and quickly, for IDHT and TE. He hasn't yet had a chance to acclimate to our policies, so that may not be entirely fair (even if necessary).   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind. He's been indeffed, and based on his last few messages, I've become convinced that he's either a troll or suffering from competence issues. Either way, I don't see any reason to waste more time on it. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happy to mentor this editor. Penyulap ☏ 06:57, 22 Jul 2012 (UTC)

You've been here for a 15 months, have under 8000 edits, only 26% of which are to article space, while over 20% are to Wikipedia space, while another 23% are to User talk. You're not qualified to be a mentor, as you seem not to realize that we're here to build an encyclopedia and not to chat. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Did I accidentally kick your dog or something ? That first sentence sounds rather impressive, I thought it was just getting towards a year and 8,000 sounds kind of small, I thought I talked more than that, but then again I like dark green contribs even better than simply all green contribs. I've looked over where this user is going wrong, and I think I can help. Mann_jess did specify 'anyone', Jess specifies 'Someone who has a lot of patience' Drmies says 'cooling down is always better than escalating' and indef is as escalated as it gets, no? I agree that 'He hasn't yet had a chance to acclimate to our policies, so that may not be entirely fair'. I think I can help someone settle in, I've done that quite a few times, and with such success that it may have escaped attention. I don't think this is rocket science I think it is just being plain *nice* <twinkly smile> Penyulap ☏ 10:03, 22 Jul 2012 (UTC)

You are not qualified to be a mentor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of percentage of edits = qualification, an editor with the amount of...controversy...like that Pen (rightly or wrongly) attracts probably shouldn't be a mentor. Even if the controversy is unwarranted it poisons the well for the mentored. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

That being said, however, while I agree that mentors ought to be experienced editors, may I ask from where BYK is getting his information on the qualifications to become a mentor? I certainly see nothing of the sort at WP:MENTOR ... which is, come to that, an essay. If he's just giving his personal opinion, well, okay, but there's no call for reiterating "You are not qualified to be a mentor" as if reciting from a black-letter rule to a slightly slow person refusing to listen. Ravenswing 18:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

What have we got to lose. I'm here to build an encyclopaedia one editor at a time. I'm looking at the WP:MENTOR page, it doesn't say that I need a Degree in medicine before I can hand someone a box of tissues. Penyulap ☏ 13:13, 22 Jul 2012 (UTC)

An editor who has been blocked twice in the past month, for disruption and personal attacks, is not an appropriate mentor. Looie496 (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think mentoring will help in this case. A quick review of his talk page shows that (whatever the reason), he's not open to receiving input, reading pages that are suggested to him, or changing his behavior in any but a more disruptive way. I doubt he would even be open to being mentored to begin with. Finally, I have to agree with Bushranger; even if I'm wrong about the mentoring, at this present time, I'm not sure you should be pursuing mentorship. I haven't been following your edits closely, but I've still seen a lot of drama attached to your name (rightly or wrongly). I think you may be a good editor in a lot of other aspects, but it would be unfair to push that drama (or any potential causes of it) on to an inexperienced editor. Again, that's just my opinion... please don't take it as a comment on your character or person. My opinion, and this state of affairs, may well change in the future. In the interim, I think there are better things for you to focus on than mentoring. When the cloud (and recent blocks) clear, it might be a good time to re-evaluate things then. Personally, I do appreciate your eagerness to get involved. It's just about timing.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

That's cool, I won't help if so many are going to protest, maybe the editor in question is more productive as an indef blocked editor. However my skills in radical approaches are indeed exotic, so this was right up my alley. I'm just going to say I was right, and you were all wrong and I give up. Penyulap ☏ 23:07, 22 Jul 2012 (UTC)

User:Mutante96

Mutante96 (talk · contribs) - I am reluctant to bring this here because Mutante96 is editing in good faith, but I see that this might be the only way to get this editor's attention. As anyone can see by this users talk page it's pretty much like I state here If the edits made by this editor were not obviously in good faith this would be a Vandalism Only account. My only concern here is to get Mutante96's attention. I was going to wait for a response to my post on their talk page before posting here, but since there has been none to anything else on that page I don't see the point. Thoughts ? Mlpearc (powwow)(Review me !) 18:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought this here, because I've had problems with Mutante in the past, not on a personal level, but just him making edits that don't belong, and I've tried to tell him through edit summaries, and then on his talk page, that he needs to quit making those edits. You can see the post I made on his talk page here. But, it seems that he just doesn't look at his talk page at all. And he doesn't have a user page. So, to me, it looks like he just made an account and then just started editing, and it seems that's all he does. He probably has never looked at his talk page in his life. Hopefully someone can get his attention. I don't know how they would do that though. Akdrummer75 (talk) 03:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully this discussion will reach a consensus to do just that. Thanx for your comment. Mlpearc (powwow)(Review me !) 03:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to go through Mutante96 live edits and fix what needs fixing, posting this here in case my edits are construed as WP:HOUND. Mlpearc (powwow)(Review me !) 04:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Please watchlist WP:ERRORS

Admins: I just got a note on my talk page that response time at WP:ERRORS has been slow. That page exists to correct mistakes on our welcome mat. Please watchlist WP:ERRORS and help us respond quickly. Thanks.--Chaser (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Weird; I check it every so often and don't remember ever seeing any unfixed errors...Nyttend (talk) 04:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48 civility

We've had a bit of a flare-up over at WP:ITN/C that could use administrator attention. User:HiLo48 has been showing significant anger lately over postings of items, and it's leading to increasing name-calling. On 16 July, for example, he responds to the posts of other editors by calling them "arrogance": [85]. Two days ago he called User:BorgQueen's posting of an item "quite immoral" [86] and "stupidly rapid" [87]; he also calls another user's comment "stupid" in the latter and insults the manners of American editors as a whole. Several editors have directly requested that he be more civil [88], to which he responded "LOL".[89] After a dozen posts with this tone in that thread, he then proceeded to open continued discussion in a new forum, bludgeoning each oppose vote as invalid and misunderstanding him, posting about twenty times (see thread at Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#Should_we_have_a_rule_requiring_a_certain_period_of_time_for_discussion_before_posting.3F. This afternoon he responded to one post asking if the user was an idiot in an edit titled "Bullshit".[90] I asked him again to be civil [91] and he responded that he was not being uncivil, but I had simply misunderstood.[92]

I'd ask that HiLo receive some sort of block or warning for his behavior. I respect that we disagree, and I hope that he'll contribute constructively and respectfully again in the future. This repeated name-calling and hostility, though, is needlessly poisoning the atmosphere of the project. Khazar2 (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Related historical ANI and WT:ITN discussions on similar behaviour from HiLo48 can be found: here, here, here and here, amongst others. Once, we can AGF. Twice, you get weary. Three times, you wonder why nothing's been done. We're well past that now… and still nothing's been done. I appreciate Khazar's efforts in bringing this to a wider audience at ANI.—Strange Passerby (t × c) 19:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It's generally three strikes and you're out, right? And this editor has had, as per Strange Passerby, over three strikes before this last one? After at least four previous discussions on basically the same sort of matter, I rather doubt at this point a simple warning would do any good. But such comments as those above do nothing to contribute to the atmosphere or even the opinion of others regarding the person making the comments. I tend to agree that some sort of block or ban seems called for, but I'm not sure based on the above what kind of action or how long it would optimally be. John Carter (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, every time I've looked in at ITNC, he has displayed the exact same behaviour. Personally, I'd say a topic ban would be useful. Maybe in a couple months he can then return to the arena with a better attitude. Resolute 19:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure a topic ban is sufficient. His attitude is generally uncivil, confrontational, needlessly argumentative, and exceedingly pedantic. For example: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Young_Earth_creationism_and_Gnosticism, where he tells Dweller to 'run off to Conservapedia' after Dweller took issue with his tone; Talk:Mitt_Romney#Romney.27s_behavior_at_Cranbrook_school, where he deploys his usual high-handed tone to dismiss the valid concerns of others; Talk:2012_Summer_Olympics#Controversy:_Minute_of_Silence_for_murdered_Israeli_athletes, where he accuses others of Wikilawyering whilst engaging in exactly that behaviour himself; and right here, below this comment. He's very fond of saying provocative things, and then claiming not to have said them because he did not, in exactly as many words, say the precise thing he's accused of. Calling me an idiot talk ITN talk is a fine example - he provided a neat Morton's fork, whereby I was either a troll or an idiot, and then rejected the accusation of having called me an idiot. No doubt if he had been reprimanded for saying I was trying to provoke him, he would have said that he hadn't said that, either. It is the Magician's force technique, and we shouldn't fall for it. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

User: Khazar2 accuses me of name calling, then provides precisely zero examples of me doing so. I have certainly expressed dissatisfaction with the BEHAVIOUR of other editors. That is NOT name calling. I choose my words carefully. Others might do well to try to do the same thing themselves. I proposed a radical change. I have been involved in introducing change in many organisations over my life. I know that it's common for one of the first reactions to a new and radical idea is for those used to the old ways to feel threatened and to attack the person with the new idea. That certainly happened with my suggestion at [[Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#Should_we_have_a_rule_requiring_a_certain_period_of_time_for_discussion_before_posting.3F]. An independent observer looking here should definitely look at the reactions of several editors there. HiLo48 (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• I commented earlier this year on HiLo48's ongoing long-term incivility and disruption of the ITN feature [93] and am not surprised to find this matter at ANI. The solution is a topic ban of substantial duration. Jusdafax 21:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

That's quite some record - as Strange Passerby has also highlighted above. For what it's worth, I advocate a complete ban for at least a month; preferably longer. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I would make the point that I have gone out of my way to warn HiLo48 in that same thread [94]. Now that I understand that HiLo48 by no means restricts his abusive commentary to the ITN feature, I have started a subsection to block him as a preventative measure. Judging from his reply he is unrepentant. And having dealt with him for years, in my view he is a poor candidate for mentoring. Jusdafax 22:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that an ITN topic ban misses the broader point of this user's difficulties with comprehending how to interact with others on Wikipedia. See ([95]), which was NOT at ITN. Arguing in defence of ridiculing others' religions is a bad idea and not part of building an encylopedia. Making ill-informed guesses about the personal beliefs of other users is a bad idea and not part of building an encylopedia. Telling other users to leave Wikipedia is a bad idea and not part of building an encylopedia. I think this user needs to radically adjust their norms of interaction. Banning him from ITN won't address the issue, but will just push the bad behaviour elsewhere. --Dweller (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

So, what would you suggest? John Carter (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

From what HiLo48 says above, his intent is to comment on the behavior of other editors, and he doesn't see this as relating to Civility. Perhaps a better explanation is needed as to why this comes off as incivil to some editors and how Civility is bigger than just "No Personal Attacks"? It sounds like HiLo48 is perfectly willing to comply with Civility policy, but has not yet seen how this applies to his actions. -- Avanu (talk) 21:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• I've never had any contact with HiLo before, but I'm not impressed at what I've seen. The diffs provided by the editors above demonstrate a sustained problem of incivility towards other editors. What is even more worrying is that HiLo seems never to acknowledge that his manner is utterly inappropriate (indeed, his response to this report, claiming that there are no example of name calling illustrate this nicely). If it was just a case of incivility from an editor who knew he'd done wrong, I think we could be lenient. However, the long-term nature of the problem, and the inability to even understand that his tone is regularly inappropriate, suggests to me that a block of some length may be necessary. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Topic bans work where it's the nature of the topic that stimulates bad behaviour. I really don't think that's the case here. I'm also not sure a block is a great idea. HiLo is capable of being constructive and productive and much of their contribution history is positive. It's when dealing with other editors that the problems come in... the talk page history includes much that is really problematic. Blocking HiLo IMO does not generate a strong possibility of improved behaviour in the future because I think they genuinely don't understand what they're doing wrong. I'd ideally want HiLo to agree to being mentored and then we'll have the thorny problem of finding a suitable mentor who agrees to doing the job. If that fails, I'm concerned that a block will begin a sad route, via future blocks to an eventual ban and that would be a shame. --Dweller (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

As I have said above, anyone looking for incivility need only look at several of the responses to my sincere suggestion at Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#Should_we_have_a_rule_requiring_a_certain_period_of_time_for_discussion_before_posting.3F. HiLo48 (talk) 21:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Mentoring would be a good step forwards, if HiLo will agree to it and we can find a suitable mentor. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

HiLo is a good editor, but inclined to be intemperate and uncivil, which detracts from his contribution. His response to warnings and relevant wikiprocess is to become increasingly uncivil. A good example is his contributions during discussion on the Craig Thomson affair which made the news due to the level of poor behaviour. --Pete (talk) 23:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Actually, HiLo's tendency to directly attack an editor isn't limited to ITN. HiLo was involved in an article with another editor, who brought the issue to ANI. I'd done some poking about on the talk page and generally found that if things don't go HiLo's way, their outbursts are pretty explosive. These were some of the gems I found last time. Here, here and here. Back then, HiLo's behaviour was buried under the subsequent discussion in to the disruptive behaviour of the other editor. I guess it was only a matter of time before this came up again. Blackmane (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Please don't topic ban HiLo48. I hope this process has given the editor pause, and that they will take a self imposed break to realize that ultimately Wikipedia is not that important :) --76.110.201.132 (talk) 01:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed block or topic ban from ITN of HiLo48

• Support block - On further contemplation of this issue, I'd agree that not just a topic ban but a block is called for regarding HiLo48's long-term and ongoing disruption, including the ITN feature as seen in discussions [96] and this one where consensus was reached that HiLo's actions were unacceptable [97]. This has gone on far too long, in my view, and it appears to me now that the problem extends further than I realized. Jusdafax 21:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Consensus? LOL HiLo48 (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, in line with Dweller's comment above. With no specific appraisal of HiLo48's comments with respect to civility, if there is indeed an issue here then mentoring is far more likely to produce a desirable result. This seems like a situation that requires a more nuanced approach to solve than simply wheeling out the brute force solution of the blockhammer. – NULL ‹talk›
  ‹edits› 22:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Topic ban I have to say, the civility issue is clear here, but I think a block is unnecessary. HiLo is a good editor. Perhaps a topic ban to let HiLo cool his heels a bit? Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 22:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - topic ban from ITN yes, block - no. Black Kite (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose block, pending mentorship proposal, see my comment above. If that fails to get off the ground or the mentor reports it fails to succeed, I'd reconsider. Definitely oppose topic ban, for reasons outlined above. Understandable motivation, but unlikely to succeed in this case. --Dweller (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose unless attempts at mentoring do not work, in which case I'd support a block. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 23:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Topic ban. The disruption has gone on far too long, and there's no reason to believe that it will cease as long as HiLo continues to post on ITN-related pages. His adversarial approach has a chilling effect on discussion, discouraging the participation of both editors disagreeing with him (who don't wish to be berated) and agreeing with him (who don't wish to align themselves with his vitriol).
  Honestly, I don't know why a topic ban wasn't enacted after consensus was clearly established here.
  As noted above, HiLo sees nothing wrong with his conduct, so a block is unlikely to inspire reform. If he's willing to accept a mentorship, this is worth trying as an alternative to a site-wide ban. —David Levy 23:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support Any level of action, at the very least a topic ban. It's nothing new, I've scarce seen an interaction in which HiLo took place without being insulting or condescending, not only on ITN but the front page talk as well, and there is a long history of AN/I. Frankly, it would seem that so long as nothing is done, he will continue to flaunt this; it is unfortunate because he is an active editor. If a block is deemed to severe I certainly support a topic ban, mentorship, or whatever else might be done to remedy this. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 23:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Reading through some of the threads presented, I do not find the same pattern. Also, some comments by other editors in these threads show a similar standard of civility. I would suggest that if editors are concerned about civility they should ask an administrator to monitor the talk pages. Below are a few of the examples I looked at.
  • Wikilawyering. An editor argues that, since WP:NOTABILITY only applies to creating articles, not to article content, "Once the article exists, any sourced material that is relevant to the topic, and that does not violate any additional Wikipedia policies, can be included; notability does not enter into that equation." Although HiLo48 had used the term "notable", WP:UNDUE would exclude non-notable content. It seems the accusation of Wikilawyering may be fair comment and yet AlexTiefling, who is calling for a block accuses HiLo48 in this discussion thread of Wikilawyering while providing no edit differences.
  • Are you trying to provoke me.... HiLo48 is replying to AlexTiefling's comment, "Let me play the world's smallest violin for you. You came here to forum-shop - to find a way of circumventing a clear consensus on ITN that you disagreed with, and continued to voice your disagreement with in tediously paranoid, nationally-biased terms. I oppose your proposal. I oppose it because it's a bad idea, but also because I can no longer Assume Good Faith in dealing with you...." Khazar2, who is the complainant in this case, then tells HiLo48, but not AlexTiefling, to be civil.

TFD (talk) 23:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, the distinction to me was that HiLo had engaged in a long pattern of this behavior; I also didn't engage with HiLo about civility when he first called other editors "arrogant", BorgQueen "quite immoral", or the comment of another editor "stupid". After he continued the behavior for 24 hours, though, the pattern became clear. I don't believe Alex has the same history, either in this particular thread or on ITN in general. Khazar2 (talk) 23:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It is difficult to show long term abuse here, especially when there are no blocks or sanctions recorded against this editor. May I suggest you go to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, whether or not your application here is successful. It is a much better forum when no single edit would warrant sanctions, but when they form part of a pattern. TFD (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, an RfC/U is probably more effort than I'm willing to sink into this drama, but if necessary, maybe someone else can take the baton from here. But are things like calling another user a "prick" over and over really not actionable without that step? [98] Our civility policies are a lot more toothless than I realized. Khazar2 (talk) 05:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I was uncivil to HiLo in that thread. I apologise for letting my feelings get the better of me. I came to that thread directly from the ITN discussion about Aurora, and I definitely should have gone and got a cup of tea first. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban (but oppose block). We have to take this first step. A topic ban from ITN will make it abundantly clear that we won't tolerate this kind of behaviour – and, if Dweller's fears that HiLo would simply bring this behaviour elsewhere come true, we can then escalate to blocks. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 00:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - At most, mentorship should be used in place of blocking. However, there is no reason why ITNC should have to put up with his attitude while a mentor tries to help mend his ways. We can lift a topic ban if and when said mentor determines that future disruption is unlikely. Resolute 00:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, and oppose block - the big guns can be called out later if needed, but right now a topic ban should solve the issue. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban. One has to start somewhere. It is true that HiLo48 is not the only one with a systematic pattern of disruptive behaviour at ITN. Somehow, ITN seems to attract users who'd be blocked/topic banned/whatever for POV pushing, political soapboxing and incivility at just about any other page, and yet their conduct is largely tolerated at ITN. However, that does not mean that nothing should be done, in fact quite the opposite. If the worst offenders start being held accountable, the others will take notice. In my observations, HiLo48 conduct at ITN has been consistently non-constructive, often provocative and incendiary. A topic ban from ITN would certainly be a reasonable first step, to see if HiLo48 can engage in more productive editing elsewhere on Wikipedia. Nsk92 (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose block, neutral on topic ban. HiLo's recent behaviour is obviously uncivil, but it ought to be easily remedied by HiLo recognising the problem and agreeing to correct it. A short topic ban probably wouldn't hurt, but may not be needed if there is a sincere undertaking to self-improve. Mentorship may also not hurt if someone is willing. But I'd be surprised if HiLo is not able to work out for himself what he needs to change. Formerip (talk) 02:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  Indeed, it ought to be easily remedied by HiLo recognizing the problem and agreeing to correct it. And that's been asked of him many, many times. But in HiLo's view, the blame belongs to everyone but him. This is nothing new. —David Levy 02:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  Fair comment, but it may be that HiLo reflects on the concerns raised it this thread and resolves to turn over a new leaf. If he does, then I'd say its reasonable to take him at his word. If he declines the opportunity, then, sure, a topic ban is appropriate. Formerip (talk) 03:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  If that were to occur, I'd be delighted to take HiLo at his word and give him another chance. But we've been here too many times for me to expect such a turn of events. And this is HiLo's current assessment of a previous determination by the community that his behavior was unacceptable. —David Levy 03:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose While I don't endorse rude comments, ITN has all sorts of very major problems (in short: it's American-biased and often links to low-quality articles) and the points HiLo was making actually look quite reasonable to me. This comment included in the orginal report was made in response to an extraordinarily rude comment from AlexTiefling (which includes "You came here to forum-shop - to find a way of circumventing a clear consensus on ITN that you disagreed with, and continued to voice your disagreement with in tediously paranoid, nationally-biased terms"). Nick-D (talk) 02:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  I think this misunderstands the issue slightly. Bias and premature postings are things that can be, should be and are discussed at ITNC while keeping a civil tongue. I don't endorse AlexTiefling's tone, but his assessment is basically correct. In this instance, HiLo was too strident and deaf to other editors. Formerip (talk) 02:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  That an actual systemic bias problem exists is all the more reason to put a stop to HiLo's disruption. His rants are so vitriolic that they accomplish nothing other than poisoning the well. When others attempted to express such concerns respectfully, their efforts were mistaken for HiLo-style trolling and unfairly dismissed. Regardless of where someone stands on these issues, his/her ability to engage in constructive discourse is compromised. —David Levy 02:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  As I said above, I don't agree with uncivil comments. However, ITN is, from my experiance and observations, a very frustrating area to edit in (reasonable criticisms posted politely are often met with strong, and often quite arrogant, counter-attacks), and HiLo was responding to fairly extreme abuse in that comment I linked to. As such, I don't see how sanctioning a single editor will resolve what's a much larger problem. Nick-D (talk) 03:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  And what about his comments at the Ref Desk? Hot Stop 04:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban of limited duration, oppose block. ITN may other problems with civility, but I'm not sure that excuses any of HiLo's behavior, especially since he's displayed identical behavior elsewhere (see, for example, BlackMane's diffs above where HiLo repeatedly calls another editor "a rude, impatient prick" or Dweller's where HiLo mocks a user's religion and tells them to leave Wikipedia). I hope we'll see HiLo contributing to ITN again some day, but until he cuts back on the vitriol, he's doing much more harm there than good. Mentoring sounds like a good step too if HiLo's prepared to accept it. Khazar2 (talk) 02:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, Neutral on block For a few months now, I've noticed that he has often been very uncivil when it comes to responding to nominations he feels are not worthy, and to comments made by other editors that he disagrees with. These comments usually lead to bickering between HiLo and the editor(s) that he rubbed the wrong way (one example). He is not always uncivil, but when he is, it always sparks some kind of argument that can be seen on the related ITN nomination. I would hope a topic ban from ITN for a while would be sufficient enough. He has shown this behavior enough in the past for several discussions to take place regarding his conduct throughout Wikipedia, so I would not oppose a block, but in terms of his behavior lately, I don't feel as though blocking him is really necessary unless he shows that he cannot be civil in future discussions. If the topic ban were to expire, and he goes back to being uncivil in the discussions, I feel he should be blocked. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 03:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support (wide) topic ban, oppose block (for now) HiLo should be topic banned not only from ITN and its subpages, but from the refdesk as well and perhaps any WP/WT page. I would, however, oppose a block since I've found his editing outside those areas to be positive. Hot Stop 04:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Nick-D. I deal with him on Australian topics all the time and while he is sometimes a little brittle to deal with (and possibly somewhat more in the topic area under consideration, from the diffs I've clicked on), he is a productive, cooperative and useful editor who works towards building consensus in discussions and is generally coming from the right place content wise. Dealing in difficult areas of the encyclopaedia where even editors who behave normally can be mistreated, it's not hard to lose perspective and get very hard-headed about things - I know that's happened to me before, although I've usually known when to walk away. Perhaps mentorship is the answer, I don't know. Orderinchaos 05:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I've had a lot of interaction with HiLo48. 3/4 of the time we are opponents/disagree. But I have the utmost respect for them. They clearly understand what what an encyclopedia should be and work towards that end and aren't afraid to take a little heat in that effort. I find that their blunt talk much less nasty than the more clever wiki-lawyer methods of warfare more commonly used. They are a strong proponent of avoiding US-centrism in Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban or at least some level of action. Countless diffs can be provided of HiLo48's bouts of incivility. I have no doubt that he is a productive editor, but all of his efforts on WP:ITN have consistently been counter-productive and deliberately antagonistic.--WaltCip (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, neutral on block. I'm not at all convinced that mentoring would work, and it remains to be seen whether a topic ban will either, but it's a start. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Propose mentorship (and fallback to topic ban from ITN of HiLo48, if mentor is rejected)

It seems that a topic ban is supported by a consensus of people above, and mentorship was proposed right before the poll above started. I would suggest that a mentor of AN/I's choosing be given an opportunity to guide HiLo48 for 2 weeks, if this mentoring fails, in the opinion of the mentor alone, or a consensus of other editors, then a 3-month topic ban from ITN would *immediately* replace the mentorship. If after 2 weeks, HiLo48 has demonstrated improvements, then the mentorship could end, with a warning to avoid further conflict or a summary 3-month topic ban from ITN would be imposed, solely at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. -- Avanu (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I am on board with the idea but I personally think it would be more appropriate, given the rather lengthy period of these problems and HiLo's denial of any wrongdoing, to impose a (perhaps temporary) topic ban and mentorship concurrently. HiLo has said in his own words that he is interested in making this a better encyclopedia; to me, the best way to demonstrate this would be to work on other articles and take a break from ITN. If things look better the topic ban can always be lifted. I must admit I am also interested to see if ITN itself cleans up at all as a result of this, not just from HiLo taking a break but also perhaps the demonstration to others on the borderline that this is unacceptable. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 02:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose If he wants to take on a mentor, that's fine. But I doubt someone who's been editing since 2008 will change now. And plus, as proposed it seems over bureaucratic. Hot Stop 04:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I above suggested to the editor that regardless of the outcome of this discussion thread, that they file an RFC/U. Their reply was, "an RfC/U is probably more effort than I'm willing to sink into this drama". If the complainant shows that lack of interest in their application, I do not think that it merits any more of our attention. TFD (talk) 06:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

If it's a sine qua non for you, TFD, I'm willing to pledge to start the RfC/U--and if this was the wrong place to come for repeated personal attacks, I apologize. I'm comparatively new to AN/I, and was just surprised to hear that it didn't deal with those matters. FWIW, I'd also point out that I'm far from the only complainant on this page, as the many diffs above demonstrate. Khazar2 (talk) 06:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Eh, disregard what I wrote above. As much as I dislike HiLo's abuse of other editors, I'd rather focus on content than spend another day or two researching and setting up a second community referendum on this. Hopefully, though, the many diffs above will be enough to obviate the need for further escalation. Khazar2 (talk) 07:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

It's pretty obvious that there is divided opinion as to how to proceed. Rather than continue with the drama that will ensue if the discussion of a topic ban or mentorship continues. I propose that the discussion be stopped here with a very stern final warning that the next time that HiLo is brought here harsh sanctions will be applied. Blocking now will be punitive, a topic ban doesn't really fit the bill and mentorship of an editor who has been here for 4 years is demeaning. Blackmane (talk) 10:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support HiLo is too good an editor to block, to experienced to mentor successfully, and a topic ban won't fix the problem. The solution has got to come from within, and I wish that HiLo could just stop and count to ten or something. This sort of behaviour can't go on, because it is disruptive, and it is a distraction from good editing work. But it cannot be ignored. --Pete (talk) 10:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I believe there is currently consensus for a topic ban, and all this does is circumvent that consensus. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 11:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. As evidenced in the above mentioned "Previous DR Attempts", the point has not sunk in to HiLo that their comments are significantly below the minimum standard of civility for the page and at Wikipedia at large. Stern warnings have already been provided. This Alternative of an alternative of an alternative is an end run around the thin consensus for a topic ban from ITN. We're not supposed to give unlimited 2nd chances to unreformed disruptive entities. Hasteur (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. I agree that blocking now will be punitive, and a topic ban doesn't really fit the bill, but mentorship for an experienced editor isn't demeaning. It's a sign of respect and affection and It may work, and should be offered before more serious sanctions are imposed. But let's see if this discussion has an effect on HiLo's future interaction style first.

HiLo, I followed your pregnancy argument and in that you occasionally crossed the line in terms of civility, but not until you'd been called a pervert by a passing IP (and no one had criticised or removed the comment) and been patronised by Ludwigs2. I think you were told by someone that you are stupid, or it was implied. Someone criticised you for striding up and down the RfC comments, challenging any opposing view, but you weren't standing over or bullying people, you were arguing, which is what we try to do here. What really annoyed me was your propensity to insult the intelligence of your interlocutor. Literally. Tell them their ideas are ridiculous. That doesn't advance your argument; it isn't necessary, it polarises the debate, and it makes you look unpleasant to deal with. And, as in the case of Ludwigs2, it can get you blocked. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Comment Don't mistake that I'm aiming to circumvent a consensus, which I don't see yet, and coming down on either side of the fence. I don't approve of HiLo's behaviour either and in fact, brought up their behaviour in the previous ANI. Given that there are examples of their incivility elsewhere, I'm not sure what a topic ban would achieve. Blackmane (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Observation I don't know if this provides any path to consensus, but it appears that editors who know HiLo primarily from ITN are almost unanimous in supporting action (the sole exception being the IP who asks HiLo to voluntarily take time off), while those who know him from other areas are conflicted or opposed. As linked above, an August 2011 ITN discussion, involving a number of different editors from the current one, was also one !vote short of unanimous in supporting a topic ban for HiLo.[99] The sharp divide suggests to me that HiLo is a largely effective editor elsewhere and a largely disruptive one at ITN. Khazar2 (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• I think he's just as disruptive wherever he goes. It's the same editor with the same interaction style. But he spends a lot of time at ITN, so I can imagine they'd appreciate a break from him. But let's see if he engages here and agrees to stop insulting his interlocutors. If that doesn't happen, if there's no recognition of a problem, we might as well just ban him, or agree to put up with the present style, because change is unlikely if you haven't acknowledged something needs changing. It's very late where he is, so this thread should stay open to give him time to respond. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment HiLo is a fine, sound and decent editor. I refute most, if not all the claims here, and hope that editors can work together to help than gang up to hound out. HiLo has always been a good voice against many of the worst excesses of ITN/C, not least certain practices of rapid posting which I find questionable. He can be a bit 'robust', which is why I hope that co-operation can be chosen over banning. doktorb _words^deeds 15:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• I respect your changing your mind, but given that you voted to topic ban him last August, you at least understand where we're coming from, right? [100] I'm not sure this is any more "ganging up to hound" than that discussion was. Khazar2 (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

*Sorry, Dr. B. I was curious about your change of mind, but didn't mean to open the door for you to be bludgeoned. Feel free to ignore my above comment. Khazar2 (talk) 19:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• "Robust" is putting it kindly. HiLo's ITN behavior is a case of reasonable-sounding ideas with extremely poor execution; you have not addressed the many civility concerns that the above commenters have brought up, many of which have supporting diffs. How are they refutable?--WaltCip (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Just quietly, Doktor, but "refute" does not mean what you think it does. It goes well beyond the sense of "deny" or "reject". --Pete (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Argumentum ad lapidem might be worth reading.--WaltCip (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support - although I think it is not unreasonable to make it clear to HiLo that it is rather likely the next step, if there is one, might be to ArbCom. There does seem to be some basis for thinking that ITN and maybe a few other areas might benefit from some attention from ArbCom, although I doubt if it goes that far that HiLo personally will benefit from such attention. John Carter (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment It would seem to me there's fairly clear consensus to topic ban. You may be right - mentorship of a long-time editor may accomplish nothing, and it may be so that he will learn nothing regardless of what is done, but that would tend to suggest that he's beyond correction and a block is in order. If he hasn't gotten the message the last dozen times he's been warned, what makes you think this time will be any different? - OldManNeptune ⚓ 17:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Without weighing in on one side of the proposal or the other, I wish to note that competence is required not only in editing, but in working collegially in the community as well. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Nothing punitive about a block for long-term disruptive behavior. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Main Page

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

---

Excuse me if this is at the wrong place, but I feel something should be said about [here]. I feel the anon's comments has passed beyond run of the mill anti-americanism into bigotry and hatred. The extreme callousness of responding to my request for the dead to be respected by calling me a 'sycophant' is disturbing to say the least. I felt this should be brought to attention, again, sorry if it's in the wrong place, or formatted badly. I'm out of practice. Zazaban (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Trolling which has since been removed. GiantSnowman 19:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

And that an anon editor is attempting to re-instate. Zazaban (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

And now a registered user. Edit war has started. *Sigh* Zazaban (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not after starting an edit war. You've made yours and Wikipedia's position clear. The matter is closed in my book. If you think those comments are bad, then I suggest you get out more. IP said some off key things but absolutely not hatred by any stretch. Seemed to me to be misplaced exasperation. Iamthemuffinman (talk) 19:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Section is removed again; calm has descended. Let's move on. Drmies (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

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

In search of edit filter savvy

If there's an admin about with edit filter savvy, I'd appreciate them stopping by WP:AIV. There's a crop of sock/meatpuppets tripping a filter and creating/editing articles that, IMO, meet A7 (credible assertion of importance). Thanks Tiderolls 19:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Call off the dogs, situation handled. Tiderolls 20:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Socks of Jude Enemy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); all blocked. In view of their track record, a long, hard range block may be called for. Favonian (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Protected page and deletions

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

---

In this edit a vandal deleted another editor's comments. The page was then protected, but the deleted comments have not been restored. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 00:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

What a mess.. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

When is this guy going to get that we don't take kindly to trolling and block evasion? I've seen several IPs get blocked today. At what point does a range block become appropriate? Ian.thomson (talk) 01:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I collapsed the comment on Jimmy's page. I missed that when I protected the page. If he wants to delete it, he will. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 01:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Were the comments that the vandal deleted restored? The ones in other sections further down by Guy Macon. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 01:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Added back manually with a link to the diff that deleted them. Ugly, but effective enough. Inside collapsed section as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 01:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

And to answer the question, we can't range block. Troll is using a few Class B networks, collateral damage would be too great. Not sure, but think I blocked a dozen of the IPs myself, and protected a few pages. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 01:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Abitoby's disregard and continued "vandalism"

Per User talk:Abitoby, specifically User_talk:Abitoby#Pranab_Mukherjee, User_talk:Abitoby#Indian_presidential_election.2C_2012 and User_talk:Abitoby#Article_ownership. Hes also previously been here and then admitted to a "friend" account which doesn't edit here (these excuses have often come up at SPI). He has the major ownership issues, he doesnt discuss (after i initially vinvited him toread the guidelines and ask for help. Ive repeatedly warned him about a block he could face but he seems to want to challenge it and just an hour or so ago posted similar edits. Virtually all his edits are reverted by someone or the other and he fails to be adding anything contsuctive. He also pushed a pov and personal view [101], as well as twice adding strange ownership notices. Its not the first time, but i cant keep going to that and warning him and reverting him. He is new, but he was nicely told to ask and read. As an aside, hes also had multiple copyvios in images and in text[102] (posted to 2 articles, then claiming he wrote it Lihaas (talk) 01:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a note that User:Abitoby blanked this section with this edit. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

That's one of three times he did that. I blocked 24h solely for that ongoing disruption, without considering the behavior that led to the initial report. DMacks (talk) 09:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

They've started edit warring over the block notices. I've just reverted their second removal. Blackmane (talk) 11:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Shoudlnt there be a discussion on the issue itself for a possible extension?

Hes possible engaging in sockpuppetry, as no one else add his bengali povLihaas (talk) 12:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I may have jumped the gun a little. I know that decline block reviews on an active block aren't to be removed by the user. Does this apply also to notices about active blocks? WP:UP#CMT isn't exactly clear about thatBlackmane (talk) 13:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes: the wording is "A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes: ... any other notice regarding an active sanction". An unexpired block is an active sanction. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh good, I must have skimmed over it, reading too quickly. Thanks Blackmane (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Shouldnt there be a discussion on the issue itself for a possible extension?Lihaas (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Request to lift 1RR

I request that my 1RR restriction, that was enforced as a result of this discussion be removed as it was mainly enforced due to perceived baiting of another user's 1RR restriction by an administrator. I declined to recognize the restriction and got my block (18:43, February 15, 2012 by bwilkins) reviewed after which restriction was enforced by the community in the mentioned discussion. Now the other user's 1RR has been lifted and the issue from me can no longer exist. On the other editwar related points raised, I respected the community enforced restriction and never violated 1RR and have only one unreverted block in my blocklog since the restriction was imposed and it is not for editwar or 1RR vio (also the reverted ones are not for these and were invalid anyway). I ask for this because I've been finding it pretty hard to keep up the spirit of BRD and find my self reverted repeatedly by editors who do not follow WP:BRD and take advantage of my 1RR restriction knowingly. Atleast 1 of such editors got a 1RR himself for gaming my restriction and am currently being editwar with on single edit as per RFC closure [103]... (these are just examples and I'll not like to involve any one here for now). Based on this I can say that 1RR is no longer appropriate for me. The topic area is also about to get Discretionary sanctions apparently [104] and the editwar issues by all users should be dealt with accordingly on their own merits whenever they occur. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm torn TopGun. On one hand, the ethical response to DS having their 1RR restriction removed is that yes, you should also have yours rescinded. My question is this: have you been blocked or warned for EW/1RR violations since the 1RR was finally acknowledged? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I've never violated 1RR or editwarred after that (some editors watch my every single edit, had I violated, I'd have been blocked right away)... I already addressed that above with a link to my block log. My reverts now usually have days between them. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

190.44.158.38

I reported this IP yesterday (to the wrong place) for its continued massive incivility when interacting with other users, unfortunately, the behaviour has continued here, and also on edit summaries here, such is the extremeness of his conduct, I feel it should be reported again. Iamthemuffinman (talk) 09:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything dramatic in that. In a report at a noticeboard, please ensure the first couple of links point to something worthwhile, and add a brief explanation so onlookers don't have to wonder what the problem is. By the way, when you revert that IP (as here), please don't use edit summary "rm vandalism" unless WP:VAND is clearly satisfied. In that case, the IP's edit looked good to me, and it certainly was not "vandalism". Johnuniq (talk) 10:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is fairly clear from the IPs contribs - edit summaries such as "You want to be a dick about it?", "some twat just removed my explanation of why this version is better", "who the fuck says what he's best known for? state the facts", "lazy fucking plagiarists" etc. Whilst their edits are generally good, their interaction isn't. I'll drop a note on their talkpage (and notify them of this thread, which wasn't done). Black Kite (talk) 11:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I recognise the Whois information and the style of the writer. Its a rolling IP, the guy is regularly blocked for incivility to any editor who has the temerity to change or revert his edit. When his IP changes he is back again doing the same. See also [105] for example. Black Kite you blocked the guy last October for edit warring. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, our friend from Chile, I remember now. Will keep an eye on them. Black Kite (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Threats

During my past wikibreak, two other users and myself have been threatened by a Wikipedia account Warhammer76 (talk · contribs). The threats were relayed through two talkpage posts [106][107] (in Serbo-Croatian) and an e-mail apparently from the same user [108]. The other users threatened were Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) and PRODUCER (talk · contribs) (producer was threatened in the e-mail, where Warhammer76 demanded his name and address). In Serbian, the user threatened to "slander my name and image" over the internet if I did not cease editing Serbia-related topics - and had actually attempted to do so. However, as Warhammer76's e-mail address is "ignaciojose2006@yahoo.com", I strongly suspect Warhammer76 is a sockpuppet of User:FkpCascais, who was recently topic-banned for another six months, and is a Serbian user joining us from Portugal, wich is quite a unique "combination" (and the user happens to be something of a self-proclaimed "arch-nemesis" of mine). I have limited access to my computer and the internet at the moment, and as the threats were rather serious, I'd like to request assistance in this matter from any willing admin. Someone should probably notify PRODUCER and Peacemaker67, and run a quick checkuser for any connections between FkpCascais and Warhammer76. Regards -- Director (talk) 10:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Somebody should indeed notify those two users - that somebody should be you. You should also have notified the two you are making accusations against - in fact, it is more important you notify them! I've done all four for you. Also if you feel two users are linked, use WP:SPI. GiantSnowman 10:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked the Warhammer account, but that of course doesn't really mean much. I doubt we here will be able to link this abuse to any established editor as a sockmaster, so I don't think this ANI discussion will be able to achieve much. You could of course ask for checkuser assistance. The threats are serious enough I'd recommend just contacting Arbcom in private – and getting the police involved. This is not just Wikipedia abuse, it's definitely criminal. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman. My apologies: like I said, my internet contact is extremely limited at this time (I am, in fact, on a sailboat, editing from an older cellphone). Thank you so much for notifying everyone.

@Future. Indeed I have replied to "Warhammer76" making it clear the police and my lawyer shall be notified should any evidence of slander turn up (he has removed the previous "taster"). However as I'm reasonably certain this could be User:FkpCascais' attempt at "revenge", a positive SPI may put an end to this quickly. -- Director (talk) 11:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I have had a similar experience lately. I got a message meant to intimidate me from Nado158 (talk · contribs), whom Fkp frequently chats with on their talkpages, stating "why you make always propaganda against Serbia? Why you do this? You think all users here are blind?" [109] Accounts HuHu22 (talk · contribs), Koo88 (talk · contribs), and now Alariccc (talk · contribs) have showed up and repeatedly removed any information they view as offensive to Serbia. Threats also followed. [110][111]. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 11:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I say DIREKTOR and PRODUCER threat to themselves to accuse Serbian users for this to block them. I am sure Warhammer76 is sock of DIREKTOR or PRODUCER. HuHu22 (talk) 12:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Checkuser note: I have just run a check on Warhammer76 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and blocked two confirmed socks. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Link 128 (at time of writing) is evidently an egregious remark that nobody should have to encounter. I speak Serbian/Croatian so I also get the message but this is very uncharacteristic of FkpCascais. He has on several occasions found himself in battles whereby he has defended his nation against detractors but he has always managed to argue his points without the need to make personal threats. In fact, that looks more to me like an attempt at framing someone, "we know who you are, and when we publish your details negatively, your name will be dirt". Yes Wikipedia does court propagandists from every side of every conflict but this is because it is open to everyone and even invites such persons to make contributions. To that end, there is nothing special about any specific editor ridiculing the Serbian nation, and besides, where it can be proven that an editor really is only out to discredit one nation/movement then it soon becomes WP:DE and the editor in turn tends not to last much longer. Rarely will you find someone who has made 20,000+ edits over the course of several years who is really "bad faith". FkpCascais has been here long enough and knows how WP works not to have to stoop so low. I hope the guilty party is found and thrown out but I'd be shocked if this were Cascais. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 14:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The reason for my allegation is the e-mail address. Its rather remarkable to find people threaten you in Serbian from a Portuguese (or Spanish?) e-mail address. If it is indeed entirely unrelated to our resident Serbian user from Portugal (who happens to be topic-banned) it would imo be quite the coincidence (though I imagine the police find it less of a problem to trace e-mail addresses to their owners). -- Director (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

A description like the one stated above by Evlekis regarding the behaviour of an editor as being someone who "has defended his nation against detractors" is disconcertning to say the least, as it represents defence of obvious WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:POV-behaviour. It should not be the stated goal of anyone here on Wikipedia to "defend their nations against detractors" (or of course for anyone to detract other nations), instead it should be their goal to create unbiased articles based on what the reliable secondary sources say. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Direktor, unfortunately, no checkuser can help you confirm or deny that theory, because your harasser was using open proxies... I'm sorry. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Saddhiyama, a few things. Firstly I am sorry for the indignity you have sufferred because of one malicious individual, believe me I do not subscribe to such cowardly subhuman behaviour - not even in cases where one is defending his nation against attacks. I also agree that former Yugoslavs on the Iberian peninsula are rare. This much can indeed lead to Cascais. I dare not say however that he is the only ex-Yugoslav in Spain or Portugal and as you can see, your antagonist is using open proxies. Be that as it may, click the right links and you have have an e-mail address in any country of the world. I insist that the wording of ther threat is inconsistent with the character of the person being accused. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 15:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I have been spending much less time on wp lately as I am having a golf tournament these days, but this couldn´t be more absurd and insulting for me. First of all, I never ever used no socks or anything similar in my years long experience on WP. The entire Direktor´s first post is very strange, as I had my editing conflicts with him in the past, I reported several actions of his, but beside that, I couldn´t care less about anything other related to him (I think he knows this, as I never took him much seriously as a person). I am mature and aware that the world is full of all sorts of people, and I certainly don´t waste time on some individuals and what they personally think. Direktor saying that I am his "self-proclaimed "arch-nemesis" is so insanely egocentric on his behalve that is as absurd as it can get.

Now, seems to me that this is either an attempt to frame me up, as they did an enormous effort to get me topic-banned and only by accident I ended having my topic-ban extended as I was unaware of how it works (my fault, I recon), or it is a case of Direktor and those other users annoying other people and now are being victims of personal attacks, which they, whithout knowing who is behind, are trying to blame me (?) for... Now, let me say one thing: from the time I entered into a mediation against Direktor, I did receved a couple of wellcoming and congratulational massages either directly on my talk page, or by e-mail. They even indicated me off-wiki websites where the issue of Direktor and his disruption on Wikipedia is explained. However, I didn´t kept any contact with any of them as they had it clear that I didn´t shared their views, just as I didn´t shared Direktor ones (I don´t share radical views), and specially because they saw that I had no interess in contributing to their sort of anti-wiki campaign. Now, this was over a year ago, probably more, and ever since I have no clue what Direktor has been doing and who has he been warring with. All I know is that most of those people were Italian and none of them was Serbian. So, if this people threatening Direktor are Serbian, I have no idea who they are, neither I want to know, much less if they come to live nearby me in Portugal or Spain, as I have no intention of making any new friends, specially not of that kind. Also, those threats should be confirmed.

Now, just as info, there are over 1000 emigrants from ex-Yugoslavia in Portugal, and much more in Spain, and also this is a hollydays destination, so I really don´t even want to guess what possibilities may be around this. Neither I care, and I am asking for an apologies to be provided to me for even suggesting something so offensive to my person. FkpCascais (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I will just make the point that I do not have a clue who is behind the attacks, and nowhere have I indicated that I even suspect you of being behind them. Try to keep your responses specific to what individual editors have said, and don't just lump us in together because it suits your sense of being unfairly persecuted. Thanks. Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I don´t mention you in my comment, and, I don´t want to be rude, but I don´t know what was your interpretation of my comment, so next time before providing unasked advices in which you leave sublime indications how I am sort of paranoic and "unfairly persecuted" (it isn´t me complaining about a "group" chasing me here, you mixed the person), try to be sure you understood properly the post. Thanks. FkpCascais (talk) 23:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, is this what is all about? This is either a child, but looking better, this looks much more like a frammed situation, and probably is not even written by a Serb as Karadzic and Mladic are written without a capital letter, so tipical for people disliking Serbs, and I think it is needless to say that a "Serbian nationalist" would certainly write allways those two names in capital letters (simple logic). FkpCascais (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, thank you GiantSnowman for the notece as I wouldn´t even remotely guess something like this was here (and Direktor will pass again not even warned for intentionally not notifiying someone he reports), and thank you Evlekis for explaining some things, although your explanation on how I "defended my nation against attacks" is not kind of correct, as it was about the selective use of sources and the missinterpretation of some of them which lead us to the mediation back then. Cheers. FkpCascais (talk) 22:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to finish, all of my wiki-time has been absolutely absorved for some time now by football-related issues, as it is now that the transfer-window is open and all the transfers take place (my personal favourite subject), so in between updating articles and searchig sources from the specialised media, I repeat, I really have no time neither clue of what wars and conflicts this users have been involved in. FkpCascais (talk) 23:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Help

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

---

Hi I'm new here, I don't know how to add sources to this article it's about a Peruvian footballer called Alberto Junior Rodriguez and I can't work the formatting properly, can anyone with experience of these kind of articles help me? Also I understand this may not be the right place to write this but as I'm new to all this i really wasn't sure.--RedBullWarrior (talk) 11:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Please read "Your First Article" to see how to handle all the wonderful mechanics for editing/adding sources. Hasteur (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

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

gaming of my 1-rr restriction by user ankhmorpork

user ankhmorpork has a long history of tag-teaming against me, hounding me and follow my edits. this behavior has been confirmed by administrators and other editors [112].

i have been baited into edit warring several times due to this tag-teaming. last time i felt into this trap and got blocked, i made the decision to abide by the 1-rr restriction and to use administrative venues when i was harassed and hounded [113], rather than getting into a fight,

originally, after a dispute on the british-pakistani page, ankhmorpork started to follow my edits and started edit warring on the dhimmi-page, together with user shrike. i have the diffs to prove this. after a warning by an administrator [114] concerning ankhmorpork's tag-teaming things calmed down. however, he is now edit warring and hounding me again. the only reason for this is the fact that i have today edited on this page, [115], a page created by ankh (see the discussion on about its neutrality on the talk page). he has at least followed me to 3 pages i have edited today.

one of them is the dhimmi-page. he is now trying to edit war content into the dhimmi-page which has been removed by other editors before [116] before. i reverted him and told him that the burden is on *him* not others, as his edits has been rejected before. instead of discussing he reverted back the content, knowing very well that i'm under a 1-rr restriction. could someone please revert ankhmorpork as he is blatantly edit warring and adding content without any consensus. content that has been removed by other longstanding editors. could someone please block him for this continuous hounding? shrike should be warned as well. -- altetendekrabbe  13:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Typical misuse of sources by Ankhmorpork. s/he is using a source which discusses the way "classical Islamic law" had discriminated against both Muslim women and dhimmis - but conveniently ignores the former, in spite of the fact that much of the surrounding text relates to discrimination against women. s/he uses the source to justify a claim that dhimmis "would also face humiliating and discriminatory distinctions" when the source actually says that the degree that such "discriminatory distinctions" were legitimate was a matter of dispute amongst Islamic Jurists - and ignores entirely the fact that the same source also points out that such discriminatory practices were unevenly applied. The book cannot be cited for categorical assertions that dhimmis 'would' face anything - and if it were to be cited for the fact that they 'might', should also point out that so might Muslim women. In any case, this is a total red herring. There is nothing remotely unusual in any system of "classical law" discriminating against women (as seen from the modern, Western 'perspective'), and likewise nothing unusual in legal discrimination on the grounds of religion either. To make out that this was somehow a significant feature of "classical Islamic law" is a highly dubious proposition, and certainly doesn't belong in the lede, particularly when the body of the text (which the lede is supposed to summarise) makes clear that the situation was much more complex, and that dhimmis were sometimes at a legal advantage under systems of "classical Islamic law" - and indeed sometimes had their own legal systems, with Islamic courts constrained from interference. The proposed edit to the lede is nothing more than spin, intended (as with much of ankhmorpork's 'contributions') to portray Muslims in as negative a way as possible, through selective (mis)reading of sources. That Ankhmorpork is still permitted to misuse Wikipedia to push such an agenda is a disgrace to the entire community. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

::: Your use of AN/I to attempt to resolve a dispute is in direct contravention of one of your two editing restrictions. I hope this results in a block for yourself. Iamthemuffinman (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, I completely misread your restriction. Iamthemuffinman (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

A notification of this would have been preferred. Altetendekrabbe has accused various editors of tag-teaming, a common denominator among them being that they do not share his view. Among them are myself, Estlandia, Frotz, Shrike and others. This is often cited when explaining his frequent disruptive editing.

Addressing his concern that I have been following him today to various pages,

• In response to a talk page discussion at Talk:Rochdale sex trafficking gang and altetendekrabbe's content removal, I added content based on the Times source as requested. I explained this on the talk page. This article was on my watchlist seeing as I created it. Note: Altetendekrabbe had made mass deletions to this page before against consensus.
• At Dhimmi, a page I have made a number of edits and introduced various sources, I explained on the talk page why a source was inaccurately presented. I then amended the article according to the source. I was immediately reverted by Altetendekrabbe who stated I was 'edit warring' and that the issue had been discussed, despite me starting a thread to discuss this source. I asked him to direct me to the pertinent discussion or explain his grounds for removal. He declined.
• Altedendenkrabbe broke his 1rr restriction today. This was pointed out to him by Shrike who advised him to self-revert which he did. This is a cynical attempt to cover up his continued disruptive editing.

I have not reverted any of his edits but improved the sourcing in one article and sought to accurately reflect the source in another, something I discussed on the talk page. His claims of edit-warring or hounding are not correct and are frequently employed when facing a content disagreement. Here are a sample of comments he has said about me in the past, 12[117].

Andy - I have no idea what you are talking about. The source and material based upon it was already in the lead and was not under dispute. What I did was alter it slightly per the source Please take a look at the edit in question before accusing me of misusing a source that various editors have agreed should be included. If you object to its inclusion, please address your concerns to the relevant talk page.

Ankh.Morpork 14:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Is that supposed to make sense? If the material was 'not under dispute' before you 'alter[ed] it slightly' then clearly there is a dispute if people disagree with your 'alteration' - and your 'alteration' is clearly misrepresentation and spin, per the usual habits of you and the Islamophobic tag-teamers that conveniently follow you around. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Look at the edit in question. You are clearly barking up the wrong tree seeing as the the source had long been introduced and included in the article and my edit was simply amending a couple of words exactly as source stated. Ankh.Morpork 15:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

excuse me but you're missing the point. your edit was reverted by other editors weeks ago, [118]. you didn't bother to discuss at all. you are now, forcefully trying to add the *exactly* the same content back. i reverted you as you have *absolutely no consensus*, and the burden is on you. instead you reverted me, knowing very well i cannot revert you back due to my self-imposed restriction. you are gaming the system, you are hounding me. regarding the so-called breach of my 1-restriction: i self-reverted![119] i forgot i was under restriction. ok? oh yes, once more: you have *consensus* and the burden is on you.-- altetendekrabbe  15:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Bollocks. I asked you twice to direct me to the relevant discussion so that I could participate as I could not see it anywhere and you instead ignored this and decided to take this to ANI. I still don't see where the issue on how to present this has been discussed. Ankh.Morpork 15:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

when i reverted you, you should have stopped and discussed. instead, you reverted me, when you don't have consensus, and the burden is on you. you made exactly the same addition weeks ago...and they were thrown out..u were asked to participate in the discussion then but you didn't.-- altetendekrabbe  15:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Not true. I did discuss it, I first started a thread directly related to my edit, a thread you have still not participated in discussing your objections. You were twice asked to show where this had been previously discussed and to explain your objections. You refused.Ankh.Morpork 15:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

you reverted the content back in without any consensus. consensus is not reached in 10 minutes. you took advantage of my restriction. you cannot revert back in disputed content under the cover of "i started a thread on the talk page"...-- altetendekrabbe  15:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Ankhmorpork is at it again, on the Rochdale sex trafficking gang article, citing The Times for an assertion that "A report conducted by The Times found that most convicted offenders of child sex grooming in the North and the Midlands have involved British Pakistanis, with the victims mainly being white girls". [120] Not only is this a gross misrepresentation of what the source says, but Ankhmorpork knows full well from previous discussions of this source that it is. Still, who cares about the truth, or what the sources actually say, if you are out to spew vile propaganda... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

yes, several editors are disgusted by his behavior [121].-- altetendekrabbe  15:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

And while we are at it, this edit [122] by Ankhmorpork looks a clear copyright violation: a copy-and-paste job from the source cite, with only trivial rewording. Then again, it is entirely unclear why the speculative opinions of an ex-MP on the possible relevance of arranged marriage to the issue (or more accurately a cherry-picked sample of some of her opinions) even belongs in the article at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Why are you referencing an edit from over two months ago and yet you have the temerity to tell other editors to stay on topic? Here is the source, how was this a "copy and paste" edit? Why are you discussing a topic previously discussed at ANI, which prompted this sanctimonious retirement, only to resurface and make exactly the same accusations. Ankh.Morpork 15:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

because you are part of the topic. your edit warring, your gaming of the system, your tag-teaming and your misrepresentation of sources.-- altetendekrabbe  16:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yup: Telegraph: "Ann Cryer, the former MP for Keighley, who first came across the issue nearly a decade ago, believes the practice of arranged marriages may also have a bearing on the issue. This, she says, is because such marriages often involve the arrival in Britain of young, uneducated young men suddenly transplanted from remote villages in Pakistan. While the age of consent is the same in Pakistan as it is in Britain, girls can be marry [sic] in the former as soon as they reach puberty".

Ankhmorpork:"Ann Cryer, the former MP for Keighley, posited that the practice of arranged marriages, involving the arrival of young, uneducated men from villages in Pakistan, might have a bearing on this issue. Although the age of consent is the same in Pakistan and Britain, girls can be married in Pakistan on reaching puberty".

How is that not a copyright violation, or at minimum a violation of Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing: "Close paraphrasing without in-text attribution may constitute plagiarism, and when extensive (with or without in-text attribution) may also violate Wikipedia's copyright policy, which forbids Wikipedia contributors from copying material directly from other sources". As for when the edit was made, so what - it is yot another example of your cherry-picking of sources for the purposes of spin. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

For info, the original statement and source were introduced by User:Pudeo, to replace a much worse reference and as a compromise. That was in the best of faith, but I am not sure that the source is ideal for the article, so have opened a thread on RSN. Note all of us who are trying to ensure NPOV and policy-compliant editing are being subjected to incivility and accusations. For examplbye ants by User:Whatdafuq - a sock puppet investigation remains open, and attention to the offensive username seems to be waiting on that. The whole spat seems to have started in May, when an editor with just 13 edits brought in a lot of material sourced to the fringe author Rodney Stark. Altetendekrabbe reasonably reverted, and Ankh-Morpork reverted back, with an accusation of vandalism, no less. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Ankh Morpork did say soon afterwards that the vandalism accusation was in error, I missed that, sorry. I don't want to misrepresent anyone. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::Comment I'm not going to squeeze this point, but he actually did it twice, making the apology a little harder to believe.[123][124]

And yet you conveniently omit this edit made soon after. If you have a complaint, present it fairly and don't ignore an obvious acknowledgment of this error. Ankh.Morpork 20:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Acknowledged, I've stricken it. Please accept an apology. benjamil ^talk/_edits 21:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

yes, but he continued with his edit war...-- altetendekrabbe  16:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

here is another (!) discussion that exposes ankh's misrepresentation of sources, his tag-teaming, his blind reverts [125].-- altetendekrabbe  16:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all why no one was notified of this discussion is clear violation of the policy by User:Altetendekrabbe.

user:AndyTheGrump trying to revive some topic that was closed by admin long time ago, his edits uncostrctuve to say the least and have nothing to do with the topic at hand.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Please try to write in at least an approximation of the English language. That makes no sense whatsoever. 17:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It read to me like "AndyTheGrump is trying to revive some topic that was closed by an admin a long time ago, his edits are unconstructive to say the least and have nothing to do with the topic at hand". Not the best grammar in the world, but not incomprehensible (not intended to take a position on the issue, just to clarify it). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal of topic ban for user Altetendekrabbe

Altetendekrabbe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for edit war multiple times and was described by an uninvolved admin as "edit warrior who may not be able to control himself"[126] Only today he broke 1RR [127],[128] though he reverted after I informed him. He clearly tries to test the limits of his restriction and game it and right now he is using AN/I to circumvent his restrictions User:AnkhMorpork is not under any restriction and restored sourced information after discussing it on the talk page but Altetendekrabbe didn't provide any meaningful explanation to his edits.

user:Altetendekrabbe was already blocked several times for constant personal attacks. He has attacked other users as "minions" [[129]] and constantly poisons the article talk page atmosphere with baseless personal accusations [130],[131],[132],[133].Though he removed most of his posts it’s very hard to edit with him in collegial way and try to improve the article. Because of the above I propose to ban user:Altetendekrabbe from all Islam related topics broadly construed

• Support-As proposer--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment You pointed out his violation of 1RR and then he self-reverted. What is the issue here? Fasttimes68 (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The issue that he trying to WP:GAME the restriction either via testing it and hoping no one will notice or via WP:AN/I like now --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

shrike, you are now lying. you know that i know that you are constantly monitoring me..."testing"... "hoping no one will notice"..my foot.-- altetendekrabbe  17:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for providing another clear example of you personal attacks [134]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose for Altetendekrabbe, Support for User:Shrike (the boomerang effect) (Non-administrator comment) dangerouspanda 17:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)— EatsShootsAndLeaves (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This user have made 20 edits at all suddenly returned today with perfect knowledge of wiki markup and welcomed himself.Very strange--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC) amended my comment

Does that supposedly make me incapable of reading? Tagging me as an SPA make very little sense dangerouspanda 17:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. A ridiculous proposal from an involved user, clearly intended to distract us from the issue here - the POV-pushing behaviour of Ankhmorpork and the rest of the tag-team, of which Shrike is clearly one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

yes... shrike is *extremely* disruptive and destructive. he has no limits whatsoever.-- altetendekrabbe  17:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose for Altetendekrabbe, Support for User:Shrike. Shrike has been playing games on this and related topics (I believe he already got topic banned from Israel/Palestine topic, which is why he switched to picking on Muslims in non-directly-related-to-Israel articles) and his activity has long pasted the "disruptive" threshold and is very quickly reaching the "exhausted people's patience" level. He dodged a few boomerangs, but one of them is going to come back and get him eventually, and the sooner that happens the less trouble and disruption.VolunteerMarek 17:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not topic banned all my editions based on scholary sources you tag teaming User:Altetendekrabbe to WP:CENSOR information--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Please write in English. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

He has never been banned or blocked regarding his disputes with altetendekrabbe and always makes extensive use of the talk page. On the contrary, you have. Ankh.Morpork 18:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

He was topic banned from IP [135] I just couldn't remember whether it was permanent or if it expired.VolunteerMarek 20:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Altetendekrabbe who is clearly pushing a pro-Islam agenda contrary to WP Rules about soapboxing and pushing points of view, also propose 48 Hour posting ban in relation to his breach of the 1RR Restriction today. Iamthemuffinman (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Would you care to provide evidence for this supposed 'pro-Islam agenda'? None has been offered in this thread. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at these 123 for starters. Ankh.Morpork 18:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

interesting. the fact that i asked people to replace "muslim" with "jewish", in order to make people understand the racism involved in some edits, somehow make me pro-islam? the first diff is a good one, do you want me to list up edits from the british-pakistani page where you maligned a whole racial group?-- altetendekrabbe  18:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

user iamthemuffinman is clearly tag-teaming with ankhmorpork and shrike here. iamthemuffinman joined wikipedia yesterday, [136]. still, he is so eager to get me banned that he didn't even took the time to read what my restrictions really are [137]. and he knows wikipedia very well, even striking out comments a day after joining [138]. this is extremely strange.-- altetendekrabbe  18:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:DUCK, chances are the brand spankin' new SPA User:Iamthemuffinman is SOMEBODY's sock.VolunteerMarek 18:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I doubt it is a sock, more likely a meatpuppet. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Al is a good editor. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I oppose sanctions against Altetendekrabbe or Shrike. -- Frotz(talk) 22:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Altetendekrabbe is capable of intelligent discussion, but does not take opposing opinions very well. Notice that he's not including me in this tag-team cabal anymore. Shrike merely got in Altetendekrabbe's way. -- Frotz(talk) 18:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

shrike has been tag-teaming with ankhmorpork ever since the british-pakistani dispute. you and i have our differences, and i endorsed your version on the dhimmitude-page. now, who has been altering that version ever since? -- altetendekrabbe  18:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This is bullshit. I have never edited this article before so I have no idea what you are suggesting. Ankh.Morpork 19:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Ankhmorpork has never reverted in this article at all but you and Volunteer Marek did and removed sourced information --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

er, what? i was speaking of you shrike. you have constantly tried to destroy any consensus on the dhimmitude-page.-- altetendekrabbe  18:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose for Altetendekrabbe, Support for User:Shrike. During the last two months there have been 6 filings at AN about Altetendekrabbe, this one included. User:Shrike has filed 2 cases [139] (unsubstantiated) [140] and argued in 1 more (not counting the current) [141] for sanctions against him, while being just as disruptive himself, but far less apt when it comes to use of WP:RS. (As a side note, Ankhmorpork's count is 2 filings [142] [143] and 1 count of arguing this instance included) There are major interaction issues here, and the guilt is definitely not all, or even mostly, on Altendekrabbe's hands - all but one of his blocks have seen the involvement of either of these users. NB! The updates at the user page of User:EatShootsAndLeaves give a good explanation of the edit history vs. knowledge of WP markup and policies. benjamil ^talk/_edits 18:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Then he should disclose his account to vote in the ANI--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

All cases were substantiated the admins already had the suspicions and did the CU.So if the admin have the sucspicions then I have every right to have one.You just vote because you don't agree me as I not violated anything.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

All cases were probably substantiated, but there was edit warring going on in all of them. It takes two to tango. Frankly, I'm appalled that it took so long as this [144] for that to be acknowledged. And I still cant get my head around what happened here [145][146]. I'm not voting because I dislike your POV. I've worked perfectly well with people with a similar POV. I'm voting because I've been watching several of the articles where you've been interacting with Altetendekrabbe and because I've seen a modus operandi of which I strongly disapprove.benjamil ^talk/_edits 19:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't take part in this edit war , I have never was blocked for edit warring and if takes two to tango why you vote only against me?Its not clear what I have violated in Islam related articles and why should I banned from it--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Someone else made the point a lot clearer than I did [147], so I'll strike the diffs. For instance, these edits sum it up quite nicely.misrepresentation 1 at Dhimmitudemisrepresentation 2a at Dhimmitudemisrepresentation 2b at Dhimmitude coatrack at Dhimmi in view of [148] and [149] It's clear that either you're unable to read the talk page and try to understand what other editors are objecting to, particularly the complexities of interpretation, or you're deliberately working against consensus. As an alternative to a topic ban, I think enforcement of FuturePerfect's suggestion of discussing all edits before making them would be reasonable.benjamil ^talk/_edits 20:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

you didn't get blocked because you *tag-team* and get away with it.-- altetendekrabbe  19:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose for Altetendekrabbe, Support for User:Shrike Per Andy and Marek. Sædon^talk 21:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support for Altetendekrabbe - a lot of people here are distracting from the main topic, by simply saying they oppose it for Alt, who, to quote an admin, is an "edit warrior who may not be able to control himsel," but they support it for Shrike. The issue isn't that Alt made a "good-faith edit" and mistakenly violated 1RR, but self-reverted. Alt is under restrictions, which you can view on his user page, which include not violating WP:1RR, and engaging in dispute resolution, and it is expected that he hold himself to higher standards and be more careful. This was part of an unblock condition, if I am correct. Shrike does not have these restrictions, because he has not warranted them, and it seems that the people commenting here "oppose for Alt, support for Shrike" aren't actually listing reasons for this, which calls into question whether they have pre-existing biases or have gotten into previous conflicts with these editors before. It's welcoming that Alt did self-revert, but it's questionable what his motives were in violating 1RR in the first place when he knows that's a specific restriction against him, and he is not allowed to violate it. And instead of trying to cooperate here and explain himself, he's just going about hurling insults at editors, and it's even worse on talk pages. I haven't personally engaged in such discussions with Alt on talk pages, as I'm too intimidated by the behavior and assaults there. I know about his actions since Ankh's page is on my watchlist (I commented on his page once, and since then it's been on my watchlist), and I noticed there was a dispute about the article dhimmi or dhimittude there, so I checked it out. Alt has a history of being blocked for these types of reasons, and it's regrettable that he still continues this behavior, rather than try to cooperate in a friendly and kind way to help benefit all of Wikipedia. I have no doubt that this post in which I expressed my sincere opinion will be attacked and assaulted as well... --Activism1234 21:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Note WP:BOOMERANG, this seems to bean opportunistic proposal and the proposer clearly has unclean hands. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Does Shrike have sufficient competence in the English language to be a worthwhile contributor?

Per this diff, [150], it appears doubtful. Regardless of content disputes, an editor lacking the necessary language skills to recognise such poor material should probably not to be involved in such controversial topics - or arguably, in any direct input into article space at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You're taking one diff in which he made two grammatical mistakes and going crazy over it? People make mistakes in grammar all the time; feel free to correct any mistakes you find. As far as I'm aware, there is no rule against making good-faith edits that comply with all the policies but have a grammatical error... --Activism1234 21:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not 'taking one diff' - I'm giving it as an example of a wider problem. See Shrike's comments in this thread for further examples of incomprehensible postings. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I can understand everything he says. You are right, users should do everything they should in order to make their edits top-notch, and grammar plays a large part in this. But those who aren't fluent speakers in English but understand the language and can edit Wikipedia, and who have been part of the community for a long time as well, should not be discriminated against, especially for that reason. --Activism1234 00:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I think this case is a bit extreme and beyond simple mistakes. This is an editor who is unable to write a sentence in an article without making several basic grammatical errors. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I would say that Shrike is conversational but not fluent based on what I've read in this thread. If it is the case that he consistently adds incorrect language to articles then that would be a problem, but unless that's happening there's not much to discuss. IOW we wouldn't sanction based on this unless it was demonstrated to happen on a regular enough basis. Sædon^talk 00:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I went through some of his article space diffs. His additions are to a poor standard: [151][152][153][154]. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

off-topic suggestion

Regardless of this case, can I suggest that the general 1RR restriction that applies in the Israel-Palestine domain (see Wikipedia:ARBPIA) be extended to all the sorts of articles that the same edit-warriors frequent? I'm not sure of the best definition, but anything related to relationships between Muslims and Jews (such as Dhimmi) should definitely be included. Zero^talk 15:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You could suggest it - but not here. This is outside the remit of this noticeboard. Can we please stay on topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting proposal, but as Andy said above, not the place for it. I'm sure this proposal can get a lively discussion in the appropriate forum. --Activism1234 21:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Moving forwards

This is getting us absolutely nowhere, generating more heat than light. Please remember that, if we are to find a resolution here, we need to work together and not treat Wikipedia as a battleground. That will mean compromise, and will probably mean that most editors will not get exactly what they want. However, if we continue like this, we get nowhere. I would encourage all involved to stop and take a step back at the moment; the initial discussion has just made matters worse, and the topic ban section is too full of accusations from involved users for any admin to judge consensus at. It seems to me that we have a complex interaction issue here, which has gone on for some time, between a number of editors. Until we resolve that, the content dispute (which a completely separate issue) will remain unsolved). While maintaining good faith and without making any accusations, perhaps we could talk about how this interaction issue might be resolved. It would be good if we could leave the past behind us and focus on developing a better relationship now. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, as one of the AE admins these are all names I'm familiar with, and I don't see a typical ANI thread resolving what's going on here. There are a lot of very deep-seeded issues that require both some subject knowledge and a very good understanding of the machinations of the ARBPIA topic area. What it really would need is an AE-type setup of comments and responses, with a couple admins willing to read over everything and a section for some uninvolved non-admin comments, but unless someone really wants to set that up an attempt to restart will probably end up being an all-out brawl like before. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Help with revision deletion

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

---

Could I please get an admin willing to help with a BLP revision deletion to look at this thread on the BLP/N? I assumed that the place to ask for BLP revision deletion was at the BLP/N, but there do not appear to be admins watching that board. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 16:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done - rev-deleted. JohnCD (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You again! Thanks. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 17:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

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

WP:SPI not yet completed

On 19 July 2012 I requested a SPI investigation into which suggested that User:Pother was a sockpuppet for User:DeFacto. The following day I requested that this investigation be extended to cover User:Ornaith. To date nothing has happened. Ornaith is upset because she was implicated, two articles Stone (unit) and Kilometres per hour are in limbo because we don't know whether or not Ornaith has a right to be there. Moreover, in the last hour or so Ornaith deleted a substantial amount of material from Metrication of British Transport.

Would someone please look into this and remove this logjam?

Martinvl (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Adding pertinent link: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Too right I was upset because I was implicated!!! And you are right, you have, with your wild accusations, halted the discussions at Stone (unit) and Kilometres per hour.

Having seen your behaviour at Stone (unit) and Kilometres per hour, I investigated further what was going on in another article in which you seem to be engaged in a dispute with more than one editor, and found you were still piling OR sections into it. I invoked the principle of WP:BRD with two edits there: this and this, and invited discussion (the "D" bit) (here and here). You threw it back in my face, and reverted not only my edits, but those of another editor too, and with a dishonest edit summary in this edit. You then, in anger, attempted to blame me in this immoderate response here for your own disruptive behaviour after I raised it on your talk page. Behaviour that you had been warned about by a mediator here in the dispute at Kilometres per hour. Ornaith (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I must say I found that edit on Martin's talk page quite extraordinary. Martin has been around here for a while - he should know by now that large edits, just like small ones, are subject to normal editing processes such as WP:BRD, which Ornaith explicitly cited in his/her revert. He should also know that that he cannot reasonably expect Ornaith to take responsibility for his (Martin's) edits. Demanding that someone else apologise for an edit that you yourself made seems distinctly uncivil. Kahastok talk 20:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Let me offer a little insight on why it was likely overlooked, if I can. It was a book of text, falling under WP:TLDR, I have already clerked it and it is pending, before I saw this ANI. If you ever have the inclination to work at SPI, you will note that we are constantly backlogged, so being human, we will jump on the easy cases first to get them out of the way. When presented with a metric tonne of text in a report, the initial reaction is to wince. No one is asking for perfection, and I will admit that this case is convoluted enough that a more detailed explanation was needed, but SPI cases that are very long winded are not so pleasant on this side of the counter, and when I only have 15 or 20 minutes at one sitting (very often), I usually won't even attempt to review a case like this because I know I can't make a determination that quickly. And again, we are backlogged, constantly. We do try. I has been clerked, it is awaiting CU response. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 01:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

BOT malfunctioned?

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

---

Not sure if I've come to the right place, but I was wondering if someone could please investigate User:EdwardsBot/Status. It looks like it has malfunctioned as it keeps giving a replag error. I am on the access list to send deliveries, and been trying to send out the monthly newsletter to WP:ESC members. I need to get some sleep shortly as I'm on an early volunteer shift tomorrow at the Olympic Park. Thank you! Wesley Mouse 20:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed - Problem solved, thanks anyway. Wesley Mouse 20:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Tan was right

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

---

Would someone mind dealing with this legal threat please? Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Toodst1 Toddst1 (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Phone WMF legal department. They will be glad to answer your concerns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.11.87 (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, your IP address will be blocked until you retract that legal threat.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

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

User:CorenSearchBot

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

---

I've by now gotten several pages tagged as suspected copyvio, and when I go there, there's nothing remotely like the new page that was tagged. The latest tag links to simplyhired.com. Coren says he's on a break and won't be around for a while. Has anyone else come across this phenomenon? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

MadmanBot in full paranoia mode

MadmanBot (talk · contribs) is currently tagging every new article as a copyright violation and while of course he does get it right sometime, he's currently getting it wrong like 90% of the time. (see MadmanBot's contributions for the series of completely absurd mistakes) He's supposedly running CorenBot but I never saw CorenBot being that defective. I've contacted Madman but if this continues, it might be necessary to block the bot. Pichpich (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Since I'm pretty much back to full activity, I'll reactivate CorenSearchBot. Provided it doesn't go berserk too, we'll not be unprotected. — Coren ^(talk) 23:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to immediately and sincerely apologize to the community for the disruption my bot's caused to the project. All of MadmanBot's tasks have been disabled at this time, and I'd appreciate it being unblocked as soon as possible (I'd do it myself but I've been in meetings all day and am running into another one right now). The bot seems to have malfunctioned due to my Toolserver account running out of disk space; I'm unsure of why that happened, but the bot depends on being able to write results to intermediate files and having been unable to do so, it erroneously used the last result over and over again. Since Coren is re-activating CorenSearchBot, I will not be re-activating this task but I do hope to collaborate with Coren in the near future regarding improvements to the task that I had been planning. Thank you, — madman 00:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

CSBot appears to be back in full form; I'll keep an eye on it for a bit. Reactivating it was fairly simple, but having Madman's being ready to take over should be high on our priority list so that if one breaks, the other can take over in short order. The years have shown that we really need to have working copyright assessment bots. — Coren ^(talk) 00:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

... and, it appears to be sane [155] (that's a copy from us, but the match is good). — Coren ^(talk) 00:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Does that mean that this can be closed? Arcandam (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. :-) — Coren ^(talk) 00:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

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

James Eagan Holmes

An administrator needs to step in and redirect the article and lock it down. There is no clearer appliation of WP:BLP1 / WP:PERP than this. There is no need for "discussion" and even if there were, the offending content should be removed until there is a consensus reached to WP:IAR and includee it. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with a BLP1 merge and redirect, but it's not clear what content is "offending" and I'd prefer to see as much of it as possible merged. What is the "offending content" here? 75.166.200.250 (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This editor has so far been reverted 5 times, there is a proper merge discussion on the talkpage - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Reverting the article more than 3 times is a violation of WP:3RR.--Jax 0677 (talk) 01:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)