Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive726#Proposed community ban of Crouch, Swale

I'm asking here because of a block and un-block that I've done on the most recent user that appears to be a sock. Before proceeding, I wanted to get additional input from other editors.

On the CueCat article, there has been some strange activity over the past week. I've never edited the article myself (that I can recall), but placed it on my watchlist due to some 3RR activity, which has since lead to some likely quacking sounds. Note: prior to this activity, the article hadn't received much editing in several months.

The first edits were by {{user|Ran kurosawa}}, whose edits were reversed with the reason "revert extensive whitewash". They restored their edits{{diff2|457917369}} and made claims of working on a book and having several thousand pages of supporting documents they could provide to Wikipedia{{diff2|457979845}}. After restoring the content, they then stopped editing for a while.

Next, within two hours, {{user|Factiod}} began editing the article and edit-warred with multiple editors over the same material - eventually being blocked by me for 3RR violation. On their talk page, they claimed to be writing a book and having several thousand pages available to supply to Wikipedia{{diff2|458011631}}.

Now, today, the new account {{user|Proofplus}} posted to the talk page with the same material. Initially I blocked this account as I thought it was block evasion then corrected to a sock-block ... however, as the accounts hadn't (as yet) been used in attempts to game the system nor used abusively, I've undone the block for now. (Note: The user is making unblock requests on their talk page ... perhaps the auto-block is still there? It didn't appear to be in place, but perhaps I missed it?)

I believe it highly likely that these three accounts are either sockpuppets or meatpuppets, but would appreciate having some additional reviews. To me, the quacking is so loud that I doubt an SPI would be accepted (behavioural evidence is pretty strong here, to me). But, I would like additional eyes to take a review. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

:Note: there had been an autoblock, now lifted by User:Steven Walling (thanks). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

::Update: The most recent editor is making a good-faith effort to discuss and not edit war over the content. While I still believe there is sock and/or meat-puppetry taking place, the most recent account is attempting to follow normal DR processes to gain consensus. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

:::Proofplus has been posting to everyone's Talk page who's been involved in the brouhaha about the article and inviting them to respond to his comments. Despite his apparent efforts to be "good", I'm not convinced that his account isn't related to the others. He, like the others, calls himself a researcher. He also talks about IP sets and other issues related to patents. His English, like the others, is poor. Still, trying very hard to assume good faith, I have replied on the article's Talk page to his comments, as best as I could understand them.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, ProofPlus here, female first, grammer is not the topic. Next, I see a continual recurring theme, but I am not really sure about what you are talking about - "same group". But first, since I am from Israel, maybe you are detecting a diffence in language syntax. But, I can see your need to point out others flaws. My understanding is - notify everyone that comments are being made, share ones research and then ask for comments. Did I miss something? My message was vey clear. Posted facts. Gave links. Made suggestions for corrections to the record. I understand the submission issues and have followed them and submitted the links for review. So, maybe that you can understand? If you are having a hard time understanding and reading (I used to tell my Profs that too to bluff them) then I suggest you seek some help and maybe others here can understand my post. I will happily answer any questions, but won't egnage in the sexist stuff trying to say one is incompotent due to language barriers. Hope this is clearer for you now Barek - which is in fact a good Hebrew name!(64.134.28.233 (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC))

:Better for you to log into your account when posting. Thanks for the gender correction, but nothing I said was sexist, nor did I say you were incompetent. Also, you didn't really provide sources for your statements on the CueCat Talk page. In any event, what I did in response was I restated what I interpreted you to say so you would understand what I was responding to. It also permits you to correct my interpretation if you think I got it wrong.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

maybe a clarification here. IS Meatpuppet some insult to me being a woman posting in what is so strongly a mans enviroment? Is this ok? Please stop, I find that term very offensive. I have checked my talk page and do not have multiple replies, but Barek states "everyone's talk page". I would asume then Barek is posting to and from multiple accounts? Is this possible? Please help me understand this when possible. Many thanks.(ProofPlus Professional Researcher 21:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

:As far as I know, the term meat puppet is not gender-based. See WP:MEAT.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

::Please verify who signed the comment to which you are replying. It appears that the comment "everyone's talk page" was made by Bbb23, not by me. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Barek, happy to know meat puppet was not an attack on me. I just provided the following information to Andythegrump and it may be relevant here. But, to confuse me with someone else is not okay and I am sure you can verify such through computers and connections. This may help explain the renewed interest in the cuecat device. Hope reposting it here is fine. (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 21:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC))

SNIP>>Here is my interest in Cue cat. RPX Corp is a public company. One of the old Paul Allen and groups guys collecting IP. They actually own the patents on the technology that was cuecat. Their stock is down 50%, but the cuecat stuff is their largest grouping. Microsoft, Google and others have licensed the former cuecat patents at $6.6 million each company and there seems to be 60 plus companies who have done the same. Supposedly these patents read heavily on G4 and other stuff and since I read the public filings I am very interested. The research I do is FINANCIAL in nature in Middle Eastern markets and seems this stock in RPX will take off and I want to know the facts. While investigating the facts of cuecat, I came across the wiki reference for cue cat and the record is just wrong and factually incorrect and I took it upon myself to add what I found out. Hope this helps. But there is big stuff in the financial markets going on relating to this OLD technology as you call it, but the patents are not old and are the next big thing. Comments? and you can find this is all public record, so I am not saying anything out of line or such. I own no stock in RPX corp, nor am I an investor, I am a researcher doing my required homework for getting to the heart of this technology (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 21:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)) (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 21:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

:I'm even more confused now. What's the connection between CueCat and RPX Corporation? Nil Einne (talk) Edit: It seems not only do they share a similarity of interest in CueCat but both ProofPlus and User talk:Factiod#whats all the blocking and hub bub about? came to CueCat while investigating patents. Nil Einne (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems User:Ran kurosawa was trying to create Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/J. Hutton Pulitzer. But parts of that seem a lot like the source [http://www.jhuttonpulitzer.com/] so it's likely a copyvio unless Ran kurosawa is actually the author of the website which raises further implications. In any case, another reason to look out for their work. Nil Einne (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Proofplus continues her odd behavior. After I responded to her comment on the Talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:CueCat&diff=458694595&oldid=458690762 here], she "responded" by opening another section [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:CueCat&diff=458840567&oldid=458694595 here] as if no one had responded. I might also add that she has not provided any links on the Talk page, despite her statement that she has. The various editors involved in these articles - to the extent they are different individuals - are eating up a lot of other editors' time for pretty much nothing.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

An IP has indicated to me on my talk page that they are editing as an IP because of previous accusations of sockpuppetry.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spinningspark&diff=458827766&oldid=458769749][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spinningspark&diff=458838263&oldid=458836646]. They are currently on 75.21.156.42 but frequently change. I would be interested if anyone knows who the original account is and if they are currently blocked. This IP is adopting an argumentative approach on the talk pages of several other users [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Neelix#A_PROTEST][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rcsprinter123#Steampunk_dispute] and should be stopped if this is block evasion. SpinningSpark 19:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

{{Notice|1=The discussion was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=459198031 closed] by {{user|Gwen Gale}}. From [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration%2FPalestine-Israel_articles&action=historysubmit&diff=459197575&oldid=458865591 her edit] to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles:

{{user|Chesdovi}} and {{user|Debresser}} are under a six month interaction ban, along with a six month ban on edits having to do with naming issues concerning Palestine or Palestinian in both articles and talk pages, broadly construed. Breaches of these bans will be followed by a block of one month, swiftly lengthening to indefinite for any later breaches. Please see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AChesdovi&action=historysubmit&diff=459195625&oldid=459071355] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADebresser&action=historysubmit&diff=459196282&oldid=459188247] for the wordings of these bans as posted to each editor. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

:*I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidentArchive726&action=historysubmit&diff=459241995&oldid=459241840 have] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=459242173 moved] this discussion back to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Community Discussion of Topic Ban and Interaction Ban per {{user|Debresser}}'s [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators'_noticeboard%2FIncidentArchive726&diff=459231263&oldid=459207407 contesting] the close here at the archives. Cunard (talk) 03:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)}}

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:212.64.48.162&oldid=458792127 Notification of most rececent IP]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jurrian&diff=458792280&oldid=458776656 most recent user account]

User Jurriaan (also User Jurrian, also multiple IPs) has a basic and fundamental problem with Primary and Original research policies, and repeatedly disrupts talk pages by engaging in primary research.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Commodity_fetishism&curid=638165&diff=458790672&oldid=458776602 diff demonstrating persistence]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Commodity_fetishism&oldid=450116120 example of conduct]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Commodity_fetishism&oldid=458668376 This recent version illustrates the depth of page disruption]

This has been persistent, spread across 12 months, multiple articles in a constrained topic area, and spread across multiple IPs and their user account. A list of IP accounts from Jurriaan's user page lists:

• 212.64.48.162
• 212.182.183.8
• 82.136.223.40
• 82.169.203.147
• 82.170.245.157
• 82.169.203.180
• 85.144.162.215

Given that Jurriaan is unwilling to abide by basic encyclopaedic policy, I'd like them restricted from contributing to topics on Marx, Marx's works and political economy broadly construed until they're willing to abide by our sourcing policies and policies on disrupting talk pages by soapboxing. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

:{{NAO}} A quick look through the ISP list shows all of the listed addresses as being registered to the same upstream ISP, except the last one, which appears to be a static ADSL registration on a separate ISP. All of them, however, geolocate to the same area. I'd suggest opening a full WP:SPI report, because {{megaphoneduck}}. {{small|Yes, I know, I promised never to use that template again. The shoe fits too well not to put it on here.}} --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

:::I strongly object to Fifelfoo's allegations and accusations. There is no evidence that I have disrupted anything. I have merely committed the sin of referencing some ideas by Karl Marx to Karl Marx's own text, whereas Fifelfoo feels that only a secondary source interpreting Karl Marx would be authoritative on Karl Marx. Actually, I am not interested in contributing my time to improving the article on commodity fetishism or anything else, if I get falsely accused of disruption. I have cited the IP numbers on my user page specifically so that my edits can be verified, it is not a big secret. I have no idea what your "megaphoneduck" is about. User:Jurriaan 3 Nov 2011 20:46 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.64.48.162 (talk)

::::SPI isn't the main issue as the User/IP isn't avoiding previous restrictions. The problem is, "I have merely committed the sin of referencing some ideas by Karl Marx to Karl Marx's own text" an unwillingness to abide by our policy on original research and the extensive (and abusively framed) discussions on talk pages on the same point. The User/IP has extensive access to the entire secondary literature on Marx, and is deeply aware of the masters—but do they turn to Mandel, or Lafargue, or Bukharin, or Cardan? To any of the heterodox or orthodox scholars? No the User/IP attempts to produce their own understanding from original texts. This behaviour has been continuous since 2010 on commodity fetishism at least. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

::::Consider [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Surplus_product&action=historysubmit&diff=458793005&oldid=452872286 this diff of Surplus product] over October where Jurriaan edits under the minor tag the following content into the article:

The translation of the German "Mehr" as "surplus" is in a sense unfortunate, because it might be taken to suggest "unused", "not needed" or "redundant", while literally it means "more" or "added" - thus, "Mehrprodukt" refers really to the additional or "excess" product produced. In German, the term "Mehrwert" simply and literally means value-added, a measure of net output, (though, in Marx's specialist usage, it means the surplus-value obtained from the use of capital).

::::This, and the paragraph "In modern economics…value of inputs." which is footnoted against an argument from first principles.

::::The User/IP clearly understands scholarly conventions; but, is unwilling to operate within the original research conventions of wikipedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

::::Character mask is content almost entirely authored by the User/IP over 2+ years. It includes wonders such as:

One of the centrepieces of Marx's critique of political economy is that the juridical labour contract between the worker and his capitalist employer obscures the true economic relationship, which is (according to Marx) that the workers do not sell their labour, but their labour power, i.e. their capacity to work, making possible a profitable difference between what they are paid and the new value they create for the owners of capital (a form of economic exploitation). Thus, the very foundation of capitalist wealth creation involves a "mask".[17]

[17]: ^ "...the paid and unpaid portions of labour are inseparably mixed up with each other, and the nature of the whole transaction is completely masked by the intervention of a contract and the pay received at the end of the week." - Karl Marx, Value, Price and Profit, part 9.[8] "Since Lassalle's death, there has asserted itself in our party the scientific understanding that wages are not what they appear to be - namely, the value, or price, of labor — but only a masked form for the value, or price, of labor power." - Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875), part 2 (emphases added). [9] Cf. the Resultate manuscript in Capital, Volume I, Penguin edition, p. 1064, where Marx uses the word "vertuscht" ("covered up").

::::Which belong in journal articles or conference papers, and not on the encyclopaedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

IP editor 74.64.126.212 periodically updates or edits information on pages relating (directly and indirectly) to the University of Michigan but consistently either 1) fails to provide proper sources for the edits, or, 2) provides a source but includes it only in the edit summary and not in the article to accompany the factual edit. This latter practice requires in each instance that another editor 1) notice the edit; 2) check the supplied source; and 3) edit the article to reflect the updated ref. If no one makes these corrections then after a while the article's assertions no longer match its cited refs and cleaning them up is likely to entail a laborious process of reconstruction. I make the necessary fixes on pages I have watchlisted, but otherwise have no appetite for following the editor around and cleaning up their incomplete edits. I've asked the editor several times to learn how to cite refs, see User talk:74.64.126.212 and following that effort, added relevant templates through level 4 on their Talk page, all to no effect. The editor does not respond in any fashion (indeed a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=74.64.126.212 review of the IP’s 200+ contributions] reflect no contribution to any Talk page), and the practices continue. I have been reluctant to seek a block for what seem to be, essentially, sound factual edits but these changes requires the diligent attention of at least one other editor to ensure that the pages are not slowly degraded, and on the whole the practice is disruptive. Also I think that the editor’s failure to engage at all leaves few other options.

I previously sought advice on how to deal with this at WP:EAR, which discussion seems to have run its course. The advice there amounted to, “seek a short block”. I’d appreciate any assistance or advice that this group may offer. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

:If they've received multiple warnings and are not changing their practices I would report them at WP:AIV. Doniago (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

:Actually, just checked out the IP's talk page. I'd say you could file at AIV now if they are still being disruptive. Doniago (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

::Doniago, AIV is not the appropriate venue as the IP has not edited since yesterday and their edits are not clear-cut vandalism. This is a long term issue with poor or incorrect sourcing over many months. That being said, JohnInDC's last message to the IP was a clear explanation as to why the edits are problematic; if they continue their behaviour when they begin editing again then a block will be necessary. I have watchlisted the IP's talk page and will monitor their edits moving forward. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

:::I'm content to have another set of eyes (or two) here and unless someone has a different idea about how to proceed, I've got my answer. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

::::Someone who makes work for others (by doing references incompetently) is not exactly a good-faith contributor. I suggest a short block to get this editor's attention if they will not participate in any discussion of what they are doing. If they continue to edit Wikipedia with the same practices (now or later) while ignoring the issue presented at ANI, then we have a problem worthy of admin attention. EdJohnston (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Before List of films considered the worst descends further into edit-war territory, I would like someone to take a look and see if they can 'splain things to the IP in such a way that it gets his attention. Thank you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

:Seems to have stopped for now, but I'll watchlist the page. 28bytes (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

::Thank you. That's one of those articles that has always shown a tendency to expand or contract based on personal opinions, which is why we try to keep some good reins on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

:::That's some fun reading. Reminds me of [https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=isbn:0740706721 this book]. 28bytes (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• He's back. Another edit showed up in recent changes. FYI, it is my opinion that the article will always tend to edits like that, is very subjective, and prob should not exist for those reasons (although I am aware that I am in the minority on that Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

:FYI, vandal's IP is 50.74.225.194‎ Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)‎

::Edit warring ≠ vandalism. Anyway, Carnildo has protected it for a week. 28bytes (talk) 23:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

:::Edit-warring is bad faith, though; and the guy did essentially section-blank; so I think the term vandalism is appropriate Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

::::No, it's not. 28bytes (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::You're right, there's a difference between vandalism and good-faith but wrong-headed editing, and this is the latter. And refering to Purple's earlier comment, yes, the page attracts lots of editorial opinions, which is why strict sourcing to hopefully multiple "worst movies" sources is required. For example, if Roger Ebert says "I hated it!", that carries a lot more weight than if an editor says "I loved it!" It's never going to be an exhaustive list. If you look through the Maldin book, for example, you'll find hundreds of them labeled "BOMB". This particular article is intended to list just a few, widely discussed bad movies. The examples serve an educational purpose about what can go wrong in moviemaking. (In the case of Ed Wood, of course, you can say it's pretty much "everything".) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The new SPA account, User:The99declaration has made some rather obtuse postings on the article 99 Percent Declaration that could constitute legal threats and are certainly WP:SOAP [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=99_Percent_Declaration&oldid=458910277] --Amadscientist (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

:I don't see explicit legal threats, but I do see problems with the username. That username definitely needs a change to an individual one. –MuZemike 02:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

::I understand MuZemike's post...but not the unsigned post by User:Pugugil below.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

:::What post? [post-cleanup]. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

::::The post that was deleted. Perhaps he meant something by it. Your question seems tongue in cheek at best and dishonest at worst.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::User:Dualus has been doing a little manipulating of that spam post and the users talk page.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

User:The99declaration is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/99_Percent_Declaration&diff=458907475&oldid=458883461 apparently] Michael Pollok, a criminal defense attorney and the author of the first drafts of the 99 Percent Declaration. Please help keep this important contributor! There are very serious WP:BITE issues on the part of Amadscientist, who has repeatedly blanked[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:99_Percent_Declaration&diff=458922095&oldid=458921750][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:99_Percent_Declaration&diff=458923715&oldid=458923454][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:99_Percent_Declaration&diff=458928263&oldid=458928122][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:99_Percent_Declaration&diff=458937593&oldid=458935985] the author's correspondence from Talk:99 Percent Declaration because there is a content dispute concerning very recent events with the Occupy Wall Street Demands Working Group. Instead of welcoming The99declaration, Amadscientist wrote this as his first message on his talk page: "Single purpose account. Misuse of article space for personal soapbox is unacceptable.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)" and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The99declaration&action=history became upset when I welcomed the user.] I do not believe Amadscientist is here to write an encyclopedia nearly as much as to try to push a point of view, and I have complained about tag-teaming on Talk:Occupy Wall Street where such behavior is still clearly in evidence. Please help. Dualus (talk) 04:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::::See formal ANI complaint below.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:99_Percent_Declaration&diff=458925850&oldid=458924894 Talk page blanking continues] to WP:BITE the original author of the 99 Percent Declaration -- what can be done to save Mr. Pollok as an editor?!? Dualus (talk) 05:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

:I could always apologize for biting the newcomer, but that does not excuse your manipulation of the talk pages, or your refusal to stop unwanted contact.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

::Am I to understand that you are referring to my restoration of material I posted to Talk:99 Percent Declaration from new user Mr. Pollok's comments on the deletion discussion, as "manipulation"? Why do you think I am not allowed to post to talk pages? Dualus (talk) 05:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm bowing out, since Mrs. Drmies is wondering what's keeping me. Beyond My Ken notified me of something brewing in Luchow's, particularly some ownership issues. He was right; I've reverted, left notes on the user's talk page, and finally a 3R warning. I came withing one clock of blocking them for disruptive editing and edit-warring, but I should leave that to someone else, if it has to come to that (I hope not). Your interest is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

:I blocked {{User|BruceWHain}} before seeing this message, but not much has changed so my block still stands. Tiptoety ^talk 04:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

::I was about to pounce this one, darn. Here's the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ABruceWHain&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1&hide_review_log=1 block log] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luchow%27s&action=historysubmit&diff=458920776&oldid=458920353 offending edit] for archival purposes. Tell Mrs. Drmies that we apologize for keeping her waiting! m.o.p 04:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

::: ...and I have declined Bhatman ... err ... User:BruceWHain's unblock ... which wasn't really an unblock ... then again, just like Chuck Norris, Bhatman wouldn't need an unblock. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I am involved in the edit warring which has been going on at this article which it looks like has had citation concerns for four years. I am trying to avoid it getting out of hand by using edit summaries, the talk page, and posting about it here. Can we get more eyes on it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Folgertat (talk • contribs) 20:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC) --Shirt58 (talk) 12:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Edit warring on a wrestling article. I assume it's scripted. Drmies (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

:* Dr "Professor Pain" Mies, you are seriously breaking Kayfabe here. All those throws are booked. No way, no how are they shoot like the Montreal screwjob. --The Shirt of Hurt... 58 (talk) 12:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Well, as far as the content of the issue is concerned, it's not clear to me why, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Professional_wrestling_throws&diff=458862032&oldid=458852816 in this edit] some unverified things are removed and others aren't, but that's a matter for the talk page. Wile I don't want to count and do things with dates and times, it's clear that y'all are edit-warring, though some (User:Francis Marks) do it worse than others (you)--without edit summaries and explanations. Both of you should stop, right now, and edit only to the talk page and work it out.

  In the meantime, there is nothing here for an admin to do, and I don't rightly see why this report is here. Drmies (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• For the record, I've given both 3R warnings on their talk page. I consider this closed: any further disruption should be dealt with first on the 3R noticeboard, and such a report will probably be followed by a swift block. Drmies (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Phoenix and Winslow has made an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AUgg_boots&action=historysubmit&diff=458923444&oldid=458893125 attack against] a company that is unwarranted and offensive, its also one in which he holds a bias against the company as it won a court case that defines Ugg boot as a generic in term. If this was made against and editor or a individual person I'd have no hesitation in blocking the users account before bringing it here for review. The thing is this isnt an individual its a company Uggs-N-Rugs but P&W description of the company is matter we should be concerned about Wikipedia is not a soap box, IMHO sanctions should be taking to address this action as its clearly intended to disrupt the discussion and prevent consensus. Gnangarra 06:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• User advised[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Phoenix_and_Winslow&diff=prev&oldid=458933279] of discussion Gnangarra 06:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

::: Err, I really don't see it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

::::I assume the reference is to referring to "Uggs-N-Rugs" as "Uggs-N-Muggs". To be honest, I do see a problem with some very POV claims being posted, repeatedly, with a lot of aggression towards Australian companies and editors, that sometimes feels to be borderline trolling. I'm not sure that it is something that could be handled here, though, but I'm also not sure what the best route is. Try for mediation again, perhaps? - Bilby (talk) 09:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

: My first instinct here was to regard this as a specious attempt to have dissent shut down (in isolation that's nowhere near a blockable offense and would be worth a rebuke at best if the subject were a BLP), but looking through the discussion there's certainly something troublesome about Phoenix and Winslow's approach to the article. You know you're heading down the wrong path motives-wise when you begin making analogies to the way Barack Obama's BLP is free of conspiracy theories and use it as an unfavourable comparison. Phoenix and Winslow should be advised to leave his personal opinions of the subject at the door when discussing them: the rest should take care of itself, given that it seems to have been established that P&W is in a distinct minority on the content matter. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I picked up a 3O request for the article Giles Coren, but I don't think my response there is likely to make much difference. The dispute concerns an edit war over adding the sentence "he is best know for his anti-Polish prejudice" to the lead.

Can I suggest semi-protecting the article and blocking account creation from the IP address?

Thanks.--FormerIP (talk) 12:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

:IP blocked 72hrs. If he comes back on same IP it will be longer, if IP changes I can semi the article. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

::OK, thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 13:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

New article Structural inequality in education appears to be a copy of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Structural_inequality&oldid=458531007 an old version] of Structural inequality. I don't know anything about the subject matter, so have no idea whether they are OK or not, or whether the articles should be merged etc. However, the attribution has now been broken so something needs doing about that please. Polequant (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

: Seeing as the talk page of the original article has a discussion going back to last month where this was planned out, was there a particular reason that you chose to run straight to the drama board with this rather than simply sending a friendly note to the user explaining what he missed, or alternatively simply fixing it yourself? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

::And can you tell me how I can sort it out please? I cannot do a manual move as there is now something in the way. That is why I brought it here, not for any drama. And I see you are an administrator, so you can sort it out. I would be grateful if you could do the honours. Much obliged. Polequant (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

::: The user's already left a note to that effect on the new talk page. If you want to make it more formal, add {{split from|page=Structural inequality|diff=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Structural_inequality&oldid=458531007|date= 22:17, 3 November 2011}} to the top of tjhe split page. If we were being incredibly pedantic we could histmerge the new page from the user sandbox, but it doesn't really matter because the sandbox page has only had a single editor who is the same as the author of the new page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

::::It didn't look like a split to me, it looked like a copy-paste move and a completely new article in it's place. But if that's all that is needed for attribution then fine by me. Feel free to close. Polequant (talk) 15:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::That's basically what it is. I'll split the history when I have time later, if no one else has. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• {{userlinks|Yorsh797}}
• {{userlinks|201.170.3.74}}

Due to some bad mojo over at commons where Yorsh797 made some bad uploads, I went over to check en-wiki to see if it was ok here as someone had included the images in some pages, and I assume that IP is the user in question.

I notice the user is making small edits related to number of goals and assists mostly, but some edits doesn't make any sense, for example {{diff|diff=prev|oldid=458709128}} increases "caps" a lot, but decreases "goals".

I asked Yorsh797 yesterday if he had any references to the numbers, but haven't got any reply. Thus I would like for a wider analysis of this matter, as I'm no expert in mexican football, and I've could have mistaken some relevant data here that makes everything logical. _→AzaToth 18:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Could an Admin check the edits of this user:

User Boabkal is personally attacking me. He accuses me of being pan-Turkic even before I had a conversation with him.

See: Talk:Great_Seljuq_Empire The source for the Turkification of Iran and Azerbaijan

This user is pushing his POV and original research. I had sourced material explaining some sentences. But he doesn't like those sentences and then declares the whole book as: 'bad, misleading and false' and he deletes the sourced material.

He is pushing his own POV and original research and accusing me the whole time and personally attacking me.

The source doesn't deny that Seljuks were under Persian influence, it just says that under their rule the Turkification of todays Iran and Azerbaijan started, because then Turkic peoples started to migrate towards those areas.

Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonTiger23 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• {{userlinks|BoAbkal}}
• Notified BoAbkal[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABoAbkal&action=historysubmit&diff=458838798&oldid=442434545]
• Advised DragonTiger23 to add diffs to comments perceived as attacks[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADragonTiger23&action=historysubmit&diff=458839216&oldid=458032484] and reminded s/he should remember to notify other editors.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADragonTiger23&action=historysubmit&diff=458839601&oldid=458839262]

:(to be helpful) ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Seljuq_Empire&diff=458102741&oldid=457654649]

Here he/she is already accusing me of spreading 'black pan-Turkic propaganda'

In the last sentence here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Great_Seljuq_Empire] he says: 'I can only conclude you're biased (i.e. pan turkic) and based on the other violations in your userpage history, I am certain of it.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonTiger23 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

:*I have welcomed[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BoAbkal&diff=prev&oldid=458848198] the editor (only 16 edits) and left a personalized uw-npa1 on BoAbkal's talk page,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABoAbkal&action=historysubmit&diff=458848635&oldid=458848198] including hopefully helpful information on dealing with disputes which included other relevant links (undue, pov, balance, relevance, dr) - as well as a note to be careful on wording so comments are not misconstrued as a personal attack.

::Does anyone deem any further actions are needed? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Can any admin tell user Boabkal not to delete the two sources that explain about the Turkification of Iran and Azerbaijan?

DragonTiger23 (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

:If it's simply removing citations that support the article, let us know. If it's changing content to something you disagree with, you need to take that up on the article's talk page and engage BoAbkal there. A polite note on BoAbkal's talk page to meet you there may be a good start. Admnistrators (except as required by an ArbCom case or community decision or for policy violations or similar) will not engage in a content dispute in administrative capacity. Once they involve themselves in the content, they can no longer act in such capacity.

:So, if the issue is the first one, please provide a few diffs - that can be addressed. If it is a content dispute, try working it out on the talk page, or engage in some form of dispute resolution. If you need help, let the community know here, or post a message on my talk page. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

---------

DragonTiger23, please do not pose yourself as a victim of personal attacks because it will not work with me, and you have no evidence of it. Furthermore, if you want to claim that I personally attacked you (which is false in that regard), then look no further than your claim of me vandalizing an article, when in fact it does not constitute as vandalism at all. That accusation you brushed on my name is, however, a form of personal attack, in which I think the admins should look into.

Judging by the series of violations you have committed, as seen in your user talk page, it is evidently clear that the Great Seljuk Empire article is not the only one you attempted to change in order to give a biased 'Turkic' point of view. There are loads of other articles in which you personally changed in order to give a biased Turkic view on, not least of which are articles such as the Latin Bridge.

On 23rd of August, you were blocked by an admin for "persistent revert-warring across multiple articles motivated by national POV agendas".

I have no doubt in my mind that the so called source you provided in your Great Seljuk Empire article on the so called 'turkification of Iran' was a bad one. Bad either because you made it up, and then provided anything as a source (to make it more believable), or because you used a source that is not academically qualified. The sentence you wrote, furthermore, went on to CONTRADICT what most academically qualified sources in that article were saying, i.e. that the Seljuks had no intentions on turkifying Iran. As I have clearly pointed out in that article's talk page.

You are in the wrong here and I will personally see to it that your attempts of spreading disinformation in Wikipedia articles does not succeed.

Wa Salamu Alaikum.BoAbkal (talk) 07:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

---------

Please could an admin explain to this person to stop his agressive attitude against me. He is making Wikipedia:No personal attacks here and when he edits here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Seljuq_Empire&diff=458935774&oldid=458854610 [[Wikipedia:No original research

Seriously just because he doesn't like the sentence of the source he declares it as 'not academically qualified'

Because first of all reed this [http://explore.georgetown.edu/people/agostong/] who is BoAbkal to decide that this author and the other authors are 'not academically qualified'.

And this is the other author: [http://www.wesleyan.edu/templates/dept/hist/skeleton_faculty.htt?function=f1&department=HIST&faculty=bmasters]

They are both academics, experts on history, that User boabkal personally attacks them just shows how pathetic biased he is. Are there no admins to stop this nonsense??

With a quick search on google books I found many more sources on (Seljuks Turkification) seriously this is written in so many history books, I didnt make this up. here http://www.google.nl/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&hl=nl&q=seljuk+turk+ified&btnG=#sclient=psy-ab&hl=nl&tbo=1&tbm=bks&source=hp&q=seljuk+turkified&pbx=1&oq=seljuk+turkified&aq=f&aqi=&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=7269l7269l0l7616l1l1l0l0l0l0l90l90l1l1l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=d681683358415b8e&biw=1280&bih=686, http://books.google.nl/books?id=4AuJvd2Tyt8C&pg=PA231&dq=seljuk+turkified&hl=nl&ei=VcCzTvj5CIboOYHAvIcC&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=seljuk%20turkified&f=false

on the matter of the Turkification of Iran/Azerbaijan. Because this is already a fact. But there is no way discussing with Boabkal, who would equally name all of those sources as bad and the authors a not academical. This is simple because Boabkal is not neutral he is trying to push his point of view, deleting sources when he doesnt like them.

This is the online version of the source (so I didn't made it up, as he falsely claims) [http://books.google.nl/books?id=QjzYdCxumFcC&pg=PA279&dq=encyclopedia+of+the+ottoman+empire+seljuq+rule&hl=nl&ei=sbmzTsq4J9Gq-AbZxJGFBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false]

Here [http://books.google.nl/books?id=gGKsS-9h4BYC&pg=PA56&dq=seljuks+azerbaijan+turkified+concise+world+history&hl=nl&ei=u76zTs-5L9Hz-gaq2viEBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false]

Can you believe this user boabkal?? Simply said, he is biased and insists on deleting the sources regarding the Turkification of Iran and Azerbaijan. He uses the most simple argument: The sources are bad. This user does not care anything about the source or wikipedia rules.

He accuses me the whole time of spreading pan turkism, how did he come u with that I dont know, If I would write one time he was pan iranian, I would be blocked, I dont want to personally attack anyone but it seems he himself is describing himself actually, he seems to be ethnically biased and tries to push his pan persianism. I have learned from experience that for some reason many Persian have racism against all things related to Turkic/Turks. And they get away with it all the time on wikipedia.

DragonTiger23 (talk) 10:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

----

Salamu Alaikum,

Your post just above proves how ignorant you are. What made you come to the conclusion that I'm Persian or Pan Iranian? I couldn't care less about either Turkic or Iranian cultures. My motive is to make Wikipedia clear from bias and disinformation. For your information, I'm Qatari, from Qatar, an Arab country.

Your sources contradict the commonly accepted scholarly views that academics worldwide have attested to. Your source is not an encyclopedia. It's a history book written by one or two authors and its titled as an encyclopedia but it isnt. Encyclopedias have references from academics and scholars to support their information. That source you gave does not.

I will continue removing it as it contradicts what the Seljuk Empire stood for.

I told you time and time again I have nothing against the statement, but the validity of the statement. It is not a valid statement. Your sources contradict mainstream view. That is all.

PS: Continue this discussion in the talk page for the article rather than cowering away.

BoAbkal (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

---------------

You want to make Wikipedia free of Bias and disinformation? Then start by deleting your account for you are the one who is spreading his bias. The source contradicts nothing, and its 100% valid, you want to remove two sources from two different authors written by academics by using your own Original research.

Are there no admins to stop this?? It is vandalism.

Thank youDragonTiger23 (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I noticed Ramanatruth keeps blanking an entire section atAdvaita Vedanta. 72.92.115.76 (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

:Could you please show any diffs as to why you say this? Also I notified Ramanatruth of this. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how to do that, but if you look in the history, it should be obvious. Ramanatruth keeps deleting "Claims of Buddhist Influence Section" which I know has been there for a while. 72.92.115.76 (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

::See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&tagFilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Ramanatruth&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=&month=-1] for edit history of Ramanatruth. There is just a couple of entries over the past two days. Two appear to be section blanking.--Nowa (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

From Ramana Truth

CONTENT DISPUTE IS NOT VANDALISM

I have spent years learning and practicing Advaita Vendanta. If you have content disputes with my edits lets discuss. Why should you guys block me. I am new to wikipedia but will add references to validate all my content. I want to make sure Advaita Vedanta is represented right in Wikipedia.

Advaita philosophy , the concept that "Brahman is all that is", is mentioned in the Hindu Holy book, the Bhagavad Gita which predates the birth of Buddha.

Ancient texts that talk about Advaita Vedanta which predate the Birth of Buddha

http://www.sriramanamaharshi.org/bookstallsales/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=128_129

If you want I can add multiple references to validate Advaita thought and the birth of buddhism.

Advaita Vedanta is the central tenet of Hinduism mentioned in the Upanishads texts which include Bhagavad Gita.

Adi Sankara and Ramana Maharshi led the Hindu renaissance by explicitly taking about Advaita Philosophy to bring the Indian population back to Hinduism, when Buddhism was spreading in India.

I request you to have a dialogue to make sure that the Advaita Vedanta is represented right.

Reporting edited content as vandalism prematurely without discussion defeats the spirit of an open encyclopedia.

Can any admin have a look at this page and the harmfull edits done by user Boabkal.

The problem is that this user is deleting two sentences based on sources. First he agressively accused me of being Pan Turkist and spreading pan Turkic propoganda, afterwards he attacks the source and authors.

Here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Seljuq_Empire&action=history] and Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Great_Seljuq_Empire in the Talk page

I am asking any Admins to watch these page and explain to this user and stop him deleting sources.

Thank youDragonTiger23 (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

: Yes, you let us know about 6 sections above. Did you check there? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

{{userlinks|Xizer}} has reverted to their old block laden past behaviour and is edit-warring at William_Adams_(judge) overturning consensus reached at WP:BLPN and engaging in gross personal attacks: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Adams_(judge)&diff=458745473&oldid=458744108 diff1]. I request a block of this user to prevent further disruption. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

:The edit summary "Haha. Do it, bitch." causes me an immediate high level of concern. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

::Thank you Ks0stm. Please also look at the report below where Xizer alleges incivility on my part yet provides no examples. This is tendentious editing on top of gross incivility and violation of consensus arrived at WP:BLPN and edit-warring BLP violations as well. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

:::Are {{user|Keizers}} and Xizer related? Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

::::I don't know. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 03:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• I have blocked Xizer 48 hours for the flagrant incivility in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Adams_%28judge%29&action=historysubmit&diff=458745473&oldid=458744108 this edit summary]. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
• Thank you very much Ks0stm. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 03:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

{{userlinks|Dr.K.}} is currently edit-warring at William_Adams_(judge) overturning valuable, well-sourced contributions to this article that are not in any violation of Wikipedia policy. As this is now Dr.K.'s third revert of the article today, this user is now in violation of Wikipedia's three-revert rule as the rule clearly states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.

No consensus on WP:BLPN has been reached as to whether or not this article should contain information pertaining to current events surrounding the controversial Internet video that has surfaced and has now been mentioned numerous times by credible news outlets such as CNN and NBC.

Go read the discussion of the article on WP:BLPN. It's literally just four dudes discussing whether or not the article should even exist, not what content should be included in said article. Xizer (talk) 02:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

:WP:3RRN is the best place to report edit warring. As far as the talk page is concerned, why not take it to AFD if people think it should be deleted? That would solve the problem for a while. N^oformation ^Talk 02:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This report (by {{user|Xizer}}) is based on a severe misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia (hint: this is an encyclopedia and not a place to shame people regardless of what vidoes may show), and a severe misunderstanding of WP:BLP. The most recent edit by Xizer at William Adams (judge) ({{diff|William Adams (judge)|prev|458745473|diff}}) added an attack piece with edit summary "Haha. Do it, bitch." Dr.K. is urged to revert as many times as necessary to protect a BLP. If Xizer could indicate that they now understand proper procedures, no further action need be taken. If such edits are repeated, particularly without serious discussion, Xizer will need to be separated from the topic. Johnuniq (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

:I should also note that Xizer is actually misquoting the policy page. Nowhere at WP:3RR does it say the sentence he quotes above, nor is there any sentence or statement at WP:3RR which could be reasonably paraphrased or interpreted to mean what he says. No further statement on the substance of his complaint, but I am not made sympathetic to his argument when it contains such a deliberate and obvious mis-statement of policy. --Jayron32 03:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

::A classic WP:BOOMERANG. I agree completely with the block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

::That's quoted from Template:3RR. N^oformation ^Talk 03:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

:::Thanks. So stricken. I should note that that particular wording should be changed, I'm not sure I like it much, but I will not discuss it here further, as this is not the venue. I'm headed to the template talk page to start a discussion... --Jayron32 03:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Note: (See also the thread above) I have blocked Xizer 48 hours for the flagrant incivility in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Adams_%28judge%29&action=historysubmit&diff=458745473&oldid=458744108 this edit summary]. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

::I agree with the block, especially given his intention to continue to edit war. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Adams_(judge)&diff=458745473&oldid=458744108 This] is completely unacceptable here. –MuZemike 05:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

:::Also agree. Given [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3AXizer&type=block this], he should know a helluva lot better. WilliamH (talk) 07:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I need some independent eyes on this article. There is an edit war brewing with some editors wanting to introduce news articles (many of which are copies of each other) to the WP article while the AfD is going on. IMO, there's too much naming and shaming going on, and I'd block the article completely, without those links, but I guess I'm not neutral enough (also, I watched the video and I'm kind of sick to my stomach). Some quick and decisive action would be appreciated--or, if not action, a note at the AfD itself. Drmies (talk) 04:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, yeah, see also the section(s) above. Drmies (talk) 04:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

:*I haven't watched the video, but even assuming it's sickening, I don't understand how User:Sceptre gets away with calling the judge a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/William_Adams_%28judge%29&diff=458761055&oldid=458760803 "reprehensible cunt"]. As I stated on the AfD page, it's remarkably uncivil and a BLP violation. Sceptre is, of course, entitled to his opinion, but it doesn't mean he can express it with impunity here. (As an aside, I don't know if "cunt" has a different meaning in British English, but in American English, it's one of the more offensive and vulgar words in the language.)--Bbb23 (talk) 23:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

::*And you just repeated it, tsk tsk. Yeah, I saw that too, and I don't know what to say. I'm on record as defending some of our regular uncivilians, so I shouldn't say anything. But it's rude, in any language, and while the person in the video is really doing disgusting things, it's not our place to comment on that. Sceptre really shouldn't have said that. How he gets away with that? I'm not blocking for civility, lots of admins aren't. I guess that's all there is to it. You're free to slap a warning on their talk page, of course. Just don't call him an asshole, cause I'd block you in a heartbeat. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

:::*I really don't know how to respond to this. He does something wrong. You acknowledge that. Yet, you seem to be more interested in taking a jab at me ("tsk, tsk") for my commenting on it and threatening me with a block for something I haven't done or even contemplated doing ("call[ing] him an asshole"). I suppose one day I'll learn my comments about this sort of thing almost never gain any traction. I suppose, too, I should be grateful (sort of) that you didn't ignore me. To quote you one more time: "I guess that's all there is to it." --Bbb23 (talk) 01:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

::::*Bbb23, lighten up ('tsk tsk' is a joke--I didn't know you were so humorless, and such a literal reader). You completely misread my comments--how you don't see that I agree with you (I acknowledged the rudeness!) while, at the same time, I am telling you that we simply don't usually act against such civility breaches is not clear to me. And yes, that is all there is to it: you will not find an admin who will block for a remark like that, and while that is sad, perhaps, that is the way it is. I don't go around calling people names like that, you don't, and Sceptre shouldn't either. Now what do you want me to do about it? I left them a warning--do you want me to hand out an instant block for a bad word? Until you understand the predicaments that go along with having ideas about civility, until you understand the difficulty of enforcing a policy on civility, and until you see that some people express themselves in ways different from yours, maybe you should ignore everything I say, including this. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::*Drmies, I'm not "humorless", but I am often "literal", and I did misunderstand what you said. Thanks for the clarification.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

::::::*I'm glad. More clarification: I do NOT think lightly of these things, lest my tone makes one believe that. If I did, I would have just passed this over and said nothing, like (I assume) many others did. Thanks Bbb, for pointing it out here. Please forgive my strong response. Drmies (talk) 00:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::::*Now that we've cleared it up, there's nothing to forgive. I actually appreciate your sticking with me while we fleshed it out.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

99 Percent Declaration is undergoing major disruptive editing during an AfD discussion. There is no way of knowing what we are “keeping” or “deleting”. It would be helpful if a disinterested administrator reviewed and took appropriate action.--Nowa (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

:This AfD is only two days old. I'd like to give it some more time to develop consensus. m.o.p 21:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

::Thank you for looking into this. The issue isn’t AfD, but edit warring during an AfD. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=99_Percent_Declaration&oldid=459030933 Consider this version at 20:45, 4 November 2011] versus [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=99_Percent_Declaration&oldid=459031407 this version three minutes later]--Nowa (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

::: After studying the history of the AFD page until my eyes blurred, I have realized that you mean the ARTICLE itself. I have blocked User:Factchecker atyourservice for 31hrs for massive edit-warring on this. Please take future edit-warring complaints to WP:AN/3RR for proper service, and be far more clear as to the problem. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

:::: Let me add that FIXING the article during the AFD is not a bad thing - in fact, it's recommended. AfD often helps bring articles to someone's attention who then has the knowledge/opportunity to fix it ... that's what the WP:ARS used to be about ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::Thank you,but in all fairness you should ban all editors engaged in the edit war. In fact, I think the page should be fully protected during the AfD. It has become a political battle ground.--Nowa (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::: Well, I have blocked the other disruptive edit-warrior that was found as well ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

::::::Thank you for attending to the situation.--Nowa (talk) 23:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

:Note: Recommend merging this section with #Single purpose account, misuse of article for soapbox above. Dualus (talk) 05:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Dualus has been using the spam soapbox message left on the article 99 Percent Declaration [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=99_Percent_Declaration&action=historysubmit&diff=458910277&oldid=458905053] and on the "Request for deletion" discussion by another user. He placed the text on the talk page to make it look like a message left there by the editor and also signed the post as the editor in question.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:99_Percent_Declaration&action=history] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A99_Percent_Declaration&action=historysubmit&diff=458921750&oldid=458905752] He also went to the editors talk page and began manipulating a post left there by me.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AThe99declaration&action=historysubmit&diff=458921575&oldid=458912074] He has also seen fit to request off wiki discussion against my previous request that he not contact me further on my talk page.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADualus&action=historysubmit&diff=456095116&oldid=456091597] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Amadscientist#Tinychat.3F]--Amadscientist (talk) 04:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

:I strongly object to the blanking[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:99_Percent_Declaration&diff=458922095&oldid=458921750][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:99_Percent_Declaration&diff=458923715&oldid=458923454][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:99_Percent_Declaration&diff=458925850&oldid=458924894][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:99_Percent_Declaration&diff=458928263&oldid=458928122][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:99_Percent_Declaration&diff=458937593&oldid=458935985] of my contributions to Talk:99 Percent Declaration and the WP:BITEing of Michael Pollok at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The99declaration&action=history his talk page.] Dualus (talk) 05:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

::I strongly object to your manipulation of another editors post. Something I have warned you about before.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

:::What precisely are you complaining about? How can you accuse me of "manipulation" when you have just blanked the same section from Talk:99 Percent Declaration four times over the space of an hour? Have you read WP:TALK? I know you have already been warned about edit warring. Dualus (talk) 05:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

::::It appears that user Dualus has been attempting to request contact of editors off wiki. I am not the only one,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AThe_Artist_AKA_Mr_Anonymous&action=historysubmit&diff=458877249&oldid=458876853] although I have stated clearly his contact on my page is not wanted.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::Yes, I have been attempting to tinychat with those who have been accusing me of trying to push a point of view. Only one editor has agreed to do so tomorrow. If any admins would like to join in, that would be great. Unless there's some reason it isn't allowed. In the mean time, would someone please restore my blanked material to Talk:99 Percent Declaration? Dualus (talk) 06:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Dualus is an extremely disruptive and tendentious editor. He has a habit of hounding editors who disagree with him to the point of harassment, often pressing them to talk off-wiki.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SarahStierch&diff=prev&oldid=458919776][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Romsey_Town_Rollerbillies_(2nd_nomination)&diff=prev&oldid=458915188][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gandydancer&diff=prev&oldid=458876269][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amadscientist&diff=prev&oldid=458877642][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Artist_AKA_Mr_Anonymous&diff=prev&oldid=458877249] Inserting disputed content into articles without adequate discussion,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=99_Percent_Declaration&diff=prev&oldid=458930614][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2011_October_26&action=historysubmit&diff=458340326&oldid=458089101] Making bad-faith accusations against anyone who disagrees with him,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2F99_Percent_Declaration&action=historysubmit&diff=458578147&oldid=458576861][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Romsey_Town_Rollerbillies&diff=prev&oldid=458906676][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk%3AHealth_care_reform_in_the_United_States&action=historysubmit&diff=458908293&oldid=458870975][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2011_October_26&action=historysubmit&diff=457847045&oldid=457785411][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2011_October_26&action=historysubmit&diff=457667236&oldid=457667158][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2011_October_26&action=historysubmit&diff=457644951&oldid=457641453] and is a constant state of "I didn't hear that!" where he argues the same points ad nauseum regardless of how many times they have been refuted by multiple editors. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Dualus_reported_by_User:Chzz_.28Result:_Protected.29][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Romsey_Town_Rollerbillies&diff=prev&oldid=458901002][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_Kingdom_Roller_Derby_Association&diff=prev&oldid=458856198][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2011_October_26&action=historysubmit&diff=457558716&oldid=457551710] He has had an edit-warring noticeboard complaint about him in the last 24 hours, and it doesn't take more than a look at Talk:Occupy Wall Street,Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 October 26 or the article talk page in question to get a clear idea of this editor's propensity for disruption. Trusilver 06:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

::::Couldn't have said it better myself, Truesilver. At least, not without combing through about 500 man-hours of absurd editorial conduct by the user in question, in order to document the utter disregard for both substantive content policies and the policies relevant to maintaining a collaborative atmosphere. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

:I recommend reviewing those diffs. While some show honest mistakes, I don't see how any of them show "an extremely disruptive and tendentious editor." Honestly I have no idea what tendentious means. I welcome discussions about my behavior, and I have been trying to reach compromises. But for now, would someone please restore the blanked material of mine back to Talk:99 Percent Declaration? I don't want to be accused of edit warring simply because I am trying to keep my own article talk page section, from the author of the subject of the article, no less, from being deleted. Dualus (talk) 07:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

::Wikipedia:Ownership of articles?--Amadscientist (talk) 07:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

:::When I refer to "my talk page sections which you have repeatedly blanked" I am not saying I own them, I am saying I put them there. Per WP:TPO it is completely inappropriate for you to delete them! Dualus (talk) 07:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

::::Per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.Jimmy Wales. [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046440.html "WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information"], May 16, 2006, and [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046732.html May 19, 2006]; Jimmy Wales. [http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org/wiki/Archives/Jimbo_Keynote Keynote speech], Wikimania, August 2006. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::Yes, that's what the policy says. Are you suggesting that the material you keep deleting is somehow a BLP issue? Dualus (talk) 07:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

::::::I'm not see the BLPVIO. Please can you explain on the article talk page how it violates BLP. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::::If an editor makes a claim on the article itself with no references it is contentious, regardless of the fact that they claim to be that person. The continued use of this material by Dualus is a clear BLP issue. Is this incorrect?--Amadscientist (talk) 08:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

::::::::Yes, its an incorrect application of BLP. Its good reason to depreceate the content and we couldn't use it as its as meaningless as a usenet posting but its not a BLP vio. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::::::Please see the talk page for specific accusations against named parties that do make this a BLP issue. Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

::::::::::I have added the exact sections of BLP violations as requested.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::::::::Where? Dualus (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

::::::::::::I, too, would like to see some links. However, anything posted by that redlink and claiming to speak for someone has to be considered a BLP violation unless proven otherwise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Dualus continues to replace this contentious material and has been edited warring against the policies and spirit of Wikipedia. I wonder if a block for these actions as well as unwanted contact would be appropriate at this time?--Amadscientist (talk) 07:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

:"Unwanted contact"? Are you referring to the fact that you keep deleting whatever I write on your talk page? I recommend that interested parties review your deletions of my questions on your talk page. In the mean time, what is the specific reason you keep blanking the message from Mr. Pollok? Dualus (talk) 07:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• ENOUGH ANI is not a venue for bickering between participants in a content dispute. Please can you both stop the back and forth and allow other people to go through the allegations and consider them. Flooding the section with arguing between the two of you is going to get you both blocked if you don't stop. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I would challenge the presumption that the editor called 99-whatever actually is who he claims to be.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/99_Percent_Declaration&diff=458907475&oldid=458883461] In fact, the "conservative" thing to do, as per BLP rules, would be to assume that he is NOT, and that anything he says could potentially be a BLP violation, as it would put words in his mouth. Now, if the actual subject can be confirmed to be that guy, then it's a different story. But that would have to be done by reliable sourcing, not by a red-link claiming to be someone. For example, if CNN has an interview with the actual guy, and he says "I'm editing Wikipedia under this 99-something user ID", that would tend to make it more credible. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

:Indeed. If an individual claims to be the subject of the post and asks for modifications, are they not usually directed to OTRS to prove/disprove the claim first. Putting information in the article or on the talkpage because "I'm Foo, so I know it" is likely to be a BLP violation. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

::Really, I'm afraid I don't see that as a BLP then or now since its not uncommon for real people to post things related to them. The unattributation is obviously grounds to depreciate the comment and we wouldn't give it any weight whatsoever but I'm still struggling to see how it violates BLP. Maybe this is another case of BLP creep. Is it worth a general discussion on this anywhere to try and get a wider consensus on this point? Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

:::Did you wish me to post those sections here and the precise areas in the spam from the redlink editor? I could also post the e-mails sent to me that were legal threats but that seems unneccesary at this point as the editor has received an idef ban and I have passed them on to another admin, but if you feel this should be made public to be defined as threats to Wikipedia for a permanent ban I can. For some reason I think he assumes I am an admin or the reason he is being banned.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I created this edit-war notice less than 1 day ago, which caused the page to be protected.

As I wrote there, Dualus has previously been cautioned for edit-warring on several occasions (which is also mentioned above), and seems to think that merely commenting on a talk page justifies continued addition, without obtaining the agreement from other editors.

Now, xe is doing exactly the same thing on another article - making an addition [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_human_rights_instruments&diff=459003858&oldid=457421657], and when another user removes it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_human_rights_instruments&diff=459005371&oldid=459004036] Dualus puts it back saying "replace per talk" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_human_rights_instruments&diff=459028435&oldid=459005371].

But there's no consensus on the talk - just Dualus saying he'll add it, and one other user removing it.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_human_rights_instruments&oldid=459027633]

Dualus is causing disruption on Wikipedia, and I think xe should now be blocked; many users have tried to explain our policies, guidelines and norms, but Dualus seems incapable of following them.  Chzz  ►  20:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

:I am in total agreement. Every time I come across this editor, I see someone (usually very patiently) attempting to explain some policy that User:Dualus is not following, only to see it explained again the next day, and again the day after, and so on and so on. At some point, it starts getting hard to assume good faith and one has to start thinking the user is intentionally being disruptive. Trusilver 21:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I think he should be indef banned myself but then I have less history with the editor and I guess requests to stop contact by editors must be requested here. So, if he is not given an indef ban I would request that he be blocked from making any posts on my talk page.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Criticism and praise[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Criticism_and_praise]: Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone.

The information was not originally presented in a responsible, conservative or disinterested tone, or repeated in that manner. It was copy pasted simply to repeat the accusations and information.

Challenged or likely to be challenged [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Challenged_or_likely_to_be_challenged]: Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article.

No references of any kind were used when this was placed in the article and repeated again on the talk page.

Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material]: Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards.

This constitutes original research and is not sourced at all. Returning the material is a violation of this section after my removal of it.

Avoid gossip and feedback loops[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_gossip_and_feedback_loops]: Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources.

The user that placed the material is an anonymous source and we cannot divulge who it actually is or is not, since the user used a username and not a real name and is simply a new Wikipedia user, it fails as a reliable source and should not be repeated even on the article talk page.

Using the subject as a self-published source[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source]:Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:

# it is not unduly self-serving;

# it does not involve claims about third parties;

# it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

# there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

# the article is not based primarily on such sources.

If Dualus is going on the assumption that this is indeed the actual person, it violates this section as being self published on Wikipedia and does not meet the standard for use on the article or the talk page.

Presumption in favor of privacy Avoid victimization[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_victimization]: When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.

The editor that placed this here is playing the victim even though he is not mentioned at all. By repeating these claims and accusations this violates this section.

Privacy of personal information and using primary sources[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_personal_information_and_using_primary_sources]: With identity theft on the rise, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year. In a similar vein, articles should not include postal addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons, though links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted. See above regarding the misuse of primary sources to obtain personal information about subjects.

We have to assume the privacy of the subject above the belief that the user is being honest about his or her identity right now. The user has not posted any further evidence or references to prove such and repeating the information violates this section.

People who are relatively unknown[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#People_who_are_relatively_unknown]: Wikipedia contains biographical material on people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, focusing on high quality secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution; see above. Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there is additional protection for subjects who are not public figures.

Little to no restraint in repeatedly adding the information back. No secondary sources. Repeating the information is questionable.

Subjects notable only for one event[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Subjects_notable_only_for_one_event]: Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.

If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented—as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981—a separate biography may be appropriate. The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.[5] In addition, some subject specific notability guidelines such as Wikipedia:Notability (sports) provide criteria that may support the notability of certain individuals who are known chiefly for one event.

Undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. Nuetral wording is not used by either the original editor or Dualus by repeating it. There is no notability present in the posting from an anonymous user.

Privacy of names[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_names]: Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of private living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons.

This person and the people he accuses have not been widely disseminated and in fact some have been intentionally concealed. No value in adding these names in the article as originaly done and then repeated on this talk page.

Where BLP does and does not apply Non-article space[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Non-article_space]: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices, should be removed, deleted, or oversighted as appropriate. When seeking advice about whether to publish something about a living person, be careful not to post so much information on the talk page that the inquiry becomes moot. The same principle applies to problematic images. Questionable claims already discussed can be removed with a reference to the previous discussion.

The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages. The single exception is that users may make any claim they wish about themselves in their user space, so long as they are not engaged in impersonation, and subject to What Wikipedia is not, though minors are discouraged from disclosing identifying personal information on their userpages; for more information, see here.[6] Although this policy applies to posts about Wikipedians in project space, some leeway is permitted to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community, but administrators may delete such material if it rises to the level of defamation, or if it constitutes a violation of No personal attacks.

Legal persons and groups[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Legal_persons_and_groups]: This policy does not normally apply to edits about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons, though any such material must be written in accordance with the other content policies. The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources.

--Amadscientist (talk) 08:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

:Oh for heavens' sakes, 1 second of googling finds several professional pages with contact info for that lawyer guy. If there's doubt that he is who he says, someone could email him and/or ask him on usertalk to confirm identity with OTRS. Yes there is a BITE problem going on. He should be thanked for his willingness to contribute here and given any help he needs, even if he's currently making typical newbie errors. We all made errors like that when we got started. 71.141.89.4 (talk) 09:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

:: Thanked? So many "occupy" articles were started that Wikipedia simply became a place to host their manifestos...Lord help us that doesn't happen again and say "look, we made the big time on Wikipedia!" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

:::Biting problem? If that single action I made over rides his use of a name to promote his agenda and his spam message that earned him an indef block, I am pretty sure I would have joined both Dualus and that red link editor in a block of some kind. Right now I am more concerned with the exact reasons why Dualus didn't earn the same indef block for repeatedly spamming the talk pages against Wikipedia policy in the same manner. I am also concerned with the exact reasons why Spartaz feels this is NOT BLP issues and violations. He had me post all my exact and specific concerns and then just blew them off in a single post the same way Dualus has in talk page discussions. I go to his talk page and I perceive hand holding by this admin for the editor in question. Taking such care to guide one editor and then demanding exacting information from another seems to be a perception problem on my side so I have no choice but give him (Spartaz) the benefit of doubt. I wish he would extend that same courtesy to me. I have followed the direction of that administrator by posting at the talk page of that article. I have delivered the threats from the red link editor to another admin and I have also included an unsolicited e-mail from another editor that seems to show Dualus attempting to get one editor to work for him. I already have a phone number left to me in a legal threat against Wikipedia of the supposed editor. I suggest the Wikimedia Foundation use it. OTRS the guy and go from there. He has made accusations in that spam against individuals. What else do you need? Dualus repeats these accusations by this editor without public Wiki permission by the editor. I realize this proves nothing. But it is more evidence against Dualus than he has to prove any accusations he has made against others.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

::::Spartaz, with all due respect, you had me give specific reasons why I feel these are BLP issues. Now please give your equally specific reasons why you think they are not. Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Can someone take a quick look at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kai_Chen_Qiu&action=history edit history] of Kai Chen Qiu and then delete it? It's a hoax page, but the number of new editors working on it may indicate sock puppetry. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

:It's just been deleted, but it might be worth checking on the socking issue. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

:: There's a good chance there's meat in those socks, but nonetheless this was a good block. Typical bored schoolkid nonsense. The autoblock that's been added should put an end to this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

:Another one Kaichen Qiu Nil Einne (talk) 09:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

::Considering User:Edgar181 deleted Kai Chen Qiu, it seems fairly obvious where User:Edgar131 got their name. From the edit history, the autoblock doesn't seem to have helped with the socks. Nil Einne (talk) 09:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

:::See also:

:::*{{checkuser|Seed1734}}

:::*{{checkuser|Fanboy12}}

::: - Voceditenore (talk) 10:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

:::The problem seems to involve other articles now, see the 3 edits of {{checkuser|203.51.55.237}} that I reverted. Nil Einne (talk) 10:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

{{resolved}} Not an issue after all.

{{la|Pembury Hospital}}

I'm not sure, but I think I've messed up on this one. The Pembury Hospital article was originally at that title. Another editor boldly moved it the The Tunbridge Wells Hospital (which is what the NHS Trust calls it). I G6'd the original title and then moved The Tunbridge Wells Hospital back to Pembury Hospital (per WP:COMMONNAME). However, in doing so I appear to have lost most of the edit history of the original article. Would another admin kindly look into this and sort out anything that needs sorting out? Apologies for the mess. Mjroots (talk) 08:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

:Everything's fine: I can see all the history at the Pembury Hospital page, and only the move at the TWH page. I suspect purging your cache would force the page to display the full history for you (that normally works for me when I have the same issue...) Bencherlite^Talk 08:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

::Thanks, I couldn't work out why it wasn't showing, as I didn't think that what I did was incorrect. Hence my post here to check. Mjroots (talk) 09:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

{{Resolved|1=The village stocks have a new member, buried in trout. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)}}

A flag went up saying...

"Hello! Due to your recent edit war on The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills, Aaron Muszalski, an administrator here on Wikipedia, has flagged your account for one more chance. Your edit below was not saved, but will be saved if you use the "Save Page" button again; if you think your edit may be against Wikipedia policy, please re-think your actions. Wikipedia always welcomes constructive contributions, but we are required to block your access to editing if you violate policy. You may back out of this page without saving your edit by clicking here. Thanks, Aaron Muszalski (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)"

Rest assured, I have no edit war in Real Housewives of Beverly Hills...and how the heck does anyone have a user name of "Master of Puppets" and how the heck can someone interpose such a message when someone is editing?? Please someone figure this out...

Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

::See this ( [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Master_of_Puppets/Editnotice&oldid=459015713 permalink] ) for an explanation. HurricaneFan25 19:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

::: and I'm guessing his username comes from Master of Puppets. Black Kite (t) 19:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

::It's good to assume good faith, even when someone flags your account, mistakes happen. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

::::I can only offer my deepest apologies. Maintenance of an edit filter I was using for a test went awry, and it happened to save before I was finished with the regexes. I've lifted this and am terribly sorry to anybody it affected. m.o.p 19:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::To clarify: I can guarantee that the filter was incorrectly programmed. Anything it flagged (which, in this case, was everything) was probably good content. m.o.p 19:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

::::::Time to dust off the village stocks it seems ;). Alexandria (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::::Yup, this was a genuine, if colossal error, corrected in seconds. WilliamH (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::::: I am reminded of a conversation on #wikipedia-en-admins that started "hey, did you know it's impossible to delete the Main Page?"... Black Kite (t) 19:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

:{{od}}Oh look [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchFilter=433 what you've done, even the bots aren't happy now ;)]. HurricaneFan25 19:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

::I wondered why 28bot was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseLog?title=Special%3AAbuseLog&wpSearchUser=28bot&wpSearchFilter=433 crying]... 28bytes (talk) 19:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

:::Same thing happened to me and I got the same notice, but just briefly. North8000 (talk) 01:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I propose a six-month ban on bragging on the part of User:Master of Puppets. They claim to have [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Master_of_Puppets&diff=459014941&oldid=459014923 broken Wikipedia], which is grandstanding of a magnitude not becoming of a regular administrator; as far as I know, such claims can only be made by bureaucrats. MoP may return to bragging if they survive six months without braggadocio or if they delete the main page during that period. Intermediate bragging will lead to a lengthening of the ban and a free cussword on MoPs talk page by the first fifty editors. Drmies (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

:I'd like to thank people for understanding and making light of this situation - rest assured, it won't be happening again. Ever. m.o.p 19:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Two gifts for MOP:

{{trout}}{{chips}}

(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

:OK...I am getting the sense of humor now...LOL!--Amadscientist (talk) 12:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

::I seriously need to edit something that does not have the words "occupy" in it.....(that will probably help me take stuff less seriously...and improve articles I have abandoned over the last two weeks)--Amadscientist (talk) 13:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

An anonymous user has made multiple reversions of the birth date in the Collis Potter Huntington‎ article, replacing a date that is supported by a reference and is the consensus previously reached on the article's talk page:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collis_Potter_Huntington&diff=457179470&oldid=457056379]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collis_Potter_Huntington&diff=457306422&oldid=457250510]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collis_Potter_Huntington&diff=457713643&oldid=457425757]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collis_Potter_Huntington&diff=458173711&oldid=457751047]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collis_Potter_Huntington&diff=458363122&oldid=458218157]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collis_Potter_Huntington&diff=458687241&oldid=458640550]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collis_Potter_Huntington&diff=458864188&oldid=458747829]

The anonymous user has indicated in edit summaries and on one of several talk pages no interest in discussing the subject or compromising. I'm not sure what else to do. Could someone take a look at this? -- Pemilligan (talk) 02:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

:Just to add to the basic info here, I was part of the discussion to reach consensus on this topic back in 2007 (see the article's talk page). I was asked this week to take a look again. I haven't had a chance to do more thorough research yet; my first thought is to keep the original consensus since the new edits don't appear to me to add a strong enough reference to support the disputed date. Also, part of the original consensus was to show both dates in the article noting the references for both, and it appears that that part of the consensus has been disregarded by editors since then. Slambo (Speak) 04:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

:: There really should be no date issue or problem with Mr. Huntington's birthday. I own a copy of Cerinda Evan's definative biography on Collis Potter Huntington (Collis Potter Huntington / by Cerinda W. Evans - complete in 2 volumes Publisher: Newport News, Va. : Mariners' Museum;(1954) ASIN: B0056PIFGU) as well as several other books on his life and times. In none of these references is there an issue with the birthdate, it is consistently given as {{Birth date|1821|10|22}}. It appears to me that the problem started with someone citing a website that shows tombstones and grave markers. However, I cannot find the date in question on the website listed as the source of the April date. Additionally behavior of these repeat edits including comments in the edit summaries including "does this look like my bothered face?" seem more like trolling to me than the work of a concerned revisionist. I have attempted to open dialog with the anonymous editor to no avail. Ellin Beltz (talk) 09:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

::: Your editor keeps changing IP, so I would imagine he is not even looking at his talkpage for any warnings. I have semi'd the article for two weeks, see if that slows him down. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Pemilligan (talk) 03:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The user was banned indefinitely (see:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive724#User:Otto4711 - WP:ban proposal) but still edits under IP's and vandalizes Template:James Whale. Can we please make this stop?--TheMovieBuff (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

:Protected. Elockid ^(Talk) 16:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

{{discussion top|As this proposal has strong (unanimous, actually) support, I'm closing it as "enacted": User:Crouch, Swale is formally banned by the community. 28bytes (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)}}

This user is a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Crouch,_Swale massive sockpuppeteer] and per the most recent [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/De33356 actions], has no intent of quitting. Even impersonating banned user Scibaby. I therefore propose a full ban. Calabe1992 (talk) 01:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support for whatever good it will do. Rklawton (talk) 02:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support – He's banned in my book at least; I've already been reverting all his edits and deleting all his creations as of late, mainly because he knows he can. –MuZemike 02:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Doubt this will make much difference but they clearly deserved to be banned. Was involved in this at the beginning and then get distracted by writing a PhD thesis so hadn;t realised how bad this had got. Dpmuk (talk) 03:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support, his disruption is not limited to mainspace, for example [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion&diff=next&oldid=435917780 this inane move request]. Kid needs to find something better to do with his life. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. We really shouldn't need the formal ban process, but since it's a good way officially to say "Goodbye" to a troublemaker, it's better that we do it. We definitely need to say "Goodbye". Nyttend (talk) 06:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support Ban is obvious but needed to assist removal of future disruption. Johnuniq (talk) 07:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support Banned in my book too, but for what it's formally worth... WilliamH (talk) 07:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support For gross incompetence and liberal servings of WP:IDHT, disruption and worst of all, rampant socking. -Blackmane (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
• 'Support - Obviously. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support Obviously unconstructive, they deserve to be banned. HurricaneFan25 | talk 16:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support I actually feel quite disappointed to see this, as he has created several articles; but I assume that this new type of behaviour is not going to change, so I'll support. Minima© (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

::Most of those articles were from reading names off a map, so I don't think there's any loss. Polequant (talk) 15:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support Very little reason not to ban him. OIFA (talk) 03:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support; I'm disappointed that it had to go this way (having had some interaction with their earliest edits) but I think that by this point a community ban has net benefit to wikipedia. We've gone far beyond the point where mentoring &c might be viable. bobrayner (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Didn't realise they were still around, and I thought they were already banned. Not that it will make much difference really. Polequant (talk) 15:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. With 400+ socks, this user obviously needs to be banned. WikiPuppies! (bark) 20:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

{{discussion bottom}}

Hello all,

On 23 October, User talk:MrRhythm started changing the GDP nominal and PPP rankings in the infobox for the United Kingdom. The accepted, long-standing values of 6th and 7th are linked from the List of countries by GDP (nominal) and List of countries by GDP (PPP) respectively, where they are sourced from the World Bank, IMF, and CIA Factbook. MrRhythm is changing the values [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Kingdom&action=historysubmit&diff=457007372&oldid=456995637 based on his own analysis of the 2011 British census]. However, doing this introduces conflict both within the article (as the former values are mentioned elsewhere in the article) and with the two GDP lists themselves, as items in the same list are being compared according to differing criteria. Both I and User:Rangoon11 reverted MrRhythm's edits over the next two days; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMrRhythm&action=historysubmit&diff=457163172&oldid=446824926 I invited MrRhythm] to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AUnited_Kingdom&action=historysubmit&diff=457163152&oldid=457017748 the article talk page] to discuss the changes.

MrRhythm did not respond in any fashion, continuing to insert his original research into the infobox. I then opened a discussion on the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_10#United_Kingdom Dispute Resolution Noticeboard], again [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMrRhythm&action=historysubmit&diff=457332178&oldid=457325306 inviting MrRhythm to participate]. He did not participate there either, but he also stopped inserting his information into the article for several days, so I thought perhaps he had gotten the message.

At the DRN discussion, User:ItsZippy recommended that I bring the issue here, as the main issue wasn't a content dispute but disruptive editing. I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MrRhythm&diff=next&oldid=457332521 informed MrRhythm of this].

Tonight, MrRhythm [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Kingdom&action=historysubmit&diff=458998734&oldid=458967220 again inserted his original research] without discussion, so maybe it is time to bring this here. I haven't looked at his other contributions outside of the UK article, but if you look [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/MrRhythm at his contribution list], he doesn't appear to have ever used a talk page or an edit summary.

I hope an administrator knows the appropriate action to take. I have seen blocks given in the past to get the attention of uncommunicative editors; I don't know if that's the right solution, but I am open to ideas.

I'll be notifying MrRhythm of this thread immediately after posting it.

Thanks, NORTHUMBRIAN SPRǢC 01:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMrRhythm&action=historysubmit&diff=459067938&oldid=457355201 MrRhythm informed]. NORTHUMBRIAN SPRǢC 01:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to give Mr. Rhythm a week-long block to work on their communication skills. The next admin who agrees may block; I won't be on for much longer. Drmies (talk) 04:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Am I missing something, or is this an extreme over-reaction to one edit after an Oct. 25 warning? A revert and warning isn't enough? And if you look at this talk page, nobody has yet encouraged him to use edit summaries, nor specifically invited him to talk; he's a clueless newbie, that's all. Dicklyon (talk) 06:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

:Yes. Because the diffs I provide above where I link to my requests for him to engage on the article talk page and at DRN are clear evidence that no one has ever invited him to talk. And the two instances on his talk page requesting him to use the edit summary, including the one I left, proves that no one has ever asked him to use the edit summary. Poor newbie who's been editing since July. NORTHUMBRIAN SPRǢC 06:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

::Yes, I see I did miss the invitations among the complaints. It's still an over-reaction. Dicklyon (talk) 07:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

:::I have given MrRhythm a final warning not to edit war. I think it is telling that the user has not made a single edit to anywhere other than mainspace despite multiple warnings and invitations to discuss on their talk page. Northumbrian, I know you are making efforts to open a dialogue, but you too are edit warring here and should proceed with caution. You would be better served seeking more opinions on the content, such as notifying a relevant wikiproject or opening a RFC. SpinningSpark 11:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

::::Noted SS, I know I was getting close to the edge; that's why I went to DRN and finally here. Thanks for the advice and the final warning to MrRhythm. NORTHUMBRIAN SPRǢC 14:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

::::: Mr Rhythm has a method, and it's not particularly effective at all times :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::: Or he could be a Neil Peart fan - see track 11. Ravensfire (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

:@Dicklyon Sorry if my reply seemed snarky. I wasn't asking for a block, just noting that I'd seen admins give them in the past in similar circumstances. Though on further reflection, beyond trying to get the user to communicate on the talk page, there probably isn't much an admin can do that a non-admin can't short of a block. At any rate, the user has several hundred edits since June, engages in original research, and does not communicate. While it might be in slow motion, and he seems to be flying under the radar for the most part as, before his UK changes, his edits have not really been challenged on his talk page, it is disruptive editing, and this does seem to be the correct venue for that. I think the final warning given is a good next step, actually, because blocks should be a last resort. NORTHUMBRIAN SPRǢC 19:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

{{Userlinks|Saifullah Abro}} has redirected their user page to Saifullah Abro (which, in one of its [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saifullah_Abro&oldid=433159422 previous versions], appears to be a lark or hoax) and redirected their user talk to the article's talk page. The user has been attempting to blank the article page and has removed CSD tags from the article which I placed before becoming aware of the totality of the quagmire. I don't know how to proceed. Best of luck. Tiderolls 06:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC) I will not be leaving a message informing Saifullah Abro of this post as I have no freaking idea where it will land.

:I just moved it back to user space, where it came from. Dicklyon (talk) 07:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

:But I'm not able to move his user talk page back. Dicklyon (talk) 07:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

::Fixed. User and user talk page move protected, so he won't be doing that again in a hurry. Bencherlite^Talk 08:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

:::It looks like there's still some cleanup work to be done, though. Our young friend Saifullah Abro is also:

:::* {{Userlinks|Saifullah Abro Kamario}}

:::* {{Userlinks|Saifullah1012}}

:::You can observe the truth of that assertion re the "Kamario" account just by comparing its edit history to that of the Saifllah Abro account if you're not already completely convinced by the closeness of the account names. Look especially at the first edit for each: We've certainly seen this person before.

:::And I likewise assert that the user account Saifullah1012 represents the same person as user Saifullah Abro. For example, compare [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Saifullah_Abro&oldid=433157153 this version of Saifullah Abro's user page] to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Saifullah1012&oldid=433361060 this version of Saifullah1012's user page]: They're nearly identical.

:::I'm too lazy to file an SPI when the quacking is this obvious: At least two of the three accounts this person has used can certainly be blocked on quacking grounds. Given the history we've had with this person, I'd say that it'd be fine to go ahead and block all three accounts, actually, i.e. to block the Saifullah1012 account as well, and see if he shows up on the talk page for any of them to request unblock.

:::And since the first edit of the "Kamario" account leads me to suspect this person has created an eponymous article previously - I can't see any previous deletions beyone the most recent one, not being an admin - I'd suggest that salting Saifullah Abro in mainspace might be needed, as well.

:::Finally if there happens to be an itinerant checkuser lurking about the premises, it would be a mercy to run these accounts with a possible view toward discovering more socks. I say so because as I was composing this, I just found what I think is another probable sock, based on behavioral factors, but I'm not inclined to disclose the account name at present, given my lesser degree of certainty on that one.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

:::*I'm a checkuser, and this sort of thing should really be ironed out at SPI, that's what it's there for. For what it's worth, Saifullah1012 is {{staleip}}, and when accounts doing this behaviour step out of the ether, it's easy and obvious to whack. WilliamH (talk) 14:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::I'm sorry, but I find that response very counterproductive, and your "stale" observation re one of the accounts wholly irrelevant. I'm not being glib and I intend no disrespect, but absolutely no one who frequents this board and who actually looks at the evidence above will doubt that these three accounts represent the same person. Given that, I see no reasonable or permissable basis for keeping all three available to a person whose behavior has already caused a deal of trouble. Why do you think this person should be allowed access to three accounts that obviously don't qualify as legitimate alternates?

:::::Also, you say "it's easy and obvious" to whack accounts like this when they call attention to themselves at some future date, but that's not necessarily so, based on what I've seen previously at SPI. If the person uses shared school computers, for example, or one at school and a different one at home, and just one or two of these accounts causes trouble at the same time in the future, are you completely sure you'd be aware of all three? If not, why should someone else have to spend the time to track down the connection among them a second time when it's obvious now that this is the same person? At the very least allowing one person to maintain three accounts in this way interferes with scrutiny, even if the accounts aren't used at the same time, e.g. to !vote in the same AfD.  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

::::::Ohiostandard, if an account is stale that means the data that can be used to determine a technical match isn't there. (Checkusers only keep data for so long.) It has no bearing on a behavioral match. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 17:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::::Er, I didn't say that I doubt these three accounts are the same person, and that they should be allowed to use multiple accounts abusively. What I said was entirely relevant: the server logs that are retrieved by checkuser are not stored for an indefinite amount of time, therefore checking Saifullah1012 will retrieve nothing whatsoever. I agree with you entirely that these accounts belong to the same person and should be blocked. If you'd prefer to be more discreet about other accounts you think might be linked, feel free to e-mail me, but from my perspective of just these three and no others, there is no reason to investigate a technical link among accounts where it is a) already obvious or b) impossible to establish. Technical data can change, but problematic behaviour is always problematic. WilliamH (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

::::::::Well said, WilliamH, and thanks for clarifying; I'm sorry I misunderstood your post. Yes, I knew what "stale" means in the context, btw, but thought that recourse to the logs of the two accounts that aren't stale might turn up the other accounts I was thinking of as potentially related, without my having to risk the potential drama of a mistaken accusation. But your suggestion of e-mail is a better alternative, anyway; thanks for offering. I've now taken you up on that suggestion.  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. It's not an earthshaking matter, but can someone please figure out what should be done with these two userspace pages? Note they appear to belong to different user accounts but not different users, as I presume, and that the first account appears (?) to have been created with a forward slash embedded in the name. Not going to notify either account immediately, since I don't want to create any pages to do so, which would complicate matters at this point, imo.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

:They're both the same user. The first is a subpage. From reading his talk page I'm wondering if he may be trying to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for others to submit photos to [http://www.saaifalamsoffice.webs.com his website]. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

::Not the most intelligent post I've ever made, I find, Ron. "Created with a forward slash embedded in the name", indeed! Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

::And I'm wondering if the pope might be Catholic! Obvious violation of wikipedia's purpose. An admin needs to indef the user and delete those pages. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

:::{{done}}. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous editor {{user|174.51.189.153}} continues to make edits at New World Translation that take one source out of context and ignore other available sources provided at Talk. The editor continues to revert, and refuses to engage in discussion at Talk or User Talk. The User has previously been blocked by User:Dougweller for 24 hours for this, but persists. I and User:BlackCab have both tried to engage the editor at Talk.

• Talk:New_World_Translation#Douay
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_World_Translation_of_the_Holy_Scriptures&curid=69888&action=history Editing history of NWT article]

Because of the editor's persistence and refusal to discuss, I request that the editor be blocked permanently.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

:The anonymous editor has been asked several times to discuss the issue but ignores the request. He or she has no interest in collaboration and despite being blocked for ignoring warnings has returned to the same behaviour. A longer block or a permanent block seems reasonable. BlackCab (talk) 09:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

::Waiting for a response from the IP, but I expect a block will be forthcoming. Dougweller (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

:Why won't an article semi-protect work? VanIsaac_WS^contribs 10:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

::Yes, semi-protect sounds reasonable. It appears the editor is now editing from another IP (possibly a friend's place - WHOIS confirms both IPs are in Colorado, US), as modus operandi of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_World_Translation_of_the_Holy_Scriptures&action=historysubmit&diff=459057890&oldid=458927300 this edit] is a continuation of the same behaviour.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

:::And for what it's worth, I agree with that suggestion. An IP block clearly will do nothing to stop his behaviour; a semi-protect could slow him down. BlackCab (talk) 10:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

::::I see the article has had to be protected before. Semi'd for a month. Dougweller (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::Thanks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

{{discussion top|category restored and taken to CfD. --Jayron32 00:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)}}

Here, User:Stemonitis, an admin who rather prides himself on pushing the boundaries of WP:IAR, has deleted two categories, and despite complaints by four editors has refused to restore them & take it to CFD, and do anything other than argue that he is right. I have no view on the issue at all (turtle taxons), but process should be followed in the area of deletion above all. Johnbod (talk) 22:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

:You may (or may not) have a valid complaint, but this is the wrong noticeboard to raise it. Go to WP:DRV. --Jayron32 23:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

::While the deletions themselves would normally be disputed at DRV, I think the central question here is whether or not Stemonitis abused his tools by carrying out these controversial deletion. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't tool abuse something which is debated here? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

::: I've heard we admins are a bunch of tools, and we're abused all the time ... :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

::::If it helps, I'll throw in the rather old behaviour that left his talk page on my watchlist. That didn't involve admin tools, but I don't think a person who persists with this attitude should be an admin. Flouting policy and processes is one thing, but what is remarkable is the way he refuses, in both cases, to see anything at all wrong with his behaviour, throughout a lengthy discussion. User_talk:Stemonitis/Archive34#Ancient_Roman_Pottery\Part 1 and, after I reverted, part 2. Can none of you have a word with him? Johnbod (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::I don't understand why CfD wasn't used rather than IAR--it seems to me that the latter should be the exception, and waiting a couple of days for a category to be deleted wouldn't destroy the project. I agree with Lothar's comment on Stemonitis's talk page, that admin tools shouldn't have been used here. Drmies (talk) 00:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

: WP:RFC/U (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

::No, this is not dispute resolution. Johnbod (talk) 02:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• Regardless of how monophyletic taxa should be classified, that doesn't change the fact that the process of how this was done is completely wrong. Stemonitis' actions of removing cats from the articles and then deleting the categories is something that I can somewhat put in good faith as being normal editing. But the moment that another user disagreed with the deletion was the moment that he should have restored them and taken them to CfD. His argument for Ignore All Rules in that discussion is completely inaccurate and a mockery of the IAR policy, weakening its use and how it's meant to be used altogether. This is an unacceptable stance for an admin to be taking in regards to an action where he utilized his admin tools. Silverseren^C 07:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

::I have responded in more detail on my own talk page. The two categories specifically mentioned have been restored and are now at CfD. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

{{discussion bottom}}

Ramanatruth just totally vandalized the Advaita Vedanta page AGAIN. This was discussed yesterday.72.92.11.179 (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

:They have now been notified at User talk:Ramanatruth. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Welfare State ‖ 17:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

::Any username with "truth" in its name is usually headed for the exit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

:::Why not put one of those "semi-protected" lock on the page? All and all the weird views of Ramanatruth are almost entertaining. The Bhagavad Gita being written in 3000 BCE, almost made me spit up my orange juice in laughter. 72.92.11.179 (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

:::Is there a particular reason why we don't just block editors with "truth" in their username on sight? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

::::A little thing called WP:AGF. Although I agree they often turn out to be problematic users, their name itself is not the actual problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::It wasn't meant to be a serious suggestion, more a comment on a pattern I've noticed in my 1 1/2 years. I should have appended an emoticon to the end, I suppose. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

{{outdent}}So, the reporting user needs to brush up on what the definition of vandalism is. This is a content dispute. Why is there no discussion on the talk page? Why are we going straight to ANI without trying to discuss this directly with the user? Page fully protected for four days to give you both a chance to handle this the right way instead of the wrong way. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

From Ramana Truth

CONTENT DISPUTE IS NOT VANDALISM

I have spent years learning and practicing Advaita Vendanta. If you have content disputes with my edits lets discuss. Why should you guys block me. I am new to wikipedia but will add references to validate all my content. I want to make sure Advaita Vedanta is represented right in Wikipedia.

Advaita philosophy , the concept that "Brahman is all that is", is mentioned in the Hindu Holy book, the Bhagavad Gita which predates the birth of Buddha.

Ancient texts that talk about Advaita Vedanta

http://www.sriramanamaharshi.org/bookstallsales/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=128_129

Advaita Vedanta is the central tenet of Hinduism. Adi Sankara and Ramana Maharshi led the Hindu renaissance by explicitly taking about Advaita Philosophy to bring the Indian population back to Hinduism, when Buddhism was spreading in India.

Why cant I reference the works of Ramana Maharshi in the recommended read section or the body of Advaita Vedanta?

I request you to have a dialogue to make sure that the Advaita Vedanta is represented right.

Reporting edited content as vandalism prematurely without discussion defeats the spirit of an open encyclopedia.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramanatruth (talk • contribs) 21:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

:This is not the place to resolve the content dispute itself, you should be doing that at Talk:Advaita Vedanta. That's why the page is now protected from editing, to give those who had been revert warring a chance to discuss the issue instead. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

At Talk:Tenerife airport disaster#ATC Error?!, by {{user|HistoryBuff14}} and his IP {{IP|199.191.108.18}}. Namely stating criticism of the Spanish Controllers constitutes Libel. At any rate, even if it isn't a legal threat, he's chosen to soapbox with WP:OR on the talk page of at least two articles, and has received talk page warnings about this on his named account. I chose to collapse his OR post on the Tenerife article but he chose to revert this, deleting my post in the process. I reverted this and he then reverted me but left my post intact this time. As I like to adhere to WP:1RR wherever possible, I've decided to leave it for now. My invitation to discuss the issue on his IP talk page has gone unanswered. N419BH 18:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

--Please see my recent note on your talk page regarding one of your points. This is entirely a misunderstanding that is my fault alone. Regarding my libel warning, I stand by that. Neither the Spanish nor American investigative reports blame ATC for the accident. The Pan Am copilot also entriely cleared ATC of any culpabilty for the tragedy. Only the Dutch report did, and I don’t feel it necessary to spell out the reasons why this report should be viewed in a most dubious manner. In any event, KLM ultimately did assume sole responsibility for the tragedy. Again, I am sorry for the misunderstanding regarding my editing your remarks. I actually agree with your edit.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• I've left HistoryBuff14 a little note on his talkpage about the libel thing (it's the Dutch report he's saying is libellous, not N419), explaining why it can be misunderstood.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey All, there is a backlog at WP:RPP, if a couple admins could take a look, it would be appreciated. Thanks. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

:jeez, it's been like this all week. What gives? everybody is off doing CSD, which hasn't been backlogged at all lately. I'll take a crack at it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

::CSD's been backlogged whenever I've looked at it. Must all be whacking vandals. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

{{la|List_of_amateur_radio_organizations}} {{user|88.2.226.36}}

Earlier, there was a dispute/edit-war on this page, with an IP user repeatedly trying to split off the Catalonia radio-station into its own section - the article is organized by countries, and Catalonia is not defined as such.

I reported that an edit-war, and after trying the start discussions, {{user|109.69.9.10}} was blocked. It looks like the same user may now be back under a new IP address (the 88. shown at the top).  Chzz  ►  21:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

:The article it links to, {{la|Unió de Radioaficionats de Catalunya}} was created a few days ago by {{user|Ea3wr}} - and that user has also made the same change to the list article.  Chzz  ►  22:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

::Does anyone else hear a loud quacking sound from the IPs and Ea3wr? —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 00:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

:::{{megaphoneduck}}. I've blocked the other IP for edit warring and semi protected List of amateur radio organizations for 14 days, in the hope that the editor might start discussing things. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

::::It seems somebody didn't read the text above the "Save Page" button about irrevocable contributions.... [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_amateur_radio_organizations&diff=459265916&oldid=459169697] - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Can someone at least warn User:Textorus that he shouldn't insult other users' questions like he did [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReference_desk%2FHumanities&action=historysubmit&diff=459217461&oldid=459217247 here]? --Belchman (talk) 00:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

:Gimme a break. Or a template that says Administrative action declined. Are you new to that noticeboard? Conversations often go off on tangents like that - it's part of the fun. You had your answer given perfectly civilly, and within a very short time of posting. What more do you want? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

::Textorus seems to be in a cranky mood today. In the thread immediately above the one referenced here I've had "HiLo, it's like you are being deliberately obtuse and disruptive here" when I've been my most diplomatic self, a very sarcastic post about calling Hilary Clinton, and an Edit summary of "grow up buddy". I'm neither surprised nor personally upset that some editors find Israel topics a little confronting. But it's not a nice look for Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 01:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

:::Reading that thread, you do rather come across as if you already know the answer that you want to hear. Although you may not have intended to sound like that, it is very annoying when someone does it.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

::::If I have been at fault (and that does sometimes occur ;-) ) it would have been be more in the form of rejecting answers I didn't think much of, and I did try to explain why. HiLo48 (talk) 01:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

::Incidentally, I note Belchman has been blocked for a truly undedifying comment. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

:::Indeed. I do note that Belchman needs to develop thicker skin, if Textorus comment was worth coming here to start an ANI thread [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&diff=459224935&oldid=459224585 Belchman's follow on comment] was well beyond the pale. If someone capable of making a comment like that can't handle Textorus's mild chiding, then I don't know where he can be helped... --Jayron32 01:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

::::Belchman's conduct coming here and then posting that comment (twice by reinstating it after it was reverted) is truly bizarre. And, from reading subsequent comments he made on his Talk page, he clearly doesn't get it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::The OP usually confines his gripes about other ref desk editors to the ref desk talk page. I'm surprised he took it this far, especially as the comment he was griping about here was pretty tame, and was simply a reaction to Belchman's lecturing. I note he was also taken to the ref desk talk page about this brouhaha. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

::::::Really, the AN/I boomerang should be made of Nth metal or something considering how often it gets used. And given Belchman's comments on his talk page since the block, I sense an indef rapidly approaching with zero loss to the project. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a heads-up - the March 2011 deletion of Star Parker has [http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/131045/ been highlighted] by a high-traffic conservative/libertarian blog. Comments are starting to show up at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Star Parker and elsewhere. Personally I think the deletion may have been a bad idea - Parker is certainly well-known in conservative political circles - but my knowledge of her doesn't breach the threshold of being able to recreate the article. Kelly ^hi! 00:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

:The article was moved to incubation: Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/Incubator/Star Parker. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

::I've speedily closed an IP's DRV request at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 November 5 and pointed any visitors to the incubator.  Sandstein  08:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

::And also semiprotected the article for a week, with relevant links in the summary; there's been one recreation already.  Sandstein  09:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I am pretty sure Ramanatruth is a socket puppet for permanently banned editor Pri-ya_chen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pri-ya_chen72.92.115.251 (talk) 04:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

:: For example [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Advaita_Vedanta&action=historysubmit&diff=451976992&oldid=451043305 look here]72.92.115.251 (talk) 04:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

:::Very few people who know the background of this situation are reading this noticeboard. For the sake of being able to respond to your concerns, could you post edits from both acounts which show evidence that the samed person is operating them. You have only posted an edit from the older, now blocked, account. If you could post something from both accounts we could compare the evidence. --Jayron32 04:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

::::This is the latest insertion of similar Ramana material [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Advaita_Vedanta&action=historysubmit&diff=459160770&oldid=459035352 HERE, scroll down.] Notice that the username is "Ramanatruth" for additional evidence. 72.92.115.251 (talk) 04:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::The username itself isn't really much evidence, but this is worth checking out. m.o.p 05:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

::::::16px Unrelated Users do not match each other. Looks like these are just two different people sharing the same point of view. m.o.p 05:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

{{user5|Kolins}} insists on removing valid categories relating to footballer nationality from numerous articles, despite community consensus stating that what he is doing is wrong. I have tried to talk to about it multiple times (check his talk page for a number of threads about it), yet he continues to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fernando_Amorebieta&diff=next&oldid=456058188 make these edits], even after the consensus was re-affirmed. What is the best way forward? A topic ban? I don't really want to suggest a block, as he is otherwise a decent editor. GiantSnowman 18:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

:Perhaps WikiProbation would suffice? Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox 18:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

::What on earth is that? 28bytes (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

:::I'm not sure. User:ChocolateWolf mentioned it to me, but I have no idea what it is. Maybe monitering him so that, if he makes such an edit again, ha shall be blocked. Ask Chocolatewolf. Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox 18:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

::::Olaf, I think you should leave your roommates and other imaginary entities out of it. If you want to contribute to ANI, bring something useful to the table--not this or the usual sock allegations. Drmies (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, not a vandal per se. But is this behaviour decent, after the pertinent WP:FOOTY discussions, of which he has been notified by Snowman and myself? His subsequent response has been "yes yes, reach all the consensus you want - we HAVE - i don't care"! Not very decent is it? Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
• Snowman, I am sorry, but in looking at that discussion I do not see a real clear consensus on what to do, let alone a clear condemnation of the editor's actions. I will say that their unexplained removals are disruptive, there is no doubt about that, but given that you all aren't looking for a block that's really neither here nor there. I think you could try the following: in a subsection, below, lay out your case clearly and concisely with a proposed topic ban (even if that's not what you necessarily want--you kind of have to do something like that given that this is ANI, and so you're asking for admin intervention). Phrase it clearly and preciserly, though, since that discussion at FOOTY:TALK was far from clear. Drop a line to all the editors who participated there and maybe place a note on the FOOTY talk page, and see what comes out. (My guess is, unfortunately, not much--but if you want to accomplish anything you'll need editorial input and clarity on the categories.) Good luck. Drmies (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• Thanks for the advice Drmies, I am currently at work but when I have enough free time (tonight/tomorrow) I will do as you have suggested. GiantSnowman 13:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• Some disruptions just take more time to handle than others. This, unfortunately, is one of these, because we're not dealing with a simple vandal, because they're not communicating, and because the very terms of the discussion (see Eldumpo's comment below and your link to TALK:FOOTY) lack clarity. Sorry Snowman. There's just little anyone here can do (I mean, with our special admin tools.) Drmies (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• I think there needs to be some high-level guidance on what information should be included for nationality, including a definition of the word itself. I started a thread on this issue at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:BLP#Nationality_claims_in_BLP_articles] although it has not had that much input. If matters were sorted at a higher level then we could start to deal with how 'footballing nationality' fits in. Eldumpo (talk) 15:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to be as brief but detailed (you know what I mean!) as possible. Nationality transfers happen in association football/soccer all the time. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/15592408.stm This player] switched from Germany to Ghana, [http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/15574258.stm this player] is going from England to Nigeria, [http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/15560063.stm this player] from Cameroon to Burkino Faso - and that's just news from one website in the past two days! However, just because you change footballing nationality does not mean that you lose your previous nationality - you are still legally a citizen of both countries. Kolins, however, disagree with this common sense approach. Imagine the following scenarios:

:*A player born in Venezuela but raised in Spain, who represented Spain at junior level, and Venezuela at senior level. Surely he is both Spanish and Venezuelan then? Not according to Kolins for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fernando_Amorebieta&diff=next&oldid=456058188 this player] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julio_%C3%81lvarez&diff=455152350&oldid=455151420 this player].

:*A player born + raised in Spain, but who represented Equatorial Guinea at international level. Surely he remains Spanish, the country of his birth, the country where he grew up? Not according to Kolins for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benjam%C3%ADn_Zarandona&diff=442712103&oldid=436493519 this player] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juvenal_Edjogo-Owono&diff=450309787&oldid=448759705 this player] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iv%C3%A1n_Zarandona&diff=442715082&oldid=439841886 this player] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Javier_Balboa&diff=442711938&oldid=441735632 this player]...

I hope you get the point I am trying to make here - just because you are able, due to a fluke of heritage/partentage/whatever, represent a "new" nation at international sports does NOT mean that you suddenly "lose" your old nationality. GiantSnowman 00:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

:I agree with the principle you're showing above, in particular that you don't lose your original 'nationality' just because you play for another national association. But I don't believe this approach is necessarily agreed by all at Footy (some believe you can only have one 'nationality'), and to be fair to Kollins, these rules are not to my knowledge set out anywhere. Really all these categories should have text at the start explaining the inclusion criteria for the category and including wiki links, in order to try and clarify what is acceptable.Eldumpo (talk) 08:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

::And I understand where they are coming from, but what about players who have played senior international football for two nations, such as Ricky Shakes or Jermaine Jones? GiantSnowman 12:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

:::Perhaps the main question is the extent to which we do use a guideline/policy to steer us, or whether we simply report what reliable sources say. If you look at the sources at Jones' article his nationality/country is dealt with in a variety of different ways. I like the way NFT clarify matters by separately listing place of birth and national team. We need to consider what Wiki articles our 'nationality' comments point to. That's why flags can be a problem - they provide no context as to what the flag means.Eldumpo (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

::::I feel we're getting slightly off topic here with talk of flags etc. - this is an issue regarding categories, and one editor's particular edits. GiantSnowman 13:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• {{vandal|Easy4me}} – vandalism after many many warnings. RadioFan (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

::I'm not seeing any vandalism. The corrections I'm looking at seem to be accurate rather than subtle vandalism. If I'm wrong, can you provide some diffs? Swarm ^X 02:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

:::This editor has a consistent history of making seemingly random edits, primarily in music articles and often around release dates, without edit summaries and without references. Hard to tell if they are accurate or not without refs. Without something to identify what they are doing here, if just the occasional edit summary, it's seen as vandalism.--RadioFan (talk) 02:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

::::Actually, that's disruptive editing to me, since malicious intent cannot be inferred but standard editorial procedures are being demonstrably ignored. Still blockable. Daniel Case (talk) 03:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm moving this here from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrator_intervention_against_vandalism&action=historysubmit&diff=458917770&oldid=458897795 AIV], as it seems to be either a user lacking some clue or a malicious slow-moving vandal. I'm of the opinion that the user is just attempting to help, as evidenced by their interactions with editors who have warned them: see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Novice7&diff=prev&oldid=458855853], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JamesAlan1986&diff=prev&oldid=458855361]. Of course, some more eyes would be nice.

All editors involved in the discussion and Easy4me have been notified by myself. m.o.p 04:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

:Well, just to clarify, if an editor is making good-faith (even if obviously incorrect) edits but ignores attempts to discuss, and starts getting warned to stop, then they ought to be blocked if they continue. I have not yet read the contribs and I don't know if that's what's happened here. Daniel Case (talk) 05:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

::Well feel free to read the contribs and share your thoughts; I scanned some, and I see nothing to suggest this user isn't acting in good faith, much less vandalizing. It's not easy to tell, though, so I agree that a review is justified. Swarm ^X 11:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Guys, I swear I'm not trying to vandalize or anything like that. I'm just a regular editor like you guys. I just keep forgeting to put something in the edit summary and I don't know when to mark it as a minor edit. Also, about the single release dates... I'm going by what the song pages say they were released. If you say that they are incorrect, edit those song pages. Plus, I've never contributed to discussion pages and need some info on that. I hope you guys can understand. Thanks and keep editing! :) Easy4me (talk) 12:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

:Actually, if any facts you introduce into articles are incorrect to us, but you think they're correct, this is what you need to do. Again, although you seem not to be disruptive, I have viewed your edit history and saw some factual errors repeatedly being made. --Bryce Wilson | talk 14:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

::You also seem to make some edits which are basically changing something, then changing back, which can be known as editing for a high article account to game the system. --Bryce Wilson | talk 14:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

:::I think I sorta see what you mean. Yes, occasionally I do make factual errors and I notice them like two minutes later and undo them. It may be a force of habit. I have ADHD. Sorry for those edits I make sometimes. Easy4me (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The editor regularly make factual errors, sometimes reverting them, sometimes not, doesn't cite sources and repeatedly misuse the "minor" edit check box. After a raft of warnings, we now hear the editor is unable to correct these problems. If all of this is true, I know of only one way to fix this. Any other ideas? - SummerPhD (talk) 03:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• SummerPhD, you're asking for a competence block? Drmies (talk) 04:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

::I'm not asking for it, I'm suggesting that the facts presented seem to leave no other option and asking if I've missed anything. (But yeah, my reference may have been more than a bit vague.) - SummerPhD (talk) 13:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

:::I wouldn't go there yet. I've just checked his edits since he posted here, and haven't found a problematic one yet. We've established that he's cross checking the information between articles, he's now using edit summaries at least when he remembers, and he's fixing a lot of bad wikilinks to boot. I think we should cut him some slack.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

::::I agree that no action need be taken, yet. If this edit can slow down and edit more carefully, I think all will be well in the end. If this editor continues to fail to cite material added to articles or (worse) introduce incorrect information, then some action is warranted.--RadioFan (talk) 14:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• - Enough said here. The AfD has been closed and some comments have been written to avoid missinterpretation. --Tone 22:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• I have reverted m.o.p.'s close of this AN/I discussion. As what is being complained about is m.o.p.'s own early close of an afd he should not also be the one to say that we have discussed the matter here successfully. (I've notified m.o.p.) DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is becoming increasingly overrun by bad faith and bad behavior. At this point it seems to me that the thing is going to get kept at least and likely merged. I would invited some disinterested administrator to step in and close the thing and save the lives of countless innocent electrons. Mangoe (talk) 17:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

:That sure was an interesting discussion to read. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FEnergy_Catalyzer&action=historysubmit&diff=459006455&oldid=459005540 Closed as keep]. m.o.p 18:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

::The closure was premature: AfDs are supposed to run for 7 days, and there was still extensive discussion going on. I also consider Master of Puppets' closing statement to be inadequate, as he/she has clearly not read the comments, and seems to have just 'voted'. Still, whatever - if Wikipedia wants to publish adverts for snake-oil salesmen and hucksters, and pretend to be an 'encyclopaedia' there's not much I can do about it. Frankly, I'm getting fed up with all the infantile "it's notable!" arguments here anyway. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is notable too - but I don't see that as a reason to contribute to it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

:::It is never a good idea to close a truly controversial afd as keep or delete early. It inevitably results in either a reversal of the close, or a move of it to DelRev, followed almost always by another afd. {Closing a disruptive AfDas no-consensus with the intent of having it immediately relisted from the start is another matter, and might have been a satisfactory solution). Myself, I have no fixed view of the underlying issue: on the one hand I think it worth an article; on the other, the article as it stands is unabashedly promotional, and a good case could be made for deletion and start over by an uninvolved editor. As for reverting the close on the AfDI do not wish to do that after having first reverted the close on the AN/I, but I certainly think someone should do so. I assume it will get to Del Rev eventually, but there should be a full 7-day proper discussion first. DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

::::Master of Puppets' closure of the AFD was correct, IMO, but I agree that two days early is pushing it too far. Both DGG and I have not participated in the AFD. I would say that if one other uninvolved editor believes the same and posts it, the closure should be undone. NW (Talk) 01:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::I saw it as more of one day early, but I guess that's rounding up down a bit too much. Either way, I'm OK with re-opening it if people feel that the premature close misrepresented consensus or that two more days will result in a different outcome.

:::::Also, DGG, feel free to revert the close yourself if you think it's too controversial, since reverting the resolution notice effectively means nothing (given that the concern was raised after I had marked this as resolved). m.o.p 01:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

::::::Now what happens? We have an AfD with no notice on the article, and a large number of contributors presumably thinking the issue is resolved, and unlikely to contribute further. We also have offensive racist remarks etc in the 'discussions' - which was the reason the AfD was brought up here in the first place, though this seems to have been forgotten in the rush to close it. This has turned into an utter farce - and this AfD is undoubtedly being watched by outsiders, given the way they happily source their material from it (some are even honest enough to acknowledge this). Whatever happens now, we are going to look stupid. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

We let the AfD run its course and close it as appropriate? That's standard procedure, at least. m.o.p 04:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

:No. 'Standard procedure' wouldn't have involved a premature close - and does 'standard procedure' involve reverting a closure, and then not letting anyone know? While you are here, how about an apology? And is anyone going to do anything about the racist remarks that led to the AfD being raised here in the first place? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

::FWIW, it might be worth while to add a notice to the AfD so editors understand why it was re-opened. I had to go to ANI to find out. Not every editor has ANI on their watchlist. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

:::And presumably you wouldn't have known about it yourself if I hadn't pointed this out on the article talk page? Frankly, this looks to me like an admin making a mistake, and then not having the decency to clear up the resulting mess. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

::::I originally closed the AfD due to flaring emotions and a good sense of consensus being built - something I felt was more important than waiting two days for people to tear at each others' throats. Since people were opposed to this, and I agreed to revert, I'm not sure what more you'd like me to do. It's not like people won't be able to see the AfD now that it's been re-opened. It's still listed on the main AfD pages. Users can still comment on it as they would normally. m.o.p 05:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::And how many of the 'new contributors' to Wikipedia that the AfD has attracted are going to be looking at 'the main AfD pages'? Why was it left to me to have to notify people on the appropriate pages? As for what you 'felt', I suggest you think more, and rely on your feelings less. If there are 'flaring emotions', do you really think they can be made to go away by arbitrarily ignoring due process? And is anyone going to do anything about the racist remarks that led to the AfD being raised here in the first place? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

::::::Veiled insults are not useful when it comes to communicating. I apologize if you've been led to think differently. Also, I've already said that I stand by my close - I'm not quite sure why you keep asking me to verify my intent. m.o.p 07:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::::I rarely veil my insults. And what has you 'standing by your close' got to do with the fact that nobody saw fit to indicate in an appropriate place that it had been overturned? And is anyone going to do anything about the racist remarks that led to the AfD being raised here in the first place? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

::::::::Ah, excellent. Then you'll understand if I point you towards this policy. As for proper places and indication - I'm still not sure what you expect. A banner informing everybody about the change? A message on every user's page? Reversion of the closing actions is just fine. m.o.p 07:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

::::::::: {{User|Zedshort}} made that personal attack and has been warned explicitly by Drmies.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zedshort&diff=459007642&oldid=457056009] This was followed by a discussion on Drmies' talk page.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies&oldid=459062959#Thanks_for_the_Notice] Mathsci (talk) 07:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

::::::::::To me the issue here isn't a personal attack, but rather the use of racial stereotyping. The discussion on Drmies' talk page largely consisted of Zedshort defending the statement as 'funny', and reiterating the stereotype. The gist of what was said is that all Germans are genetically predetermined to be obsessed with rules (and by inferrence are Nazis). I am German and find the comment on Teutonic people totally unacceptable, and Zedshort should at the very least apologize for this statement. I also don't appreciate constantly being labelled as AndyTheGrump's sock- or meatpuppet by Zedshort. (I've discussed this with Zedshort and am satified that he did not mean it in this way) On the AfD, I totally agree with m.o.p's close as keep, as the discussion had completely deteriorated, and even when ignoring the single-purpose comments, the overall consensus (to me) seemed to be a keep. 109a152a8a146 (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

::::::::You're certainly not veiling your insults or veiling your swearing on the Afd page :) I've suggested that you try to be more civil and stop posting thinly veiled sarcasm (thinly veiled by using the term 'magic teapot', and other derogatory phrases, and then striking them out). Can't you express yourself in a less inflammatory way? Yes, someone upset you, but surely you've learned as most of us have that posting immediate responses can make the situation worse? Diplomacy is (usually) better than aggression! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmccc (talk • contribs) 13:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

:"Reversion of the closing actions is just fine"? Really. So leaving the reopened AfD invisible to people who look at the article is 'just fine' is it? It looks more like an attempt to sweep an error under the carpet to me. As for the 'teapot' comments, you clearly aren't aware of the background and, need to look into the history of this - I had a long debate with a contributor who wished to include a discussion of the teakettle metaphor in cold fusion, and its relevance to the E-Cat, based entirely on WP:OR. In the AfD I've been accused of sockpuppetry, and subject to racist abuse. The AfD itself has been a total mess, with off-Wikipedia canvassing for votes, and comments based on nothing but OR or pure wishful thinking (not to mention the highly-suspect !votes of many 'new contributors'), and crazy conspiracy theories raked up to show alleged 'censorship'. Yes, I used a swear word in a response to the 'contributor' who seemed to think that implying I was a Nazi (or whatever) was appropriate for the discussion, whereas actually justifying his arguments wasn't. All for the sake of an article that any objective assessment will see violates WP:FRINGE, WP:NOTPROMOTION and almost every other Wikipedia policy. If WP:CIVIL (not WP:NPA, "how the fuck" isn't a personal attack) is more important than article content (and the reputation of Wikipedia - this is a highly-visible article, clearly being used as a source by 'journalists') then my behaviour was wrong. Or more likely, I'm wasting my time here, and Wikipedia is nothing more than a blog/webhost for dubious 'science' with all the credibility of magic beans - or magic teapots - run by individuals with a murky past and a knack of manipulating credulous journalists. Of course, we can pretend that this is none of our concern, and ignore the fact that our E-Cat article is being exploited to give this 'device' credibility. Or rather, you can. I can't. It looks like I'm in the wrong place. Since Wikipedia seems to consider 'anyone can edit' more important than 'an encyclopaedia' (rather than an advertising space for hucksters) I should probably leave you to it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

::Reversion of the closing actions would include reverting any removal of the AFD listing on the article. If this was not done earlier, this is unfortunate, but if you noticed, just do it yourself like you did and if you feel it necessary, remind people it needs to be done. No need to get in to a big huff about it. Nil Einne (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

::Please have a good, long read of this. Aside from that, I'm afraid there's not much I can do to help you, nor will I feed your fires any further, as it's not being productive in the least. If you've got any questions after the AfD has been closed again, feel free to ask. m.o.p 03:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

:*proposal. Because of the Afd procedure was first closed and then reopened, I propose to keep the procedure open for other 10 days in order to be 100% sure to thoroughly discuss all the matters involved in a proper way.--79.24.132.112 (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

::We've already had thorough discussion about our thorough discussion. Leaving the AfD open past seven days seems a bit excessive. I'll leave it open for a few extra hours to accommodate the time it was closed; after that, consensus will be re-evaluated and we'll be done with things. m.o.p 03:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

:::I hope that you aren't intending to close it yourself? That would hardly seem appropriate in the circumstances. I like your optimism though: "done with things"? I doubt it. The hucksters are still there... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

::::I don't see what's inappropriate about it. The only stated problem with my first close was that it was premature. This one will be at the seven day mark. And, let me assure you, I'm not biased by having closed it once. Of course, there's the whole 'involved admin' thing, but I think citing that is ridiculous when I'm ruling over a subject I have no knowledge of and can only judge the consensus of the community. Maybe I'll invoke my right to rouge. ;) m.o.p 03:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::In that case, let me assure you that I consider it utterly inappropriate. You have prematurely closed an ongoing AfD, gone out of your way to avoid drawing attention to the fact, refused to apologise for your error, and now seem intent on pretending it never happened. You are involved - in covering up your own errors. I suggest you think again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

::::::Your opinion is noted, and the input appreciated. Given that ANI is the tenth-most watchlisted page on Wikipedia, I find any assertion that I'm avoiding attention a bit laughable. Anyway, I'm done here. Feel free to reach me on my talk page. Cheers, m.o.p 04:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::::The AFD was closed by Tone but just as a note, while I don't agree it would be inappropriate, I do feel it would have been inadvisable. There is clearly a lot of ill-feeling on all sides and I don't see any reason why it has to be you, so it was better just to let someone else do it to reduce further controversy given your earlier close. Nil Einne (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

::::::::But... I like controversy. Just kidding. I've already used my one allotted rouge action for this month, anyway. m.o.p 22:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Please add Michael Flood to your watchlists; it is a BLP which is the target of a number of men's rights activists who hold him, shall we say, in very low regard. So far the activity is limited to a number of talk pages and offsite discussion. I have added an article probation notice to the talk page but doubt that will have much effect unless it is clear that other admins are watching the situation closely. I myself have limited online time right now and cannot watch this with the attention it deserves. Thanks in advance. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• I note that Flood is helping correct the article on the talk page. The article is very poor on biographical detail. Before 2008 he was a post-doctoral researcher at La Trobe University, funded by the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation. That is not in the article. He mentions on the talk page five main areas of research (where men's and fathers' rights has no particular prominence), but again that is hard to unravel from the current stub. Mathsci (talk) 11:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Michael Kimmel is another BLP article that could do with some eyes, for similar reasons. I am already concerned about undue issues in the "reception" section, sourced to a Psychology Today blog. Slp1 (talk) 18:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• At some point an editor claiming to be Kimmell edited the article.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Kimmel&diff=416080715&oldid=413511513] Very little of those edits survived. Mathsci (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

I have submitted an article OpenDDR for deletion at Afd and Johnwhite99 keeps on removing the tag even after repeated warnings. VictorianMutant^(Talk) 15:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

:He hasn't removed it since he questioned it and you responded. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

::Hopefully it will stay that way. VictorianMutant^(Talk) 15:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

: Yeah, and did anybody think of dropping a Welcome template, in order to assume they had complete ignorance of the rules?? I've done it now. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

{{Resolved|IP has stopped editing. AGK [•] 16:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)}}

at Sand Creek massacre. I have to leave for work, but can someone here cause his (her?) computer to explode or something? Carptrash (talk) 15:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

:In addition to the resolution noted above, this was garden variety vandalism by one IP, and although two editors, including Carptrash, reverted the IP, no one posted warnings on the IP's Talk page, which I've now done.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your good work. Am I correct in assuming that posting something on an IP's page is NOT something that I could do? Carptrash (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

:You can absolutely post on an IP's Talk page when appropriate. Here, it would have been appropriate to post warnings.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess I was hoping for something involving pain or . ............. or simething. Next time I bring the IP Address with me. Carptrash (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawn

I was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARadiopathy&action=historysubmit&diff=322817102&oldid=322805734 put under a 1RR restriction] on 29th October 2009; the restriction [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive599#Reset_1rr_restriction_for_user_Radiopathy was made indefinite]on 24 February 2010. I was blocked one last time on 14 November 2010. I then took a seven month wikibreak, which ended this past June.

I'm alright with the restriction staying in place if that's what consensus is, but I'd rather just get it behind me, like leaving prison after one's time has been served. Radiopathy •talk• 01:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

:So... you're telling us you'd like to be able to revert multiple times - something which has frequently gotten you into trouble? Man, you are seriously barking up the wrong tree. Rklawton (talk) 01:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

::Woof woof. Radiopathy •talk• 01:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

:::Rklawton hit it spot on and moreover, it's very wise for any editor not to breach 1R to begin with, never mind that the music genre editing you do is highly prone to back and forths anyway. It's been about a year since you were last blocked for straying beyond 1RR (by me, as it happens), so I think it's fair to say the 1RR restriction, as such, has gone stale. Even WP:Standard offer most often has to do with a six month span. So, you can think of this as a bridge crossed, but please stick to 1RR anyway and if you do find yourself about to do a 2nd R, ask someone else for input, or try the tips in WP:DR. You won't get much shrift if you do backslide. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

::::Since Radiopathy has withdrawn his request it would be uncouth to supply diffs in opposition. But if Gwen wants to see the 1RR restriction undone I hope that she will start a new thread and allow analysis of some edit warring in his last month's contributions. It is possible that six months of no problems could be a reason to lift the restriction, but recent events are not trouble-free, so the standard offer clock has not started. It is my impression that community sanctions require consensus to undo. EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::Oh, if Rp's edits have been worrisome lately, the restriction hasn't gone stale and shouldn't be undone. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

::::Gwen Gale, I'm a little bit concerned with your willingness to declare that indefinite remedies have 'gone stale'. This is the second such declaration you've made with respect to this editor, and I'm a little bit concerned that you haven't been fully aware of the circumstances in either case. When editor conduct issues become serious enough that indefinite remedies need to be applied, generally it's not wise to unilatererally overturn them without consulting the community—even if you were the admin who first proposed the restriction.

::::In November 2010, Radiopathy was blocked by Gwen Gale for two weeks for repeated violations of his extant 1RR restriction. As part of the ensuing AN/I discussion, a 0RR restriction was imposed by Gwen Gale, and endorsed by the community: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive649#Radiopathy.27s_violation_of_indefinite_1RR_restriction]. At that time, Radiopathy ceased editing. He did not return for approximately 7 months, beginning to edit again in June 2011. His [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sgt._Pepper%27s_Lonely_Hearts_Club_Band&diff=prev&oldid=434344279 third edit] – sixteen minutes after resumption of editing – was a revert of a non-vandalism edit. About a month (and many reverts) later, someone noticed that Radiopathy had been consistently and regularly violating the (as far as he knew) still-extant 0RR restriction, and raised the issue with Gwen Gale: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gwen_Gale&oldid=441075766]. Gwen Gale declared the 0RR 'stale' and without effect. I fear that Gwen Gale was unaware at the time that Radiopathy had only been editing for a month at that point, and also that Radiopathy had never adhered to the 0RR restriction for any part of his active editing career.

::::Moving forward to today, Radiopathy has been engaged in editing for roughly five months; that editing still seems to be very revert-heavy (though I don't know of any violations of the 1RR restriction). I haven't seen a persuasive argument that the project is harmed by a continuing 1RR restriction on this editor, concerns about "wrong" versions – which sound far too much like 'kidding on the square' – notwithstanding. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::Ok, yes. Consensus always has sway. Sounds to me as though I was rash in saying Rp might think of this as a "bridge crossed." Although I'm not thrilled to hear that Rp's edits may be too revert-heavy, I think this kind of input is helpful. Please do keep in mind, I did tell him to stick to 1RR anyway, that he'll get short shrift if there's any backsliding. What I hope to see here now, if editors are willing, is input as to whether Rp should edit under 1RR, or 0RR. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I've given this guy multiple warnings for what he's been doing to Far-left politics and Far-right politics, but someone really needs to step in now. He's adding all kinds of ludicrous, unsourced, and un-Wikified nonsense, claiming that the Nazis were "Left-Wing," in defiance of all academic scholarship.

Examples: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Far-right_politics&action=historysubmit&diff=459396203&oldid=459369426], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Far-right_politics&action=historysubmit&diff=459367556&oldid=459329794], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Far-left_politics&action=historysubmit&diff=459366870&oldid=458957206].

He has been given 3 disruptive editing warnings in the past few hours.

-- Bryonmorrigan (talk) 03:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

:Blocked for three days. m.o.p 05:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

User:BruceWHain just came off a 24-hr block, imposed by C.Fred for all the right reasons: edit-warring on Luchow's, for starters; messing up that article's talk page after being explained how those things work; taking ownership of the article and generally wiping their behind with the whole "collaborative" idea; etc. After the block was already over (if I can tell time correctly) they went back to re-messing the place up from an IP address, {{ip|70.107.161.46}}, rearranging the talk page as if it were the article or their private possession. You should look at the history to see what poor old Beyond My Ken is having to deal with--with the patience of a saint. Bruce clearly doesn't get it, but I do not wish to block them myself, since I might slip on my trackpad and hit "indefinite" (of course, you are free to slip thusly). Besides, I am involved, since I have great appreciation for what BMK is doing here and little respect for an editor who shows no respect for anyone else. At the very least I'd like to see an uninvolved admin utter a few stern words and a week-long block--or tell me that BMK and I are crazy, that the project is not collaborative, that someone who couldn't tell the MOS from a hole in the ground can own an article. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

:Clarification: I did not impose either block; Tiptoety and Bwilkins did. —C.Fred (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

:*Fred, you are correct--I saw that and meant to correct myself but forgot. Saturday morning at the Drmies is far from quiet, so my apologies for falsely accusing you of making a great block. ;) Roll tide, Drmies (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

:: Yes, I just imposed the brand-new 72hr one. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

:::Thanks Bwilkins. I am inclined, though, to say 'good start', since I don't have faith that this will be the end of it. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

:::: I'm in a pleasant WP:AGF mood :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm also in a pleasant mood this morning. So pleasant that I'm asking myself the question, was this latest block put on BruceWHain to prevent further disruption to an article, or was it put on him to punish him for his previous conduct and for the comments in User talk:BruceWHain/sandbox where he's drafting an "Appeal for Mediation"? If we're going to block him, then I think a discussion needs to be opened on his talk page, where he can participate, about the Manual of Style, collaboration and consensus, ownership of articles, and the like—in the hopes that he's a good but misguided editor and can be turned into an outright good one. —C.Fred (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
• BruceWHain clearly has the potential to be a net positive for the project. He knows how to research, and his writing is satisfactory (if a bit too personal), so I think a reclamation effort would be worthwhile. The core problem is that he hasn't shown, as of yet, an inkling of understanding the project's core values -- and what's worse, doesn't (at this point) seem inclined to try. If someone can break through that barrier, the rest should be easy. I tried a couple of times, but at this point he clearly sees me as his antagonist, so it would be counter-productive for me to try again. I urge others to give it a go. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

:::In a message today, he asked "I would also ask that you make no further edits or disply{{sic}} of the article on your servers until you have consulted me - in a civil manner - about it."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BruceWHain&diff=459285739&oldid=459282877] I have replied that we do not need his further consent; he already give it when he added the text to the article. I then pointed him back to the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license and GFDL. His reply will be telling: if he continues to assert his ownership/control of the article, then he might just not get it—and he should probably take the advice I gave at the end of my comment, to find another site to post at if he can't/won't abide by Wikipedia's rules. —C.Fred (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

:::: ...and although I know it's "his" talkpage, he's continuing the same refactoring job there that was disruptive on the article talkpage in the first place. WP:COMPETENCE is starting to creep in jump in headfirst. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

::::: Agreed. For better or worse, we have a framework for collaboration which has worked reasonably well for the creation of over three million articles spanning a decade of work. Editors are obliged to work within that framework, which means amongst other things obeying our conventions on article layout and talk page use and understanding the consequences of our licensing upon the future of their contributions. Things have obviously gotten off on the wrong foot with BruceWHain, but we are nonetheless obliged to prevent him from inadvertently disrupting the project as he gets to grips with it. The ball is in his court; the next block, should one be forthcoming for the same behaviour, should be indefinite and lifting it predicated on some firm evidence of his having increased his understanding of how collaboration is expected to work here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

{{resolved|blocked by {{admin|Bsadowski1}}, recommend you to file a SPI case if non already exists. _→AzaToth 00:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)}}

...for {{user|The Norns Condemn Homosexuality}} and any similar new socks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

::The Norns? A lot of otaku are going to be very dissapointed... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Jonstoner1993 apparently took offense at my reversion of some of his edits and has left a legal threat on his user page. He also doled out a few [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Falcon8765&diff=prev&oldid=459418508 personal attacks] on my talk page for the gross transgression of reverting his edits. Could someone take a look at this please? Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 07:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

:Combined with his sudden turn to a VOA (and the edits before which were, all along, very questionable (thinking "life" vs "death" was a typo? c'monnn..)) and obvious WP:COMPETENCE issues, indef'd. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

:*Bushranger beat me to it. Good block. --John (talk) 07:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite overwhelmed at the behaviour of {{user|Fowler&fowler}}. Yesterday he did [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saif_Ali_Khan&action=historysubmit&diff=459072652&oldid=458550316 this] series of edits on Saif Ali Khan, removing perfectly relevant and sourced info (calling it "garbage") and adding a "multiple issues" tag to the article with as many as 7 problems, which, from what I see, are nowhere to be seen. He did not start any discussion before or after doing it. I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saif_Ali_Khan&diff=459282186&oldid=459072652 reverted him], writing in the edit summary, "I can't see how you were removing "garbage". This info is perfectly relevant and sourced. Before adding such huge template blocks, please discuss, as I can't see these problems unless you can point them out".

In turn, the user rollbacked me as if I was a vandal, which is unacceptable. He did turn to the talk page now, where he said the addition of "Nawab of Pataudi" is incorrect and "defunct" despite being sourced to a reliable source (?), and without backing his assertion up with any other source. He did not bother to explain why he added the "multiple issues" tag though. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASaif_Ali_Khan&action=historysubmit&diff=459290579&oldid=459287924 That] is my reply to him. I request your intervention. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

::Notified the user [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fowler%26fowler&diff=459293336&oldid=459293023].  Chzz  ►  14:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

:::Oh what the apologists will say. Please see the thread I have opened on the India-project, Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#The_10th_and_Present_Nawab and also on Talk:Saif Ali Khan. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

::::You should have started this thread before making such drastic changes and labelling the info "garbage". As you see, another user [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASaif_Ali_Khan&action=historysubmit&diff=459298383&oldid=459290579 agrees] with me on the matter and opposes to the removal. You also seem to ignore my request for explanation regarding the "multiple issues" tag you'd added (and then re-added). Above all, I think the fact that you used a rollback for reverting me is just insulting and plain unacceptable. I still wait for an admin's take on this. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::This is mainly a content dispute, which belongs on the article's talk page — where, by the way, a discussion is already going on —; I note, however, that {{user|Fowler&fowler}} did in fact misuse rollback. Assuming this was just a one-off incident, I'd be inclined to let you go with a warning, in this case, {{u|Fowler&fowler}}; please remember that rollback should never be used to revert good-faith edits, though. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

{{od}} Yes, you are right. My apologies to Shahid and Salvio. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

:One of the delights of Wikipedia is that it leads you to unexpected places. So, I discovered a few minutes ago, that the actor does not consider himself a Nawab. Here he is from a news report, [http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/news-interviews/Saif-Ali-Khan-happy-about-being-an-ex-Nawab/articleshow/10518626.cms Saif Ali Khan happy about being an ex-Nawab] from the same newspaper which user Shahid has used to anoint him Nawab! To the question: "On October 31, you will become the next Nawab of Pataudi?" the actor says,

Royal titles ceased to be recognised by the Indian government in 1971. The title of Nawab and Maharaja are not recognised by the Indian government anymore. And rightfully so. We are a democracy and I am not under any misconception about me ruling any state or body of people. It's just a sense of tradition. As far as receiving the title and the ceremony from the villagers go, they are sentimental about tying the pagdi. Perhaps it is is something symbolic. And yes, I will be there for that. I have a lot of connection to Pataudi. I have spent a lot of time there and I love the place very much, but at no point, do I consider myself a Nawab.

I rest my case, with apologies again for my misuse of revert. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Just wanted to add my voice in saying that, while Fowler should have been more careful with his use of rollback, I don't think any other actions he took were inappropriate. The changes he made to the article were hardly drastic enough to dictate a mandatory talk page discussion first, WP:BOLD edits are what this encyclopaedia is all about. Someone should point Shahid to WP:BRD. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

::Removing sourced information and calling it "garbage" without specifying any concrete reason is not acceptable. Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

:::It's not really worthy of an ANI report, either. As we've already ascertained that Fowler had good reasons to remove the content, what you're effectively doing is starting an ANI discussion over an inappropriate edit summary. If I made a report every time I discovered an inappropriate edit summary we'd have to open up a whole new noticeboard just to deal with minor disputes...oh wait. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 01:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

::::Actually, this report seems to be more about the inappropriate use of rollback, which is arguably a suitable ANI topic. Silverseren^C 05:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::Touché, mon ami, touché...Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Salvio's assumption is wrong. This is not a one-off incident. A simple warning will only mean continuing problems. This user is in the habit of rolling back other users. It does not matter if the target is an IP address or a veteran Wikipedia user. The only criterion for this user to use the revert button is that the person produce a news article or book with an opposing view or that the user is losing the argument. In the last 2 to 3 weeks itself, he has showed this kind of behaviour about 25 times. The user also does this to the discussion tab and even inside the text signed by other people. This is unfair and looks like harassment. Some examples:

1. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:India&diff=prev&oldid=457910295 Using revert button for removing and editing Nikkul's comments]
2. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:India&diff=prev&oldid=456944228 Using revert button for removing MangoWong's comment]
3. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=India&diff=prev&oldid=459120049 Using revert button to mute opposing view point]
4. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kashmir&diff=prev&oldid=459019074 Using revert button by ignoring edit summary of "Discussion is on.You just cant remove cited text as per your whims.Wait for editor to respond and discussion to get over"]
5. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yadav&diff=prev&oldid=458641622 Using revert button for expressing views favouring Pakistan over India]
6. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jnanpith_Award&diff=prev&oldid=457666609 Using revert button without communication]
7. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=India&diff=prev&oldid=457455962 Using revert button without communication]
8. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pakistan-administered_Kashmir&diff=prev&oldid=457455865 Using revert button without communication]
9. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kashmir_and_Jammu_%28princely_state%29&diff=prev&oldid=457455738 Using revert button without communication]
10. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pakistan-administered_Kashmir&diff=prev&oldid=457455654 Using revert button for anti-India and pro-Pakistan views]
11. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=India&diff=prev&oldid=457450628 Using revert button without communication]
12. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gurgaon&diff=prev&oldid=457159080 Misusing revert for showing only bad pictures of Gurgaon (1st time)]
13. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gurgaon&diff=prev&oldid=457186631 Misusing revert for showing only bad pictures of Gurgaon (2nd time)]
14. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gurgaon&diff=prev&oldid=457839478 Misusing revert for showing only bad pictures of Gurgaon (3rd time)]
15. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gurgaon&diff=prev&oldid=459120109 Misusing revert for showing only bad pictures of Gurgaon (4th time)]
16. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jat_people&diff=prev&oldid=457126001 Misusing revert for using revert button for preferred image]
17. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yadav&diff=prev&oldid=456881042 Misusing revert button to ignore consensus or a discussion]

The user acts in a disruptive way by adding inaccurate "multiple issues" note to articles where he has disagreements:

1. Multiple issues (Saif Ali Khan) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saif_Ali_Khan&diff=prev&oldid=459072652]
2. Multiple issues (Gurgaon) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gurgaon&diff=prev&oldid=457650156]
3. Multiple issues (Kunbi) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kunbi&diff=prev&oldid=458138526]

This has not gone unnoticed. An administrator participating in this ANI asked the user to remove the multiple issues note from one article. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFowler%26fowler&action=historysubmit&diff=459310525&oldid=459303297]

The user indulges in inappropriate canvassing. See the 13 October 2011 example where notices are pasted to about 20 users.

1. Ravichandar84 - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ravichandar84&diff=prev&oldid=455393945]
2. SpacemanSpiff - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SpacemanSpiff&diff=prev&oldid=455394517]
3. Sodabottle - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sodabottle&diff=prev&oldid=455394682]
4. Ncmvocalist - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ncmvocalist&diff=prev&oldid=455395288]
5. Chipmunkdavis - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chipmunkdavis&diff=prev&oldid=455395401]
6. MikeLynch - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MikeLynch&diff=prev&oldid=455395738]
7. AshLin - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AshLin&diff=prev&oldid=455395972]
8. Abhishek191288 - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abhishek191288&diff=prev&oldid=455396085]
9. Sitush - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sitush&diff=prev&oldid=455396323]
10. Qwyrxian - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Qwyrxian&diff=prev&oldid=455396417]
11. MatthewVanitas - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MatthewVanitas&diff=prev&oldid=455396707]
12. AnimeshKulkarni - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Animeshkulkarni&diff=prev&oldid=455396948]
13. Zuggernaut - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zuggernaut&diff=prev&oldid=455397105]
14. MangoWong - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MangoWong&diff=prev&oldid=455397223]
15. JanetteDoe - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JanetteDoe&diff=prev&oldid=455397318]
16. Redtigerxyz - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Redtigerxyz&diff=prev&oldid=455397507]
17. RegentsPark - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RegentsPark&diff=prev&oldid=455398026]
18. Pfly - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pfly&diff=prev&oldid=455400059]
19. Nikkul - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nikkul&diff=prev&oldid=455400255]

Swift, stern and long term action is required to solve these ongoing problems. 173.164.222.106 (talk) 07:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

:Thanks for the links. The last time I studied Fowler's edits, I saw excellent work to support encyclopedic articles from misguided changes. Would you mind noting whether any of the above links show Fowler causing a problem for an article? Johnuniq (talk) 07:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Over at {{pagelinks|Insect}} there is a rather garden variety edit war going on concerning the addition of particular material to the lead section. New user(s) {{userlinks|Pszczola-osa}} and {{userlinks|Getbee}} have consistently reverted to their preferred version and have not been willing to engage in substantive discussions rather than casting aspersions on other editors and Wikipedia process. Since I have been involved I am not comfortable taking action myself so I have brought the issue here to ANI. In particular are the style and contributions of the two accounts sufficiently similar that the duck test applies and does anyone have suggestions for getting through to them so that they can make contributions in a style and form Wikipedia can accept.? Eluchil404 (talk) 22:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

:This kind of thing happens often between new editors and administrators, and there's usually a way of taking care of these issues by meeting half-way or discussing in attempt to appease the editors involved. Which I have done, and It is to my opinion that the problem has been solved and the need for any further conflict, evaded. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 03:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

:: I hope so, but this dif [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Insect&action=historysubmit&diff=459327260&oldid=459188396] is the one that bothers me. You made an effort to meet him halfway and he simply reverts. Maybe, I'm too far removed from being a new user, though I certainly remember that Wikipedia processes and rules can seem byzantine and irrational. Nevertheless, reverting every day for 4 days in unacceptable and I would have issued a final warning, stop or be blocked, if I wasn't involved in the dispute in an editorial capacity. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked both accounts as socks of {{user|Serafin}}; typical edit-warring at Johann Dzierzon. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if this is where to bring this, but some one can always point a finger if it isn't. This users contribs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.58.94.186 71.58.94.186] and more specifically their edit summary have me curious. "Added to this piece that the fort walton mound is the largest mound on salt water. adding to the validity of this article for a particular college course assignment." This IP is one of what must be 25 or 30 ( and recently several named accts ) at least in the last year or so which edit from the general vicinity of State College, Pennsylvania. They all edit in Native American subjects and display similar editing habits (this why I include the several named accts). This editor or more likely editors never answer edits summaries or talk page messages, and very, very, very, very, rarely attempt to cite any addition. The few that have attempted a cite, have turned out to be copyvios. Is there anything specific that could be done about this if it is a college class instructing its students to edit here? Or do I just continue to play whack-a-mole and leave messages that have never been acknowleged? Heiro 04:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

:Keep trying to refer them to WP:SUP and WP:WOA, and continue to revert the edits they make. If it is a college course, said students are going to need to get their professor to do this by the book. My suspicion is that the professor is probably doing things correctly, and the students are merely half-assing it. In nearly every case I have run into where this sort of thing happens, once we contact the professor, it becomes clear that they are fully aware of and/or are already doing things properly, but the students are screwing up individually. College students half-assing an assignment and attempting to weasel out of it is hardly an unheard-of behavior. --Jayron32 04:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

::I'll try to leave them those links in future, but as I said, so far haven't had one actual conversation with any of them, so don't know if they even know what the orange message banner means. Plus, each seems to make 4 to 8 edits at the most, then they go dead, altho some return a few months later for one or 2 more edits. And so many IPs are involved, ugh. I was keeping a list for awhile, got up to about 20, but that was a year ago, it died down and I let it go without saying anything. But recently it has started back up, and this is the first one to actual let slip it may be part of a course. Heiro 04:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

:::Perhaps it would be worth emailing the [http://www.anthro.psu.edu/index.shtml Department of Anthropology] to inquire about which professors may be involved and then contacting them to ensure that they're aware of the guidelines on university projects and the resources available for them. Danger ^{High voltage!} 18:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

{{hat|The close was good, even though it might not have been done by the best editor for the task. No admin intervention is needed here.}}

Could someone have a look at the RM here: Talk:James_VI_and_I#Compromise_Suggestion_to_Requested_Move:_James_VI_and_I.

I don't know what the most appropriate close is for this, but I think that a sudden move of the page by an involved admin without closing the RM discussion (which is what has just happened) is considerably wide of proper.

Thanks.--FormerIP (talk) 14:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

:Hi, yes I have just moved the page, because I was asked to (see here User:Brendandh#Would you change title?). If my bad, then apologies. Yet there is consensus for the move, and the discussion has gone on long over time. Brendandh (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

::I think it needs an uninvolved editor to make a judgement as to whether or not there is consensus. --FormerIP (talk) 14:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

:::I don't think a WP:BOLD move is out of place here, given that the quite reasonable talk page discussion so far seemed to be diverting into unnecessary accusations of nationalism. As regards the move itself there is a clear coherent argument in its favour. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

::::Nor do I. There is a clear consensus by editors from at least four different english-speaking countries. The discussion has gone almost twice as long as the suggested time. It is obvious to all. It is done all the time. Cannot think of a less important reason to open an ANI. Mugginsx (talk) 14:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::It is not done all the time that someone (whether an admin or not) who has a clearly expressed opinion on the move enacts that move. Particularly so when the exact same request failed only a couple of months ago [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_VI_and_I&oldid=453801692#Requested_move]. The move has also been done badly as it has now broken the archive links. There is no reason to 'Be Bold' in closing this sort of discussion, particularly so when it has a long and acrimonious history. A simple request at WP:AN would have been sufficient to get an uninvolved admin to close the discussion. If the consensus is as clear as people seem to believe then it is an easy job for someone uninvolved to carry out. The way it has been done however makes it more likely to be challenged. Edit to add - it is not unsurprising that those who support the move commenting here think they have the better argument, but it is not up to them to judge that. Polequant (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::::The difference is that this time the Founder has asked to try to find a solution which "..would either satisfy or cause the least dissatisfaction". You can read his words on James VI and I Talk Page.

:::::::Another big difference is that as the discussion evolved, the various editors have found this to be a the most satisfactory title. It is boldy apparent in their words. I repeat, a careful scruitiny of these are editors will show that there are many editors who came around by good discussion, good research, good facts. The purpose of the discussions were met, the WP:Guidelines were met, the research was done by British, Scottish and American editors and the title clearly fits the criteria. There is a time to move on and bow gracefully to defeat. This discussion and the consensus was made HONORABLY and followed all the guidelines. Articles changes are done all the time and it is disengenuous to continue with this. It is also really quite unfair to attack an Administrator for doing her job.

:::::::It is time to move on subjects worthy of ANI. Mugginsx (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

{{od}} Pretty poor form for an involved editor (and not even an admin) to step in with a close after it's been taken to ANI, and a contentious close should generally be accompanied by an explanation (rather than an exclamation of triumph). Still, the arguments seem to favour the move. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

::I asked Brendandh to change the title. I also posted it on User:JimboWales and you may direct your remarks to me. You know very well it was all done properly. I cannot understand this discussion. This is the very thing that wastes everyone's time and causes the loss of editors that has been described in the newsletters. Mugginsx (talk) 15:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

:::Why did you ask someone you knew agreed with your position to change it? The whole purpose of these sort of discussions is that someone uninvolved closes them. Read WP:RMCI. This close was wrong on two counts - firstly it was by someone very involved in the discussion, and secondly it was by a non-admin where it clearly does not fall under the non-admin close business. If you want this move to 'stick' then your best bet is that everything is done as above board as possible, because at the moment it looks dodgy. Polequant (talk) 15:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

:::And by the way, appeals to Jimbo mean next to nothing. And you also look like you have completely ignored the advice given to you there. Yet you wonder why someone has objected?? Polequant (talk) 15:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

::::I asked the Bot as well. Really did not know who to ask. Please do not look for conspiracies where they do not exist. The time is appropriate and the consensus is there for all to see. If there is a WP:guideline that was not followed than please show it or let us close this ANI. Mugginsx (talk) 15:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

::::: WP:FORUMSHOPPING on your part, and WP:NAC#Inappropriate closures on Brendandh's. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::(EC) And from the discussion on your talkpage [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mugginsx#Jamie_Saxt], it seems that both you and Brendandh knew the close would cause problems, and even seem to be relishing it. So let me ask, why didn't you just ask an uninvolved admin to close it? It really is not difficult. I have already shown you the guidance which says why it was a bad idea to do it like you (or rather Brendandh) has done. And like I say above, the move has been badly done technically, because the archives have now been lost. What I suggest should be done is that the move is undone, and someone genuinely uninvolved, who can also do the move properly, closes it. If the consensus is as you say then it doesn't change anything except it means that it will be less likely to be challenged in the future (and people will be able to find the archives easily). Polequant (talk) 15:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

::::::Not WP:FORUMSHOPPING Shopping since a) all discussions were on the same page. b) The issue was changed by the different titles proposed. c) One same title was earlier proposed but it was clear by the newest discussion that editors were not so opposed to it and following the desire of the Founder, I proposed it.

::::::Of course we anticipated there might be trouble because we know that there was resistance to compromise until now. Also this is the first time I have ever had discussion with the above editor. She "volunteered to send me some medieval documentation years ago, but other than a "thank you" we have never had discussion of the type you mean. Since she is not an administrator, we did not break that rule. I went to a Bot first because I did not really know where to go. Will look for the other guidelines you mentioned and get back to you but WP:FORUMSHOPPING, according to the exact words of the guidelines, does not apply in this case. Mugginsx (talk) 16:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• Well, I am an uninvolved administrator and this close is correct on its face. — Coren ^(talk) 16:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

{{hab}}

At Advaita Vedanta's talk page somehow I am left to defend Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy against a fundamentalist. The user is openly citing fundamentalist books, and not even a single academic work. An analogy would be an anti-semite removing all references to Jewish roots in the Christianity wikipedia pages, citing neo-Nazi crap. This is not a content dispute. 72.92.11.182 (talk) 16:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

:Some diff's would be helpful. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

::Just look at the talk page.72.92.11.182 (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

:::Here's one interesting link: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&tagFilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Ramanatruth&namespace=1&tagfilter=&year=&month=-1 Talkpage contributions: none].

:::That being said, @IP you need to go back to the article's talkpage as well. This is way too early to escalate it here at ANI. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

::::Thats another issue. How did I get dragged into this? I just reported these incidents as an impartial oberver. 72.92.11.182 (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::User:Beeblebrox has fully protected the article for three days. If User:Ramanatruth does not modify his attitude to Wikipedia editing soon he is likely to be making future visits to the admin boards. EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::You're the one reverting right? That means you're involved and not just an 'impartial oberver'. I'm not saying you've done anything wrong but you should be aware it's natural your conduct in any dispute will come under scrutiny as well. Nil Einne (talk) 19:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• See also this above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

::I just noticed even HERE on this noticeboard, they linked to "sriramanamaharshi.org". This is a pretty blatant behavior. 72.92.11.182 (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

:::What do you think should be done, that hasn't been done already? --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - State of the Union ‖ 20:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

::::What would you do to someone who keeps inserting Mormon founder Joseph Smith into the Jewish articles?72.92.11.182 (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::Could you please not answer a question with a question? Inform us what you think should be done, and we'll go from there. Thanks. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 22:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

::::::Well obviously block / ban them. 72.92.121.144 (talk) 01:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I have been reading and practicing Advaita Vedanta for 6 years now. I can quote verses from Rig Veda if you want and I have read a lot of books on the subject. I want to present valid content in the page.--Ramanatruth (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Why call me names like fundamentalist? There is a talk page on Advaita Vedanta lets discuss in a calm way.--Ramanatruth (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Before you shout vandalism, fundamentalist etc please note a simple error i am pointing out.

In page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta

In Section Mahakavya

1 प्रज्ञानं ब्रह्म (Prajñānam brahma) Consciousness is Brahman aitareya Rig Veda--Ramanatruth (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Now all you need to do compare when Rig Veda was written and when was Buddha born.--Ramanatruth (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Rig Veda 1700–1100 BC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigveda--Ramanatruth (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Buddha 563 BCE to 483 BCE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha--Ramanatruth (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Adi Sankara an Advaita teacher may have used Buddhist examples in his teachings. Modern Advaita teachers quote freely from other religions. I am not debating Buddhist influence on Advaita teachings.--Ramanatruth (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I am only debating Buddhism as the source of Advaita.--Ramanatruth (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Like I said I am practicing Advaita for 6 years now. I came to update the content in Advaita page and got caught in the Buddha controversy. To be frank, I am willing to leave out the section and edit other sections of the page while this argument is being ironed out.--Ramanatruth (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Can another editor review the recent attempts by the original contributor to blank the article at {{la|Foster Natural Gas/Oil Report‎}}?

The initial article was tagged for AfD, after which the article was tagged for rescue. Several editors then worked on attempting to cleanup the article. At this point, the original editor ({{user|Katya Foster}}) began displaying ownership issues, and proceeded to attempt the blank the article {{diff2|459351316|here}} and {{diff2|459353531|here}}. Sadly, I then proceeded to make a comment worthy of bean stuffing, when I mentioned that they couldn't use {{tl|db-g7}} at that point as several editors have been involved with adding sources and making content changes to the page {{diff2|459379516}}. There next edits were then to state that "I never asked or invited anyone to edit anything. So this does not apply." {{diff2|459404786}}, and to begin applying the db-g7 tag {{diff2|459405843|here}} and {{diff2|459406307|here}}.

I've removed the CSD tag, and attempted to explain the issues on their talk page. However, I would appreciate having someone else review the activity here, as the editor is now accusing me of vandalism on their talk page by my removal of their CsD tag. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

:Note: When I went to notify the editor of this ANI, I found their most recent post emphasized their ownership issues and failure to understand the CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence when they stated "I still own all rights to this page."{{diff2|459409194}}. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I created all of the information on the page. Other editors simply moved things aroung. Now it makes no sence, has citations which dont apply, and looks like a promotion. I think its time to end the debate and delete the page as the majority wants (including the author). I never vandalised anything. However,I was threatened by Barek. He said I was the one vandalising and he said he will try to block me off wikipedia. I am sorry to waste your time with these childish complaints. As you can see, I didnt start this debate. I thank you for your time aand consideration. --Katya Foster (talk) 05:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

:For reference, a comparison of the version from Katya Foster's last constructive edit to the point where they attempted to blank content can be see in this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foster_Natural_Gas%2FOil_Report&action=historysubmit&diff=459335351&oldid=458984617 link]. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

::The editor Katya Foster is being somewhat disruptive on the AfD, attempting to delete her previous comments – making the discussion disjointed and difficult to follow – !voting multiple time (once logged out, as an IP), and basically demonstrating IDHT-type behavior. I've undone their shenanigans on the AfD, and left a couple of messages on their talk page, but I have serious doubts whether it's going to do any good -- the editor clearly wants to own the article, and since she cannot, now wants it deleted. I have no particular opinion about the subject of the article (notability could go either way, as a far as I can see), but Katya Foster really needs to control her behavior before she gets herself into trouble. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

::::Just noting that I looked more closely at the referencing, so I have expressed an opinion in the AfD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

:::Given the name of the article and the name of the editor in question, WP:COI rears its head as well here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

:Note: Three Four SPA accounts arrived this morning (all within the past half hour) at the AfD. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

::Yummy. Enough quacking going on there to make several servings of delicious confit de canard. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

::All the accounts are blocked and the master has been blocked 1 week per results at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Katya Foster. Alexandria (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

{{resolved|1=For now.Racconish ^Tk 19:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)}}

PA ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Davina_Reichman&diff=459375573&oldid=459039510 here]) in a context of COI and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Domenico.y/Archive&oldid=458639317 suspected sockpuppetry]. The article has been neutralized and correctly sourced, a consensus has been [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Davina_Reichman&oldid=459431967#COI found] on that basis to remove {{t|COI}}. It would be beneficial to the project to avoid such further disruption. Racconish ^Tk 09:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• You're referring to "This is malicious, intolerable behaviour and is tantamount to deliberate sabotage," right? Strictly speaking, the editor is talking about your behavior, not you. You've already slapped a PA warning on their talk page, and I don't think you'll get much more traction here. Olivia hasn't edited the article in a week, and so I don't see much evidence of real, block-worthy disruption either. There is, of course, the possibility of meating, as you have already noted on the talk page, but that's not necessarily a matter for here. How about ignoring the talk page comments? Drmies (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

::Thanks for a good advice. I agree a block would be too much for this. In view of the history of the article, I was concerned it would not stop here without, at least, a booster shot on AGF but my PA warning may be enough. Racconish ^Tk 15:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

:::The article certainly is a mess, but there are eyes on it now. Protection won't help much, given the smell of meat, but fortunately these kinds of disruptions have a limited shelf life and end with a block (or two) or with the editor losing interest. And a flurry of edits may prompt a new SPI, which may reveal something more solid than the last one. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 17:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

::::Thanks for now. I just hope the previous suspects will behave at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Being_Born_Again_Couture_Fashion_Show_%282nd_nomination%29 this AfD]. Racconish ^Tk 18:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

This is very strange, but it cannot be coincidence that 10+ brand new accounts have edited this page in the past hour independently. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aaron_Burr&action=history Check out the edit history]. Most likely the same person. Whats strange is that none of it appears to be vandalism, so I'm hesitant to simply revert the edits and I'm not sure if this is exactly a violation of WP:SOCK, although it is very very strange.--JOJ ^Hutton 18:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

:Could be a school project; i.e. multiple students working together to improve an article. It's sketchy, but the malicious explanation isn't necessarily the only one. Sometimes it is innocent, per WP:AGF. Some of the accounts are saying "we", which may mean all of these are working together. I'm inclined to AGF here and say this is a group of independent editors, likely students, who are doing this work as part of a classroom project. Maybe pick on at random and ask them directly if that is the case. Say something like "Hey, I noticed this strange situation, and I was wondering if this is some sort of class project". If it is, ask who the teacher/professor is and refer them to WP:SUP or WP:WOA. --Jayron32 18:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

::A school project did cross my mind. Yet none of what is changed appears to be cited or verified. I began a thread at the talk page, but have yet gotten a response.--JOJ ^Hutton 19:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

:::Try pinging the accounts with a request to discuss the matter on the talk page; your concerns are valid, and the best way to figure out what is going on is to directly communicate with these accounts. --Jayron32 19:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• One of the issues I see with the edits is that they are removing anything negative about Burr's actions, stances, or opinions. And, if there is something negative that is crucial to his history, they are re-writing it to make it seem like it wasn't his fault and other people were attacking him. This sort of editing is very close to, if not outright, POV editing and whitewashing of details from the article about the subject. Silverseren^C 20:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

:I didn't notice that particularly, but that is a major concern. We can assume Good Faith only so far before it becomes time to just revert the whole day, back to an earlier version.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

::For example, they removed the paragraph under Marriage and family that was about his illegitimate children,

:::Recently, the Aaron Burr Association has recognized two illegitimate children of Burr with Mary Emmons, his servant. Louisa Charlotte was born in 1788, and John Pierre Burr in 1792. At that time, Burr was still married to Theodosia, but most of the time was in Albany while serving in the state assembly. DNA testing, which might verify these claims, is not possible due to the lack of a male descendant in this line.

::And then there's a lot of added wording that seems POV-ish and not neutral. Silverseren^C 20:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

:::One of them explained, "We added information about Burr's intellectual dependence on his daughter Theodosia, after reading Isenberg's novel for our college honors course."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aaron_Burr&diff=459494662&oldid=459494130] Historical novels are probably poor sources, especially for controversial historical figures. NuclearWarfare has reverted much of the contributions from today.  Will Beback  talk  20:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

::::As an aside: According to Amazon, "This definitive biography of the revolutionary era villain overturns every myth and image we have of him". It may well be a fine source but if it sets out to disagree with others on many points, it should be used with great caution. We have the luxury of comparing a variety of different sources on various points; we should enjoy that luxury. It's not possible for many other historical articles. bobrayner (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Who wants to earn some barnstars?

The unblock request mailing list, unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org , is around for blocked users to appeal blocks when they do not know how or are unable to do so on-wiki. Unfortunately, and despite the fact that there are over 100 people subscribed to this list and receiving email from it, I am handling the vast majority of the requests this list receives completely by myself. It's been this way for a few weeks, before which User:DeltaQuad was the only one actively reviewing appeals. In short, we really really really need some help!

If you are not subscribed to this list and would like to assist with reviewing block appeals, please go to https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/unblock-en-l and sign up. Why should you do so? Many of the people emailing us are trying to edit Wikipedia for the first time, but are unable to due to a rangeblock or autoblock on their IP address. By reviewing these appeals in a timely manner, you're helping new editors get started on Wikipedia. Furthermore, there's an added incentive for you...

For the remainder of the month of November, I am offering an Admin's Barnstar to anyone who handles at least 15 appeals send to this list. It may sound like a lot, but this list often receives more than a dozen appeals each day, so you're sure to get there quickly if you check your email regularly. Furthermore, the three admins other than myself who respond to the most appeals for the remainder of November will receive Bronze, Silver, and Gold Wiki Awards for their exceptional service. Fine print follows my signature.

If you want to help but aren't sure how, don't worry - subscribe and stick around for a bit. You'll find a lot of the emails we send are boilerplate text that you can copy from previous responses and then edit as needed. So sign up and help today! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Fine print: In order to receive credit towards either award, any response you send must be cc'd to the unblock mailing list per standard procedure. Each admin may only get credit once per appealing user; i.e., if you respond to an appeal asking for more information, you don't get credit for two appeals by responding again when they user sends the information you need. Also, except where replies are sent within a few minutes of each other, only the first admin to respond to a given stage of an appeal gets credit; i.e., if Admin A responds to a user's request, then Admin B sends another response an hour later, only Admin A is going to get credit because it had already been dealt with. List-only emails do not receive credit. You receive credit just for sending a useful response; you need not unblock (or decline to unblock) a user. Currently subscribed users are also eligible provided they actually start helping like DQ and I have been asking them to do for weeks :-P.

: Email is so quaint. There should be a hashtag for this instead. {{smiley|tongue}} ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

::If you think you can get IP address, username, blocking admin's name, and a meaningful appeal in less than 144 characters, feel free to set one up. :-) (only half joking) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

:::I was tempted to toy around with that Twitter idea, but, given the average user's knowledge of our policy, I feel like 99% of the unblock requests would be "HELP WHY AM I BLOCKED #unblock-en-wp". Also, signing up for that mailing list. m.o.p 07:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Note the cross-thread @ AN

I actually have to echo this request, because the situation hasn't gotten better since I started to go on wikibreak. (And I don't have the tools anymore, so my help is sometimes not enough) I see unblock requests on wiki dealt with in hours, where as just later yesterday (and no pressure on Hersfold here) I saw a backlog of about 15-20 emails that had not been responded to in 4 days. This is really shocking personally that there is such a backlog. As Newyorkbard echoed just a while ago on ANI, this list needs attention, and we have gotten new members, but very few have stepped up for the few emails that have been handled by others. I have a statistical document that I have upload that shows just how bad things are getting. This file is not 100% accurate, but add or subtract a bit of salt to these numbers and they should be fine. Also note the last page is not specifically unblock-en-l requests, but all emails (not that the numbers would be affected much without). Some of the ridiculous statistics include:

• In october, there were 34 requests that took over a week to respond to. (That's from when I started to take a break from the list)
• ~21% of requests are taking over 3 days to get responses.
• Since May 19th, 157 requests have been left not responded to.

Please any admins who can help at this time, we need you! Not sure how to start replying to emails? use the templates. -- DQ (t) (e) 14:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

:You could just unblock the backlog and everything will be fine. If they really deserve it they will be banned again by the same admins. Anyway, keep up the good work! 84.107.153.57 (talk) 00:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

::Not an option, it still takes time to go through and unblock them. -- DQ (t) (e) 06:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Can somebody explain why we have this mailing list at all, apart of for the rare cases of locked talk pages or private information? The {{tl|unblock}} method works pretty fast, and if somebody really can't figure out how to use {{tl|unblock}}, they probably aren't competent enough to edit Wikipedia in any event. Wouldn't it be better to deprecate the mailing list and just tell people to use the template except in the abovementioned cases?  Sandstein  09:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

:I have to disagree that people who do not have the 'knowledge' on how to use a template should be not allowed to edit the wiki. I mean we are already inconveniencing them (like I said a lot of collateral damage goes through the list) by blocking them, so we should be trying to help them, not have them jumping through loopholes. It does not take a person that knows how to deal with WP templates to edit and article. So it would not really be better to get rid of the mailing list. Also as I realized while typing below, people would have to give out their email addresses for us to create accounts on wiki for them, so they would have to be posted publicly which is inappropriate in my view. Note there is also an interface in development so we can keep track of the unhanded requests and hopefully deal with them in a more timely manner. (which would also allow admins not to reveal there email) -- DQ (t) (e) 06:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

:Okay, I'm going to go ahead and follow the "There are no stupid questions" maxim that my teachers taught me, and thus open myself up to ridicule when 5 people tell me how easily I could have answered my own question. Could someone please point a (relatively) new admin like myself to the relevant policy/procedure pages we would need to understand in order to handle unblock requests generated because of autoblock and rangeblock problems? I see requests of this type using the unblock template, but have really no idea how to handle them, and for the life of me can't figure out what I even need to be looking at in order to determine what to do in these cases. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

::Request seconded. The instructions on WP:Autoblock don't work. Danger ^{High voltage!} 21:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

:::Rangeblocks are talked about here. But your right, the documentation is currently insufficient. Rangeblocks are put out for usually handling the blocked editors, but the most common examples I see with rangeblocks are {{tl|anonblock}} and {{tl|checkuserblock}}. Now generally if they email the list for anon blocks, are checking to make sure the block is what it is, and then asking them for a username they wish, and creating an account for them allowing them to override the softblock (also known as anon. only block). We create the account via Special:UserLogin, not entering a password, but creating it "by email". And let them know that they will get something by email. Now since this requires an email, for privacy reasons it's normally (from onwiki) sent to the account creation project. Now with {{tl|checkuserblock}}s, even on the list, we send them right to the account creation project linked above, where then a checkuser looks over the private information (IP and useragent data) and tries to determine if it's the same user, if not, an account is created for them.

:::For autoblocks, since they last 24 hours they are very volatile time wise in nature. If you think that the IP that has the autoblock is dynamic enough in nature, it should be unblocked, by using the Autoblock number (which the user has to give to you) and unblocking that (instead of an actual IP). I would check using the Special:BlockList to make sure it's not a major sockpuppet that your unblocking the IP for. I should probably create a documentation page and might be able to get to that this weekend, but I hope this explains it for you. If it is the affected person, decline them, point them to the user talk page, tell them to log back in, but also try and help them understand the block before they are sent to an unblock request. Let me know if you guys need further clarification. -- DQ (t) (e) 06:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to draw attention to the newly created article Jeremery which was created by User:Jeremychen1. This seems highly likely to be a sockpuppet account of Fornevermore, see evidence at: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Fornevermore. Given the behavior of the other accounts operated by Fornevermore and the lack of sources for the article, I suspect Jeremery is a hoax. I've tagged it as a Prod, but I'd like a second opinion. Many thanks, Sparthorse (talk) 23:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

:Looks fairly obvious to me, given the prior sock User:Jeremychen. I've added it to SPI. The article is up for a well deserved speedy. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

::Blocked. WilliamH (talk) 01:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

:::This may also be a case of identity theft. Bearian (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

::::It might be a compromised account becuase, it may be known to others. --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 01:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Over the past week, I have received about 150 offensively racist messages via Wikipedia email, from accounts registered with Mailinator addresses. Other editors have reported such abuse from the same accounts.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Runtshit&diff=459260045&oldid=416379067] These accounts appear to have made no actual edits to Wikipedia, only to have misused the mailing facility. Is there any way to block autoregistration from such accounts, or at least to prevent them using Wikipedia email to send such filth to other editors? RolandR (talk) 12:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

:All the editors listed in the sockpuppet investigation you linked had their IP blocked and had their e-mail privilege removed, so they can't send you e-mails anymore (unless you e-mailed them back and disclosed your e-mail address). If there are additional sockpuppets sending you e-mails, you may want to list them on that report for investigating. — Moe ε 13:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

::Maybe; but this was after they had sent 150 emails to me, and a further 150 to another editor. There may well be other targets, about whom we haven't yet heard. And further such accounts can easily be created. It is obvious that the only purpose of using a Mailinator address to create an account which makes no edits to Wikipedia but immediately starts sending large numbers of emails, is to misuse the mailing facility. There should be some sort of filter to monitor and prevent this. RolandR (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

:::I've just received another 100 offensive emails from a mailinator account. It's evident that this abuse will continue until a way is found to prevent it. RolandR (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

:RolandR makes a valid point. There's no reason for us to allow accounts to set a Mailinator email address (or any of the Mailinator alternate domains). Even if a legitimate editor wanted to do so, it shouldn't be allowed, as Mailinator accounts and messages aren't password protected. (Meaning that anyone could reset the password on a Mailinator user's Wikipedia account.) Does a blacklist exist for email domains, or is this going to have to go to Bugzilla? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

::While I agree I would note it may not be easy. AFAIK mailinator purposely doesn't post a list of their domains to make blacklisting more difficult, although they don't stop scraping [http://mailinator.blogspot.com/2011/05/how-to-get-gmailcom-banned-not-that-i.html] [http://mailinator.com/randomdomain.jsp]. (I also wonder if WHOIS info could reveal most alternative domains.) And there are plenty of mailnator alternatives. Having used such services in the past (not for wikipedia) I can say it's usually fairly trivial to block them. Treating them like we treat Tor and open proxies, blocking them when they are used will probably work in making difficult enough that many will give up but I wonder how long before we get there. It was suggested in the past to limit the ability to send emails to autoconfirmed users or some other status, I don't know if a suggestion was ever added to bugzilla. Nil Einne (talk) 08:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

After 6 years on wikipedia, I have now just switched off my email -enabling. This after having received some 130-150 emails these last few days, telling me how much the sender is looking forward to killing/exterminating "my kind". See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Runtshit&diff=prev&oldid=459260116 here], & [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=459258874 here]. I am not very technical, but I truly do not understand why wikipedia empower such people? Discussion/bulletin-boards that I know off, normally have a rule that you have to have posted x number of posts, before you can contact other members directly. This of course does not protect other members fully, but at least raises the threshold for sending the kind of threats Roland, I, and others have experienced. Why cannot wikipedia do something similar? To limit the ability to send emails to autoconfirmed users: I would have thought that should be a minimum. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 08:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

: Wikipedia already limits mail access to autoconfirmed accounts. The problem is that this still a deliberately low barrier, set only high enough to prevent the simplest mass destruction. It's not clear that there's a simple fix here, unless we want to declare that throwaway email accounts are no longer valid for registration (and then you've opened a fresh can of worms based on where the threshold between "permanent" and "throwaway" lies). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

::I thought that you had to make a minimum number of edits to Wikipedia in order to become autoconfirmed. But the accounts sending these abusive emails to me and Huldra, and earlier to other editors,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive709#Obvious_sock_with_personal_attacks_and_BLP_violations][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive720#Being_spammed] have not made any edits. As I comment above, a new account making no edits, but sending huge quantities of emails (over 100 to each of us) is obviously here only to abuse the system, not to edit constructively. It ought to be simple to filter this out. RolandR (talk) 10:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

:::Or rangeblock the underlying IPs if possible, assuming they aren't open proxies, and run a CU to catch any more potential sleeper accounts. Log actions (such as creating a new account) can and do leave a paper trail for Checkusers. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 20:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

::::Several IPs made abusive edits to an article, identical in content to the emails I received. So it is possible to identify them, for purposes of checking and blocking.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/JarlaxleArtemis#06_November_2011] NB we are talking about JarlaxleArtemis here.RolandR (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::I was under the impression from previous discussions autoconfirmed was not required for email access and if we wanted that, we needed a developer to implement it (i.e. it wasn't something that could simple be turned on and off at the current time). Although I may be remembering wrong about the developer part, perhaps that was the CAPTCHA requirement proposal. In any case, if an autoconfirmed requirement for mail is supposed to have been implemented since then or was implemented before then, it's broken, so someone should definitely file a bugzilla in that case. I just created User:lastwhileTA348522 (if your lastwhile was the captcha, TA stands for test account and the number was typed 'randomly'), confirmed my email address and sent a mail to myself (i.e. this account) and it worked. All done in about 3 minutes. BTW, remember an email address is not required for registration, it's only required for password recovery (i.e. to help protect an account), to send emails and if you want to receive emails like when your user page is updated. Nil Einne (talk) 15:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::: My mistake, then. It certainly seems sensible to require it, if only because experience has shown that Grawp will continue to escalate known attacks until technical measures are put in place. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

{{archive top}}

{{resolved|Looks like the issue has been taken to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Badger Drink. Further discussion on ANI is unlikely to do anything but make everyone more cranky. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)}}

I have literally only come across Badger Drink in the past couple of days; but see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FSteven_Zhang&action=historysubmit&diff=459429758&oldid=459429602 these comments] in an ongoing RfA, where he refers to another editor's comments as a "stream of histrionic bullshit", comparing the candidate to "someone born without arms being denied a position as a soccer goalkeeper", comment struck by author and then going on to comment "I do not give a rat's shit why they're emotional or what drove them to participate in this RfA".

I see from Badger's talk page and contributions that his challenges with civility are a long-term and ongoing issue, and that prior attempts to address this this have apparently made little or no impact. I regretfully think that, at this stage, an incivility block may be in order. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

:It was a collated response to 5 threads challenging his oppose !vote. To me it looks like a bit of collective brow beating because he has highlighted a concern about a very popular but non-straightforward candidate. In the circs., I'm not sure his response is so unreasonable and I'm surprised to see it brought up here. Leaky Caldron 11:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

::The RFA's are usually a free-for-all. Incivility reigns. But maybe that's necessary. We're not talking about article improvements here. We're talking about handing power to someone. The process of bringing in new admin's is highly flawed, but it's the way it is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

:I don't think a block is necessary here. Badger Drink used a lot of bad language, but didn't seem to make any personal attacks (except for questioning other users' maturity, but that's hardly rare at RfA). Epbr123 (talk) 12:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

::If anything, incivility at RFA's is useful, as it can demonstrate how, or if, a potential admin will respond to provocative behavior. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

::: "If anything"? No. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

::::Yes, it is useful. Nice, no. Useful, yes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

::::: A suitable candidate should already have demonstrated that they can deal with assholes in the course of their previous edits. The negatives to nastiness in RfAs themselves outweigh the positives. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

::::::Yes, there's no question the RFA process is flawed. It amounts to a popularity contest. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

: There is an irony in such an oppose coming from a self-appointed attack dog, a caste of Wikipedians whose repeated incivility is primarily overlooked because either they're friends with the right people or enemies of the right people. Nevertheless it's a valid argument (RfA is all about politics, and a bad candidate can easily pass if he hangs around the right areas), albeit one likely to be less effective because of its presentation. Nor was it an especially nasty one, at least not in terms of being directed at the candidate. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

::Trust me, if I thought this was a one-off occurrence, I would never have brought it here. I'm not into drama-mongering, and have never brought anything here before. I did check to see whether, maybe, an editor was just "having a bad day" (and that can happen to any and all of us), but it seems it's a much deeper-rooted problem than this. It's not "today's problem" I have concerns with, it's an ongoing history of apparently getting away with too much nastiness. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 12:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

::: And as I alluded to, that's simply a niche which our weird little ecology has created for itself. We have not yet, and probably never will, come up with an effective and widely-deployable solution to long-term incivility. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

::::Fire them out of a cannon and be done with them. I'd support and indefinite block.--Crossmr (talk) 13:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::I think the cannon option may be a bit on the side of overkill! Sadly, far too many people have the illusion / delusion that civility isn't required at RfA; to the best of my knowledge there has never been consensus for this view (nor can I see any "exemptions from civility requirements" in the appropriate place!) However, again, this is clearly not just an RfA issue. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 15:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::: I don't see it as overkill, I'd also support an indef block. Right or wrong, some people get away with gross incivility because they are excellent contributors and do a lot of useful work on the project. Looking over this user's contributions, he's both uncivil and his contributions don't come close to justifying his disruption. That makes him a net-negative. Keeping him on the project is only a detriment to others. I know it sounds very harsh, but people need to stop treating Wikipedia as though disruptive editors have divine right to edit here. They really don't. Someone's presence here should be tolerated only as long as they serve a worthwhile function... after that they are a liability. Trusilver 23:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh no, I used a cuss word. Our first grade teacher is going to be so pissed. Grow up. Badger Drink (talk) 17:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

: This seems less of an issue compared to the Ludwigs2 issue above. I don't see any admin outrage over that though; is it because it doesn't involve the sacred RFA cow? (And by the way, I voted support in that RFA, but the badgering of opponents did not leave a good impression on me.) ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

:: I try not to get outraged about anything these days. However, it's at least easier to see the whole picture for a relatively minor thing like this than for some multi-megabyte saga like the one which apparently dissatisfies you. And it's nothing to do with this thread. If we're done here then we might as well close this, as it doesn't appear any immediate admin action is forthcoming. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 17:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

:@Badger Drink: The issue here is not the use of the cuss-word, it is the insulting tone of your comments. You seem to be under the strange illusion that because you use cusswords, you are then allowed to be insulting towards other editors. That is a very strange belief, and I would suggest that you stop being insulting, whether or not you choose to use cuss-words. Just because you say "bullshit" doesn't mean that you then get to be insulting without being called to task for it. --Jayron32 17:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

::Actually, the "grow up" part is more offensive than the vulgarities. And its occasional use (by whichever user) is almost always ironic, since that's a comment typically made by adolescents. Adults don't talk to each other that way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

:::The issue is the use of a strange defense by Badger Drink. He's being asked to answer for his behavior. The charge is that he is incivil and personally attacks other editors unneccessarily, and his sole defense seems to be "It's OK, because I used cusswords to do so!" Its not the first time such a defense has been mounted, but it is always a completely rediculous defense. If a cop pulls you over for speeding, you can't then say "But it isn't illegal to drive a blue car!" Bringing up an irrelevent fact as a defense for your actions doesn't make any sense at all. I would rather that Badger Drink confronted the issue he is being accused of. --Jayron32 18:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

::::{{small|Confront the issue... like... like... a grownup would? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)}}

:It is clear that this editor has a long track record of abrasive behavior. It is equally clear that there exists an unwritten consensus that nothing ought be done about persistent bad behavior, so bringing this here serves only to poke the badger with a spoon. PS. I thought it was "rat's ass" not "rat's shit"? Danger ^{High voltage!} 17:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

:: Maybe he's trying to be original? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Two comments. The post refered to as a "stream of histrionic bullshit" was at least as insulting as Badger Drinks reply, and the OP's presentation of the armless goaltender comment without context grossly distorts it's meaning. Not exactly civil behavior.Cube lurker (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a controversial RfA, and some of the discussion has become heated. I think just about the worst thing we could do is to start tossing out civility blocks. (Especially one-sided ones.) Warn if necessary but blocking an opposer on the request of a supporter when the supporters are also engaging in heated rhetoric is just going to escalate this unnecessarily. 28bytes (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

:I don't think that I personally engaged in "heated" rhetoric, at all. Getting heated is not usually my style. And I can quite easily handle the odd cussword in conversation. It's not the cusswords, it's the generally uncivil attitude, over apparently alengthy period of time. And I did actually find the "grow up" comment rather funny - it's the sort of thing that my youngest son - now a dad himself - used to say to people! Forget that it's anything to do with an RfA - it's not about RfA, it's about incivility and lack of respect. And it's been going on, and got away with, for a very long time, it seems. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 20:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• I certainly don't think we should be even going down the line of any civility block. Badger Drink is a well established editor and his abrasive tone is well known - and I put myself in the same boat of having an abrasive manner. Telling people to "grow up" is pretty bloody rude however, and Badger would do well to strike that bit - it's a smidge over the top. Nevertheless it is a heated RFA as 28bytes points out (sadly, as one of the noms) and rhetoric is not an uncommon event at these types of things. I'd urge closure of this thread, whilst noting Pesky had nothing but good intentions in filing this at ANI, and Badger Drink would be courteous if he would kindly remove the "grow up" throwaway comment above. Pedro :  Chat  21:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

:*If his abrasive tone is well known then it is all the more reason to issue the block until we're assured it will become scarce. That kind of tone is entirely inappropriate for working with a community. If he doesn't want to work with a community he knows where the door is or he can be shown to it.--Crossmr (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

:** I concur with this. The attitude you are describing basically amounts to "They're not being uncivil because they have a long and well-understood history of being uncivil." (It's a recurring theme on ANI, sadly.) —Tom Morris (talk) 11:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

:I suggest the OP rereads the post he objects to - Badger Drink does not, by my reading compare the candidate to "someone born without arms being denied a position as a soccer goalkeeper", he uses that as an extreme example. The "histrionic bullshit" comment may be cussing (whatever that is) in grade school (whatever that is) but out here in the grownup's world it is a fairly inconsequential turn of phrase. This looks more like "waa waa waa he's a nasty man" than a serious issue. Greglocock (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

::Cussing = swearing, profanity = not WP:CIVIL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

:::Perhaps you might also take the trouble to explain to User:Pesky why "incivility blocks" are contrary to Wikipedia policy? Malleus Fatuorum 00:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

::::In my book deliberately misrepresenting what someone else has written is far more serious than using 'cuss' words. Greglocock (talk) 00:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

{{od}}My sincere apologies for my mistake there - I have struck that comment out. It was not a deliberate attempt, simply my misreading of the comment, for which, again, I apologise. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Have not people noticed the very few RfAs in the last months? In the last few weeks, I've had two excellent candidates decline to be nominated because they do not wish to be discussed in the current environment. That the environment is so toxic is the fault of a very few repetitive editors. This is actually, not just potentially, harming the encyclopedia, and should not be tolerated. It is very possible -- and more effective --to oppose someone as strongly as necessary by simply pointing out the reasons calmly. RfA should be a zone for especially polite behavior. I am in principle willing to block for gross violations of NPA anywhere in Wikipedia after sufficient warnings, as I would for any harmful behavior, but i have not done so because it would seem like selective enforcement. Perhaps I should think of it instead as an example to be started in the hope that those admins who similarly care will be able to make it consistent enforcement. If it is necessary to choose where to start, I think the place to begin is with the people who have been here the longest and have the most reason to know better. I've heard it said that content contributors should be immune, but I think it's all the more important to prevent them from wasting their efforts on unconstructive activities. Blocks are preventative, after all--though I know this is an usual way or using the term. I am prepared for the usual opposition from those who will find their preferred activities here hampered, but I'm only wary of the people who know how to say how wrong they think I am in more measured terms: someone might take them seriously. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• I completely agree with you. Too many people seem to think "I'm here to contribute content - I can get away with it". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

:*{{ec}} There have been many more potential candidates of the right calibre who have respectfully declined to run for adminship due to the environment of the voting page, and nominations have now all but completely stagnated. I believe it is time to begin implementing any reasonable measures to protect the process from any editors who appear to be repeatedly be disruptive to the system, or who come to it in the knowledge that they can be rude with impunity. There is no reason why RfA should be a safe haven from our core policies of NPA and civility, even if tradition seems to demonstrate otherwise. Blocking may cause collateral damage to the project, but a topic ban from RfA could certainly be considered. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

::*The obvious solution is to have only admins make the selections of other admins. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

:::*I think that, very possibly, one of my biggest concerns here - and it's related to the "long-term" aspect, is that Badger (for whatever reason, and I know we all have Real Life issues which affect us), seems completely unable to admit that there is anything at all wrong with his attitude and (apparently) cavalier disregard for other people's feelings, or to change in any way at all. It's a question of "addressing his offending behaviour" - and he just doesn't seem able to do this. This, for me, rings warning bells of various kinds. WP:CIVIL is one of the foundation stones of this project - the Five Pillars - or at least it is supposed to be. "Respect and be polite to your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree." This is not a newbie who hasn't yet learned acceptable manners - it's someone who really should be setting an example, and clearly isn't. "Old enough to know better." It would seem, just from what I read here, that there are people who think they either they or others are exempt from the requirement to be polite, respectful and civil; this is wrong. We shouldn't ever have the "all Wikipedians are equal, but some are more equal than others" attitude. Rules should apply equally to all of us. Nobody should be left feeling that someone else can get away with rule-violation (or even extreme bending) with impunity. It's disheartening to those of us who go out of our way to be civil and respectful even when we are in disagreement with someone, or dealing with a problematic editor. If the attitude here in Wikepedia is running along the lines of "Oh, well, he's Mr X, Mr X can get away with it", then this needs to be nipped in the bud. At a bare minumim, some acceptance by Badger that he is, in all truth, at fault here, and that he is prepared to consider changing in the right direction - possibly even that he is prepared to consider some kind of buddying or mentoring from someone who may be able to bring out some self-discipline in this area, and in the mean time to avoid areas of conflict until he is able to control the aggression of conflict ... those things would be good. But, all said and done - it's one of the Five Pillars. We shouldn't be treating this lightly. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

:::*I'm just going to add this direct quote from WP:CIVIL here: "Editors are human, capable of mistakes, so a few minor incidents of incivility are not in themselves a major concern. However, a studied pattern of incivility is disruptive and unacceptable, and may result in blocks if it rises to the level of harassment or egregious personal attacks." (emphasis mine) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

{{od}} I don't want to be flippant here, but are we really trying to have yet another meta-discussion about WP:CIVIL on ANI itself? Has that ever worked? It doesn't look like Badger Drink is going to be blocked here, or any other admin action carried out, so better that this go to the archive. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

:Chris, I understand your comment here; however, just because something hasn't worked in the past is no real reason to give up on it. One of the things that can put editors off is any type of behaviour - particularly from longer-term, experienced editors - which is aggressive, demeaning, belittling, humiliating, and so on. It's precisely why civility is one of the Five Pillars, and our collective attitude towards insisting on / enforcing an acceptable standard of behaviour between editors, even when they find themselves on opposite sides of any fence, needs a brush-up. The longer the attitude of "It'll never fly" carries on, the more our standards will slip, and the more we are likely to put off potentially good editors. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

: ... and a "studied pattern" belongs at WP:RFC/U :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

::Pesky, Badger made a thoughtful point in his oppose, which was then validated by several replies. I didn't find that comment incivil, just exasperated. Concerns about a "not what you know but who you know" culture have been voiced over several years here and there. RfA is difficult and this particular one was always going to be a tricky one given the past. I'd say this thread can be closed too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

:::Caliber, sure, I can understand that. As I've mentioned earlier, though, it's not a one-off incident which has concerned me here (I;ve come across plenty of one-off incidents all over the place). When I do come across potential issues like this, I always take the time to try and find out if it was a minor and temporary glitch, or something more long-term and more of an issue, and I think this comes into that category. If RfC/U is a much better place for issues like this, then that may well be the way to go, in which case may apologies for bringing it here. I do think, when all's said and done, that ongoing and long-term incivility issues shouldn't just get brushed under the carpet, wherever they end up. It's really not difficult to remain courteous and civil, it just requires a bit of self-awareness and self-discipline. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

• {{user|Havengore}} is Refactoring other's comments about his unblock request on his talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHavengore&action=historysubmit&diff=459552218&oldid=459544971][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHavengore&action=historysubmit&diff=459553264&oldid=459552563] then making snarky comments when I warn him about it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHavengore&action=historysubmit&diff=459556329&oldid=459554586]. I would remove talk page access but I feel involved and would prefer another admin's review. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

How odd. Personally I'd be reluctant to step in and modify the block since there are a half-dozen admins already interacting with him there, but his behavior is clearly disruptive (and baffling.) 28bytes (talk) 02:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

:This is just too much; he even refactored the {{tl|uw-tpv3}} template message. I've removed talk page access, and I've also left messages on the talk pages of admins who have been interacting with him, saying essentially that they should restore talk page access without asking me if they feel that it will help. The same goes for anyone else who's reading this. Nyttend (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

::I took a look at the situation, and baffling doesn't begin to describe the meltdown my brain is having. That aside, this user has only been around for a few days. I'm leaving an offer for mentorship on his talk page. He is still new and unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies. He seems to want to contribute, and we shouldn't throw that away. Ishdarian 07:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

{{resolved|Backlog cleared causa sui (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)}}

WP:AIV is getting awfully busy, if anyone has a few moments to pitch in. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

User Schiavello removed the AfD tags from anything related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperKombat (2nd nomination) twice. He also blanked the AfD discussion and removed it from the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Martial arts. When I saw it the first time I put a message on his talk page (which he has since blanked) asking him not to do it and then I restored all the pages. He has now done it all again. These are the only edits by that user, so I suspect he's a puppet (sock or meat). Papaursa (talk) 23:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

:Reverted, hopefully will be blocked soon. Tarc (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

After doing a related check, the following are {{confirmed}} as indefinitely blocked user {{User|Cyperuspapyrus}} and have been indefinitely blocked:

• {{checkuser|Terminahp}}
• {{checkuser|Swungtrade1}}
• {{checkuser|Ilondt}}

More to come, as there may be additional socks. –MuZemike 23:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The following accounts are {{confirmed}} as each other (but not as Cyperuspapyrus):

• {{checkuser|Minowafan}}
• {{checkuser|WölffReik}}
• {{checkuser|Schiavello}}

–MuZemike 00:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

:Sooo...should these last three be blocked? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

::The first three are a "gimme"; I'll leave for the community as to what to do with the other contingent, i.e. block the socks, warn/block the sockmaster, how long, etc. –MuZemike 12:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

:I'm not sure if this is relevant, but Minowafan currently has a long list of subpages that are mostly backups of pages deleted through deletion review. Since they are all still categorized, they show up when browsing categories. It seems like the user is trying to avoid being charged with recreating deleted pages by hosting them as userpages instead. What is the relevant policy here? Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 16:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

::WP:UP#COPIES seems to come closest. — Edokter (talk) — 16:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

:I think the sockpuppets should be blocked indefinitely and the sockmaster should be blocked for some period of time. I have no idea what the usual punishment is for this. Astudent0 (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

:I agree with Astudent0. I'm surprised that even the sockpuppets haven't been blocked yet. Papaursa (talk) 02:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

:For the ones that aren`t blocked, normally at WP:SPI they would block all but the master, warn the master in this case. I'll get a clerk to block and tag these. (If this isn't dealt with in 12 hours, someone please file an WP:SPI...becuase I don't want this to disappear without blocks. (I would block now, but i've put my admin tools aside for now) -- DQ (t) (e) 06:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

::I've blocked and tagged both confirmed socks, and blocked WölffReik for 3 days for sockpuppeting. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

{{resolved|1=All the AfDs are listed in a current log and should be assessed for closing within a week. Monty₈₄₅ 18:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)}}

I found a bunch of AfD's which were all started well over a week ago (in some cases over a month ago) by User:Koavf, and have not yet been closed or relisted. They were probably not added to the log. Could someone take a look and close these?

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Le Plus Grand Français
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unsere Besten
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greatest Chilean
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Le plus grand Belge
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Velikite Balgari
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Top 100 Historical Persons in Japan
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Greatest Ukrainians
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fight Like a Girl (Emilie Autumn album)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Memories of a Time to Come
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Triple Album Project (working title)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scars and Stories

Thanks. —SW— ^express 18:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

:Twinkle error, me error All were made by WP:TWINKLE. I seemed to recall that a bot came by and added them to the days' logs, so I didn't think that I would have to manually add them. I guess I was wrong...? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

::I didn't check if they had been added to any logs, but if they haven't been closed after a month I think it's safe to say they weren't added. I used to have similar troubles with Twinkle, although I thought that got fixed. I usually just double-check that Twinkle did everything it was supposed to do whenever I start an AfD. —SW— ^talk 18:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

:::Once an AfD hits a month old it starts popping up in various reports, and if it is not in a current log it will usually be listed. There are no bots that automatically list them, but twinkle is *supposed* to list them if you use it to create the AfD. It is usually a good idea to check to make sure twinkle did it right when it comes to actions that require twinkle to edit multiple pages such as with AfD listings. Monty₈₄₅ 18:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

:It's a known problem that also effects FfDs. Fastily created a tool that helps track the FfDs, which is at User:Fastily/FfD. His bot updates the page daily. Could a similar thing be developed for AfDs? Sven Manguard Wha? 09:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

: If I remember correctly, User:DumbBOT used to fix the listings. See User:DumbBOT/IncompleteAfD (last updated July 2011) and User talk:DumbBOT#User:DumbBOT/IncompleteAfD. Flatscan (talk) 05:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

::I find them at Wikipedia:Article alerts/Problem entries/Old, though I suspect some editors have additional ways of identifying them. Monty₈₄₅ 05:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks like this user has had an AN/I in the past (in October 2010), but from what I can tell, it didn't help any. This is basically to bring up the same things that were done back then, but I'll repeat them anyway. User also refuses to format references correctly, even after my request on his talk page, and it's getting extremely tedious to go through and correct them all. There are also no edit summaries to provide any explanation (a quick search reveals that the only edit summaries he has ever used are when moving a page, using the summary "Title change"). It looks to me like these have been continuous things (as evident here), and the user doesn't seem to ever respond to anyone (except one notable case when he was blocked for two weeks). I hate that it had to come to this, but it's clear that talk page messages will not get through, so I'm not exactly sure how to proceed. Kevinbrogers (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

: What's wrong with using ... ... that's what I use. Of course, using Twitter as a ref, that's far more offensive in my mind, but it's not just him doing that ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

:: Sorry, I should have been more specific. The {{cite web}} template is what I was referring to. Kevinbrogers (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

::: But what exactly is the problem? That he won't use {{tl|cite web}} as per your insistence? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

:::: Yes (though I just now found out here that it's not required, as I previously thought it was). However, my other problems still remain: the user has never responded to anyone and refuses to use edit summaries. When other users attempt to make contact, we are simply ignored. Kevinbrogers (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::Not much an admin can do for an editor who refuses to discuss unless he's being disruptive which this guy doesn't appear to be doing. N^oformation ^Talk 23:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

{{user|Kumkwat}} has been persistently adding information concerning the relationship between Phil Collins and Dana Tyler and an RfC was filed (see request for comment). Today, after being given a final warning on his talk page four days ago by {{user|Srobak}} and {{user|Seb az86556}}, the user has continued to readd the same information. ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dana_Tyler&oldid=459745576], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phil_Collins&diff=prev&oldid=459745672]). I am alerting the community of what has happened, and I hope this is not excessive. What is the best way to handle this situation? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

:The user has been warned about edit-warring and this issue a dozen times - given their continued perseverance, I've rewarded them with an indefinite block. There are some good contributions in there, but they're effectively voided by the disruption. They've still got talk page access if they want to appeal. m.o.p 04:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I really don't have the time to spend on this, but Barsoomian is getting a little out of hand. I think I need someone with more experience than I give the guy/gal a heads up as to what passes for civility in Wikipedia, because I've been dealing with repeated personal attacks, bad faith accusations and tendentious OWNership issues. I've been keeping my cool, but the user has been repeatedly posting on my user talk page after asking me to stay off his.

Quick backstory (sans content issues): I started editing New Amsterdam (TV series), removing some points of OR and SYN ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Amsterdam_(TV_series)&diff=458257347&oldid=454333657 1]). Another user, MJBurrage reverted, and I thinking that the user had made a mistake, contacted him about it a few days later([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MJBurrage&diff=458970783&oldid=457456246 2]). For whatever reason, he didn't get back to me, so I went ahead and reverted it back, 2 days later([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Amsterdam_(TV_series)&diff=459404934&oldid=458305941 3]). Barsoomian then reverted, suggesting that I use the talk page to convince people, which I did.

This is where everything went downhill. Almost from the get-go, Barsoomian presumed I was out to gut "his" article, and went on the attack:

• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Amsterdam_(TV_series)&diff=459423519&oldid=459416297 4] - "pedantry", "If you can't be bothered to work through the details", "pushy", "I will revert any wholesale deletion you make on the trivial grounds you have raised"
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Amsterdam_(TV_series)&diff=next&oldid=459475192 5] - "could you be more dismissive, and rude if you tried?"
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Amsterdam_(TV_series)&diff=next&oldid=459561072 6] - "your screeds", ""

The list goes on and on, but it's more of a complete skewing of my words and an overwhelming trollish behavior on the part of Barsoomian than any given comment. Its all a snide grouping of sniping attacks, and it presents a toxic environment to work within. I have remained pretty damn civil, considering([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Amsterdam_(TV_series)&diff=next&oldid=459450148 7], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Amsterdam_(TV_series)&diff=next&oldid=459489857 8], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Amsterdam_(TV_series)&diff=next&oldid=459572753 9], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Amsterdam_(TV_series)&diff=next&oldid=459582761 10]) without even a hint of effect. If anything, Barsoomian's behavior has ballooned out of control.

Anyhoo, I initiated an RfC on the content issues, so as to bring in more editors and thus remove the clear anger being shown me by Barsoomian. If he wasn't going to listen to me, maybe he'd listen to others telling him the same thing.

I also sought to follow DR, addressing the conflict at DRN, but Transporter Man closed it, noting on his talk page that conduct issues aren't within the scope of DRN. I really tried to avoid posting the matter here, naively believing that if Barsoomian saw that I was serious enough about his uncivil behavior to take it to DRN, he might calm down. I was of course wrong. He has posted personal attacks on my usertalk, dropping the f-bomb when it suits him ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jack_Sebastian&diff=459622342&oldid=455426109 11], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jack_Sebastian&diff=459740118&oldid=459664252 12], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jack_Sebastian&diff=next&oldid=459743739 "Respond here on your actions or I will find another venue"].

I'm tired of this user thinking that he can treat other users this way, simply because they have come to "gut" his private article. MJBurrage has invested more edits in the article, but his behavior has been pretty darn polite, a pleasure to discuss, even if we disagree. Barsoomian has been a nightmare. Maybe I am the bad guy here, but I am not seeing how that's possible. I am thinkig this user decided that the best defense is a good offense. And boy, he's been offensive. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

:Suffice it to say that I dispute every word of the above. If anyone takes any of it seriously, after reviewing the actual context rather than Sebastian's snippets, please specify below which if any points require a response or explanation and I will do so. I have work to do in real life, so please do not expect an immediate response. Thanks. PS: I had already posted at Wikiquette assistance on a related issue (that was the "another venue" I resorted to after trying to discuss it on his talk page). Barsoomian (talk) 04:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

:: Yep, discovered it had been filed immediately after posting here. Barsoomian's and my respective complaints appear to have been filed within 20 minutes of each other (mine was the latter, though in my defense, I was crafting the complaint here and missed the wikiquette complaint by Barsoomian about something relatively unrelated to this complaint). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

::: LMFTFY: "something DIRECTLY RELATED to this complaint". Barsoomian (talk) 05:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

::My first recommendation would be that you two discontinue all communication with each other for the time being. I'll talk to you individually and work as a mediator to settle this issue. If one of you says something the other does not agree with, please do not reply to the offending statement. Just let me know if you think your words or actions are being misrepresented and I'll do the rest. Also, please do not make any edits that the other could even conceivably take offense to, especially not to the articles you've already clashed on.

::I know it seems a bit much to completely separate you two, but, given that you're both well-spoken and have your wits about yourselves, I feel like any writing one of you produces will serve as a seed for the other's rebuttal.

::If you can both agree to this, then we can get started with resolution. If not, I'll take more-traditional avenues of sanctioning. Let me know on my talk page - this thread isn't in the best location for dispute resolution. m.o.p 05:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

{{hat|German (or any language) Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The burden (of providing RS) lies with the editor who adds material.}}

: timestamping this as it's an ongoing concern. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 20:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

::untimestamped as not really ongoing anymore. Fram - Talk

User:Martinvl insists upon citing the German Wikipedia as if it were a reliable source at the Foot (unit) article. See line 156 in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foot_%28unit%29&diff=prev&oldid=457385039 this edit]. I don't think anyone who has read WP:V and WP:IRS can seriously think this is acceptable, even so, the policy was acknowledged at Talk:Foot (unit)#Circular references and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#References to non-English Wikipedias. I view this as deliberate defiance of the Verifiability policy and enforcement of the policy is in order. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

:No way is the German wikipedia a WP:RS. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

:Yeah, it's fairly clear that user edited sites in general are rarely (if ever) RS. That being said, couldn't one just use the source used in the German WP here as well?--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

::I note that the article is also citing the Dutch, Spanish, Swedish, Norwegian and Danish Wikipedias as sources. All are violations of WP:RS. Yes, as Yaksar says, the correct approach is to verify that the article being cited on German (etc) Wikipedia is WP:RS, and states what it is being cited for, and then cite it directly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

:::::One can do that, of course, but citations enable users to verify content. As this is an English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources seem preferable. Unless no English RS is available to cover the topic, which seems unlikely in this case. Haploidavey (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

::::::Simple, straight answer: the German wikipedia is not a reliable source. If he continues to insist that it is, action should be taken. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• No source that anyone can edit is a reliable source.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• I've gone through the article in question and stripped out all the Wikipedian referencing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• Martin's argument, which I've seen by other users elsewhere (and which I once made myself), is that the referenced article is cited. He doesn't understand that that's not good enough - he needs to place a direct cite, directly into the article in question. It may seem redundant, but in the long run it's better that way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we just need to put a banner in WP:RS to the effect of if it has "wiki" anywhere in the name, assume it is not a reliable source, even if it's Wikipedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

:I suspect you said that half in jest, but it's actually a good idea. LadyofShalott 02:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

::Saying something in half-jest doesn't mean I'm not wholly earnest. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

:::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AIdentifying_reliable_sources&diff=457595066&oldid=456743489 Added wording]. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

In the last few days I have been working through the various entries getting reliable sources. May I draw to attention that when various people went around stripping out various references, orphaned refs were left behind. If they are going to do the job, then please do it properly. Martinvl (talk) 21:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

:I accept that criticism. I should also have removed the unreferenced material on each occasion that I removed the unacceptable "references". I will be sure to do so next time. There's nothing to stop people replacing stuff in the article once references have been found. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

:When an apparently reliable source is cited in a nonEnglish Wikipedia or even in a different article in the English Wikipedia, is verifiability satisfied just by copying the information and listing the cited work as the reference, if the present editor has not seen the source himself, to verify that it supports the statement? Is there any way of citing it as having been copied but not accessed by the present editor? Many print references have little or no content viewable online, and many newspaper and journals are behind paywall and not readily accessible to the present editor who needs it as a reference for some statement. Can Wikipedia editors legitimately translate foreign Wikipedia articles and just copy the references, without having checked the content of the references? Wikipedia:Citing sources#Say where you read it says "Don't cite a source unless you've seen it for yourself. Where you want to cite John Smith, but you've only read Paul Jones who cites Smith, write it like this (this formatting is just an example): Smith, John. Name of Book I Haven't Seen, Cambridge University Press, 2009, p. 1, cited in Paul Jones (ed.). Name of Encyclopedia I Have Seen. Oxford University Press, 2010, p. 2." Is it legit to do this and say "German Wikipedia, article XXX" where the example says "Name of encyclopedia I have seen?" Edison (talk) 20:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

::A short and sweet answer: no. A Wikipedia (any Wikipedia, including this one) isn't a reliable source. What you are proposing is a route to circular referencing. If you haven't seen something, you shouldn't cite it, full stop. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

:::So what is {{tl|Translation/Ref}} for? It's used on a very large number of pages. If the discussion above were actually correct, all of these would need to be fixed. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

::::I believe that is for when you have copied and translated material from a different-language Wikipedia, in order to prevent plagarism or copyvio claims. I don't see how it has anything to do with finding sources for the content copied and translated.--Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 10:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

:::Of course one shouldn't cite it directly. But I AGF on the part of people who add references to WP articles, on any language WP. If references have been added to the xxWP, and I translate the article into English, I copy the references as a first step. (The next step is trying to find references that may be more appropriate here if they exist, although of course references in any language are acceptable if they are the best or the most accessible.) Removing references when doing such a translation is singularly unproductive. Not copying such references over would be akin to moving a page here and removing the references because one had not verified them. In both cases, the references are checkable by those who want to check them. The requirement is Verifiability, and that means not adding new material without knowing that it can be references; it doesn't apply to such routine things as copying with attribution or translation. Of course we don't cite the other WPs as sources, but we can and should use their references; I don't think there's a burden on the translator to reconfirm them. We are an encyclopedia, not a scholarly publication, and we do not do source-checking in the sense a scholarly publisher would. Anyone who thinks we do is misunderstanding.

:::The problem, rather, is material that is present but uncited on another WP. The deWP has the well-known practice of not specifically citing material which they consider any user can find in an ordinary library in standard sources (I doubt its their formal policy, but it seems to be their practice). I try to find at least one usable reference when translating these, even if I cannot fully reference the material at the timer. Again, I AGF for the contributors there. This is particularly applicable to at least the de and fr WPs , where I know by experience they have a very low frequency of containing unverifiable material--a frequency much lower than ours. I'd even say a frequency much lower than ours even when our articles purport to have references and theirs do not.

:::Removing uncontroversial material because of a temporary inability to reference it is not in my opinion constructive in any context--with the obvious exceptions of certain sorts of material in BLPs, etc. We will have quite enough to do if we all concentrate on removing the controversial or unlikely or POV or clearly outdated or apparently dubious material, and checking any references they might seem to have, which in my experience are rather likely to be unreliable. After we've all worked on this and solved the problem several years down the road, we can work on the remainder. DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

:::: No, the problem is precisely in doing what DGG is saying to do-- copying text from a Wiki, translating it, and then copying in the citations without reading the sources. You can't translate an article without reading the sources to see if they're correctly represented. The whole notion that you can just translate an article and then copy over the sources is beyond belief. No, the German Wiki is not a reliable source, and any article that is translated should be done by someone who is actually reading the sources from the article they are translating. Otherwise, they are adding content to en.wiki without knowing if it meets WP:V-- merely assuming the text was correct on the other Wiki (and not a copyvio). I don't understand why anyone would encourage editors to translate articles without consulting the sources. Sources carried over from another Wiki by a translator without reading those sources is as good as nothing; our core policies on neutrality and sourcing should trump the desire for content (I know they don't always, but anyway ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

{{hab}}

There's been some frantic editing by anons, an SPA, and various others at Teen Mania Ministries today. What seems to have happened is that MSNBC made a documentary about the organization, and ran it last Sunday. Teen Mania Ministries is not pleased. Ron Luce, the leader, is engaged in spin control efforts, which may have spilled over into Wikipedia. I rolled back some of the changes, but the article could use a few more eyes on it until things quiet down. See Talk:Teen Mania Ministries for links to recent press coverage. --John Nagle (talk) 06:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

No objection having been raised to a merge atTalk:Rick_J._Caruso, could it kindly be accomplished? Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

:Merging articles does not require administrator action; any editor can do it. Follow the instructions at Wikipedia:MERGE#Performing the merger. Bencherlite^Talk 09:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

{{discussion top|Due to the discussion below, Ryan kirkpatrick is henceforth site banned from Wikipedia per the banning policy. This policy makes it very clear that we, as a community, have the ability to revoke an individual's editor status in order to preserve the site's integrity. Given the near-unanimous consensus below, I think the community's decision is clear. m.o.p 17:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)}}

• {{User11|Ryan kirkpatrick}} and his merry socks.

Long-term sockpuppeteer User:Ryan kirkpatrick has stepped up his activity lately. This user has - so far - had 53 confirmed sock accounts and IP addresses, with at least another 7 being extremely likely. In addition, he has popped up yesterday and today vandalising his SPI page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ryan_kirkpatrick&diff=459530055&oldid=459528760] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ryan_kirkpatrick&diff=459601608&oldid=459585997] with WP:OWNish behavior and promises to "not [go] anywere until all my past work is gone". Given all this, I would like to propose a formal and official WP:BAN of this user. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

:See also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1953_Nutts_Corner_Viking_accident&diff=459601323&oldid=459461129 this edit summary], says it all really. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MilborneOne&diff=459609441&oldid=459582494 Another quality comment] from him. Apparently he thinks it's OK to set ultimatums. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

::: Since there is practically zero collateral damage, I'll rangeblock the college he's editing from, as a start (and will mention why on the block log). Black Kite (t) 23:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

:::: Thank you! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support with that many socks Ryan is de-facto banned anyway, so we may as well formalise the ban to speed up the process of blocking further socks. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Off2riorob (talk) 10:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Obviously intentionally disruptive to the project. - Ahunt (talk) 12:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support — Obviously. HurricaneFan25 13:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support Obviously. He already is defacto banned and I've always treated him accordingly. WilliamH (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support, provided we are allowed to actually enforce this ban (see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#WP:G5 Discussion); if not, then I see no purpose of even keeping him blocked. –MuZemike 15:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, he is adding good images which enhance the project. Chesdovi (talk) 15:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

:*Are you referring to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1953_Nutts_Corner_Viking_accident&diff=459601323&oldid=459461129]? If so AFAICT he has nothing to do with the image other then putting it in the article. He has had so many accounts I guess it's possible he's uploaded images but I'm not seeing in his main accounts listed above. Nil Einne (talk) 14:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

:::He has uploaded images - about 10 IIRC; every single one was a copyvio. YSSYguy (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support Socking above and beyond the norm. MarnetteD | Talk 15:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support Report says it all. --NellieBly (talk) 16:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support - we don't need that sort of behavior. LadyofShalott 17:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support His behavior and "threats" are convincing enough for me. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support per socking, threats. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. This is long past due. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 18:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support, per every support reason above, way past due. Heiro 18:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Dumb question: Who is the sock and who is the master? Ryan kirkpatrick is listed as a sock at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jersay/Archive#24 June 2010, but then about two weeks later an SPI is opened listing Ryan kirkpatrick as the master. This is confusing, shouldn't the ban be for User:Jersay instead of kirkpatrick, and shouldn't the SPIs be combined? Apologies if this is needlessly confusing the matter. Rgrds. --64.85.216.178 (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

::The relationship of User:Ryan kirkpatrick and User:Jersay appears to be unclear. From what I can tell, Rk appeared right after a confirmed Jersaysock was blocked and picked up where that sock left off - but Ryan appears to be from an entirely different country (Canada vs UK). Move or meatpuppetry? Unknown - hence the seperate SPIs. The Rk socks after that, however, are all definitively linked to Rk and his brigade of sockpuppets. The link between User:Jersay and User:Ryan kirkpatrick was strictly behaviorial; the links between Rk and his 54+ socks are either CU confirmed or quacking much louder. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

:::It's a mildly irrelevant question. We haven't tagged any socks for Jersay since Jan 2010, whereas we block a RK sock at least once a month. As far as I'm concerned Jersay is out of the picture. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Especially as it appears that Ryan has changed from merely being a nuisance to threatening to harrass other editors - perhaps someone should contact the college to which the ip which Ryan appears to have used to make the latest posts?Nigel Ish (talk) 19:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support - if this user is has disruptive behavior in this encyclopedia, he is no longer welcome Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support - With several sock puppets and severe disruption by the user, this has gone far enough. With that said, enough is enough. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Appears to be feeding on the attention and creating socks faster than the SPIs can be closed and opened. Has moved from being a nusiance to being disruptive. MilborneOne (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support: I reviewed whats going on and concur with all of the above. -OberRanks (talk) 22:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I'm highly surprised that we didn't have a ban in place already. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support, it would be absurd to think that such a prolific sockpuppetteer didn't deserve banning. Nyttend (talk) 03:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Mostly for socking, but also for lack of competence, disruption, threats, etc etc. --Blackmane (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.