Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive743

Persistent harassment
Can someone please have words with User:24.130.195.97? He or she has been spamming my Talk page with "warnings" after I reverted his or her link spam, edits for which he or she has been previously warned and blocked by other editors. I removed his or her edits several times but he or she persists in harassing me with them. I would warn him or her myself but that would almost certainly exacerbate the situation instead of calming it. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 04:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I feel that user ElKevbo has inappropriately targeted university sites (to an extreme), I posted a warning message on his TALK site because I wasn't sure of another way to communicate with him/her.  Posting a message to reconsider his behavior is not harassment. Please take a look at what I posted on his TALK site and you will see.  If someone can please get a message to ElKevbo to stop his practices or at least reconsider his actions that would be wonderful.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.195.97 (talk) 05:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's see if I have this straight, 24.130. You were blocked for a month for adding these spam links to various articles, after you were repeatedly warned not to do so.  Pretty much as soon as the block expired, you went right back to adding them.  ElKevbo hasn't "inappropriately targeted university sites;" he's appropriately targeted your spam, and sending him a warning template for doing so does you no good.  I strongly suggest you read WP:EL and comply with its provisions - at least once you return from your next block.  Ravenswing  08:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

203.212.134.172
needs to have his talk page access revoked. Klilidiplomus+Talk 12:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Block was already done - I have hidden the offensive material. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Night Ranger blocked
So here's the background. I blocked Kumioko for a week (archived thread here) for abusing multiple accounts. decided to put sock tags on all Kumioko's accounts and related IPs. Some of these tags were wrong (claiming incorrectly that there were checkuser blocks) but all of them were unhelpful, IMO. Floquenbeam removed the tags, but Night Ranger edit warred to restore them. I left Night Ranger a note asking that he stop doing that, and he responded by putting a "retired" banner with "FUCK WIKIPEDIA" on his talk page, and bunch of "BLOCK ME"s on his user page.

OK, fine, just someone getting frustrated.

So then he returns from "retirement" to put an image of a penis on his userpage. I leave him another note telling him I understand he's frustrated, but to please not do that.

He responds by putting another penis image on his userpage (animated, this time) and announcing plans to remove all the "banned" templates from all banned editors' userpages since apparently they're "unhelpful", and indeed starts doing this. I happen to think that some of those banned templates probably are unhelpful, but Night Ranger obviously disagrees and was clearly disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.

I understand he was frustrated about the G10s (and he was right to be, sockpuppet categories are not attack pages, especially in the case of sockpuppet categories for editors who were actually sockpuppeting) but this disruption is absolutely not the way to deal with that frustration, and since he's ignored repeated requests from me and other admins to please just behave maturely about this, I believe a block (1 week in this case) is quite reasonable under the circumstances. 28bytes (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * ...and he's just sockpuppetted to evade the block. I've indef-blocked the sock but I'll leave Night Ranger's at a week in hopes that he'll stop digging. 28bytes (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Isn't there a discussion going on at AN...or maybe Village Pump? Anyways, a discussion about not using the banned user templates or, if they are used, not to delete the rest of the userpages/user talk pages as well? I seem to remember this happening, but I didn't stick around to see what the outcome was. Silver  seren C 07:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are a couple of related discussions at WT:BAN. 28bytes (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Colonel Warden
I've blocked Colonel Warden for his return to lying via edit summaries: notably a claim to have added sources as a justification for removing a prod when, in fact, neither that edit to the talk page nor the corresponding article edit had done anything of the sort. Once, I could overlook. I've warned him about it numerous times, and it was a major topic in WP:Requests for comment/Colonel Warden. There's no good faith explanation: he lies in edit summaries. There's no room in Wikipedia for this.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, his actions went against two of the conclusions by an independent closer of that RFC:
 * "In general, the removal of prods and other tags in good faith is not a problem, but Colonel Warden is reminded that often those tags exist as a guide to help other editors to clean up articles, and good faith effort should be made to either resolve the issues noted in the tags, or if they cannot be found, to remove the tags only if they truly do not belong. If an issue cannot be resolved, it is OK to leave a tag in an article for another editor to deal with", as his removal of the prod was not accompanied by any effort to resolve this issue, only an effort to mislead other editors about such an effort
 * "The use of edit summaries in an accurate manner is imperative, and where needed talk pages should be used to further explain complex actions or to engage in discussion where one's actions are contested.", as his edit summary was blatantly false.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Two not necessarily related statements: I wish you'd proposed this here, for someone else to consider a block. The combination of the talk page with the summary seems to prove your point for this case. Drmies (talk) 02:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * For the benefit of non-admins, the Colonel's edit summary was "+ links to sources &c." He did put a template at the top of the talk page in that edit, which provides a set of links to find sources rather than actual links to an actual sources. 28bytes (talk) 02:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Is that deceptive? isn't the edit summary saying he's adding the notice that gives you the links to sources and citations?  Not saying Warden isn't ever confusing in such stuff, but the act of de-prodding doesn't require sources, just a good faith belief that deletion would not be uncontroversial, unless this is some unusual case I can't see.--Milowent • hasspoken  02:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't see the edit, but perhaps this is similar to these edits to List of Banyan trees in India (- prod + image &c.) and its talk page (+ links to sources &c.). Kanguole 02:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Banyan trees edit was essentially the same as the one Kww blocked him for. 28bytes (talk) 03:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What does "&c." mean in that edit summary, otherwise its accurate unless he's saying he added sources.--Milowent • hasspoken 03:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "etc." It's the Colonel Warden code for "more material that he didn't deem worth summarizing". Yes, a direct parallel: a false claim to have provided sources, accompanying a removal of a prod for which he actually provided no justification aside from his personal belief that the "article has merit". The deprod alone could be argued to be in good faith, but the false edit summary belies that: he did not add links to sources, Milowent.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Caveat: I am very much not a fan of Colonel Warden; I think he's among the top three or four ARS jockeys who've given that outfit a bad name for inclusionism at all costs, between gaming the system, prod removal for the sake of removing prods, and changing their tune from XfD to XfD. That being said, I wouldn't draw any conclusion from that RfC.  Plainly there was no consensus reaching even the level of vague admonition - and I'm disturbed by the implication that "acting in good faith" = "he means well" - and you really can't say that there were terms of the RfC to breach.  Ravenswing  04:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My magic 8 ball tells me that this block will be overturned within 24 hours with a massive chunk of time-wasting drama thrown into the pot as well. Controversial blocks should really be discussed before being implemented to avoid the block/unblock cycle and in any event Warden's recent poor behavior at the ARS RFC throwing labels around as marks of Cain with a real battleground mentality surely should have been included in any consideration of a block (see AN). Spartaz Humbug! 05:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Pending desysop of Kww I will note, for the record, that the edit summary says "+ links to sources &c.", rather than "+ links and sources &c.", and that the edit by Colonel Warden did, in fact, include links to potential sources--if any existed--via the .  While the links for "secrets of a small town" did result in a large number of false positives, I've personally verified that by adding information relevant to the show (I used '"Secrets of a small town" ABC', adding the network name in the Google News archive link) does result in a number of paywalled RS'es that directly refer to the content of the now-deleted article.  The assumption of bad faith by an admin of an editor with whom he has previously been in dispute is unconscionable: You are not just wrong, Kww, but you are egregiously wrong in a manner that I believe to be incompatible with your continuing to hold administrator privileges on Wikipedia.  To be sure, I've blocked Colonel Warden for inappropriate use of edit summaries in the past, but this is not one of them.  I expect that, upon reading this, you will unblock Colonel Warden with a sufficiently apologetic edit summary, and resign the tools yourself within 24 hours.  If that doesn't happen, I will begin seeking your desysop'ing for this conduct. Jclemens (talk) 07:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, what appeared on the talk page of the de-prodded (and subsequently deleted) article based on was equivalent to:    Jclemens (talk) 07:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, if someone says they added a "link to X", I would expect to see a link that when clicked will take me to X. Not a link that will take me to some search results page that may or may not actually have another link that, when clicked, will finally take me to X. And that "manually added ABC" part is worse: by this logic, it's not misleading to call a plain link a "link to sources" - all you need to do is manually add the thing to search for. T. Canens (talk) 07:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There was indeed a link added, via the find template, that does take one to sources. Page 2 of the Google News archive search does indeed find three relevant RS'es even without the ABC qualifier, which would have taken far more customizable code to include--excessive for a deprod edit, in my opinion.  But that is pretty much missing the point: Kww has been involved in a number of disputes relating to Colonel Warden in the past, such that I would have expected he'd let someone else do the block per INVOLVED, and when shining a bit of light on the edits and edit summaries shows, at worst, an edit summary which can be misinterpreted, it becomes obvious why such discretion is the best idea.  Remember, this is not an edit to the article saying he added sources or links, this is an edit to the talk page after he'd deprodded an article, which included links for other editors to find links to sources, something that isn't required at all in the WP:PROD process. Jclemens (talk) 07:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not taking a position on the block, but an editor with the experience of Colonel Warden surely knows that a link to a search query is not the same as a link to a source, and he really ought to stop labelling one as the other. Kanguole 10:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree with this. Linking to Google is not the same thing as providing sources, which is what CW's edit summaries claimed. Reyk  YO!  10:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think, bearing in mind that (apparently) CW has had issues with similar before, a reminder to be extremely careful about not leaving ambiguously-worded and possibly-misleading edit summaries would be in order. Even if posting an edit summary which could be read as meaning "sources added" is entirely unintentional, it's something to be avoided, to remove any shadow of doubt.  Pesky  (talk ) 10:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree at all that a less ambiguous edit summary is appropriate ant optimal. I'm familiar with the "misleading edit summaries" Colonel Warden has previously been reprimanded for, and this isn't like those. He's almost in a a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation: by being more communicative on his PROD removals, he's opened up new ways in which his edit summaries could be misunderstood.  If he'd ignored the RFC/U advice and simply removed PRODs without providing rationales, as is allowable by the process, he wouldn't have  been subject to this criticism.  I may be biased by my C programming background, though: a pointer to a pointer is still, itself, a pointer, so I have no problem with understanding how Colonel Warden might have chosen to phrase things as he did. At any rate, the proper way to clarify such edit summaries would be via the talk page, I'd expect. Jclemens (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the edit summary was not ambiguous. The meaning of "+ links to sources" is clear, and it's clearly different from "added links to queries that may (or may not) yield sources".  Colonel Warden surely knows that.  (Don't you?)  Kanguole 00:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As a C programmer myself, I can tell you that that comparison is ludicrous. You ought to know that "int **" and "int *" are different types. A link to google is not a link to a source, whereas CW claimed to have linked to sources. I'm not the type of person who deliberately lets people like the Colonel pull the wool over my eyes with that kind of slippery wikilawyering. Reyk  YO!  01:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Eh, you're trying to assume what his edit summary meant when, as Jclemens says above, he likely meant adding the Find template. Therefore, the edit summary wasn't deceptive, kinda overturning the whole point of the block in the first place. Are we done here? I don't even consider this incident something of merit. At the very least, you need something on the level of moving tags to the bottom of the page. At least. Silver  seren C 08:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize the supposed deceptive edit summary was to the talk page and not to the article proper. Seriously, Kww? You're already involved in the first place, considering past history with Warden, and you use this pretty much useless "incident" to block? I can fully understand why Jclemens is calling for a de-sysop. Silver  seren C 08:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm saddened that, as usual, Colonel Warden has defenders. He's done this kind of thing time and time again, using deceptive edit summaries and removals of tags without doing anything to correct the underlying problem. Was this single edit blockable? Of course not. Was this edit a continuation of the pattern of deceptiveness and bad faith editing demonstrated in WP:Requests for comment/Colonel Warden? Certainly. My involvement with Colonel Warden has to deal solely with his misbehaviour. Has it been ongoing? Certainly. Has it been lengthy? Certainly, but that is because he works and edits to disrupt the deletion process, and, so long as he has other admins covering for him, this will never stop. His RFC came to a standstill because of apologists that tried to interpret falsehoods as misunderstandings. They interpreted blatant misrepresentation of source contents as innocent mistakes. If an editor has a five year long pattern of being a poor misunderstood soul that can't seem to properly express the reason why his edits don't line up with what the summaries claim they are, it's beyond simple mistake.

As for bringing it to ANI first, all that would have happened is that Jclemens would have protected him in advance instead of later, and the heat of the ANI thread would be no different. Desysop me for blocking an intentionally deceitful editor? I hope it will be hard to find an editor that will even unblock an intentionally deceitful editor.&mdash;Kww(talk) 10:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, Jclemens, your comment above "I've personally verified that by adding information relevant to the show (I used '"Secrets of a small town" ABC', adding the network name in the Google News archive link) does result in a number of paywalled RS'es " is a complete red herring. That's not what Colonel Warden did. He added a bog-standard template and a canned statement that said not to put a prod back on the article because he believed the article to "have merit".&mdash;Kww(talk) 11:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So you're criticizing him because he gave a rationale (not required by PROD), and added an alert box with standard resources for finding sources (again, not required by PROD). Hmm, interestingly enough, being more communicative about his de-prod reasons seems something entirely in line with the closer's suggestions at the RFC which you cite as him having violated. Also, neither revised criticism is commensurate with his edit summary being a premeditated falsification designed to deceive proponents of article deletion.  At the time the edit with the disputed summary was made to the talk page the article in question was not facing any deletion process: As you can see by reviewing his contributions for 8 March, he first undid the PROD, then responded pretty briefly to TPH's query about it, added the rationale and disputed edit summary, and promptly afterwards replied to TPH's follow-up. If anything, this demonstrates Colonel Warden's being responsive to queries about his de-prodding, although his second response was far more helpful than his first. Jclemens (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and re: the assertion that I would have shown up to defend Colonel Warden had he been discussed here before a block, that is ironically false. I don't watch ANI, but I do have Colonel Warden's talk page watchlisted, and have had it listed since I first blocked him ~18 months ago.  Had you brought it up here first, I would not have noticed immediately upon returning to my watchlist, and may never have done so. Jclemens (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm unavailable until about 2PM EST. I'll return to this thread at that time.&mdash;Kww(talk) 12:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose block. It is not necessary to provide sources when removing a PROD - anyone can contest a PROD at any time without having to make any improvements to the article at all, and the next step is to take it to AfD if you still think it should be deleted. As for the edit summary being a "lie", I think it's sufficiently ambiguous to warrant some good faith. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and why are we blocking someone now for something that happened 8 days ago? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose block - per Boing! said Zebedee. I also feel that I must add that in my experience Colonel Warden is an editor who does a great deal of interesting, high quality editing across a wide array of topics, and is also one of the most decent and helpful editors in the project.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)]
 * Oppose - as per Boing! said Zebedee's reasoning. Kww, that action was unacceptable. Didn't you know that there is something known as a talk page of a user to discuss their edits and what they can use to correct it in the future? Blocking him is just gonna him a hard time and might make him leave the project. As for a summary being a lie, meh, If I was you, i'd assume some good faith and if it were a long-term pattern, I would have proceeded with warnings. And Kww don't assume he was doing the wrong things. Abhijay  What did I do this time? 14:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)Comment - Some of the discussion above seems to be going above and beyond on the assumption of good faith, making the claim that Colonel Warden was not claiming to have added sources to the talk page when he merely added a search link. In my run-in on this issue, Colonel claimed, "This and the other topics are best discussed on their talk pages so that other editors may participate. I have provided some links to sources there." Yes, technically the wording does not directly claim to have added sources, but the implication was clear enough that I asked about it (and noted several cases where there wasn't even the search link: "The articles are not being discussed and you have not provided sources (you provided search links Talk:Natural_cleaning_product, the last discussion by other editors there was 3 years ago). There is no discussion whatsoever (and no sources from you) at Talk:Detection. At Talk:Dol Amroth again, no sources from you and no discussion in over 2 years. Talk:Locating has no sources from you and no discussion whatsoever. Again, you didn't add sources at Talk:Lorentz invariance in loop quantum gravity and the last discussion is 6 years ago. Talk:Mildenhall Cricket Club does not exist, so it certainly has no sources from you or discussion by others."  Colonel ignored the issue (as well as several attempts to discuss non-admin closures of AfDs on shaky "Speedy Keep" claims), removing the topics with the comment, "(wipe rant &c.)".
 * On the other side of the issue, we have a developing assumption of bad faith, directed at Kww. Yeah, there is reasonable room for discussion on blocking before discussing the issue here. However, Kww brought the issue here for discussion immediately after the block -- there was no attempt whatsoever to avoid discussing the issue. Yeah, I was slightly surprised to see the block come down seemingly out of no immediate cause (though I can certainly see cause for a "Wake up!" block on Colonel). So I can see someone hitting Kww with a wet minnow. Desysoping, however, is as out of scale as taking Colonel out behind the barn and putting him down with a rifle.
 * IMO (FWIW), Colonel needs something larger than a wet trout: the inclusionist stance is what it is, the failure to explain why an article should be kept (unexplained removal of prods, wikilawyer-ism "Speedy Keep" arguments, &c.) are annoying. Attempts to claim that ze was somehow being "helpful" with the search links strike me as inconsistent with the rest of Colonel's actions. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't need to add sources (or make any improvements at all) to contest and remove a PROD, so all this talk of "he didn't add sources" is irrelevant. That he added a search link is a bonus - he had no obligation to do that whatsoever. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * But since he said that he added links to sources (in this edit summary), it is reasonable to expect that he actually did so. Jakew (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It would probably be more precise to say that added "links to find sources", or "links to source searches", but he did provide resources to source the article on the talk page after his de-prod, something that is not required. Jclemens (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's see if I've got this right, Jakew. CW de-PRODed an article, which he was perfectly entitled to do without making any changes to the article itself or having to help look for sources in any way, and he then added a search link to *the Talk page* that would actually help people looking for sources (which is more helpful than is mandated) - yet because the accompanying edit summary was perhaps ambiguous, you think think he deserved an indefinite block? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't commented on the legitimacy of the block itself; I'm just pointing out why it's relevant that he didn't add sources. Jakew (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * and he worded his edit summary in such a way as to make it look like he provided information which he didn't exactly provide. That was what the block was for. If I start removing prods from articles with edit summaries like "de-prod, I'm wearing blue pants today!" or "de-prod, this article has 100 sources!" when there are none or very few, perhaps irrelevant ones, I will expect to be blocked for misleading edit summaries or perhaps pointy editing. He added a template which linked to searches which may provide sources. There is no evidence that he followed any of those links (if he did, why didn't he list the good sources themselves?) before removing the prod. As such his reason for removing the prod was spurious and his edit summary misleading at best.--Crossmr (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) What I would like to know is this. The deprod happened on the 8th. Since then it spent a week at AFD where I closed it as "delete" with no opposition on the 16th. A day later CW is blocked for an action he took on the 8th in an already deleted article. Kww, what I want to know is this, exactly how was this bought to your attention and what ongoing disruption was this block meant to prevent? If this sort of thing is still happening couldn't you have found an example more recent in an article that still exists? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment This post documents that the block occurred after the talk page was deleted:
 * 2012-03-16T00:21:01 Ron Ritzman (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:Secrets of a Small Town (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secrets of a Small Town)
 * 2012-03-17T02:11:31 Kww (talk | contribs) blocked Colonel Warden (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Return to deceptive edit summaries: quite apparent this editor will never edit in good faith)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. On request by CW I've userfied the article in question. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Overturn and block KWW for blatant and outrageous disruption. What arb com may want to do is their lookout; we should do what we can.  What Kww should have done in this situation if he thought a block necessary was propose it here, and, if the consensus supported it, have someone else impose it. If there ever was an involved editor on  subjects relevant to deletion and AfD, it's Kww, and the long lasting disagreements  cannot have been under the impression he was a neutral party.  Col. Warden's arguments are sometimes a little far-fetched, but this is best dealt with by refuting them--as was done in the AfD that gave rise to this. If someone thinks they are outrageous enough to block, it can't be someone who inevitably opposes him. And I would regard this as an exceptionally bad block no matter who did it.  Blocking over what is said at AfD is best reserved for true disruption--there is normally a great liberty of speech here. In this particular case, the quality of the block is particularly debatable. It is not usually good practice to link to the results of a search engine, but it is occasionally necessary when the material cannot be cited otherwise.  Certainly in AfD  we often cite the results of a search engine to show there are multiple references available, or to show that there are no good references available. In the heat of a time-limited debate, to add such a link to the article in question is not unreasonable--one would convert it later--and to say one has added a link in these circumstances is not an untruth. And Col. w. indicated it was a link to sources, which actually makes everything totally proper  If we start blocking far untruths at AfD , we would equally  blocks   those people who say falsely there are no Reliable sources, or that something isn't notable if the community decides otherwise.      I will not overturn the block myself, because I'm as involved with Kww as he is with Col. W.  However, if Kww seriously thinks he was not too closely involved to block the Col, then I am not too closely involved to block him. The situation is exactly parallel. There is only one thing that could have  saved the situation for Kww, which is to unblock immediately and never do anything of the sort again--anyone can do something rashly.  I'd say unblock and apologize, except that there's no point in forced apologies. But that Kww actually has the lack of judgment to defend his action shows that   more is needed.  DGG ( talk ) 16:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, neither kww or CW participated in the AFD in question which I closed as a unanimous "delete" 2 days ago. What he did was "drop out of the sky" and block him yesterday for something that happened before the article was nominated for deletion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Block per Boing! said Zebedee and Rangoon11. From my experience with CW in Articles for deletion/Religious coercion and Articles for deletion/Religious coercion in Israel, I'll say he is a prolific contributor who edits in good faith, well-aware of policies and guidelines, and aims to build a good encyclopedia. An indefinite block of an established editor without seeking any community consensus is unacceptable. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  15:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose block of Warden. If it was anyone else, would Kww be acting that way?  I think he does have it in for certain people and should be desysop.   D r e a m Focus  15:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Overturn or shorten block While it is certainly unhelpful to leave unclear edit summaries when removing prods, an indefinite block seems like overkill, IMHO. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose block of the Colonel. I've had run-ins with the Colonel before, as both Kevin and the Colonel know, and in past debates I've usually come down on the side of Kevin. I must not have been paying attention on two occasions: the Colonel's RfC, where I would have voted for action against the Colonel, and Kevin's RfA, where I would have voted to support. For the first reason, I wouldn't dream of blocking the Colonel (unless something weird was going on, like his spouting racist comments or draping penises over people's user pages--apparently it's a happening thing), and for the second reason I find myself in a bind here: I think this was not a good block to have been performed by him. I like to claim, regularly, that this "involved" thing is overblown, but in this case I think it is not. I won't support a desysoping, but this was a bad block. Sorry Kevin. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Unblocked

 * Your scrutiny is invited. Spartaz, you were correct, at least partly--the dramah is already here. I have never overturned someone else's block before, but I will now, for two reasons:
 * In my opinion, User:Kww is way too involved with the Colonel to have made this block. An indefinite block of a longtime (albeit controversial) editor for a controversial reason (not outright vandalism, etc) must be done with at least some sort of consensus.
 * Kww's rationale, "quite apparent this editor will never edit in good faith", is not correct: such is not apparent to me at all.
 * I made the decision to unblock after reading over all the comments here, and while it's a bit early still, there is a clear consensus that this was not a good block. I don't want to move towards taking the bit from Kww: I think the block was a mistake, not a hanging offense. But that's just me. Kevin, I'm sorry to go against you, but I know that at least I can't be accused of having a long history of supporting the Colonel. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Drmies, I think you've done the right thing here. I'm surprised that Kww expected that his actions here would have been perceived as uninvolved. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 16:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Paul Erik, unblocking was the appropriate action here. Kww, I must say, I came to this discussion without any strong opinion of the Colonel either way, and your WP:BATTLEFIELD response to those of us commenting ("I'm saddened that, as usual, Colonel Warden has defenders") is extremely disappointing. Your further comments in that post give the distinct impression that the nominal reason for blocking the Colonel (that he uses an edit summary of "links to sources" rather than a more accurate one of "links to find sources") is simply a pretext for sticking it to someone you don't like. 28bytes (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong support of unblock - but awaiting further evidence of a pattern of abuse of admin tools and/or diffs to other measures of WP:DR before commenting on the desysop. — Ched :  ? 17:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

For those that ask "why 8 days", it's because it's been a while since I did a spot check of Colonel Warden's behaviour. It only took a few minutes to find his first false edit summary, and that happpened to be the one that had been mentioned on his talk page. For anyone that actually monitors the Colonel, it shouldn't be surprising that his actions could, if one squints really hard and apply massive doses of good faith, be interpreted as only accidentally or unintentionally misleading. I'm absolutely certain that his edits and descriptions are completely intended to mislead, and he carefully leaves just enough ambiguity that, when caught, he will be able to claim that it was just a misunderstanding. It's not a misunderstanding: he's a smart man, and knows that we have admins that will use any flicker of doubt to allow him to continue his misbehaviour. It is quite apparent to me that the Colonel considers being truthful as less important than having articles kept. If you wish me to call the "non-collaborative editing" as opposed to "not being a good faith editor", I'll accept the semantic distinction. The truth remains simple: he takes steps intended to disrupt the deletion process, doesn't honestly describe his edits, misrepresents his own actions, and has been caught several times falsifying references. His actions show absolutely no sign of improvement over the years.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you explain exactly how these "false" edit summaries caused damage? Silver  seren C 18:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, false edit summaries can be very bad. The most extreme case would be replacing an article with a giant penis with the edit summary of "spelling" and marking it a minor. A bot would likely catch that though. A better example would be PRODing an article with the edit summary of "grammar" and marking it as minor hoping to get an article deleted without anybody noticing. (which is why I always check article histories before deleting uncontested prods). What Kww is claiming CW does with edit summaries is possible but unlikely because CW, or anybody else, is not required to provide one to justify a PROD removal. He could use the edit summary "bing bing tiddle bong" if he wanted to. That's why, at least in that case, I'm more inclined to believe it was a mistake or misunderstanding. There is plain and simply no incentive for CW to "lie" when removing a PROD. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I know that. I was referring specifically to the edit summaries we're discussing here, not anything else. Silver  seren C 19:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is basically the subject that I was bringing up below. To be clear, I don't disagree with the thinking that you're espousing above, Ron. Vandals using deceptive edit summaries is certainly nothing to applaud. However, aside from the fact that nobody is claiming that Warden is actually a vandal (as far as I can tell... unless dePROD'ing is thought of as vandalism by some), I think that it's worth mentioning that there is no document that I'm aware of which states that deceptive edit summaries are in and of themselves problematic. I think that is the only real unusual aspect of this thread. — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 01:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Lying undermines the basis of collaborative editing.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's it? That's your entire reason? Nothing to do with vandalism or anything like that, just the spirit of collaborative editing? And you blocked for that? Silver  seren C 18:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Collaborative editing relies on accurate representations of identity and position. The reason I come down so hard on socking is because it is deceitful. This is just another aspect of deceitful behaviour.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Any comment on the concern that you're not objective enough about the Colonel to be blocking him? 28bytes (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a myth that WP:INVOLVED somehow requires an exclusionist admin such as myself to go beg an inclusionist admin to block a disruptive inclusionist. I think that's the reason that people object to me, as an individual, placing this block. I would block any editor that I believed to be intentionally deceitful, whether the motivation behind the deceit is to add material or remove it. People are also getting wrapped up in the terms of this one edit. I'm not looking at it that way: I see it as simply another step in a long-term pattern of deceit.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Kevin, while I admire your dedication to honesty, I'd ask you to re-read the comments above from various folks above (with consideration to WP:IDHT. There's a pretty strong consensus that your block was wrong in this case.  I appreciate that you brought yourself here for the action to be reviewed, but in order for that to be an effective measure - it means that you should be taking the advice that's offered onboard too.  Please rethink this approach.  Thank you.  — Ched :  ?  18:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I won't undo Drmies's unblock. I don't know how to deal with the Colonel so long as he has protection from people that believe his useful contributions outweigh deceit.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Consider also that while multiple editors, myself included, have found Colonel Warden's edit summary phrasing suboptimal, or even inaccurate, there is little to no support for your interpretation that his edit summary was "deceitful". Your repeated use of that phrase, attacking Colonel Warden's motivation, may be construed as a personal attack.  Please tone down the rhetoric and admit that your interpretation isn't the only possible interpretation of his edit summaries. Jclemens (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If this was once, it would be "suboptimal". He's been subjected to RFCs on this very topic, where the consensus of the RFC was that his edit summaries were extremely problematic, yet, it continues. It's difficult for me to justify my block without stating the reason for it. If I did not believe that he was intentionally doing wrong, I wouldn't have blocked him. "Deceit" isn't rhetoric: it's the core justification for the block. That you are able to examine a multi-year history of this problem and still use words like "suboptimal" is a big part of the problem we have in dealing with the Colonel. You've been around long enough, and are in a position that requires sufficient detachment, that you should be able to look at this long term pattern of misbehaviour and recognize that it is intentional. I'm not certain whether you are denying that it is intentional or saying that even if intentional, it doesn't justify a block.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am still able to AGF that this is an error, based on his attempts to expand his communications and the opportunity to make an error while doing so. The various reasons have been articulated above: the content wasn't subject to a deletion process at the time the edit was made, the edit summary wasn't egregiously at odds with the edit made, the edit was made on the talk page where sources (if any) would need to be inspected and transferred to the article to have any effect on future deletion discussions, no one had pointed out the ambiguity in the edit summary to Colonel Warden before... the reasons go on and on.  If anything, your reasoning is more and more problematic that more you expound upon it; you appear incapable of or unwilling to evaluate the edit summary in a detached and neutral manner--you're importing past disputes into your interpretation of this action.  I would encourage you to reread carefully the posts by those who normally agree with you on such issues but are finding fault with your interpretation in this case. Jclemens (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Wasn't subject to a deletion process at the time the edit was made"? Only because he had removed the prod while providing no explanation as to why.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you asserting that he was somehow required to provide an explanation? This is a truly problematic complaint, because elsewhere in this thread you note that his explanation (in the edit with the summary you find problematic) is simply a "bog-standard template and a canned statement".  You really can't have it both ways: If he's using PROD, Colonel Warden is not required by policy to provide an explanation, and any explanation is more than the minimum effort required on his part.  Likewise, if he provided a boilerplate explanation on the talk page, it's rather strange that you're berating him for having provided no explanation.  Would you like to take a try at explaining all of this one more time in an internally consistent manner? Jclemens (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly. His edit summary on the primary article edit was a removal of a tag without justification. If you look to the edit summary on the talk page to see if he had a justification, the talk page edit provided the summary of his reason: an unsupported personal belief that the article had merit, which skates by as a reason under policy, despite the fact that he has been cautioned in the past that his removal of tags without justification is problematic. His edit summary for that edit to the talk page was false: it indicated that he had provided links to sources. He did not. He provided his own completely unsupported opinion, sans sourcing.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As to the "canned statement", he makes the same misrepresentation multiple times: . This is simply an extension of long-standing problematic behaviour.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, let me be 100% clear here:
 * 1)Are you, or are you not, asserting that there is any problematic behavior in Colonel Warden's removal of the PROD here: deprod. In other words, are you implying that the RfC somehow restricted Colonel Warden from using WP:PROD process normally?  ("If any person (even the author him/herself) objects to the deletion (usually by removing the  tag - see full instructions below), the proposal is aborted and may not be re-proposed.") I'll note that  is not included in the list of cleanup tags at WP:TC.
 * 2) Is there any evidence that anyone else had informed Colonel Warden that his canned statement is in any way problematic? Are you willing to acknowledge that if the canned statement was created in good faith (even though unclear or inaccurate), there is no particular evidence of bad faith by reusing it? Jclemens (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1)His deprod, while flying in the face of the consensus reached at his RFC, met the letter of policy.
 * 2)I no longer see any reason to extend any assumption of good faith to Colonel Warden with regard to false or misleading edit summaries. If this had been an editor with a different history, I would view it in a different light.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If it wasn't about this one specific edit/summary (which in itself looked perfectly fine to me), but was instead for a lengthy period of alleged deceitful behavior which you knew would be controversial, and you have had significant disagreement with CW yourself in the past, then it seems clear to me that you should have brought the problem here, providing diffs for a sufficient number of examples of the alleged deceit, and sought a community consensus, rather than indef block yourself while providing a very lame example of "the last straw". I think that was a poor misjudgment, and I think it is disappointing that after seeking a review here, your response is to really not listen but to continue with an adversarial attitude towards community consensus. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've simply explained my reason for having blocked in the first place. I have not attempted to reinstate the block, nor have I directed any criticism towards the admin that unblocked him.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support unblock not quite sure that a desysop of KWW is justified for one such incident, but would be if a pattern emerged. Block is totally out of order both for the 8 day gap, and its stated reason, and for being an isolated example. Even if the RFC had closed with a requirement that Col Warden not do such deprods then after this time an isolated example would justify a note on his talkpage not a block. We should remember that the Colonel Warden RFC failed to come to consensus because some of the proposers tried to to use it to create a defacto policy that the removal of prods requires a rationale to be stated. That view was pretty thoroughly rejected, the RFC became contentious partly because it is deeply inappropriate to try and change policy by criticising some for following policy; An RFC on a proposal to make t more difficult to decline prods would have been a less contentious way to change policy, and I'm pretty sure such a proposal would have been rejected. Suggest KWW unblock Col Warden and apologise to him, then consider himself involved re Col Warden in future.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  18:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Kww can't unblock - Drmies already has. Peridon (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Kww, I did not comment here as part of some process of being a "defender" of Col Walden nor to provide him "protection". Please consider the possibility that observers of your actions here really do, on balance and on review of the previous RfC, find the commentaries of JClemens and others above as more compelling than your arguments justifying your block. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 19:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support unblock – I would have unblocked also, but another administrator has already gotten to it. In any case, this is a situation in which blocking alone will not resolve. This needs more discussion as to what to do, keeping in mind Requests for comment/Colonel Warden. Given that the RfC has apparently failed, this may need to be escalated to Arbitration, in which the Arbitration Committee may potentially issue bans and desysops given what has happened. --MuZemike 22:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * oppose I'll be the lone voice of dissent here I guess. While we're all hanging kww out to dry, remember as pointed out above, CW was taken to task before for misleading edit summaries. As we've got an argument above about whether or not he "lied", it's clear he didn't exactly tell the truth. Could you imagine the reaction on an AfD if someone said "Keep - Lot's of sources on Horatio Smith out there "? Linking to a google search is clearly not the same as linking to actual sources. He linked to the potential of sources, not the sources themselves. Who knows if he even checked any of those links to see if sources existed in any of those searches in the first place, and if he did do that, why didn't he just list those sources? So for someone who has had issues with prods and edit summaries in the past, I would expect them to be hyper-aware of how they are doing them now if they were truly trying to improve and work with the community. His edit summary at best is misleading, if not a lie. The fact that it was 8 days ago is irrelevant if kww believed the behaviour was likely to continue.--Crossmr (talk) 23:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Unblock - What a surprise, another attempt to kneecap a prominent ARS member... Carrite (talk) 01:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * History I've been adding the find template to talk pages in this way for years now.  Here's some examples going back three years:


 * March 2011 : Academic achievement
 * March 2010 : Governance, risk management, and compliance
 * March 2009 : Enid Marx


 * So, to me, updating the talk page in this way is a routine action like adding a project template and I have done this hundreds of times. The habit was already old at the time of my RfC/U and don't recall any complaint about it there.  Kww and others may just be noticing this for the first time but they've had plenty of opportunity to comment on this before.  The idea that it's some kind of devious deception seems quite preposterous.  What is the supposed ill-gotten gain?  Isn't the result of the action quite obvious and transparent?  Who am I supposed to be hoodwinking and how is it that they haven't complained before? Warden (talk) 00:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you point to the specific sources you added to that article?--Crossmr (talk) 00:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It wasn't on the article, this whole thing was *on the Talk page* - you don't add sources to the article by editing the Talk page, so there is no possibility of any rational editor thinking that making an edit *on the Talk page* was adding a source *to the article*. There was no edit summary anywhere that suggested that CW had added anything *to the article*. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine, can you point to any specific sources he added to the talk page of the article? with this edit . "Links to sources" would indicate a direct link to actual sources. As I pointed out above, if I was at an AfD and said "Here are some sources on the subject " how well do you think that would go over? He did not directly link any sources. Yet his edit summary clearly made it look as if he did. That's a false edit summary and as CW has pointed out he did that intentionally it can only be a lie.--Crossmr (talk) 07:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And if I said "The moon is made of carrots" I'd be lying too. CW never said "Here are some sources on the subject". He added the find template to an article Talk page, which he has been doing since 2009, and used the same edit summary he has always used, and nobody has complained about it before. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * He said "link to sources" should we assume they would be sources for another subject if not the subject of the talk page? Should we not assume that there would actually be sources linked? or do we want to starting getting into the definition of "to" or perhaps "link" or even "sources"? Just because no one caught that edit before doesn't mean it's ok. By that logic if anyone can get away with something once, that means they can do it indefinitely because no one complained the first time. So once again: Did he or did he not link to actually sources in that edit? His edit summary indicates he did, but I can't seem to find any actual sources linked. I see a search linked that may or may not contain actualy sources, but no evidence that he actually looked at any of those sources and verified if anyone of them were relevant to the article in question (at which point why not just link them from the talk page as an example, since he took the time to type out his reason). The linguistic dancing here trying to excuse what obviously is a false edit summary is approaching the absurd. here is an honest edit summary "adding a template with links to searches people could use to try and find sources on the subject". "link to sources" would indicate a direct link to actual sources, and to this point no one has demonstrated that happened.--Crossmr (talk) 12:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, seeing as it hadn't been a problem every time he used it for the preceding 3 years, when you saw it and were confused by it, you could have assumed good faith and asked him what he meant, or (assuming you looked at the actual diff) you could have politely suggested he modify that summary in future. How about that for an idea? Or do you prefer an indefinite block as a first response? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * First response? Would this be the first time that CW has had issues with his edit summaries?--Crossmr (talk) 12:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fascinating So we have evidence here that Colonel Warden has been referring to using the find template on the talk page as links to sources since 2009, which predates the RfC/U, and yet no one has complained about it until now, when Kww found it and decided that it merited an immediate indef? Does anyone else see a problem with how the feedback on the accuracy of the edit summary was delivered? Jclemens (talk) 01:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because something escaped notice doesn't mean it's de facto permitted. It means someone didn't notice it, but the general behaviour was noticed and previously brought up.--Crossmr (talk) 07:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So do you think that a talk page edit with a summary of "links to sources" was such an obviously wrong description of adding a template with a bunch of Google links (that actually do lead to sources in this case) that Colonel Warden should be blocked on the basis of past edit summary transgressions? If so, then your argument is internally consistent, though I disagree with it.  If not, then wouldn't a warning have been the first, best step to take when a less-than-optimal or erroneous edit summary was discovered? Jclemens (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Unblock per my comment above. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  02:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Needs to be discussed more
Another thing I didn't notice at the time, but Ron Ritzman pointed out above. The edits in question by Colonel Warden were made 8 days prior to the block. Regardless of the reason for the incident, I find this fact to be completely unacceptable. Silver seren C 17:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Um... Last I checked edit summaries aren't required at all, unless something has changed recently. So what's the story with blocking over edit summaries? I don't really care about Warden being blocked, or KWW's admin status, but... whether or not editors are being blocked over (otherwise normal) edit summaries is kinda important. — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 17:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * He was blocked for attempting to deceive people via edit summaries. That's a different thing than omitting one.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Kww seems to have appointed himself as a "monitor" of Col. Warden. I suggest he not be allowed to interact with Col. Warden at all. If a monitor is needed, a neutral editor in this discussion could be nominated. Yopienso (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree an interaction ban is needed. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 19:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there a neutral editor? I wouldn't block CW even though I recognize he does use deceptive edit summaries.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Give DreamFocus the bit. Seriously, I think there's plenty who are uninvolved enough to block the Colonel if a block is warranted. While all this delete/include drama takes up much of the airtime here, not every admin has a stake in it or a history with it. On the other hand, I can think of one editor who will probably put me in the pro-ARS camp for my unblock of the Colonel, but I can live with that. Drmies (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - KWW's offer not to block Col W again as preferable to any interaction ban. (I tweaked my position after Kww offered this position voluntarily) You  really  can  19:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - full interaction ban - it's clear from KWW's multiple broad-brush comments above about deceitfulness etc that they have very strong, very fundamental, negative feelings towards the Colonel. Combined with the misjudged block itself I struggle to see how KWW can be relied upon to objectively judge Colonel's behaviour in the future. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This whole affair has surprised and concerned me. I suggested the interaction ban, but I don't support JClemens' quick move to desysop Kww. And CW apparently does need watching. Yopienso (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * For the avoidance of doubt, I don't support any attempt to desysop Kww at this point.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

If you want me to agree not to block him again, I can voluntarily do that. If the consensus is that I should have gone through the RFC process again, please don't put a ban in place that prevents me from doing so in the future.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Kww your voluntary agreement here is great, and a wise move. CW should also agree (I think) never to use ambiguously-worded edit summaries, with particular reference to any edit summaries to do with sources.  Jclemens, I really think calling for a desysop of Kww is totally OTT.  Pesky  (talk ) 20:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) I don't think the issue here is one of you agreeing to not do anything specific: the issue I have is one of sufficiently poor judgment that I do not believe you should be an admin. My desired outcome remains as it initially was: you to acknowledge your error, apologize to Colonel Warden for the inappropriate block, and resign the tools yourself.  While an RfC/U may have more support than a straight-up desysop'ing, I maintain that the level of involvement and battlefield mentality expressed in this thread are appropriate cause for desysop'ing.  If there is support for an interaction ban, as it appears here, the real question is whether an admin should maintain his bit if he's under that sort of a ban.  In Cirt's case, the arbitration committee narrowly decided that he should not, but this year's committee has a different composition and is not bound by past precedents, so they may well decide to leave your bit intact--even when I'm not recused on a matter, the committee as a whole favors less strict remedies than I prefer a good bit of the time. Jclemens (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support 1-week block Only a diety knows if someone is telling a lie, and Kww claims to have this ability.  I have no previous interactions with Kww, and since this editor is an admin, chances are that there is a good history that predicts the editor is capable of contributing to Wikipedia.  Perhaps it is time for a 1-week vacation.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know any other way to say this, but that's ridiculous. Plenty of people can know if another person is lying. If you call a friend and ask what they're up to and they say they're at work but you can see them across the street in a cafe, you don't need to be a deity to know they're lying. If someone says they added sources and all they added was a template to various searches, its easy to see they've lied.--Crossmr (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between evidence of "intent to deceive" and the intent itself. Just because someone says that they are at work when they are at home, doesn't mean that they had intent to deceive, they might have answered the phone while taking medication, and really thought they were at work.  The logic of your statement that uses a definition unlike the one being refuted falls in the category of a logical fallacy of equivocation, which as defined in our article, "consists in employing the same word in two or more senses".  Your conclusion that my statement was "ridiculous" does not follow from the premises and is as well an escalation.  The point remains that an administrator on Wikipedia should not call another editor a liar.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you saying CW was on drugs? Because linking to a search which may or may not contain sources vs providing actual links to real checked sources could possibly only be confused if one was heavily medicated. The fact is, CW claimed he linked to sources when he did no such thing. He's also stated that he's done it before and should be well aware of what it is is he's doing and what it means.--Crossmr (talk) 07:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment (edit conflict plus losing the thread by getting on the wrong noticeboard) Like Yopienso, I was surprised by the way this blew up. I was coming back in to suggest a voluntary refraining from involvement by Kww, but am happy to see that he beat me to it. I also don't support a move to desysop Kww - and if he makes a voluntary agreement, I don't feel that it should be necessary. Peridon (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose any interaction ban or other sanction of KWW. There is simply no need. What we have here is a situation where an editor has made a number of misleading edit summaries, and this after an RFC/U on the very same topic. KWW has made the inference (IMO correctly) that the editor in question is a chronic liar because, after the RFC/U, there is no possibility of this being a mistake or oversight. KWW has decided (again correctly) that this sort of deliberate deceit, combined with CW's constant battleground behaviour, makes this a less congenial working environment. I wouldn't have gone for the indef right off the bat- two weeks would have made the point juts fine- but I think that there was nothing wrong with KWW's interpretation of the situation, his good judgment, or his good faith. A community-imposed interaction ban or a desysop are simply not tenable options at this point. Reyk  YO!  01:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Warden explained above that that edit summary has been something he's always used and it's always meant the same thing and no one has brought it up to him before as being a problem, including in the RfC/U. On the other hand, we have Kww, who has exhibited significant battleground mentality in his responses to people above, not even considering the fact that he is clearly involved when having anything to do with Warden, because of past interactions. Silver  seren C 01:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oy and a disgusted trout to several editors for this whole nonsensical episode. For the sake of clarity, I don't support the block on Colonel Warden, I do support the strongly worded warning about CW's misleading edit summaries (and note that this is nothing new), I don't support de-adminning Kww, and I support a restriction on Kww's use of admin tools in regards to CW or any other member of the ARS. If Kww notes another problematic situation, Wikipedia will not explode while the issue is discussed on AN/I. There is already a rough consensus that Kww doesn't qualify as an uninvolved admin, and that should stop any use of the tools on CW or some of the more enthusiastic "inclusionists". There also appears to be a rough consensus that CW's edit summaries are misleading (at best), and that simply linking to a Google search is not a suitable substitute for adding actual references. JClemens's call for de-sysopping is a case of using a hydrogen bomb instead of a flyswatter that makes me regret my vote supporting him for the Arbitration Committee; it is an overreaction to a perceived crisis worthy of a (U.S.) governmental entity.  Horologium  (talk) 01:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. You are aware that CW added the link to the Google search (ie find) only on the Talk page, and not in the actual article, aren't you? Even when an article is sourced, it does seem like a useful thing to have on a Talk page to me. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am aware of that. However, while it may be a useful thing to have on a talk page, it doesn't mean the same thing as de-prodding an article with the edit summary of "adding sources".  Horologium  (talk) 01:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen where he de-PRODed an article with the edit summary "adding sources" - I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I don't think anyone has shown us an example of it, so if you could do that I'd be grateful to see it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, we can't do that, because the diffs that Kww linked to originally are from a deleted article, so I guess he only meant for other admins to be able to look at them. Silver  seren C 02:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am an admin - if the claimed edit is there, please show me it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I found that he had it userified with the history attached. Here it is. And I see he only said remove prod on the article page. The talk page comment this is all about is this one. I honestly can't see what the deception is. He said he added a link to sources, which he certainly did and has always done it that way. Silver  seren C 02:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you show me which sources it was that he linked to?--Crossmr (talk) 07:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources available in that search? Do you want me to like get them from the search for you? Silver  seren C 08:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ohhh... so you're saying he linked to a search not to the actual sources themselves? That's interesting, because what I actually understood from his edit summary was that he was actually linking to the sources themselves. I assume then that every search result was a relevant source for the article and that he verified it before linking to that search and claiming he was linking sources? I mean who would blindly link to a search without bothering to go through it to verify there were actually sources there before indicating that they were actually providing links to usable sources? But then..if he did that, why not just link those actual found and verified sources directly on the talk page?--Crossmr (talk) 09:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As has generally been accepted here, adding find to an article *Talk* page is a useful thing to do. It is not meant to be a static list of sources at that time, it is meant to be there as a dynamic tool for future editors to use when further searching for new sources. You know, something new needs to be added, and a quick link to a categorised set of Google results is handy - that kind of thing? Yes, it would be great to do an even better thing too, like unearthing good sources and adding them to the article, but the absence of doing an even better thing is not a valid criticism of doing a merely good thing. But even putting that all aside, what do you actually want to come out of this Crossmr? If you think some admin action is needed, just come out and tell is what it is rather than continually complaining about CW without saying what you want to happen -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No one said adding find wasn't helpful, but your strawman really does little more than show how weak your argument is. The issue is over a false edit summary. The fact that the edit itself does not match what he did on the page. And outside of certain people attempting to rewrite the definition of "link" "to" and "sources" I haven't seen any evidence provided that he did not in fact provide a false edit summary.--Crossmr (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed. Here is the edit that removed the PROD - there is *no* edit summary suggesting sources have been added. CW's comment on the de-PROD is at User talk:Colonel Warden/Secrets of a Small Town, where he also did not claim to have added sources. This is the edit to the Talk page that added the find with the edit summary "+ links to sources &c." So in the example given, there is no claim by CW that he added any sources to the article, and no dishonest edit summary. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if you're regretting me doing what I've said I would be doing--protecting editors from administrator abuse. I don't believe in a Wikipedia where admins are allowed to get off with an "interaction ban" or an "I told you so" without an accompanying desysop when they've blocked an editor under such circumstances. I bear Kww no ill will, but his temperment and decision making ability is obviously incompatible with the role of administrator. Life would be simplest if he would admit his mistake, apologize to Colonel Warden, and resign the tools.  You know what?  Two out of three might even be enough, but so far... zero of three are forthcoming. Jclemens (talk) 01:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What you will get is simply a statement that I recognize that consensus is that I should not have blocked, and won't do so again. No apology is due to Colonel Warden, as his statement that no one has complained about that specific edit summary is a red herring: do editors have to go through each and every misleading edit summary he uses and catalog them for him? Nor will I resign my tools over one difference in judgment.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Do editors have to point out that they have an issue with a minor edit summary which he has used for years? Yes, yes they do. Especially when it's something that has never been brought up to him before, so how is he supposed to know it is an issue? I would certainly think that, if it wasn't brought up at the RfC/U or ever before, that there isn't an issue with such a minor thing. Silver  seren C 02:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * His misuse of edit summaries was one of the major topics of the RFC. No, there was not a catalog generated of each individual misleading edit summary that he used. An adult editor should be able to examine his edit summary vs. the contents of his edits and see whether they align or not.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Kevin, the block was wrong. That you acknowledge that consensus is against it is of little use: it is obvious, and if you failed to recognize that we'd be doubting your eyesight. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine ... I was wrong to think that blocking Colonel Warden would have any positive effect.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow...this is why people are calling for your desysop. This kind of response right here. Silver  seren C 02:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Jclemens, I've been seeing you around a lot, and I just want to offer support to your general stand against abuse. Don't burn out! Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical 03:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Some comments: Both Kww and Colonel Warden are valuable to Wikipedia, each in their own way. I am opposed both to any sanction against the Colonel and to any desysop of Kww in this matter. However, it would be good if Kww would recuse from adminstrative matters concerning the Colonel for the next quite - a - long - time. It would also be good if the Colonel could switch to a slightly longer edit summary, such as "added link to possible sources". Cardamon (talk) 07:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well put. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have today been trying out a longer edit summary for similar cases: "add a series of links to various search interfaces to help find additional reference material; document that the article has been previously been tagged for a proposed deletion; &c.". It seems quite prolix and my browser doesn't seem to remember this in the way that it remembers shorter common edit summaries so I may continue to experiment. Warden (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Time to close this incident?
The consensus is clear that the block of CW was bad, and it has been reverted - and it's pretty clear that no further admin action against CW is going to happen here. And it doesn't look like there is any consensus for action against KWW now that he has voluntarily agreed not to block CW again. Time to close it and move on? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable to me. <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 13:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The community got what it wanted with Kww - through on his 4th RFA. Interesting that the victim here was one of only a handful of opposes on the successful RFA . Bit of history maybe. Leaky  Caldron  13:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Do not close, please. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Then tell us what admin action you want. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I consent to the close. I have enough material here to file a RfArb seeking Kww's desysop if that proves to be the route that he chooses. Jclemens (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Close the productive portion of discussion has passed. Nobody Ent 16:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Nevertheless, CW is a vexatious editor
Editors commenting above may want to look at this. CW removed a PROD from Cauca molly (which was tagged as unreferenced, which it was), and then posted a query on WT:V (see bottom of page). I pointed out to him the reason why WP:V is policy, looked for a source, provided it, and added it (something which he's clearly not interested in doing, only removing PROD tags as quickly as possible). Warden's response? He added a (failed verification) tag to my reference, despite the reference being exactly correct (Link). Whether or not KWW's block was correct, there is only a finite length of time that this editor's disruptiveness needs to be tolerated. Black Kite (talk) 13:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This forum is for seeking admin action - what action do you want? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The above was more for background (after all, that little escapade was today), but when you've already had an RFC that clearly concluded that there was a problem with CW's actions, especially on removing PRODs and leaving deceptive edit summaries, and he's still doing it and it doesn't appear that blocking is allowed, what do you suggest? Black Kite (talk) 14:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've already given a warning to CW about their combative language, and I hope that this episode can serve as a further warning. Community enforced behavioral restrictions are within the auspice of this page. "Do not remove prods" or "Do not use the word 'deletionist'" are both outcome I could live with. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want a community ban on CW removing PRODs, I really don't think you're going to get that here. I also don't think you'll have much success having him banned from using the world "deletionist", seeing as both it and "inclusionist" are in widespread use across the project. If you want to get either of those to stick, I'd think an RFC is your only real possibility. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The source added by Black Kite was tagged because it does not fully verify the text which it cites. In particular, it does not support the claim made by the article that this fish is "also called the South American molly".  I was alert to this issue because I had already started correcting the various names given to this species by the article.  Black Kite removed the cleanup tag without establishing what the problem was or engaging in discussion on the talk page.  If I were to take such action - removing cleanup tags or adding sources which did not fully correspond to the article text - then BK's camp would instantly accuse me of being a liar and rush to block me on such grounds.  BK's action in following me to this article and engaging in disruptive editing seems improper.  Note that Black Kite, like Kww, seems quite involved as we have a history of conflict stemming from incidents such as this DRV in which his deletion of my article was overturned. Warden (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * BK, we know this is just one more example of the sort of behavior that got CW to RFC before. But the community is too evenly divided on this topic to handle it on its own and compared to others in the area (remember A Nobody?), his behavior isn't problematic enough that Arbcom is likely to act. Maybe now's time for RFC_2 or in six months, but nothing we can really do here.  MBisanz  talk 15:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Dreadstar
User:Dreadstar made a big to-do about disappearing himself from Wikipedia in early February and nearly had to leave in disgrace over conduct outlined in various arbcom cases relating to transcendental meditation. He is now trying to tarnish my anonymous editing and that of others with a sockpuppet tag. I think he's on some sort of power-trip. Perhaps a neutral administrator could talk to him?

Thanks.


 * Inappropriate creation of a category
 * Inappropriate use of rollback and here

76.119.90.74 (talk) 04:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm wondering if the witchunt idea is misplaced.
 * This is a complete fabrication, "nearly had to leave in disgrace over conduct outlined in various arbcom cases relating to transcendental meditation." I am very familiar with that case. This comment alone should lead any editor to investigate the IP.
 * The IP's edits to What the Bleep appear to be in the face of editor agreement.
 * The IP is concurrently posting on the Fringe Theories Notice Board against Dreadstar,
 * Looks to me like the witch hunt is not against the IP at all but against Dreadstar.
 * I also worked on What the Bleep at the time Science Apologist was working there, and whether the IP is a sock of SA or not, his manner is very similar and I believe an SPI to clear the air is/was warranted.
 * (olive (talk) 04:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC))
 * Let's just say that Dreadstar's approach to sock tagging absent CU confirmation is highly inconsistent . ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Mathsci has removed the IP's post on the Fringe Theories NB since my original post here.(olive (talk) 04:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC))
 * I have no idea whether the IP is a sockpuppet of SA (the location seems wrong). His editing at the moment seems disruptive and his double posting on WP:FTN was inappropriate, hence the removal. Mathsci (talk) 05:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * With the caveat that I know nothing about SA, * "Disruptive" in this case could easily be someone new who's behaving normally when accused w/o CU, yes? and * The rollback of the sock-puppet tag removal seems inappropiate. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think SA is a banned user, but other than that, it seems Dreadstar and the IP are engaged in a content dispute here. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Aaron, I'd be surprised if the IP is a new editor, given the way he introduced this section (with reference to an old case, but with a misinterpretation of it designed to promote a particular view of Dreadstar). SlimVirgin (talk) 06:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

This account appears to be the same editor as the IP, who has been editing with the first IP for over 6 months (on topics related to fringe physics and cold fusion). In the past SA has edited from NY not Boston. However, stylistically these editors seem indistinguishable from SA. Mathsci (talk) 05:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not an account, just another IP. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

SA/jps/VanishedUser314159 frequently used hyphenation: good-or-bad, not-so-up-to-date, etc, in talk page comments and that seems also to be true of the IPs. Mathsci (talk) 05:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * As for the stylistic similarities, both the IPs and the vanished/banned user seem fond of the word "pandering" in edit summaries . But that correlation alone is too weak for me to draw conclusions. Further investigation is warranted, I think. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Using the word "tenor" metaphorically to describe a lead proponent  is a bit more striking. Other similarities include "move up"   and an interest in serial comma consistency  . Ending with "perhaps?" is also a less-common similariy  . Unfortunately, this kind of evidence proves nothing according to Dreadstar, so I'm curious what he'll come up with as evidence. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 06:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * All the above is intersting enough, true, and I'll eat my hat if Slim's wrong about this person... but... but... I'm always concerned when we (collectivly) get our DUCK hunting caps on. Even if this does turn out to be the SA irritant, shouldn't we be taking the tiny extra effort to be polite and do all the steps properly?  Looking at the tag reversion by Dreadstar, particularly with the totally-true "get some CU" edit summary that he reverted over, I find that I'm not comfortable no matter who it is. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 07:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The last ipsock of SA is here for comparison: . Mathsci (talk) 07:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * My first impression here is one of a distinct air of WP:BOOMERANG on both counts.
 * 1. On the content end, it would appear that the talk page discussion shows a consensus which does not favor the 76.IP editor's preferred version. see: WP:CON policy for further information.
 * 2. On the administrative end, I'm not seeing anything actionable in regards to Dreadstar. I suspect that SlimVirgin has been fairly accurate in her observations.  I've never been much of a sock hunter, and I do see a distinction between using an IP vs. a registered account - that said, I'd rather see some definitive CU data to the circumstantial  "A looks like B" type of diffs that so often fill up these threads; but I do concede the similarities others have noted. — Ched : <font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000fa;"> ?  08:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Prior to the ipsock I mentioned, SA used another Columbia IP  . That was discussed at WP:AE, after which one year blocks were enacted. The timing of edits might rule out SA in this case. Mathsci (talk) 08:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Or they might not. There is enough time between then to travel from NY to Boston, never mind electronic ways of appearing to have done so. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I also have the impression that SA/VanishedUser314159 is active again using IP socks.
 * The Columbia IPs he used until they were blocked in Dec 2011 are:
 * Special:Contributions/128.59.169.46 - blocked dec 20 2011
 * Special:Contributions/128.59.169.48 - blocked dec 21 2011
 * Special:Contributions/128.59.171.194 - blocked dec 10 2011
 * Special:Contributions/128.59.171.184 - blocked dec 23 2011


 * And I suspected this one too, but it is currently not in use:
 * Special:Contributions/140.252.83.241 used until 30 august 2011


 * --POVbrigand (talk) 10:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This sequence of edits is a bit strange. SA here acted in concert with the IP. Also they agreed on the talk page of the article. Similarly in the discussions about Energy Catalyzer on WP:FTN and its fourth AfD. However, I am not sure these show anything conclusive. There does appear to be a considerable overlap of subject matter between the 4 ipsocks of SA and the IP here. Mathsci (talk) 10:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I found this remarkable similarity between the currently discussed IPs 76.119.90.74 and IP 71.174.134.165, both at the same geolocate.
 * 76.119.90.74 - Talk:Cold fusion - 18:36 12 March 2012 - explanation that "prove" is not the right word
 * 71.174.134.165 - Tom Van Flandern - 18:57 12 March 2012 - "prove is not the right word"
 * --POVbrigand (talk) 10:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I did not realize that witch hunting was what Wikipedia was like behind the scenes. This discussion has been very educational. I will not be contributing to Wikipedia anymore. If this is the normal way IP authors are treated who are trying to fix the encyclopedia anybody can edit, maybe it would be a good idea to stop asking readers to edit with those ratings at the bottom of the articles. That's why I started changing things here. 76.119.90.74 (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Rant Sock_puppetry clearly states only blocked accounts should be tagged; editors are directed to file an WP:SPI if they suspect something is amiss. This fad of editors defacing IP editors talk pages without bothering to file an spi should be stopped in its tracks per it's fucking rude. Someone please indef Dreadstar (and any other tag crazy editor) until they agree to knock it off. Wikipedia: The encyclopedia where anyone can get treated like shit. Nobody Ent 12:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Then what is Template:Ipsock for? This "fad" seems to have a template that's been around for years. Without looking at the merit of Dreadstar's tags, he's just mistagging the IP's.--Atlan (talk) 13:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit" means that all editors should be treated fairly whether they are admins or IPs. Bringing an editor to ANI and to the Fringe NB in the middle of a content discussion which is why we are here, and mischaracterizing the admin and the content discussion is not appropriate editor behaviour. That's the fundamental issue here. Secondary to that, is the possibility that IP may be a banned user.(olive (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC))


 * Clearly, an anon IP like 76 who exhibits enough knowledge of wiki to bring an ANI and a noticeboard complaint this fast is a former user with an agenda, particularly when it parallels a previous pattern of a blocked user. This is no newbie getting bitten, it's someone who lacks the integrity to get a user name and work according to the rules.  And Dreadstar is an experienced admin with a good nose for trouble.  IP disruption of articles and topics does need to be dealt with quickly; there's no need to hide behind anonymity.   Montanabw (talk) 15:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm a long-term IP editor, and I read AN/I pretty regularly for the lulzy drama. I guess I just lack integrity.  192.251.134.5 (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting that we're supposed to rely on "noses" here rather than any form of clearly presented evidence that others may judge by themselves. Has Dreadstar's nose received any official endorsement? Has he ever been a CU, for example? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

This is part of a years-long vendetta between Dreadstar and Scienceapologist/jps/etc. I don't think an editor who wrote this (admin-only, see deleted contributions) has any business sleuthing out SA's alleged socks. Skinwalker (talk) 15:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess I fail to see how appropriate use of admin tools and then later recognizing a writing style when someone is trying to sneak back equals a "vendetta?" The issue I see here is an unwarranted ANI on Dreadstar by an anon IP who has in fact been engaging in disruptive editing in an area that is a familiar haunt of a user who had his account deleted by Dreadstar.   Sometimes someone is in the right and someone is in the wrong.  I see from that link (just what I can read, the public bit) that another admin previously also had to address SA's behavior, at least, account deletion would suggest that.  As for the rest, we all have bad days and sometimes aren't the perfect diplomat in our phrasing (just today, I had to hit backspace several times to remove some words from a comment elsewhere prior to hitting "save page."  I did, fortunately).     Montanabw (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand. The link I gave was to the mainspace article ScienceApologist, not to his user page User:ScienceApologist.  Dreadstar did not delete SA's user account.  He created a extremely derogatory mainspace article about SA, then deleted it.  I see that you are not an admin and therefore can't read the deleted text, but it is quite a bit more than a minor diplomatic failing.  Skinwalker (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If he really did that, why hasn't ArbCom desysopped him for "conduct unbecoming of an admin" and all that? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You'd have to ask the arbitrators. During the discretionary sanction arbitration I submitted detailed (e.g. TLDR) evidence of Dreadstar's behavior that highlighted this incident.  They ignored it completely.  Skinwalker (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I just did. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why SkinWalker thinks the arbs ignored his evidence. They posted a decision on that case after a lot of evidence was presented, SkinWalker's included.
 * My concern is that an editor who didn't get a result he wanted out of an AE is trying again, here, which seems a lot like poisoning the well.
 * The issue here, to reiterate, is that an IP whose edits were against talk page agreement then brought one of the editors who disagreed with him here, posted about that same editor concurrently on the Fringe Theories Notice Board,  while posting patently  false information about that editor. This is not about a newbie editor who was attacked as he suggests for his editing. Its about an editor who may have used Notice boards to gain an advantage in a discussion and against an editor he disagreed with. That doesn't sit well, in my opinion.(olive (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC))

69.86.225.27
This IP editor has admitted to being the "home address" of one of the year-blocked edu IP socks of SA. The 69 editor has edited as recently as Feb this year, despite the block on the edu address. Based on the use of the word "flapdoodle" , I think it probable that the 69 IP was SA as well. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Congratulations, officer, turns out that house you serached w/o a warrent did have drugs in it!" Forgive the hyperbole, but can I please just say "!!" and have it jog our collective memories?  Am I alone in thinking that voracious DUCK hunting does more harm than the (actual) socks? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Last time I checked, there's no warrant needed to look at someone's contributions on Wikipedia. They're all public to begin with. On the other hand, you might want to protest against "banned means banned" instead, but this is not the venue for it. (And if you still doubt the self-admitted socking, the 69 and 128 IPs participated in the same AfD, although they had the integrity of not double !voting .) ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

NOTE - A trout to any that think this is a "newbie". Close this joke of a thread already: Dreadstar is not on trial here. What a shame this is. Doc  talk  08:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree, this is not a newbie, and the thread is only stoking drama. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is pretty low-volume "drama" really, and "stoke" implies "fire" which I'm not seeing. Just some people stating their opinions. But, yeah, close away. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)Dreadstar is not on trial, the thread boomeranged to the submitting IP and therefore I think it is legitimate to discuss whether or not the IPs are used by a banned user. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * based on my comments above, I don't see anything more to be done here and would support a close.(olive (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC))


 * 69 has also tag teamed with 128 in a revert war    . ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think this is all pointing to a continued ban evasion with different IP socks, can we start a CU for IP 69 ? I would then add another IP with the same geolocate as 69 to that case. --POVbrigand (talk) 07:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've been gone a lone time now. I thought I would check in at some places to see if my break made a difference, then I see this.  If you think SA is editing against his ban, do an SPI and check.  Quit all the guesses and defending a friend and let the checkusers do what they know how to do.  This is past silliness already.  I'm sorry, but after reading all of the above about this, I felt the need to say, give it to the checkusers to see who it is.  It's not rocket science here, it's the rules, remember!  The IP was upset and said things not liked, not true maybe, don't know.  But IP's are allowed to edit here and this doesn't make anyone want to edit when they can be accused of being someone else without a reasonable doubt.  Just wanted to say what I thought before I leave.  I sure hope you all decide though to get this checked out and stop the duck hunt at this point. Have a good day!  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  14:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

propose to close the topic here --POVbrigand (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

vandalism
What passes for vandalism these days? My comment was removed []. I have asked the user to reinstate the comment but they have yet to do so. Please advise.Hackneyhound (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The other editor has already apologised and noted that this revert was a mistake here. Is your issue simply that you want them to re-revert, and their response was to politely suggest you did it yourself? If so, I'm not sure what action you are expecting but it is unlikely an administrator is going to do anything about it <b style="color:#E66C2C;">QU</b> <sup style="color:#306754;">TalkQu 17:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hackneyhound, your edits are producing random characters in other people's comments, like here in addition to in the link you have provided above. The small "o" in the time stamp. I don't know if it is some sort of techinical problem on your end or what, but that's why people are reverting them as vandalism.--Racerx11 (talk) 17:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Your latest edit did it again. Racerx11 (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The revert borders on harassment. Labeling an accidental edit, which was far from sinister as Vandalism is a joke. And removal of a legitimate comment for no apparent reason. The user seen my name and went straight to undo without even checking the content of my edit. So is an accidental 'o' vandalism?Hackneyhound (talk) 18:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You did it on at least three separate occasions. So I don't know, is it vandalism? It appeared to me as such when I first saw the diff, because the extraneous character is the first thing you see, at the top. But I don't why you are putting stuff like that there. There is no reason for it and makes no sense. Then again, why do people vandalize at all? Anyway, that's why I speculated it may be a technical problem. Is it?--Racerx11 (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Who was that dude--they were brought up on the board here only a few days ago. He used to edit from some handheld device which would randomly remove text, so that it might be something technical is possible. Then again, I type on a netbook with a trackpad, and occasionally my cursor flies all over the place as well. Drmies (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * My 'O' button keeps sticking but also the edit window keeps jumping up mid sentence. Its not like I entered a swear word or defaced the article. Its certainly not vandalism. What ever happened to assuming good faith? Why did Bjmullan remove my entire comment as well as the accidental character? And yes I'm on a netbook. Big hands, small keyboard. Hackneyhound (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Weeeeell some might argue that the letter "o" represents a rectum, and that you're calling people "asshole" by doing so. But that would be a very far-fetched accusation. Drmies (talk) 19:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, case dismissed. There's nothing actionable here. As QuiteUnusual remarked above, the editor has apologized, and that's all there is to it. (I said as much on the editor's talk page.) No admin is going to do anything else, so let's get back to the important business of improving our coverage of YouTube personalities and manga. Someone, please close this. Drmies (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

New Class Project Article
I encountered Northwest Kansas Technical College earlier today and nominated it for speedy deletion as a test page. In the course of advising the user to utilize the sandbox, I noticed that their talk page is implying a username with multiple users attempting to complete a university project with inadequate experience. I have advised them to use the Sandbox, but the two previous speedies on their page suggest that they made need additional help. As it stands, the article I mentioned was speedied by WikiDan61 on 3/14, but was re-created by the user on 3/16. They have not responded to any talk page messages, and it is possible that they may not understand the significance thereof. CittaDolente (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No one else has edited that page or its previous installments--rather than a project, this is someone from the college giving them their article. That's a great thing, but the username is unacceptable. I will delete the article (and there is nothing worth userfying), block the user name, and leave them a note. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * One of the online ambassadors should probably reach out to this school. They are likely editing in good faith, but just don't know how to get started. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Brewing problem
Could someone(s) who has more time than me take a look into a brewing problem on a number of different user talk pages. I happened to make a comment on User Talk:Guy Macon (a user I tried to assist in the past) to User: Hengistmate about distinctions (or the lack thereof) between admins and non-admins, and ended up finding out that there's a whole mass of less than pleasant interactions between at least 5 editors here. I see 2 very experienced users (User:Andy Dingley and User: Biscuittin unhappy with each other (note, specifically, User Talk:Andy Dingley). I see User:Hengistmate using that discussion as a claim that Andy Dingley is incivil (at least), at User Talk:Borealdreams (which looked like this before Borealdreams removed part of it on the advice of Guy Macon). Hengistmate is partly upset and Andy Dingley because of a less than civil conversation that occurred at Talk:Tank and lead to this discussion on Andy Dingley's user talk; later, he became more upset because Guy Macon warned Hegistmate but not Andy Dingley (see [this since deleted discussion on Guy Macon's talk page, and the followups on my talk page at [[User Talk:Qwyrxian#Your recent message.]] and User Talk:Qwyrxian. Guy Macon also made claims of bad behavior against Hengistmate at User Talk:Borealdreams.

'Can anyone tell who wrote the above paragraphs, as I'm getting pretty annoyed by Guy claiming I did, and then writing below in his "Cast of Characters" (who Borealdreams neglected to mention, and who should be notified)'' as I never did anything of the sort? I wasn't even near a computer for the 4 days this shitstorm was brewing. [sorry for bad indenting, but want to get at the top of this]''' Borealdreams (talk) 02:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what's really going on here. I don't know if everybody's acting badly, and all need to go to their separate corners. Or if just some people are acting badly, and they need to be warned more strongly and/or sanctioned. Or maybe just these people have different interaction styles and aren't dealing well with others. I'm not even sure if all of the above discussions are actually "really" connected.

Of course, the inevitable question is "what admin action are you requesting"? I am not in any way recommending sanctions against anyone. I'm simply seeing a bunch of tinder that looks set to explode, and I'd rather stop it now if there's some way to do so, since, at a first glance, all of the participants seem to have something positive to contribute to the encyclopedia. Unfortunately, I don't have the time or inclination right now to figure it out myself; thus, I throw it open to this board to see if anybody (including the principles) can make sense of what's going on and find a way to diffuse it. I'll go notify the lot of them now...give me a minute though. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * A quick scorecard of the players:


 * I have chosen to not have any further interactions with Hengistmate. His actions have not risen to the level of stalking, but he has inserted himself into several discussions where I am trying to resolve a content dispute, all critical of me and none of which he had any previous involvement with. My opinion is that he just wants to pick a fight.


 * Borealdreams is an editor with a self-admitted COI (he sells a product that is marketed as an alternative to lightning rods) who went into full attack mode when I questioned his COI editing. He offered an "olive branch" and expressed a desire to make a fresh start. which is why we both self-deleted several comments about each other. My opinion is that he means well and has the potential to create a good article on lightning protection, and I would like to assist him with this if he is willing to let me do so. He has misbehaved, but appears to have a genuine interest in improving.


 * User:Wtshymanski‎ (who Borealdreams neglected to mention, and who should be notified) was the first editor Borealdreams went into full attack mode on. Wtshymanski‎'s sarcastic style greatly contributed to that conflict. Wtshymanski is an experienced engineer and he is correct both on the technical issues and on Wikipedia policy issues in this matter.


 * Andy Dingley is another experienced engineer who is correct both on the technical issues and on Wikipedia policy issues on the matter of lightning rods. I don't know anything about his conflict with Hengistmate on the topic of military tanks.


 * User:OlYeller21 (who Borealdreams neglected to mention, and who should be notified) is an uninvolved editor who worked with me at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard in a previous attempt to resolve this mess.


 * I don't know anything about Biscuittin. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just one note about the above, Guy Macon: you cannot choose to "not have any further interactions with Hengistmate", and then bring up complainsts against him to another editor as you did in this edit (which is after you told me you were ceasing interaction on my talk page). If the issue is too stressful or unpleasant for you to deal with, you've got to leave him alone entirely; otherwise, you're essentially creating a situation where you can complain about him but he can't raise complaints about you. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I participate at WP:COIN regularly and came across this issue when Guy Macon reported the COI here. I dealt mostly with Guy Macon and Borealdreams as the other involved party (Wtshymanski) only left one message on in the discussion and did not respond to a request from me.  I reviewed the situation lightly and in my opinion, Guy Macon has attempted to be neutral with both parties.  Please note that I haven't read every single edit from all three editors.  It would take several hours to understand as the format of most discussion is dismal to say the least.  As Guy Macon said, Wtshymanski has been sarcastic and condescending in his responses which seems to have offended Borealdreams who then responds very negatively with clear incivility.  I can provide diffs if needed but I didn't plan on writing a report at the moment.
 * At COIN, I attempted to mediate for both all involved editors, as an uninvolved editor. Borealdreams seemed very interested, Wtshymanski never responded, and after the controversy quickly reignited, I bowed out.  Borealdreams and Guy Macon, from what I understand, then came to an agreement and redacted several of their comments at COIN to attempt to get a discussion going.  I saw that as a good sign and was/am hopefully that their discussion prove productive.
 * After that, I have had no interaction with Borealdreams, Wtshymanski, or Guy Macon. The only interaction I've had with any party listed in this ANI report, is here with .  When I was looking over the case at COIN, I noticed this edit by Hengistmate which was very confusing, to say the least.  I then asked who Hengistmate was at the COIN report, to see what the involved parties thought of his involvement, and Guy Macon replied that "Hengistmate appears to be an editor who is still upset over an unrelated issue. Otherwise uninvolved."  After reviewing Hengistmate's edit history, he appeared to have no involvement so I moved on.  I won't venture to guess what his involvement is because realistically, I haven't the slightest idea.
 * That's a summary of all the information I have. I'll watch this conversation and respond if necessary but as far as my interaction with Guy Macon goes and from what I've seen of his interaction with others, it looks to me like he's just attempted to neutrally participate in some inflamed debates.  I've had no problems with him at all.  Ol Yeller21  <sup style="color:#827839;">Talktome  03:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * For the record, I do try to stay neutral, but my attitude is the exact opposite of believing that I am incapable of breaking any rules. I have mild Asperger's syndrome with many of the behavioral and cognitive traits that are typical of Asperger's, and because of this I welcome corrections to my behavior. Qwyrxian in particular has shown himself to be a trusted guide, and when he offers a correction (as he did above) I embrace it and do my absolute best to follow his advice, which I am very thankful for. I would like to invite anyone else who is reading this to examine my behavior and to offer corrections where needed. Positive reinforcement - telling me when I did something right - helps too. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * @76.190.228.162, can you please sign into whatever account you use that has dealt with Guy Macon, please? Your 3 edits on that IP don't show any interaction with him.  Ol Yeller21 <sup style="color:#827839;">Talktome  14:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The message is what is important. The messenger is not. 76.190.228.162 (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The underlying message is also important. That message is "I wish to make unsubstantiated assertions about another editor's behavior without anyone being able to check my history to see whether those claims are true." Also see: IP edits are not anonymous. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * @76.190.228.162 - Given that your message isn't substantiated with any evidence, I would say the messenger is all that matters in your case.  Ol Yeller21 <sup style="color:#827839;">Talktome  23:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * And here I was thinking someone was having trouble making beer... Prioryman (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * hehe! Yes, that was my first thought, too! <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 23:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Im having trouble getting the boiling time of the hops just right. Any suggestions?--Racerx11 (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, not a problem! Sometimes we let our sense of humour out for a little run. Anyhow, to address your concerns (hopefully) Guy Macon has a perma-invite over to my talk page. If you imagine a room full of people, a third of whom are red-green colour-blind, a third of whom are blue-yellow colour-blind, and the remaining third can see only in monochrome, none of whom realise that there are things the others can't see, and getting annoyed and frustrated at the apparent arrogant and stubborn and obstructive stupidity of most of the rest ... there you have a close parallel. Autism-spectrum (including Asberger's people) people can miss things which are blindingly obvious to a load of other people; non-autism spectrum completely lack the ability to see (with immense speed) non-obvious details which are overwhelmingly clear to the autism group, and the remaining third lag behind both groups and can't see what any of them are going on about, which means they must all be crazy ... I think the whole world is a bit like that. It's one of the biggest reasons why one shouldn't think of high-functioning autism as any kind of disability, it's just a huge difference in thought-processing. We can't help it, and the non-auties can't help not seeing what we can see so clearly, either. That's just the way we are. <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 12:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

hrrmmmm, this appears to be a real sh*tstorm, strange as though I don't care about it anymore... especially with W disappearing from the conversation (which is exactly what needed to happen as he had no value to add to the discussion.) I've redacted a whole bunch of statements made, most as directed towards Guy. I'd like to basically remove that entire COI discussion, not that I am wrong, but I already am long on my way to making a relevant page that will completely negate the validity & "weight" of the lightning rod page, so if W get's his plug in their for some BS product, who cares... the page is garbage as it is and all his merging will be for naught anyways. As far as further redacting goes, it won't happen as I won't give W the honors of adding more "victories" to his page, as he is far from correct in any point he has made.

Guy, I'm willing to let a whole lot pass, but not if you keep putting it out there I was wrong, in attack mode & had a COI, without conceding W was even more so doing such. It does get old quickly being blamed and labeled when I clearly argued my positions based on document-able evidence, whereas W just did whatever he wanted with either no justification or blatant attacks (not sarcasm & hyperbole as you've defended). And this here is exactly what H is pointing out.

I'm not here to fight, I'm here to add credible knowledge to wiki, so wherever this little SStorm goes, I don't really care. Alright, gotta get up in 4 hours to go certify our voodoo science/fringe technology is protecting the #1 priority shipping company in the US's primary distribution hub/facility. Oh that's not right of me, I didn't do my research, they may be only #2, but that's ok, as we protect both of them anyways! ;) cheers!  Borealdreams (talk) 06:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * As I have explained to you multiple times, I did not criticize W. because my experience is that he will not listen, and I tried to help you in the hopes that you would.


 * You 'do have a conflict of interest. You have admitted it. And now you are spending a bunch of time creating a page in userspace about a product you sell while ignoring all advice about successfully creating a page on Wikipedia. Experience is a harsh teacher, but some will accept no other. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I did not start this page, nor did I ever bring it up. Whoever did is beyond me. I wasn't even online Thursday afternoon until Sunday midnight when I responded to your postings on my page as I was traveling to NH/Boston on a redeye Thursday night, then flew to Memphis Sunday evening. Can you please tell me where I am mentioning a product I sell, as I see no mention of it and there will never be a direct naming of it? PS I never told you to criticize W, I told you to reprimand him for marketing a direct product, not undo my removal of his obvious CoI. Also all my "attacks" on him were amongst substantial & credible questions I asked of "The Engineer", of which he never bothered to address, given he obviously doesn't know jack about the field, other than to promote a direct product he his a stake in... ding, ding, ding the CoI. I have made so many edits & neutral improvements to the page, yet W has not reversed any other than the CoI I removed of his... further demonstrating he has nearly zero knowledge credibility within the field. You may see it as not engaging in a battle with him, but by "punishing" me for my tangential outbursts while completely ignoring my credible arguments, you've validated W's continued poor attitude & edits without justification or defensible reasons, which is exactly the reason I went to you in the first place! Borealdreams (talk) 02:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

VenomousConcept and varieties of English
A largish portion of User:VenomousConcept's edits are dedicated to changing varieties of English to to "proper English" without "stupid Americanisms".

Explanations have included that a disease "was discovered by an Englishman" so "it's only right that proper English should be used" and that a "European battle" should be written in "correct English".

Previously claiming to understand our policy, and having been warned several times, maybe it's all a mistake. "The word is spelt incorrectly. How am I supposed to know that some particular misspelling is used by a bunch of retards in another part of the world who are incapable of using the English language correctly?" After all, can we expect editors to "sit down and learn all the misspellings, mispronunciations and misuses of grammar that are employed in another country just to keep you happy? I think not." There's more, of course.

As a silly bitch/cow (I'm a dog-cow! Crazy scientists these days) who has been invited to fuck off I have nothing more to do here. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Moof!", said Clarus -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

12 hours is quite generous as those diffs show that he fits in here about as well as pork at a passover seder. This is one of the reasons why I don't use the block tool. I would not trust myself to be too aggressive with it when it comes to crap like this. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Summer, it might amuse you to know that we have an article about the Dogcow. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ahem, "Moof!", said Clarus -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My apologies to the scientists of the world. I should have said, "I'm a dog-cow! Crazy Apple people circa 1983." - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 04:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I've just come across this from the discussion of. Consider this your wakeup call, SummerPhD. From and  it's pretty clear to me that you're now more interested in playing revert war with VenomousConcept than you are in the contents of the encyclopaedia. You didn't pay any attention to what your reversions made the encyclopaedia actually say. Focus! Uncle G (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe where Concept is from "Fuck off" is perfectly acceptable. Where I live, it means "fuck off". I've perused the Concept's edits a bit, and it's clear this is a long-term issue, and twelve hours is quite lenient, esp. given that they chose SummerPhD as a target for their venom. But here's what will happen: Concept will play nice after their block, and we can all live happily ever after. Or they don't (they again change spelling against guidelines or convention, call someone names, etc), in which case they'll be blocked for two weeks or more, possibly indefinitely. I'm sure Concept can understand my broken English. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 5 years ago, I had someone point out to me that I was doing what VenomousConcept was doing. I responded by installing the Firefox dictionary switcher. I would then cycle through all the dictionaries (us, uk, au etc) to see which spelling convention was used in the article. If it was all mixed up I would use whichever variant came first. Example, if "color" was the first variant I encountered then "labour" would be changed to "labor" if it appeared later in the article. (unless it was the British political party) Had no problems after that. If I instead responded by saying "fuck off" then things would have gone a lot different for me. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No doubt, Ron, and I'm in complete agreement with you about the lenience of a 12 hour block. IMHO, someone who responds with "fuck off," in addition to his other hostile comments, is not just another Someone Who Doesn't Quite Get What Wikipedia Is About.  That person is a jerk, plain and simple, because there's nowhere in the civilized world where such language or deportment is considered the proper way to handle disputes.  Ravenswing  04:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This mysterious world where "fuck off" is a neutral comment is somewhere this bitchcow doesn't need to visit anytime soon. Anyway, hopefuly this thred/block is enuff of a wakeup call for VenimousConsept and well all walk off, hand-and-hand intwo the sunset toogether. ETA: Rats! I should have said something about behavior. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 04:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything wrong with those diffs. As Favonian later said, the primary title used in the article should generally follow the article title and I'm AGF that SummerPhD claims that both are used in sources is accurate. Were you perhaps mislead by VenomousConcept's edit summary that said "so you think it should read 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra, also translated as Thus Spoke Zarathustra"? If so look carefully as the article never said that, at least not that SummerPhD reverted recently. In fact, it said and says (emphasis added)
 * Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for All and None (also translated as "Thus Spoke Tharathustra" ....
 * and there's nothing wrong with that. If Spoke is also translated as Spake, then it seems to me the article should reflect this, but VenomousConcept's method of trying to add it clearly wasn't the right way. Nil Einne (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You should pay more attention, too, Nil Einne. VenemousConcept wasn't the person who added the alternative translation, and the words that you've boldfaced aren't the very clear &mdash; from the diffs &mdash; subject of the revert war.  No, the revert war was very obviously SummerPhD seeing an edit by VenomousConcept, and reverting it solely because it was by VenomousConcept, not because it corrected the article in any way.  Uncle G (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just some observations:
 * The AfD seems sound on its face - it is a stub that is more of a definition than an article - just really, really bad timing.
 * VenomousConcept's rebuttal to it makes a blatant statement of assuming bad faith on SummerPhD's part. Frankly, as pointed to above, it looks odd, but the definition is valid at this point for PRODing and AfD making the shot uncalled for.
 * Thus Spoke Zarathustra should be at the discussion point after VenomousConcept's bold change was contested. Not a continuation of trying to get the lead and the first paragraph to not match the article's title. IMO SummerPhD's actions are more in line with maintaining the integrity of the article as it currently stands. If VenomousConcept wants "Thus Spake Zarathustra" in the text, the either a list of alternate translations needs to be included - that's a 1 time thing - or the article needs to be moves.
 * - J Greb (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You haven't read the lead, either. That makes three of you.  Good grief!  You make it fairly apparent why editors become frustrated to the point that they do what VenemousConcept did.  You aren't paying attention, and your analysis is patently flawed to anyone who has actually bothered to look at the edit history.  Open your eyes and actually read what was being written in the lead by SummerPhD, and at least make the effort to find out .  It's no wonder that VenomousConcept thinks to call people names who act like this.  You're not thinking or even reading.  Stop demonstrating such foolishness, and editors won't get so annoyed with your ineptitude to the point that they swear at you.  You're an administrator.  You're supposed to be  capable of reading diffs and following an edit history.  Uncle G (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * VC and Summer seem to be cooperating at Talk:Bank of England. Maybe if we go away now and not try to highlight who did what to who here it would help? I don't think anyone is asking for an Administrator to use their tools, so this should be continued elsewhereDougweller (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't think that anyone is asking for administrators to use administrator tools? I remind you that I arrived here from an on-going AFD discussion initiated by one of these editors against an article written by the other.  That's asking for use of administrator tools, right there.  Uncle G (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Moves of anime and manga demographics categories against prior consesus
User:Armbrust listed some anime and manga demographics categories at Categories for discussion/Speedy (this is my first experience with that subpage, so I don't really know how it works). He has now started moving the articles in those categories. I explained to him on his talk page that the old names were decided by consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Archive_45 and Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_21, and that I didn't think the new names made sense. However, he just removed my comment without a reply and kept moving the categories. I don't think the categories should be moved from the titles which previously had a consensus without a new discussion. Can someone please get him to stop moving the pages against consensus and get him to start discussing the moves. Calathan (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If a category is listed at WP:CFDS for more than 48 hours without objection and passes the speedy criteria, than it is speedy renamed. The categories were also tagged, and everything went according to the rules. The mentioned CFD was almost two years ago, and consensus can changed. Also in this CFD, the categories were not change from "FOO anime and manga" to "FOO manga", thus this move isn't event going against that consensus. (BTW also does this moving and this thread should be at WP:AN and not WP:ANI.) Armbrust, B.Ed. <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Let's talk <sub style="color:#008000;">about my edits?  16:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, no one informed the anime and manga wikiproject about the listing there. I don't think the people with knowledge of those subjects even saw the page during those 48 hours (as I mentioned, I hadn't even heard of that page before it showed up in edit summaries in my watchlist).  I don't think there is any evidence that consensus has changed, and think a new discussion is necessary.  Plus, I gave some other reasons I don't think the move should happen on your talk page.  Just because the listings went unnoticed on the speedy move page doesn't mean they should be moved when the new names don't make sense.  Calathan (talk) 16:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Than feel free to nominate the renamed categories (after the rename has finished). Armbrust, B.Ed. <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Let's talk <sub style="color:#008000;">about my edits? 16:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Armbrust expanded his comment while I was posting my above comment, so I'm replying to the second half of his comment. I'm posting here because you are continuing to place pages in the new category, when I think you should hold off and discuss this (see Special:Contributions/Armbrust).  If this should have been at WP:AN, someone can feel free to move it, but I posted here because I thought quick intervention was needed becasue you were actively editing the pages.  I still think it is inappropriate to continue with the move without discussion after I explained reasons why I think it doesn't make sense.  Since it looks like a simple objection is enough to stop a WP:CFDS move, I would assume an objection after the fact is also sufficient to require a discussion (similar to how prod works). Calathan (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment as closing admin As stated by User:Armbrust, the categories were listed for 48 hours on the Categories for discussion/Speedy page - here is that page immediately before I moved them for processing. They met all the requirements for a speedy rename, namely that the new names were based on the conventions of the category tree, the nomination had been open for at least 48 hours, and nobody had objected (one user suggested an alternative new name for an individual category which was accepted by the proposer but there was not substantial objection). In such circumstances they were fit for processing. These categories are some of the slowest to process - I believe this is because many of the individual articles are rather large. Consequently despite being over three hours since they were listed on the working page, the bot is still only on the first of these categories and is committed to keep going until all the articles in these categories have been moved, no matter how long it takes. In such circumstances all help in processing the move is welcomed as it speeds things up and allows the rest of the CFD decisions to be implemented. It's not a question of if but when. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. Now that I've objected though, can the categoy pages be moved back (similar to how deleted prods are restored upon request), or is a discussion necessary to move them since they sat there for 48 hours.  The process sounds like a prod-like process to me, where a simple objection stops it, but is it more of a binding decision like an XFD discussion?  Would moving the category pages back stop the bot from going through the individual articles and moving them? Calathan (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * For clarification, the moves I'm objecting to are the moves of the Shōnen manga, Shōjo manga, Seinen manga, Josei manga, and Children's manga categories. I'm not objecting to the moves of the other categories. Calathan (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If any admin or experienced user can explain to me (here or on my talk page) whether a CFD is the right way to try to get these categories changed back, or if there is another way to have them moved back, I would greatly appreciate it. It still isn't quite clear to me if just objecting after the fact should get them moved back, like how you can object after the fact to a prod and get the article restored (since no discussion took place).  Regardless, with Timrollpickering's explanation, I don't think I want any admin action against Armbrust, so this discussion can probably be closed unless anyone else has more to say.  However, Armbrust, in the future when someone posts on your talk page and says they don't understand or agree with what you are doing, please don't just blow them off without a reply and continue on doing what you were doing. Calathan (talk) 18:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid the bot will just keep going until it's moved them - we're in a grey area because normally the time between closure & finishing processing is much shorter so there's little in the way of precedents to abort a processing and discuss anew. Because of the sheer length of time this processing is taking I'd be reluctant to do any further moves on these categories before more discussions take place. Normally once a discussion is closed it's binding, though in any subsequent discussions admins will take into account how recent a change was made. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to go ahead and create a CFD on these categories. By the time the CFD closes, the current moves should be done.  Thank you for the help. Calathan (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

If the bot is mucking with 100's or 1000's of articles because of a catmove that shouldn't have been done, can someone block it / reset it / whatever? Me, I find it pretty annoying that such a large move could take place without a more substantial discussion. 67.117.144.57 (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Except the move was wholly within process - whether or not it needs to be moved back is another matter. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Meh, process should never get in the way of doing the right thing. However, it looks like enough people (including some who I know are clueful about this stuff) commented on the CFD supporting the move, that stopping the bot probably would have been dubious.  It had sounded like it was just one or two people, in which case I'd have said contact them and discuss the issue.  Spewing yet another N thousand useless edits into the diff stream isn't the end of the world, but it's also not completely inconsequential.  67.117.144.57 (talk) 05:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you are misunderstanding a little. The current CFD is the one I started to get the move undone.  There wasn't a discussion supporting the move before hand, just a listing on CFDS with no comments about these categories.  Still, stopping the bot probably wouldn't have made sense as it was most of the way done when you first commented, and it really isn't a problem to have the categories moved back later. Calathan (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat
All my recent edits were reverted by this user for no reason. What can I do? 119.237.156.246 (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, you could try talking to him about it and asking him why he reverted you. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, since you seem to have missed the bit about notifying people you report here, I have notified him of this thread. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

An anonymous Hong Kong IP playing revert wars on the same pages as previous blocked Hong Kong IPs and arguing on talk pages? How surprising. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC).
 * Indeed; obvious Instantnood socks are obvious. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 03:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Can someone kill it? SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Therequiembellishere
Editor above was warned to control his tongue (very politely, and i also asked to discuss and started a section at Talk: George Tupou V) after this. He then believes he OWNS the article (vs. WP:WRONGVERSION and BRD), he then imposes his whim and asserts no sources are needed for what he believes as eternal truth, then culminates after warning with a blatant NPA
 * In case its just me the same exists on other royalty pages on his premise against WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.Lihaas (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Looking at the edit summaries you have provide, I think you are exaggerating. Leaky  Caldron  19:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In what way? He was warned and THEN abuses? that he wants HIS version (that was explicitly said)?Lihaas (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree I think Lihaas is making too much out of nothing here and is bordering on edit warring on the page with more than just the editor he has brought this dispute over. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 19:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Don't be a total ass"--well, I guess sometimes that's a personal attack but it is sooooo mild that I can't see this is a big deal. Does everyone who farts when someone else can hear it have to be brought before ANI? Drmies (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * God knows i havent pioneered that...even ive farted before ;)
 * saying "dont be a total ass" is civil and conducieve to discussion?
 * How in any way/form/mean is : "but I will absolutely not let you slide this by as the status quo until you are convinced" --> per WP:WRONGVERSION and BOLD edits mean BRD to get consensus not to stick to one way with an abject refusal ("I don't need an RS") to use cite and go to the whims of one WP editor who thinks hes god almighty professor be acceptable on ANY level? If WP was owned by editors without any citations god knows the kind of suff laden with pov that would be here.
 * Further, despite the fact that said user would rather abuse and impose his status quo while hypocritically saying he wont tolerate "mine" (that is in line with BRD too) there is a discussion on the talk page with OTHER editors and an easy accomodation "you could just wait until the facts are known" instead of warring and adamentally refuse the need to even cite or accomodate.
 * Any rate, im just calling for discussion not imposing anything or reverting/warring...at the very LEAST a warning/slight reprimand is in order id think for deliberately ignoring and using said summaries repeatedly without consensus building
 * For the record, ALL three articles he reverts to have his "expert" opinion as the status quo ...which is in stark contrast to his words "i will not havve YOUR version being the status quo" (emphasis added)
 * See the talk page and CIVIL discussion with others (as i asked)...was that hard? did he need to blow his top with language? i was going to withdraw this but i wont...hes still wrong and ill wait for an admin to see itLihaas (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This particular admin has reviewed the edits complained of, and there's nothing to see I'm afraid Lihaas. There is some minor intemperance in edit summaries (I have asked the editor concerned to tone them down.) Otherwise, nothing actionable here. <font face="century gothic" color="#0E6E2D">Kim Dent-Brown  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0E6E2D">(Talk)  08:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

RPP on The Midnight Beast
We appear to have a twitter organized vandalism spree at this page, I've listed it at RPP but two hugglers have been unable to keep up with it all. Fast-paced-multi-IP editing that is decimating the article. <font color="#00008B">Pol430 talk to me 21:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * On the assumption that the registered editors who are also vandalising it are not autoconfirmed, I've semi-protected it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Boing! From what i could see most of them are new accounts today, so semi should do the trick. <font color="#00008B">Pol430 talk to me 21:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, all new - and now all indef blocked as vandalism-only accounts. I'll keep it on my watchlist for when the protection expires. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Activity on Joachim Gauck
I ask that an admin intervene with the scenario on this article. It is about the newly elected German president so edits come in thick and fast. Because this individual originates from once-East German territory, there is the usual recipe for conflicting usage. I have tried (with the most recent edits) to clean the article by removing terms such as "dictatorship" and "regime" which are either WEASEL words, or blatantly-POV. No party uses such terms for themselves. Be that as it may, there is hardly ever a situation where they cannot be avoided. For example, I favour state over dictatorship when the term is being used for "country"; here, "dictatorship" (sourced or not) is just a provocation. I may appear at this stage to be edit-warring but a closer look will reveal that I have made changes even to my own edits. I have also been accused of vandalism by one of the others involved, User:Josh Gorand who also described me as disruptive. I am certainly not here to report my own self but I know that further edits by me on the same topic might only be detremental. This is why I ask that an admin look at my edits, and those which revert me, and decide which is best. I would be grateful. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The only ongoing problem with this article is your unilateral edits against several other editors. The discussion on the talk page agreed that dictatorship was the appropriate term, and is the term used by the source. You cannot change it to a term of your own choice, ignoring what the source says, ignoring the discussion on the talk page. Regime is a neutral term in English as explained to you, used in thousands of Wikipedia articles. Josh Gorand (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Regime isn't neutral as I too have explained, and consensus is irrelevant. Everyone knows that a one-party system spells dictatorship but was that the subject? Gauck has misfortune with East Germany alone, that was a country, we already stated "totalitarian" so unless you can explain what a "totalitarian system that isn't a dictatorship" is, I fail to see where the "consensus" helps this context. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 00:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, consensus is not "irrelevant". Consensus is the relevant issue. It is explained on the talk page why dictatorship is the correct and appropriate term in the specific context, changing it to "contributed to the downfall of the Soviet-backed state of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany" is misleading, the key issue is the downfall of the party dictatorship referred to as the SED Dictatorship by the German government (months before the state ceased to exist). Josh Gorand (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Look at the full picture. First the "dictatorship" falls, in other words, the government. The fall of the government means that another form of governance has replaced it, that body in turn is West Germany (FRG), so East has fallen and Germany has "reunified", the state fell. Or atleast the government if anything else. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 00:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) The dictatorship of the SED party fell 2) East Germany became democratic and had a democratic election 3) Only several months later, East Germany ceased to exist as a state. The relevant issue was Gauck's contribution to the downfall of the party dictatorship (aka the Peaceful Revolution), not the state. Josh Gorand (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I will leave "dictatorship" per consensus. I may yet edit the page but it will be aimed at improving the article not looking for conflict with editors. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 00:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:DR is thatway. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 00:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Returning sock of User:Xanderliptak?
Oddly, this user has uploaded an image created by long-banned (an image which was previously deleted, partially due to his attempts to rescind copyright licencing, partly because of his insistence that they retain his signature). Xanderliptak has socked before, this won't be the first time. Yes, I'll go to SPI if necessary but this user only just popped up on my radar and should be nipped in the bud. → ROUX   ₪  05:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm calling that . Also and  are the same editor. He's also logging out to edit-war -  A l is o n  ❤ 05:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Both blocked, a couple of images G5ed, checking for others. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * JDF6574 also exists at Commons, created in November, and one coat-of-arms thing uploaded: No Pratt232 at Commons, as near as I can tell. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Doesn't appear he uploaded that, just edited the description. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It was uploaded by an editor with a suspiciously (though possibly coincidentally) similar name, and who remains active, has done a lot of coat-of-arms work, and has never been blocked: ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Haven't seen this before
Could anyone available please take a look at the second paragraph in this section Macbeth. There is some obvious vandalism (Harry Potter etc) there when you read it. But when you go into edit the section it isn't there. The vandalism might be in a template somewhere but I don't have a clue where to go to find it. Thanks to any of you who can track this down. MarnetteD | Talk 15:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see it... perhaps your cache needs to be refreshed? The vandalism was reverted by ClueBot. 28bytes (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I must have been caught in between versions. It did disappear after I went into the edit history and found ClueBots reversion. Thanks again for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 15:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Badmachine Blocked
I blocked for a week for obvious trolling and bating of. Badmachine's trolling only made this situation worse. -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  03:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Why has been blocked here? I see "Obvious trolling and bating" (sic) in the block log but, given that Badmachine hasn't edited in some days now, it's clear that this block was entirely punitive and serves no purpose at this point. He's a long-term constructive editor in good standing here and his only failing appears to have been having penis pics on his talk page. Something which, as I pointed out on his talk page, shows the rank hypocrisy of WP, given the current state of Wikimedia Commons. Seriously - this block achieved nothing here, other than blocking a constructive editor -  A l is o n  ❤ 05:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Badmachine has commented on his talk page and is understandably confused about the block. Frankly, so am I. I've unblocked him now, for the reasons stated here. I'm not going to wheel-war on this, so feel free to reinstate if you must, but this block is totally uncalled-for here - A l is o n  ❤ 05:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I replied to Alison on my talk page because I saw her note there first. It is nice to know that encouraging people to sock is OK these days. -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  05:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And I've replied there. Also, BTW, I was asked by another admin to run a check on NR and, other than the one POINTy sock, there are no others. Given BM had stopped editing days ago and had already disconnected prior to this, I utterly fail to see what your block was to achieve here other than being punitive - A l is o n  ❤ 06:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In the diff linked I see no encouragement to sock, rather, the opposite unless I'm misunderstanding something.  Snowolf How can I help? 06:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * i did not encourage NR to sock. -badmachine 06:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * From the comments on NR's talk page it looks to me like Badmachine encouraged NR to NOT sock. This was a bad block and deserves a trout. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Alison. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Another issue to deal with again
This time, things have gone out of hand again. I didn't know that under an interaction ban, you weren't allowed to revert another editors edit's if there's an interaction ban between the both of you. I'm now getting tired of this. This issue between me and Dave1185 will never seem to stop. First this editor threatens me to report me to ANI, then proceeds with an outburst over something incorrect I've done and at the same time accusing me of violating numerous things.  Please note that I only recently contacted an interest in Aircraft, hence my edit to the Northrop F-5 Article, and not knowing that you weren't allowed to revert someone else's edits when you are with an interaction ban with them. Point taken, and I don't need to say sorry, since we are all on the learning curve, just like I am with some other editors and some admins. As a result of this, I hereby propose of an indefinite interaction ban between me and Dave 1185 if our differences continue to clash and us hurling vulgarity and throwing silly arguments worth no value. If there's another issue, please note it. Thank you. Abhijay What did I do this time? 02:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's a positive reading of things: Abhijay acquires an interest in a big and mean fighter plane, reverts Dave's edits while his mind was elsewhere. Dave responds, to which Abhijay responds, etc. etc. I propose that Abhijay accidentally reverted Dave, that Dave hastily warned Abhijay, that the escalating responses were typed overzealously on both sides, and that apologies from both sides, in as few words as possible, here in this ANI thread, will settle the thing. And we can all move along, and no one will get blocked, and etc etc. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (e/c) There's already an interaction ban; it doesn't need to be extended, it needs to be followed. It appears you're clear on reverting now.  That said, if Dave1185 continues with this ridiculous, over-the-top, almost cartoon-like aggression, I'll block him from editing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * p.s. I've notified Dave1185. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Floquenbeam, I think you should just proceed with a block/indefinite block. Given the ongoing problems with Dave's maturity, he's just here to screw around, just like what happened with Spongefrog. Why should we trust an editor such as Dave who with such insolence attacks anyone for making a gentle and small error. I would have to be a complete idiot to not realize if I couldn't see I did something wrong, and yet Dave1185 feigns innocence while at the same proceeding with threats and other things.  His comic-like attitude is very disturbing and has even over-reacted to other editors such as Kober when Kober spoke in Georgian. But lets put that to one side. I think a block is suitable for Dave because he's just screwing around, his maturity is a major issue and behaves the same way with other editors (including myself).  Abhijay  What did I do this time? 03:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Smell blood, huh Abhijay? Your thoughtless edit started this latest round of The Dumbest Feud In The World(TM), so now's not a good time to try your luck at Admin Roulette.  That's the last time you get to suggest a block of Dave1185, is that understood? I wish I had a dollar for every minute of other people's time you two have wasted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, absolutely, Floquenbeam is right: were I to have made an obvious blunder such as revert an edit of an editor with whom I was under an interaction ban (what exactly would that encompass aside from a ban on all interaction?), I figure my best bet would be a meek and 'umble apology, followed by slinking off for a week until the dust settled. It would not be to follow up with an exhortation to block the guy.  Think of this as an analogous situation to WP:AUTO - if his current behavior is egregious enough to warrant a block, no doubt some admin will notice without your assistance.  Ravenswing  05:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In the mean time, I'll go and mind with my own business elsewhere. I will stay away from Dave1185 at the moment, and I guess it's now an admin business to take look into the uncivility he's been hurling. Floquenbeam, you carry on with whatever is it you need to do with Dave1185. Now that this matter is now in admin hands, I will not want my entire day to be ruined just because of an editor. Thank you Ravenswing, and other admins present here for your points presented, I hope this will be dealt without my points. In the mean time, I would like to retierate that it was only one gentle error made and it's been realised and dealt with. I want to say sorry for ruining your 'meals' today because of this, and I don't want to upset you guys over this, and neither do I want to ruin mine because of Dave1185. Have a nice day. Abhijay  What did I do this time? 07:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * On another note of Dave1185's cartoon-like behavior, take a look at this: . Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhijay (talk • contribs)
 * I've blocked Dave1185 for 2 days for that gem. Gloating will result in a symmetrical block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ...aaaand I've blocked Abhijay for 2 days for gloating on Dave's talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know the backstory between Dave and Abhijay (I've only had positive interactions with Dave in the past), but in my experience Abhijay has a knack of escalating minor issues into major grudges — see and Wikipedia_talk:ITN. He claims to 'learn from it' when his mistakes are pointed out, but never seems to. I seriously believe we are dealing with a competence issue and I think we need to consider mentorship for Abhijay. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Block Review Request
Dave has published a fullsome apology, like the commentator above I've only ever had positive interactions with Dave and can only see his outburst as out of character. WP:NPA doesn't require suspension of disbelief and from what I see of Abhijay's interactions with Dave eg as trolling. In contrast, Dave started out with a more than polite message. Whilst the admin who declined the block gives a good reason, cooling off, Dave already appears to have done so - hence the apology. Concerned that the block is now punitive rather than preventative. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that the block is now moot, as Abhijay has indicated on his talk page he has retired. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is quite as one-sided as that, as both were being childish and insulting with each other despite being under an interaction ban - and I've seen Abhijay generally being very positive too. Also, I didn't actually decline their two unblock requests for "cooling off". I thought the two of them needed their full time on the naughty step to properly feel what it is like to be forced away from each other, and so minimize the possibility of their breaking their interaction ban again once their blocks were lifted (and it was in keeping with the blocking admin's suggestion on Abhijay's Talk page). But there's only a couple of hours to go now, and if anyone wishes to unblock early, that would be fine with me - I'd just ask they they unblock both editors at the same time (saying "retired" doesn't necessarily mean anything - teenagers get angry like that all the time). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all I would like to apologise to Boing! as I failed to give him notice on his talk page that I was posting here. I was about to correct that when I noticed he'd replied here.  Secondly, whilst Dave has apologised and is thinking of taking a break, Abhijay hasn't responded in anywhere near as mature a manner eg  fuck this, i'm now going to retire forever..  Lets not forget Abhijay violated the 1 month interaction ban the second it expired.  The reason for Dave's block is no longer valid and so I'd ask his block be lifted.  I'm not 100% sure about the other party but happy to leave it to others judgement.  Wee Curry Monster talk 12:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries - since I reviewed their unblock requests, I've had this page watchlisted :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Any admin who thinks we're better off unblocking now can do so without my approval, and without needing lots of discussion here first; I'm not precious about blocks I make, and my judgement certainly isn't perfect. FWIW, my opinion is that we might be better off having both blocks remain in force until they expire, mostly for the reason BsZ gives above.  I don't interpret Dave's unblock request as optimistically as WCM. Regardless of whether the blocks are undone, or expire, I suppose if neither editor is going to see the light, then a full-blown, strictly-interpreted, zero-tolerance interaction ban should remain in place forever. But I note both editors have had similar problems with other editors (just not nearly to this magnitude), and allowing the blocks to expire might send a message that we're serious about further similar behavior with other editors not being tolerated. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC) p.s. note that the blocks were for 48 hours, so we're not a couple of hours away from expiration, we're one day away, in case that makes a difference. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not an optimist, I'm a stubborn, curmudgeonly old cynic. The one thing I do know about Dave is he keeps his word, if he's apologised he meant it.  He's not the type to weasel out of anything with a faked apology.  The interaction ban is a good idea, however, you miss the point that the first thing Abhijay did when the last one expired was to violate it.  I don't think continuing with the block is serving the community and if its violated again the blocks will be longer next time.  Hence, I don't see the current block as anything other than punitive at this point; if anything the message is that a sincere apology is a waste of time.  Do we really want to send that message?  Wee Curry Monster talk 13:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (Oh yes, there's another day to go - I had it in my mind that it was the 19th today -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC))

Abhijay still commenting on Dave in violation of IBAN during block
One would think that while blocked for an interaction ban violation, he wouldn't even dare to mention the person he's under an interaction ban with. But apparently not... Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed Abhijay's ability to edit his talk page for the duration of the block -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Good grief. Concur. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Doesn't that kinda validate my point that Dave didn't appear to be the principle aggressor here and given he's apologised and made an undertaking not to repeat, doesn't his block now appear punitive? Wee Curry Monster talk 17:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Dave regards me as kind of an unofficial mentor or role model. (I'll pause here to let the snickering subside) ... I don't think ethnic labeling of other users is a wise thing to be doing, unless they bring it on themselves somehow. We disagree on other things as well. But I think it's fair to say that neither of us "suffers fools gladly." And we're both aware that we sometime step over the civility line, and pay the price for it, and pledge to do better. But we're not perfect. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Will Dave tone it down? Is he aware of the boundaries of individual expression (let's call it that) in this place? I think I've seen good work from him, and I was surprised at the lengthy dramahtribes. If he doesn't see what was wrong with his warnings and reports, he's in for more trouble. Thanks Bugs, Drmies (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You may find his comments on the matter this morning to be of some interest. He said his own wife told him he went overboard. I'm guessing that opinion trumps any opinions here. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Radiopathy's uncollaborative behavior

 * is locus of dispute.
 * is locus of dispute.

Radiopathy's behavior recently has been quite bothersome. The following problems need to be addressed. I first tried to handle this without bringing it to others, but he didn't wish to engage constructively, so I am seeking advise on how to handle this. The following problems are happening:


 * personal attacks: Calls me "ignorant" and an "idiot".


 * Refuses to use sources to back up his preferred version of an article, ignores sources when he is provided with them: (see discussion at links above)


 * Changes comments of other people to give them new meaning:

What is most problematic is the refusal of this user to abide by both established policy like WP:ENGVAR and WP:MOS and refusal to provide any evidence or sources that his preffered use of language in an article is correct. When faced with source material to back up something, he insults me and then refuses to provide his own. I am fully willing to consider sources provided by him, but his stance appears be that he doesn't have to provide any. I am concerned with how to handle his beligerant and uncooperative behavior here. I am looking for opinions on what needs to happen here. -- Jayron  32  17:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * 3+ years experience and over 12,000 edits = this editor should know better. I left a link to WP:NPA on his talk to review.  Hopefully it was just a matter of him having a bad day; but we'll see. — Ched : <font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000fa;"> ?  18:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input, but the insults are of minor concern. The real concern here is his refusal to provide sources for his position, and his dismissal of sources others have provided.  The issue is that he states his position on the matter is correct merely and only because he states that it is, and that sources others provide are irrelevent, because he says they are.  This position is not compatible with Wikipedia's core values, for refusal to collaborate and for refusal to engage with source material in any way.  Wikipedia articles are not written a certain way merely because Radiopathy states that they should be written that way.  What I am looking for is outside input as to what should be done to handle his obstinancy in this matter.  Calling me an idiot is of no great consequence.  Refusal to accept Wikipedia's basic principles of how to solve disputes by using source texts is.  -- Jayron  32  19:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The insults are symptomatic of the attitude, which is a tired "I've discussed this to death, and don't want to waste my time explaining this all over again to each successive new person that comes along.". I can understand such frustration.  I can even understand the notion of using a singular verb for a proper noun that denotes one corporate entity.  (It's a non-trivial linguistic point, that is subtler than the explanations that we are taught in primary school.)  I can also sympathize with how badly such brush-offs are received, however.  It's not good to be on the receiving end, and you have my sympathy.  Uncle G (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Radiopathy has engaged in similar uncooperative, beligerent behavior over the same subject at Eagles (band), disregarding sources provided to him and offering none to support his argument (see User talk:Piriczki). By the way, he was placed under an indefinite 0RR restriction here and I see no indication it was ever lifted. Piriczki (talk) 18:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The Eagles discussion was one and one half years ago and the 0RR restriction went stale about a year ago. If you're going to try to divert the conversation, at least do a little research and try to stay current. <font color="#006600">R <font color="#0D8147">ad <font color="#009966">io <font color="#009999">pa <font color="#1E99CC">th <font color="#67B2DE ">y  •talk•  00:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * And continues to insist he's right over and over at Talk:Red Hot Chili Peppers.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Given the 0RR restriction and history of past problems of this exact type, is there any reason why, if he reverts again, he shouldn't be blocked? -- Jayron  32  18:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Jouannet
Here is my notification regarding the spoiling-like edit of Thomas Jouannet (diffs:), made by Bgwhite, Drmies, TenPoundHammer and other editors, notorious for their deletion activity.

They demonstratively deleted most of filmography related material and biographical details, also all the references, including the French ones, in obvious contradiction with other actors' pages. Also some similar practice on Alexandra Lamy' stub (diffs:). Their "improvements", including deletion requests, were "firmly within policy".

The w-donors-IRS controversy will be debated externally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coagulans (talk • contribs) 10:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So, 3 long-time editors want something out, and 1 shorter-term one wants it in ... besides the fact that this is a content dispute that should follow WP:DR, have you read WP:CONSENSUS yet? ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 10:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It's very good that they did so. The page was originally a cornucopia of BLP violations. Less importantly, it was an ugly, cluttered mess containing very poor English and even contained a Flash GIF, which made the entire article unreadable on iOS devices. This actor is not notable enough to have scurrilous gossip about his private life - and especially not his income!!! - bandered about on Wikipedia, even if said scurrilous gossip were sourced to reliable third parties, which this was NOT. Strongly suggest that User:Coagulans read WP:BLP and WP:MOS before editing again, because none of that was "firmly within policy". None of it. None. --NellieBly (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is for encyclopedia articles, not for fanpages: I have a very, very hard time believing that this would be an acceptable page on Wikipedia. --MuZemike 15:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good lord. If I knew the proper procedure for speedy deletion of templates, the one on that page would be up for nuking already as completely unnecessary and non-notable.  Do we need a huge navbox template where there's only ONE bluelink in the entire box?  rdfox 76 (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The real loss is this, File:Dunantanimation.gif, removed by some deletionist admin who had no feeling. The image received various interpretations on my talk page, which is indicative of the polyvalence of the work of art in question. BTW, I am perfectly happy to have the IRS monitor my activities and reprimand me for it, if that's in accordance with Wikipedia's laws and federal guidelines, or the other way around. Drmies (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm  really upset that the OP didn't mention my edits to the article and my comment on the talk page. What does one have to do to get attention these days? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Huh. I'd struck out the OP's hostile and soapboxy rant from the talk page, but I hadn't seen what the main page had looked like after the OP was done with his work.  If ever we needed to amend WP:NOT to include "Wikipedia is not Tumblr," that would be the poster child for the change.  Ravenswing  06:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I think, after the second ANI post below, a block is necessary, as Coagulans is now simply not going to listen to or take advice from other editors, nor understand that Wikipedia is not a fanspace; WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT comes into play. --MuZemike 13:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Thomas Jouannet
IRWolfie- tagged my notification on Talk:Thomas Jouannet as Personal attack, justified with a distorted summary of its content. Priorly, Ravenswing had tagged ("struck out") my notif as vandalism but then he overtly declared not having read the targeted article -spoiled by Drmies and Bgwhite (diffs:) : "I hadn't seen what the main page had looked like ...". Finally, Edward321 tagged the spoiled article "likely to be deleted". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coagulans (talk • contribs) 12:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a bit creepy
A couple of days ago, User:Chiton magnificus misunderstood a comment I made to another editor and issued a misplaced warning. This included a comment that I was being talked about in other forums as being a "hardcore falklander" or "British agent". I have asked him to explain his comments twice and  but he has declined. Whilst the misplaced warning is a stale issue, I remain rather creeped out that my editing is being discussed on these forums and editors here are participating. My editing does seem to have been targeted by sock and meat puppets of late eg User:Abenyosef and User:Gaba p. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC) I suspect "forums" is intended to mean it in the sense of "forums on Wikipedia" - not external sites. At least that is how the comment reads to me. --Errant (chat!) 15:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm suprised that you are suprised. My own experience of you is that supplying references that disagree with your view can be a pretty unpleasant experience. Tom Pippens (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I couldn't recall any interaction with you and had to resort to Google to find it. Is this it?  Please could you identify why you thought I was unpleasant to you?  As to be honest I'm mystified why you thought I was unpleasant to you, or for that matter what point you were making.  Do you think this justifies what is going on? Wee Curry Monster talk 14:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The same thing happens to me. I forget about some users who, for whatever reason, remember me for a long time. Back on topic, I have a similar experience with users from a certain nationality. I doubt anything can be done here to actually help you out, but I'd recommend you to avoid placing your exact location, date of birth, etc., with your real name and your account name (Don't use the name "wee curry monster" for anything outside Wikipedia). I've known Chiton for some time, and could probably vouch for him as a generally well-intentioned person and good contributor. However, given the existence of a forum, for all we know the other people could actually be dangerous. I did a research once on this topic (internet stalking), and found a series of sad cases where people seriously got hurt (needless to say, some ended up dead). The main problem was that people did not take it seriously; one feels protected by the computer screen. However, the internet nowadays is a dangerous tool for stalkers and people with bad intentions (anyone can see whatever you post on the internet; even the best of security programs can't stop the best hackers). So, just watch what you write about yourself in the internet. Hope this helps. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | <font color="Olive">T <font color="Silver">al <font color="Olive">k 15:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The forum I mentioned exists. I shouldnt surprise anybody that some contributors to wikipedia are discussed outside it (for example many users, including administrators use IRC to discuss some users). I would have known that WCM would react this way I would never have revealed the existense of such forum. It was a mistake.


 * For the sake of clarification I do not engage in such forums and do not support their use (or even visit) in any case. I believe they are contrary to the spirit of wikipedia. If WCM wants to explore the shadowy WP underground I can not help him. Chiton magnificus (talk) 00:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Chiton wrote:
 * I do not engage in such forums and do not support their use (or even visit) in any case. (00:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC))
 * as it has been speculated in some forums (00:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC))
 * Chiton, if you don't visit such forums, how can you know what they especulate?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 12:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not satisfied with that reply, if you don't visit such forums, then how can you tell me what they contain? Wee Curry Monster talk 12:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Need administrative help
I know this may be a subject of dislike for most of the people. But I presume that someone may have some technical help for me.

I added some information regarding "Human's similarity to herbivores". Apparently, all my sources (mostly MD or PhD) amounted to a "vegan propaganda". I am not a Vegan. I'm really in support of truth. But simply claiming that my whole contribution is a "propaganda" is not likely an adequate reason for removal of the whole section.

My question is a fairly simple one, Is calling/labelling my edits as "propaganda" a sufficient ground for undoing all my changes(~16,503 bytes diff)? Visit this history page and the talk page. Please do something soon. They are repeatedly deleting my additions. Without actually discussing it with me or providing any reliable source that claims anything contradictory regarding human anatomy. --<font face="verdana" color="#0000FF">DrYouMe  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk?)   15:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your problem here seems to be compound, but I suspect that the major part of it is the undue weight which your additions gave to that subject within the article on herbivores. <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 16:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

"An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."


 * There are also no reliable sources for the contribution, just a webpage for a vegetarian organisation, earthsave.ca. User also engaged in a edit war, already violating the 3RR rule, and deleted my last comment in the talk page with a link to a debunk of Mr. Mills article (by a vegan even) http://veganskeptic.blogspot.com/2010/10/are-humans-omnivores.html--Mihaiam (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Pop-up shows only 396 edits, though, so some unfamiliarity with the way we do things here is to be expected. A bit of kind mentoring is probably the best way to go.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 16:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I did post a message on User:Mrt3366 talk page. Looks like it was deleted as "removing needless messages" without self-reverting.--Mihaiam (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've posted the welcome-with-huge-links-list there; hopefully this editor ca\n get something useful out of it. Also a link to adoption for consideration.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 16:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ... aaaand it's all just been summarily deleted! So much for trying to help!  Mind you, the editor opens their talk page with "Try not to write anything on this page unless you're absolutely sure that bringing your thoughts to my knowledge is a necessity for me. I am trying to keep it empty (mostly)," so maybe we shouldn't be surprised.  Not very open to communication. <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 16:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I find it highly ironic that they refer to articles they edit as "my articles" and then goes on to link to WP:OWN. Blackmane (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Their user page creeped me out a little too. At the bottom is says something like "This editor has been informed of your visit". I left with the strange feeling as if I had entered a place where I was not welcome, and that there may be consequences if I do it again. Overall the atmosphere at his user page and talk page do not appear to be conducive to working productively within a collaborative project. Racerx11 (talk) 18:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed the irony of "my articles" in such close conjunction with WP:OWN. And the generally unwelcoming atmosphere.  BUT' ... the editor is still a relative newbie, and obviously isn't very comfortable with social / sociable interactions.  This may change; I don't think we can just write them off. Mrt3366/DrYouMe, if you're reading, you're more than welcome to wander over to my talk page and just lurk if you like, or join in if you like.  We're a slightly unusual bunch over my way (I'm a HFA myself), but we're not a bad lot, and between us we have years of experience and a huge range of skills and interests.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 18:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure--but Pesky, you're a crumpet. You could get away with murder. Drmies (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * [Pesky subjects Drmies to forcibly-applied granny-hugz and skips off, cackling merrily ...] <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 20:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like he got a sockpuppet, User:Topy1991, to reinstate his change to Herbivore page, without even bothering to comment on the talk page. I cannot reverse it due to 3RR. Some administrative action may be in order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihaiam (talk • contribs) 20:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, dear. <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 07:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * @Pesky I am sorry for my delayed reply. I'm not so sociable person, I confess. As you can see here, I have changed my talk page notice. But, try to understand that I don't hate anybody. And also I think I should clarify that User:Topy1991 is not my sock although you may not choose to believe me. On the contrary it's my speculation that Mihaiam is probably a sock. --<font face="verdana" color="#0000FF">DrYouMe  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk?)   01:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've warned the OP. I was particularly unimpressed by this. Continuation will result in a block. --John (talk) 07:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * @john You didn't use the word "unimpressed", you rather dismissively described my action as "nonsense", but I am not demanding your apology or non-apology (seeing that you're not a very eloquent speaker, are you John?) . Nevertheless, I don't like that word nor do I like people being rude to me. <P>Swaggering, abrasive and impolite administrators like you (not referring to anybody else!) are the main reason I'm not interested in discussing in the first place. You should change your attitude towards others in real life. Otherwise, some people may will retaliate in their own way, and you may not like that too much. In the end, I'd like to say that I hope as you grow older you'll realise certain things that you don't know now. --<font face="verdana" color="#0000FF">DrYouMe  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk?)   01:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

- @Mihaiam "There are also no reliable sources for the contribution" —and you're the arbitrator? By unreliable sources mean "vegetarian organisation" and vegetarian nutritionists and doctors of medicine like Milton Mills, William C. Roberts, John A. McDougall? Then you go on calling me a "propagandist"? Well give me one scientific report that says humans are anatomically optimized to eat raw meat or at least a source that says humans are anatomically optimized to process cooked meat without aggravating any serious health-issues (see this)? And exactly what scientific data did Mills provide that is scientifically erroneous? <font family="Verdana">Like what is the acidity of human-stomach when food is inside stomach? and then you tout "veganskeptic.blogspot" as a reliable source for high-level scientific knowledge? Isn't it a tad silly to compare a Nutritionist who has been backed by the claims of other MDs and has a doctoral degree, to a random blogger? Where is the scientific journal that says humans are not herbivores? But when it comes to question your meat-eating ways, you cling to a random person as opposed to a slew of MDs who are cogently saying that the practice of eating meat is "unhealthy", "unneeded" and "unethical" (or something of that sort). Meat-eating is at best utterly redundant. I repeat, please show some credible scientific analysis of Human anatomy that firmly proves humans are purely naturally omnivorous (i.e. able to digest raw meat, or if not raw meat then any meat with good health), that's all it'll to convince me. I may be fully wrong, I'm at least open to that possibility, but are you? I want what's best for me. I occasionally like stew myself. :D --<font face="verdana" color="#0000FF">DrYouMe  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk?)   01:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Please review my multiple contributions in biology-related articles
''[New thread opened by <font face="verdana" color="#0000FF">DrYouMe  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk?)  further down on this page -- moving it here for sanity's sake. BTW I notice that behind the signature DrYouMe is the actual username Mrt3366.]''

I need someone who could review my reverted contributions.

—this user has been stalking me and reverting all my comparatively larger edits without providing enough reason. One example, just because one of my sentences contained one slightest (but I'm not too sure if it was incorrect at all) scientific inaccuracy he rashly reverted the whole edit when he could have enriched the article by simply correcting the inaccuracy with good sources.

I sincerely think he is starting multiple edit wars at once. He thinks just because I don't have many administrator friends he could revert my changes. His primary claim is that none of my sources are reliable but his/her sources are. Just look at his contributions. His contributions are mostly deletions of the edits he doesn't like. Also his activity is mysteriously sporadic. He might as well be a sock (he also claims that whoever supports my position is my sockpuppet). I'm really discouraged by this sort of behaviour. Please someone help me. :) --<font face="verdana" color="#0000FF">"DrYouMe"→"Mrt3366"  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk?)   03:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I have examined the editing history here. In my view Mrt3366 (aka DrYouMe) does not understand proper editing procedures, does not understand the reputable literature on this topic, and is being continually and unacceptably disruptive.  I see no serious problems with the editing by Mihaiam. Looie496 (talk) 03:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay Looie496, if you think that you're equipped with the knowledge to judge me then fine. I will refrain from editing for a while. And probably, I won't edit those pages again. I see you wrote, "I see no serious problems with the editing by Mihaiam." ha!! WOW! --<font face="verdana" color="#0000FF">"DrYouMe"→"Mrt3366"  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk?)   05:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I reached out to the editor here. I hope it works. -- Laser brain  (talk)  03:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you laser brain for all you have done for me. I am taking your advice. --<font face="verdana" color="#0000FF">"DrYouMe"→"Mrt3366"  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk?)   05:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... it's getting a bit hard to assume good faith here. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 12:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked
I have blocked User:Mrt3366 for this; coming on top of a number of personal attacks, forum shopping and ownership issues, and my previous warning, I thought it best. Please review the block and consider reaching out to this editor as LB has done when they return. I do see they have contributions to make but they cannot go around threatening and insulting people they disagree with. --John (talk) 10:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good block John. The abuse has a kind of similar feel - things like the rant about administrators, the term 'administrator friends' ...  Suggests this is not a new editor.  I'll try to recall who - I suspect it's someone I've blocked before in one guise. If anyone else has an idea, please chip in - my memory is like a lumber room.... (now where have I heard that before) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This doesn't look like a promising response from Mrt3366. Edward321 (talk) 13:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've tried dropping another message onto the talk page, in the hope that something good may possibly come of it. Nothing lost if it doesn't, of course. <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 22:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good block, their general combatative attitude warrants a showing of the door. Blackmane (talk) 09:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Saint Patrick's Day
On Patrick's Day, an IP pointed out that "Patty's Day" is not the correct spelling of the nickname Paddy's Day and requested that it be removed from the infobox as it causes some offence to people in Ireland. The IP was slapped down saying that this would be "censorship" but in fact it makes sense to try to explain this. It is easy to explain, because intervocalic /t/ and /d/ are reduced to an identical intervocalic alveolar-flapping in North American English. Since the status quo of the article was unacceptable, I attempted to write text about the situation. Oh no! I got accused of Original Research. Of course "common knowledge" is not OR, but you know how it goes. So a sentence, with a footnote, gets put into the lead, with a request to discuss the text on the Talk Page. The sort of edit I have made hundreds of times. Two editors, User:Murry1975 and User:Escape_Orbit, instead of discussing the text (as requested) just keep blanking it, and now the former has even thought it sensible to "warn" me about the 3RR on my own Talk Page, as though I were some sort of newbie. (I'm an admin on the Irish Wiki and have just been made admin in the Volapük Wiki). User:Murry1975 suggested I file an ANI, which is why I'm here, though I don't know whether it will do any good. This crap sure makes one despise the Wikipedia though. -- Evertype·✆ 14:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If your all of those things you should know better than edit warring a disputed addition into an article - No one cares who despises wikipedia - its irrelevant. As for the issue - all that paddys day and pattys day is just the beer drinking celebrations, the main focus of the article is on the religious festival, some people are also offended by the paddy expression and it is sometimes seen as an insult, and its better left out of the lede. - and the infobox. You  really  can  15:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What? St. Patrick's Day is not all about drinking! It's about...well...let me get back to you after I finish this beer here. --MuZemike 15:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, "Paddy" offends a very few people and only in the context of certain types of jokes or abuse. The term "Paddy's Day" offends no one in Ireland at all. And huge numbers of people are actually named Paddy. And nobody is agaist "Paddy's Day" appearing in either the infobox or the lead. The problem raised here is about the term "Patty's Day". And thanks for the levity, but I'd like this to be taken seriously. -- Evertype·✆ 15:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have a good Irish friend called Paddy, but I also have a couple more I Irish friends that find it offensive. - Paddy - offensive name for ...bigots ... - It doesn't belong in the lede like your desirous of. - Add a small paragraph in the body of the article. You  really  can  15:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi guys havin' fun today? Joking aside, WP:BLUE is bieng misused, as it is making the direct connection between the American sounding of 'tt' and 'dd' and the usage of Patty's Day. The main point there is actually no proof that as pointed out, by certain editors, that it is a mistake that should be removed from the article, right now the weekend thats in it I can find a lot of sources stating Patty's day. We have discussed the text and it has previously been discussed User:Evertype has inserted hisown referene in the article not attributing it to a source and breached the 3RR. I am juggling a few things today and havent came across anything clear cut. The removal seems to be WP:CENSORship because of dislike of Patty, btw for the record I dont like it personally but unless I can show it doesnt belong I am not going to remove the thing. Murry1975 (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I see no reliable sources for Patty's Day in the first few pages of a Google search. I do see a site devoted to making the Paddy/Patty distinction, so it's obviously out there, but IMO it doesn't need mentioning in the article itself. Not really an AN/I matter, but I understand you were asked to bring it here. <font face="century gothic" color="#0E6E2D">Kim Dent-Brown  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0E6E2D">(Talk)  15:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Kim Patty is used widely in the North aAMerican media and some other global sources. @Strange Passerby, I dont think a block on anyone is merited other than Evertype, as the reverts I made were for lack of source which is allowed, I can not speak on behalf of Escape Orbit and I can not act for him either. Murry1975 (talk) 15:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You'll need to cite some reliable sources for that. I see you saying that "I can find a lot of sources stating Patty's day" but I don't see any here, on the article or on a Google search for the same term. Even if there are some, to give it equal billing with other contractions such as "Paddys Day" would be a violation of WP:UNDUE, in my opinion. <font face="century gothic" color="#0E6E2D">Kim Dent-Brown  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0E6E2D">(Talk)  15:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming that you don't see Patty's Day in the results for a search for "Patty's Day" because your using google uk. I get lots of results when I search. --Onorem♠Dil 15:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm getting about twice as many results for "Patty's Day" as I am for "Paddy's Day" on both versions. I'm not saying they're all reliable sources...but evidence does appear to be there. --Onorem♠Dil 16:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 85+million for Patty angainst 46+million  for Paddy. Murry1975 (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I dont like Patty but its out there in abundance, I dont think it should be omitted or degraded without a resonable source. Thats the point of my reverts. Murry1975 (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This an interesting interpretation of events by Evertype. Evertype has a theory about why some refer to "St Patty's Day" with a t, and not the "correct" (as Evertype has determined) St Paddy's Day.  Evertype doesn't have any source for this theory, because Evertype came up with it as original research.  After I removed Evertype's additions I requested that they were discussed, and that they were cited.  Evertype responded by saying it wasn't original research, it shouldn't have been removed and reinserted it.  I've tried to explain the the onus is on Evertype to support these additions, but am not getting very far.  I don't believe anyone is edit warring, but it does need pointed out that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your ideas.  A discussion is occurring on the talk page, but has reached a bit of an impasse. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 17:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * - User:Evertype is an admin on the Irish Wiki and have just been made admin in the Volapük Wiki with four reverts and he should be blocked for his edit warring - You  really  can  15:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * All three of them deserve blocking for edit warring, really, imo. Evertype has clearly violated 3RR and arguably Murry1975 and Escape Orbit have teamed up to game 3RR too. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

(Another) advocacy SPA at Aspartame controversy
A recent SPA at Talk:Aspartame controversy advocates for balancing of MEDRS with anything else. The editor and  after. The parenthetical "sorry but that really is the way it is" after calling the editors "publishers of lies" suggests the editor knowingly violates policy at this point.Novangelis (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, he says that Wikipedia is controlled by the aspartame industry. I think that's possible, don't you?  I mean, that's what I would do if I had an unsafe product to foist on the public -- set up a free online encyclopedia with millions of articles in dozens of languages, then years later slip in an article steering attention away from my nasty wares. EEng (talk) 08:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * For what it is worth, all I see on his talk page is a bunch of templates, and a welcome template that was added after he had been warned strongly 4 different times. He's only made 5 contribs, all to Talk:Aspartame controversy without changing the content.  He *might* be a sock of a previous banned user (speculation only, based on his hitting the ground running after registering), but no one has offered up any evidence.  Worth looking for though.  He is a bit of a zealot when it comes to anti-aspertame, but I'm not seeing vandalism, just run of the mill fanboy rudeness, yet no one has approached him on his talk page.  Might be a bit premature for blocking in my opinion, since he is trying to engage in conversation and change minds (quite rudely, yes), not force changes to the text of the articles. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * User:Ratel is the user that immediately springs to mind. - You  really  can  22:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There are some similarities, but I'm not an admin, so I don't have the same tools as you. Format and grammar are similar, but both styles are not particularly unique.  Ratel never edited on anything aspartame related, but he seemed to like controversy.  Too stale for a CU. Personally, I wouldn't file SPI with so little info.  It still bugs me that no one has tried to just communicate with him outside of a template.  Dennis Brown (talk) 23:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Correction. I'm old, but new to playing whack-a-mole with sockpuppets, so sorry for the confusion.  One of Ratal's socks was very involved, .  And one of his socks edited  last month, so it isn't too stale for CU, if someone was inclined to go to SPI. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It was the TickleMeister account that started the chain of conspiracy accusations that have continued even since he stopped editing. That said, I don't believe that this is Ratel, and I'm not shy about filing SPI cases. (BTW, that edit was 13 months ago, not last month, so it is quite cold.) This is probably just another conspiracy theorist. The problem with conspiracy theorists is they disregard anyone who disagrees with them as part of the conspiracy they are fighting. I don't care if an account that has edited five times is blocked or not. Dozens have edited more times, then gone away. My goal is to break this pattern of accusing editors of being industry stooges/shills/conspirators that goes back to TickleMeister. If it can be done with a few advisories from uninvolved editors, great. Whatever methods are employed, I'd like to get it so that valid sources can be discussed civilly.Novangelis (talk) 00:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * dang it, you are correct, it was a year ago. This is what happens when I edit after working a 12 hour day.  Still, it wasn't enough for me to file either. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It still saddens me that Ratel did bad things. Such a cool user name. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

EEng has it right. If there was any way that i could maintain a rational discussion I would do it. but there is not. I would be either disregarded or threatened or banned just as Nova is trying to do now. I have watched many before me that have followed this path, They find good citations but they are not allowed to post them. If you want to believe that aspartame is good thet is your choice but you have a responsibuility to present a unbiased article and you do not. Furthermore you choose to error on the side of risk. There is research to support the claim that aspartame is bad. There are many who have had strokes or seizures from aspartame. Please look into it. It has to be changed by someone with authority. Anyone else, like me,   will be banned. ( or at least ignored) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigsam123 (talk • contribs) 17:47, March 20, 2012‎
 * I personally think aspartame sucks. However, there is no conclusive evidence that it is harmful. A few studies have indicated more research needs to be done. That does not mean we get to plaster "aspartame causes seizures" on the article. No, we do not have to present an unbiased article; in fact, Wikipedia adheres to supporting the scientific consensus. We don't "teach both sides of the controversy," when one side is a minority. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 23:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Taking into account canvassed comments
I have been involved in a recent move request (at Talk:Republic of China) where there has been widespread canvassing by one side of the debate leading to something like half of the people commenting on one side of the debate having been inappropriately canvassed (numerically something like 25-30 people in total).

In the discussion the closing admins want to count the comments of the inappropriately canvassed people with the same weight as other members of the community. As the people who conducted the canvassing weren't signed in while they did it there seems to be no possible way of preventing such actions happening in future by finding the people responsible for this disruption.

Before, certainly in this area, where canvassing and other similar disruption has occurred it has been taken into account (e.g. Talk:Taiwan (disambiguation)) and I think the precedent these comments from the closing admins sets is that inappropriate canvassing is an effective way to get your message across in any controversial area of the project.

What do you guys think? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I don't see why canvassing is frowned upon, especially since we're supposed to look at the quality of the arguments and not the !vote counts. So what if a good argument comes from someone who was canvassed "inappropriately" (whatever that is).  Why does it matter who submitted the argument if it's the argument that matters? As soon as you stop counting !votes and start evaluating arguments, much drama evaporates.  --Born2cycle (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that in general evaluating arguments is a good way approach, and probably reduces drama in situations like this; however I don't think that eliminates the problem caused by canvassing - Wikipedia for better or for worse, has pretty liberal and laid back policies in many areas - this means that if one gets 20-30 extra people to comment on one side of a debate (as in this case) they are likely to win the given discussion on strength of argument in any case where the policy isn't clear cut (maybe or maybe not this case, but certainly this happens frequently). -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Canvassing certainly harms debate. In addition to giving a false sense of numbers (which do enter into calculating consensus), the presence of lob-sided voting can discourage (seemly) minority opinions from voicing their arguments.  (As noted indirectly by Eraserhead, except in the most obvious policy situation, strength of argument is going to be partially based on numbers unless you want the admin to just substitute their own belief about what is right.  If both sides have policy partially on their side, it would be unreasonable to say one side "won" if it convinced only 2 people they were right while the other side convinced 10 people.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * All the sockpuppetry, canvassing, challenging of votes and challenging of challenges in this RM has produced such an unholy mess that the closing admins have no alternative but to evaluate the arguments rather than count votes. Which is great, though one can have too much of a good thing.  Kanguole 00:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The creation of the unholy in the first place is obviously not a good thing. HiLo48 (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. Canvassing was used as a reason to discount votes in this cfd. Cjc13 (talk) 12:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Bot continues task despite objections and without apparent consensus to support it
A bot is going around changing unformatted ISBNs to formatted ones (and sometimes vice versa). The task was approved over five years ago, but approval only shows technical correctness, not necessarily support from the community. After a long period (probably years), the bot recently restarted formatting ISBNs on 13 March (around this edit) and has since done this on thousands of pages. The bot owner has been asked by four people to stop doing this, starting by User:Eleassar and User:Robert.Allen on the 15th, by me on the 19th and by User:Noleander early today (because it made a FAC worse).

He has joined the discussion at Wikipedia talk:ISBN (a discussion which coincidentally started about an hour before the bot started this task), but hasn't stopped this task while the discussion is ongoing (e.g. ), or hasn't otherwise attempted to get or show any consensus for his changes. Since they are not urgent, and are clearly objected to, I would consider it normal procedure to stop doing this for now, but this is clearly not going to happen. The only other way to achieve this is to block the bot. Fram (talk) 09:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Meh; WP:ISBN says to do this; probably has for years. I do so as I go. Alarbus (talk) 09:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The sentence that says to do this gets a "dubious - discuss" tag, and an accompanying discussion, and an hour later the bot restarts this task, after a long time not doing this (years?). The least it can do is wait for the discussion to finish before doing this, instead of going for the "fait accompli" with such an unlucky timing. Fram (talk) 10:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * So anyone gets to call gridlock? It's an approved task, right? It's what isbn.org /says/ to do. It's a helpful bot. I saw the post by Noleander; it didn't make a FAC "worse" it was just against a personal preference. Alarbus (talk) 10:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * So you call anything other than doing thousands of edits immediately when it has just come up for discussion "gridlock"? North8000 (talk) 10:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe a stick in the spokes would be a better term. Alarbus (talk) 11:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a lot of discussion in the archives about this - dating back to at least 2009. General feeling seems to be that the policy, as worded, is fine - and that dashes are a good thing. So whilst that agreement could change, I don't see how the bot needs to stop unless there is overwhelming opposition. It's not an issue editors are likely to care much about, as evidenced by the low traffic to such discussions. Perhaps a full RFC with a notice on WP:CENT would be a good approach. I don't see any need for admin action here. --Errant (chat!) 10:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Amazing the things people find to argue about… Alarbus (talk) 11:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

This seems like useless bot noise, messing with existing ISBN's for cosmetic purposes (I recognize that it's in the rendered page, but still, unhyphenated ISBN's don't cause any problems requiring spewing all those edits that don't make any substantive improvements). Also, I don't see a 5 year old approval as meaningful if the bot has been inactive for the past several years. I'd support stopping it. Also, if the bot is reformatting invalid (11 digit) ISBN's, that sounds like a bug. 67.117.144.57 (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Question What is the 'bot actually doing? I'd support a (correct) addition of the hyphens, but would strongly oppose auto-conversion of ISBN 10 to ISBN 13 for books that pre-date ISBN 13. If you're trying to search for old copies of books it's far easier to do this with an ISBN 10 than an ISBN 13 - very few book dealers can back-convert in their search engines. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Most seem to be correct hyphen additions, but there have also been cases of hyphen removal. I don't think it converts 10 to 13 or vice versa. It also changes hyphenated ISBNs to other hyphenations, presumably from an incorrect one to a correct one. Fram (talk) 11:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The one with removed hyphens is an invalid ISBN; it's 11 digits. No link: ISBN 86844430009 — The changed ones in the other diff are correct fixes per http://www.isbn.org/converterpub.asp — Alarbus (talk) 11:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This error has been copy-pasted all over the Balkan village articles. The correct ISBN for the above cite is ISBN 86-84433-00-9. We have 2,445 instances where it is incorrectly listed as 86-84443-00-09 and 667 where it is incorrectly listed as 86844430009. We also have 34 instances where the correct ISBN was used. Regarding the bot, I have no problem with the bot going around correctly formatting ISBNs; this is a task I routinely do manually on our better articles. For the majority of its edits, this is not the only task being performed by the bot. There is a script available at User:Cameltrader/Advisor.js which detects invalid ISBNs, among other functions.-- Dianna (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * copy-pasted by editors, not the bot; bring this to Rich's attention and he could tweak the bot to fix all those to the ISBN you found. This might result in a bot-feature that could be regularly used to fix such widely propagated bad ISBNs. I'll suggest it to him…
 * NB: advisor.js reports ISBNs with spaces in them as invalid (and they are) even though MediaWiki now scrunches them up to make the links work; users should deal with this by removing the spaces, replacing them with dashes, or (best) formatting them with http://www.isbn.org/converterpub.asp — Alarbus (talk) 02:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Block user:130.243.171.56
Please block User:130.243.171.56 for sexual content added to an article about a well-known woman, Petra Mede. --BIL (talk) 13:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * All of the contributions have been rev-del'd, user warned, and has been gone for about 4 hours now. If the IP starts up again, report to the Administrator intervention against vandalism‎ page for immediate attention. Skier Dude  ( talk ) 14:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Trademarkia
Trademarkia has been deleted three times (twice as a speedy and once at this AfD), and is back now. I suspect that this probably meets the criteria for Speedy G4, "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion," but have no way of comparing it to the deleted content. Could someone with access to the deleted page check and let me know? I don't want to apply a spurious speedy. Thanks TJRC (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not substantially identical -- lots more references and information about the company. And the second speedy was a G7 -- the primary author of the current version meant to sandbox it first, but accidentally put it live, so they blanked it and it was G7ed.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. TJRC (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what to do with article Hovergreen
I apologize if this is not the correct place for this topic. I was patrolling a few pages today and came across Hovergreen. I tagged the page with many applicable maintenance templates. I would normally just slap it with a db-G11 since its obvious promotional material and was written by a user I strongly suspect is the CEO of the company in question (robertbhart). Anyways, it also carries a template marking it as a mis-placed AfC. I was unable to move the page using the link and just wanted to see if someone more experienced could look at it and take the appropriate action. Thanks. MyNameWasTaken (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)\


 * Clear G11 and tagged accordingly.--ukexpat (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Violent Threats
Getting some extremely violent threats to User:Kinu on my talk page pinging out of the Czech Republic (previously out of Uzbekistan). Could someone oversight these, investigate them and then semi-protect my talk page? - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 21:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅, the oversighters are very fast, they got to it right away.  ☮ Soap  ☮  21:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed they did and I didn't even call them out yet. They are psychic. :) - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 21:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (waves hand in a jedi-like manner) These are not the oversighters you're looking for! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Constant edit warring
70.80.163.207 is constantly replacing sourced content with unsourced content on this page. The main edit he is doing is replacing the #2 chart on Canada (Supported by source) with the #1 chart (no source provided.)          I have constantly warned him but he has continued his arrogance. (Have a look at this page) He is also removing content for no reason without using the edit summary box properly. Please block this user as I have had enough of him/her. --Jamcad01 (talk) 07:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You've notified the user, but your previous 'warnings' (reverting their changes daily for a week) have all been via edit summary, visible on the 'View history' page and your user contributions; the talk page has nothing but six maintenance edits over six years. The reference for #2 is www.collectionscanada.gc.ca, I've looked at Volume 58 No 26/ Vol 59 Nos 1-4, and they show #2 peak, drop to #3, #2, drop to #6 and slowly off the chart. Dru of Id (talk) 08:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah maybe I should have notified the user by talk page. I honestly did not expect it to end up being a serious edit war. Also the source for #2 was not mine but was the original one already on the page. --Jamcad01 (talk) 08:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Bzbzbzbzbzb

 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ANotes&action=history
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ANotes&action=history

Someone please block this vandal and clean up the history of that redirect; it's fixed positioning vandalism re Jews and 9/11 and it click-hijacks all pages using the redirect. Alarbus (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Solipsism-blocked by 28bytes; that edit he made will likely be revdel'd soon. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 18:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Blocked and history deleted, but that should really get fixed in the edit filter. Thanks for letting us know about this Alarbus. 28bytes (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I thought this was fixed in the edit filter a few weeks back by Anomie. CU the account and your prior blockee. Alarbus (talk) 18:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I made the filter, but somehow code is being inserted into the edit that evaluates to nothing when the edit is parsed. Without access to the initially submitted wikicode (which is what the filter sees), I cannot block the edits. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You should have access to the wikicode, it's the rev-del'ed (but not oversighted) link in the template history Alarbus provided above. Just be careful and don't click anything if you don't want the target site to harvest your IP. 28bytes (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No. That is the final parsed wikicode, which does would trigger the edit filter if submitted in that form. For example, you can submit the wikicode, which the filter will check. However, you will actually see "Pictogram voting keep.svg Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)". Somehow, the code is being obfuscated, but I think I have blocked it for now. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Handling this with edit filters seems like a crappy and unreliable stopgap measure. It really needs a server side fix. Is there a bugzilla ticket open? I sort of half remember one. Could someone either please find and add a note to it, or open a new one? 67.117.144.57 (talk) 18:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The edit filter is server-side. I may apply for toolserver access to run a bot that will revert these in realtime, or I'll get Chris G to fire up the adminbot AntiAbuseBot again. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Additionally, if this happens again, could somebody please let me know. I think I've tweaked the abuse filters to potentially stop this mess, but I'm not certain. (I'm taking potshots in the dark, here.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (Thought I already posted this but looking at my edit history I must have failed to submit or something.) I somewhat understand where 67 is coming from even if it was poorly expressed. I can't see the history but it sounds like this is the sort of thing that could be considered an exploit or security issue and therefore Mediawiki should stop (at least optionally). Amongst other things, AFAIK there's no universal edit filter but it's likely no WMF project wants this sort of stuff going on. Nil Einne (talk) 18:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It isn't possible to block due to the obfuscation of the code. Otherwise, the filter would be working. However, maybe I will be able to get the devs to add variables to the AbuseFilter extension that would contain the "end product" of the wikicode. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Baseless accusations by HudsonBreeze
is accusing me of canvassing,  and  to gain support in an RfC on Talk:Sri Lanka. I can guarantee that I have never communicated with these editors prior to the RfC and they too have rejected the accusations. He has not provided any evidence to support his claims. These baseless and continuous accusations has made it literally impossible to proceed with a discussion to resolve the dispute regarding the Sri Lanka article. It has been fully protected for the 7th time within 8 months! Worst part is that the issue which paved the way for an RfC, is not regarding a controversial historical fact, but on a structural matter. HudsonBreeze is accusing the non-involved editors who have bothered to comment are ignorant of complex geo-political issues, whereas RfC is asking something completely different; more of a common sense problem. I previously warned him of lack of good-faith dealing with issues on Talk:Sri Lanka, only to receive more accusations in return. As his comments suggest, the user has strong political convictions, and is not ready to tolerate any opposing views. I believe that without administrator involvement, we are not going to see an end to this problem. A STRONOMYINERTI A (<font face="Calibri" size="2">TALK ) 20:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What sort of administrative involvement are you asking for? A warning? Block? 140.247.141.165 (talk) 00:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * His whirlpool of accusations has made it impossible to deal in good faith to obtain a stable version of this article. He says he is 100% certain that these editors have been canvassed, and flatly rejects their opinions. I'm not sure what is the administrative procedure with SPAs like this. Whatever the action taken, it must ensure that this level 4-vital country article is not held hostage due to accusations of a single editor. A STRONOMYINERTI A  (<font face="Calibri" size="2">TALK ) 04:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Why are you expecting Admin involvement? I accused you, even from the very beginning you are trying to be a mouthpiece of so called non-involved editors and trying to protect them. So there is a possibility you might have invited them to comment and then to capitalize those comments. I asked one of those non-involved editors, whether he participated in any other RfCs before he commented on Sri Lanka RfC, and the answer is something else that he or she is with 10, 000 edits on Wikipedia. And then he is coming out that there is currently a RfC on Talk:Northern Ireland and he or she has commented there rather answering to my question. And that creates me to believe he or she might have been canvassed most probably by you on a Structural issue of a deadly Civil War which was waged by the Sri Lankan Government in the last phase with a "War without Witness" with 40, 000 killings of ethnic Tamil minority by 99.9% Sinhalese dominated Sri Lankan Army under the pretext of a "Humanitarian Rescue Mission" against LTTE which waged a war for last 30 years with the prime objective for an independent homeland for the minority Tamils.HudsonBreeze (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Good. More accusations! You accused me of being a mouthpiece of the "so-called" non-involved editors regarding this comment. But what I said there was that your reply to Grandiose was too hostile, thus inappropriate. Now, is that being someone's mouthpiece? You say you accuse me of bringing these editors to this RfC. If so, why not provide some evidence, without coming up with more speculations, to support your view? I must be asking this for the 5th time now. Your excessive commentary about political issues is irrelevant. Please focus on what we are discussing here. A STRONOMYINERTI A  (<font face="Calibri" size="2">TALK ) 18:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, as I see it, a few things need to happen. Firstly, AstronomyInertia, try not to let yourself be wound up on ANI. Bringing the case here should allow the facts to speak for themselves. Secondly, and rather more importantly, it's clear that HudsonBreeze still believes that the opinions of me, ChipmunkDavis, and BoogaLouie have been formed on an inappropriate knowledge of the facts. HudsonBreeze has, in any case, reacted aggressively. From my perspective, I thought it was odd that my status/opinion was questioned, but I didn't mind; however, having explained my position, HudsonBreeze appears to have ramped up. This very much came across as failing to assume that I was acting in good faith. I can't speak for the others, but, if I had not thought that I knew enough to form an opinion, I would not have commented. I gave it some serious thought, identifying a mainly structural issue and put forward a reasonable response. Nothing about the other two opinions given appear to be any different: both suggested that the information itself was notable but gave balanced reasons.
 * Essentially this has been one big, annoying distraction. It comes across as, although I cannot yet go as far as Astronomy in saying, that HudsonBreeze has looked to downplay opinions contrary to his own by playing the man. He or she is more than welcome to constructively argue against any of the positions. Everyone provided reasons, so there's something to go on. I suggest that everything else is rapidly archived and either the points directly countered, or taken aboard. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * True, I admit that I've been too much into detail, but my initial intention was to get administrator involvement as soon as possible, so that this post too doesn't get archived without administrator input, as it was on some previous cases. Had we received continuous 3rd party input, this issue could've been resolved much earlier. I agree that time has arrived to wind up the RfC with the outcome clearly established. Unless we'll go through another session of editwarring and edit-protection. A STRONOMYINERTI A  (<font face="Calibri" size="2">TALK ) 20:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your comment that outcome is clearly established. We need further on the discussion whether the "Civil War" section should be included or not.HudsonBreeze (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

HudsonBreeze, a request for comment is a way for editors to solicit opinions from the Wikipedia community. RFCs are posted in a central location at Requests for comment/All, and editors are free to join these discussions if they wish. It is a way to attract new people to a discussion. Some of them will not have edited the article before. This is why people show up out of nowhere and comment on the question being posed in the RFC. The chances are really high, in my opinion, that Astronomyinertia did not canvass these editors; they just happened to notice the active RFC and decided to comment. -- Dianna (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

(<font face="Calibri" size="2">TALK ) could have possibly canvased some editors (Arun1paladin (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)arun1paladin)


 * A SOLUTION: HudsonBreeze nor any of his followers have neither proved nor presented evidence that AstronomyInertia has canvassed users to support him. Those being accused of being canvassed have stated that they have entered the Rfc on their own will. Until HudsonBreeze does have evidence, I suggest everyone revert back to the discussion at hand concerning the structure of the article at Talk:Sri Lanka. This discussion and all subsequent discussions have been going on for long enough (six months+) and the article does not need to be held hostage, and peoples time wasted. As for the involvement of admins, I suggest they keep an eye on the discussion to see that the topic is not digressing back to these accusations, should they be, I suggest the admins enforce a warning and then a block on the user who brings up these accusations without proper evidence. This may seem harsh but I believe it is the only way to get this dispute sorted. As I said before this has been going on for long enough, and what we need is a solution not more problems and digressions.


 * I would like to see what the admins think, and I suggest we have a vote on this motion?--Blackknight12 (talk) 07:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have collapsed the discussion on the article's talk page. Keeping it open distracted from the RfC itself, and, as both the respondents and others state above, getting input from uninvolved contributors is exactly what an RfC should do. Hopefully this resolves the problem. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I am aware of what an RfC is intended based on the uninvolved editors, but their comments should lead to further discussion to come out with a lasting solution rather than capitalizing their comments to prematurely close the discussion and that is what happened and made me to question the credibility of the "Uninvolvement". And the same issue of the Civil War caused in the real world, What happened Three years ago to be revisited once again. We need more a ArbCom enforcement on the issue with more uninvolved editors whether to include the the "Civil War" as a sub-title under the history section. If that is not taking place, I will include the "Civil War" as a subsection as suggested by uninvolved editor User:Adamrce here once the page protection expires. HudsonBreeze (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Two tips: 1) Stop continuing to baselessly "question the credibility" of those who commented (ie. did what they were supposed to do). It's an egregious lack of good faith, and only serves to undermine any legitimate comments you have made (especially when you use the opinions of uninvolved editors who agreed with you as reasons to move). 2) Don't pose an ultimatum for making a change. It shows a battleground mentality and an inability to abide by WP:consensus, and will lead to blocks for disruption. Follow continued WP:Dispute resolution procedures, if you must. CMD (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think anything wrong to suspect anyone in a situation like Sri Lanka's deadly "Civil War" with War Crime charges whether on Wikipedia or elsewhere. good faith is not workable always as of real world events. The uninvolved editor who "Agree" with us made enough contribution before he or she commented at RfC on both sides of the conflict. I haven't setup ultimatum, I want to reinstate the "Civil War" section which was already there and abruptly removed by User:Blackknight12 on the eve of the Dispute Resolution. HudsonBreeze (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * CMD phrased his tips politely and gently. WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF are not optional on Wikipedia, and you cannot claim exemption from them for any reason whatsoever.  However much you may be on the side of the angels, and the Other Guys deserving in your eyes of all calumny, you violate those policies at the risk of being blocked, and "But I'm only after war criminals!" will not be judged a valid reason to unblock you.  Ravenswing  21:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Why Sri Lanka should be exempted having the title of "Civil War" under "History" section, if the following countries could have one;


 * Afghanistan
 * 3.3.4 Foreign interference and civil war
 * Libya
 * 2.9 2011 civil war and interim government
 * Laos
 * 2.3 Kingdom of Laos and war 1954–75
 * Sudan
 * 1.7 Military Coup d'état (1989–present)
 * 1.8 Civil War and Secession of South Sudan
 * 1.9 Abyei situation
 * 1.10 Darfur conflict
 * 1.11 Chad-Sudan conflict
 * Nigeria
 * 1.3 Post-independence
 * 1.4 Nigerian-Biafran War


 * HudsonBreeze (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

}Please keep the content discussions on the article's talk page. I have left a fairly extensive warning on HudsonBreeze's talk page--the above comments show a clear intention to continue edit warring, to not follow processes, and to assume bad faith without warrant. Continuation of this attitude, especially personal attacks or actual edit warring will result in me blocking xem. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I have replied on my talk page.HudsonBreeze (talk) 03:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

TWO ARTICLES
Could anyone available please take a look at the two articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dr._Stephan_Poen/Mariana_Nicolesco and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dr._Stephan_Poen/Radu_Varia in order to make sure they comply with Wikipedia's rules. Thank you very much in advance, Dr. Stephan Poen Talk 23,12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Dr. Poen--these are living people and are covered by the biography of living people policies. This isn't really the forum for it: consider dropping a note at WP:BLPN. But at first glance I don't see any big problems (though they need copy editing and some work on the prose). But ask there, that's what it's for. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Dr Poen has claimed to represent the two. I'm not sure if he actually does or not but I have been working with him on the articles.  I've been very busy but it anyone can take a look at the articles and see if they're free of WP:OR, WP:POV, and WP:BLPVs, that would be very helpful.  Ol Yeller21  <sup style="color:#827839;">Talktome  01:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This was continued briefly on my talk page; it's not an ANI matter, if it ever was. Let me say this, though--there are problems with those versions, and I would have looked closer if I wasn't more interested in closing this ANI thread. Also, there is a bunch of history to these drafts, which I found out about after Dr. Poen placed a note on my talk page. Having said that, I think, moving forward, that closing this thread is the best thing to do. Drmies (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Admitted sock of Trumpkin


This report is being made here as a Checkuser has certified that the technical data on is stale. The evidence that Trumpkinius may be a sock of Trumpkin, which was presented as the SPI, is reproduced below:
 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Please note: Trumpkinius used to be known as.
 * There is an obvious similarity in the usernames of the sockmaster and the suspected sock.
 * Trumpkinius joined Wikipedia at 21:37 on 10 June 2011. This was just 3 days after Trumpkin was blocked for disruptive editing, including hoaxing, and sockmastery.
 * While known as Reichsfürst, Trumpkinius applied for rollback rights under the name of Trumpkin.
 * Both Trumpkin and Trumpkinius  allege a professional interest in history.
 * Trumpkinius adds new photos to St John's Jerusalem and, after a certified sock of Trumpkin,  promised to upload better photos of the property.
 * Trumpkinius makes a bizarre accusation of harassment at my talk page . It is in a similar tone, aggressive style, and content to allegations of harassment made by Trumpkin against  and  .  ISTB351   (talk)   (contributions)   16:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The evidence above is incontrovertible and as such I shall not attempt to deny the allegations presented by ISTB351. Instead I thank ISTB for raising this delicate issue and the time that he has evidently put into this investigation as I welcome this chance to show that I am a changed editor. My edit history since rejoining the project has been exemplary, as I hope anyone would agree, and I must only ask the other fine editors of wikipedia to acknowledge this and to exercise mercy. If my previous conduct is deemed too heinous then I shall accept the consequences and resign myself to a life without the ability to service the worldwide community with my knowledge and indefatigable commitment to the ending of vandalism (as demonstrated by my use of Huggle). Thank you for the opportunity to explain myself and I hope that editors are able to see this in the most positive of lights and to give me a second chance. Yours, Trumpkinius (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I personally don't have any great objection to that, but could you take the opportunity to tell us about any other socks you might have?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't this also User:Irvine22 - there is a fair bit of disruptive in relation to this users previous accounts - User is currently blocked and this account is a block evading sockpuppet - is there an unblock request? The user should be blocked imo. If he wants to be unblocked he can make a correct request. You  really  can  22:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * User:Youreallycan may technically be right in regards to a formal unblock request and yet I hope that this confession should count in my favour if this is deemed necessary by the wider community. In order to clarify a couple of things and in response to User:Wehwalt's question I should also inform users, as they have probably already suspected, that User:Stellas4lunch is or was also a sockpuppet of mine (Trumpkin's). I accept that this further admission of irresponsible behaviour may cast further doubt on my own reliability as an editor, but I can only point to the fact that I have responsibly edited wikipedia for almost a year now and that my previously immature attitude has disappeared. Humbly, Trumpkinius (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, let me ask this: when was the last time you edited using an account other than the one you are using now?  I would ask fellow admins to refrain from blocking pending the outcome of this discussion.  After all, there's a conversation here going on.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Since the creation of this account I have not used a sockpuppet. Trumpkinius (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That was on June 11, 2011. Well, we usually ask people seeking to be unblocked for socking to have refrained six months.  If there's no evidence to the contrary, let's just use common sense and let him get on with his work (blocking any of the sock accounts not already blocked but not blocking Trumpkinius, in other words).--Wehwalt (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would have no objection to that in principle, given that Trumpkin's latest sock appears to be editing relatively constructively, notwithstanding some odd talk page notices. Nevertheless, sockpuppetry is clearly a very serious issue indeed, and the community may well want to take a less tolerant approach than that suggested by . Certainly, Trumpkinius must give undertakings not to engage in sockpuppeteering again if he is to avoid an indef block. ISTB351   (talk)   (contributions)   01:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not an unreasonable request, Trumpkinius.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I can be harsh on socks too. My considerations were the length of time, the constructive nature of his work here now, and that someone who is blocked as Trumpkin and comes back as Trumpkinius thre days later isn't really trying hard to hide it!--Wehwalt (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Commenting here as one of the editors originally involved in the outing of Trumpkin as sockmaster and hoaxer. It's hard to know what to believe with this character. His (by all accounts the user is male) previous actions were certainly deserving of a block, though I don't think it was ever confirmed that Trumpkin's claims to be Irvine22 were actually true - Trumpkin may well have simply invented that line as a form of self-aggrandisement. That is part of the problem. Trumpkinius now says: "I'd like to maintain a distance between work on Wikipedia and that of my real life". That makes it difficult for anyone to take him at face value, or to trust what he says. He has in the past regarded WP as something of a personal playground, creating new accounts and hoax articles at will. It's relevant that, when the original Trumpkin account first edited, he was (apparently) rather young. He is obviously intelligent, his current edits seem to be generally fine, and he could become an excellent editor. He should have matured, and may have matured, but his stilted and somewhat fawning appeals for clemency make me think that perhaps he hasn't. On balance, and tending towards assuming good faith more than perhaps I should, I'd let him continue, so long as his edits are carefully monitored and his areas of interest (including those edited under past accounts) are carefully watched to ensure no recurrence of past practices. As a final comment - when a user called Trumpkinius sets up a few days after a user called Trumpkin is blocked, shouldn't some alarm bells have rung somewhere? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * First in response to the question as to why no alarm bells rang I should point out that as ISTB notes I initially went under the name Reichsfurst. I certainly have matured and in that respect can only appeal to my edit history. In order to clarify the previous issue I will tag the necessary sockpuppets and place a note on my userpage so that all editors can be quite clear what has happened. Trumpkinius (talk) 12:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It must be CLEARLY noted that this is not in ANY way the right way to "come back" from a block. Period. It cannot be condoned as the "end justifies the means".  A block is on the person.  While blocked, you cannot create new accounts - period.  If, for example, WP:OFFER is presented, then the user is required to request unblock from their master account.  Once the person is unblocked, they would be welcome to create A NEW SINGLE account to edit while closing all others - those who have been caught socking in the past no longer have the luxury of alternate accounts.  Again, the end does NOT justify the means. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 12:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not have multiple accounts and yes I agree that formally I should unblock request but the different that having already block evaded my evidence for maturity would be the edit history of this account and so I hoped that in this instance it might be possible to forego the formality and to exercise leniency and common sense. Trumpkinius (talk) 13:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * While I agree that Trumpkinius has not gone about this the right way, I see some mitigating factors - no socking or any other apparent disruption for significantly more than 6 months, and adoption/mentorship by Worm That Turned (and WTT seems pleased). The bottom line for me is that attracting and keeping good editors is way more important than following the letter of "the rules", and I see potential for a good few years of constructive contributions here. So I'd say an agreement to stick to only one account, and let Trumpkinius stay with us -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Promotional editing going on
First off, Carmen Harra (author) should be speedily deleted, as it's a recreation of the repeatedly deleted Carmen Harra.

Second, I have to wonder what's up with. The articles he's written are consistently promotional in tone: Tony Cortes, Horacio Cambeiro, Anxo Lorenzo, Dominika Pštrosová, Pablo Contrisciani, Cecilia Lueza, Lorena Pinot, Patricia de Leon (actress), Desiree Ortíz, David Chacón Perez, Kike Posada, Julio "Jimmy" Ledezma, Kike San Martín. The last one seems to be an autobiography: clicking "Kike San Martin" leads here. Also, note the existence of the Misty2010 account.

User notified here. - Biruitorul Talk 19:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC) I can not believe what Im reading! After many hours of job, someone is accusing me of doing something wrong. Those articles are not promotional: many hours of investigations leads to the articles. Is so easy to make false accusations. I'm going to support my job, and the hours that I put in something that is good in the spanish world. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misty2011 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The page Kike San Martín is suspiciously similar to the deleted revisions of Kike San Martin (no accent), which was created by, who is now blocked. I suspect it was not directly copied, but rather stored somewhere off-wiki and re-created.   ☮  Soap  ☮  21:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Biruitorul.Hi Soap. Mi name is Manuel. Im acting in a good faith when I write my articles in Wikipedia. I don't know who is the last user that you mention. Im doing my best to be a good user, trying to be a good transmisor of the best and the beautiful opportunities that I can see in the Hispanic World in the South Florida. It is not promotional make bios of people who are celebrities with Oscars nominations, Emmy Awards, best seller authors, and many other relevants things doing in their lifes. Im really concern about this. If you can contact me, you can call me. (Phone number redacted) I have a lot to learn, but please, consider me a man in a good faith. Teach me, but not criticize something that I did in the best honest way. Regards. I wish you the best to all of you.

Manuel. Misty2011 (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please help cleaning. Von Restorff (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing vandalism by 68.15.187.196
This user seems determined to continue vandalising despite now having been warned many times. Malleus Fatuorum 23:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked. Thank you for reporting it. --John (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It felt really strange making a report here, instead of being the subject on one myself. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 23:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw your name at ANI, and almost blocked you on reflex. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt you were alone. Malleus Fatuorum 23:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And conversely, there may have been a race between other admins to prove how co-operative, helpful and ostentatiously even-handed we are by rushing to block the IP for you. Guilty as charged m'lud. <font face="century gothic" color="#0E6E2D">Kim Dent-Brown  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0E6E2D">(Talk)  23:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Can't we just block Malleus in the sake of tradition?--v/r - TP 00:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I will if he says "I seem to be having a tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle" ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 10:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As baiting Malleus is arguably the National Sport of Wikipedia, I am puzzled as to why no-one has yet to comment, "Hey newbie, WP:AN/I is the wrong forum; in future, please make this kind of report to WP:AIV"?--Shirt58 (talk) 11:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll try and bear that in mind for the future. Malleus Fatuorum 14:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's right Malleus. Wasting our precious time. Drmies (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate DYK on main page
Did you know "... that the body of actress Gemma McCluskie, who played Kerry Skinner in the BBC soap opera EastEnders, was found in a London canal five days after she disappeared on 1 March 2012?" What kind of halfwit thinks that it is appropriate to trivialise a murder in this way three weeks after it happens? Utterly repulsive. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is completely inappropriate and it was thoughtless (to say the least) to put something like that on the main page. Deli nk (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Can I ask that someone who knows how to do this deletes the material immediately. I shall also be asking that the person responsible be permanently blocked from any further interaction with the main page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Removed. This is...bad. T. Canens (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I support removal from the main page, though not presumptive blocking. WP:Biographies of living persons applies which means that "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment" still applies to the biographical article, this includes consideration for how any sensationalist representation might affect McCluskie's family. This was a mistake of editorial judgement for the DYK process. --Fæ (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Andy. Even though I am aware of no Wiki policy which specifically prohibits this, at some point a little common sense should come into play. Can we all agree that a recent murder probably shouldn't be listed alongside factoids such as the commencement of National Masturbation Day??JoelWhy (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

 * - Administrator intervention against vandalism - is in need of some mopping - You  really  can  17:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * - Much thanks - You  really  can  18:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Carlos Cortiglia
There's been an ongoing issue over Carlos Cortiglia's candidacy for the British National Party in the London mayoral election, 2012: see Talk page for details. User:Carlos G Cortiglia has now appeared and is, presumably, Cortiglia himself. His most recent edit includes legal threats against Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_mayoral_election%2C_2012&diff=483171246&oldid=483124210 Bondegezou (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Indef blocked by Orange Mike for legal threats. Skier Dude  ( talk ) 20:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Moderator
Hello. How can I be made a moderator on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.241.58.153 (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Make a few thousand productive edits and someone will ask if you if you'd like to request adminship. 28bytes (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * First off, you'll have to make an account. You'll never be made an admin while logged out. Then, be a productive editor for quite a while, and demonstrate your understanding of Wikipedia's rules & guidelines. At that point, you could see if anyone was willing to nominate you for adminship. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

ok thanks. is there a fee? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.241.58.153 (talk) 21:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No. 28bytes (talk) 21:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Possible copyvio on Main Page
Original image source for a photo on the Main Page has a noncommercial license. Kelly hi! 03:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The picture license could have been changed on Flickr since uploaded, but since the image was never uploaded to Commons and reviewed by the Flickr bot it's impossible to tell. I don't see it on the Main Page. Also most of the time people on Flickr are willing to change the license of the photo for Wikipedia use, so you could just ask the original uploader on the site to see if they will do it. Thanks Secret account 03:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

More eyeballs wanted at Mike Daisey - 3RR
Please take a look at the discussion at talk:Mike Daisey first to weigh the arguments. It's currently stuck at a 3RR impasse.

Mike Daisey is a monologist whose recent work on Apple's manufacturing practices has generated significant coverage and reached outside the arts world.

I believe this piece belongs in the lead. Another user believes it should not. This is still a highly visible article and a blp, your opinions and vigilance would be welcome. - hahnch e n 10:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you request third opinion or WP:RFC? ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 10:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The use of the word "recent" is undesirable per WP:RECENTISM. Other than that, I dislike the tone of writing in the lede, and the sourcing could probably be better as well. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 10:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the first place I took it. I'm currently on a mobile phone, so can't really edit during the day.  You're welcome to take it to other forums.  I tried to show through Google insights that not only was it recent, but most covered.  I tried to keep the lead uncontroversial, only mentioning that it generated debate, and not some of the righteous invective on either side.  I think it would be better if opinions stayed on the talk page. - hahnch e n 11:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Lankenau is giving bogus warnings to intimidate users.
User:Lankenau recently left me | this message on my talk page concerning original research that they put on the Abiogensis article and saying that by me reverting original research, that he interpreted my edits and vandalism. User:Drbogdan brought this issue to my attention originally and Lankenau left a threat to Drbogdan in his | Edit summary.

Despite recent warnings to him by many users he has continued to leave intimidating warnings to made up rules. I would like for an administrator to explain that you cannot add original research to him because he does not yet seem to understand. One more thing to note is that he left a | confusing message on my talk page about facebook and twitter and email.

Thank you for looking into my situation. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 19:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever the merits of Lankenau's edits, how is this message an attempt at intimidation? I don't see what's threatening or "bogus" about it. It may well be that your edit was not vandalism and thus their claim that it was may be unjustified, but is that really a matter for ANI? Drmies (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just my interpretation. The reason this has been brought to ANI is because the user has failed to understand the rules and continues to say that people are doing "Vandalism" just because they undid his work. Also, it was | this edit that was intimidation. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 22:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What, when he tried to establish himself as an expert, then suggested that if he didn't get his way on Wikipedia he was going to take his ball and go home? ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 23:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I was more talking about saying that anybody that reverts his edits are doing vandalism. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 23:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Mislabeling edits as vandalism is, in theory, fixable - and not a threat. Yes, it's bogus, but if they don't get told the difference between their definition of vandalism and Wikipedia's definition, how do they know to stop? ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 09:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Ahem. If anything is a bad edit, trout-slappable even, it's this one. Dirk Lankenau adds information to the article, referenced to six articles published in academic journals, and someone has the moxie to call it original research? "Oh yes but he has a conflict of interest and blah blah blah"--so f***ing what? He is not forbidden from adding articles he wrote or co-wrote, and Lankenau's name is not found in all of those articles, nor is that of his partner in crime (well, in science, for crying out loud). Even Drbogdan's revert, with the "COI" edit summary, is incorrect: the linked guideline doesn't forbid any editor from adding a reference to their own work. I want to see some editors re-read the original research section, esp. the part that says "if it's sourced to published sources it's not original frigging research", and I want to see humble pie eaten and hairshirts worn. I'm not even kidding. "Original research"--I'll show you some original research, Google Scholar style: . We got a scientist who has kindly come to help us out, and we treat him like this? Drmies (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed completely with Drmies. This is legitimate source material, well referenced, from secondary sources (peer-reviewed book chapters), in a niche area that very few of us know anything about, added by someone who is knowledgeable on the area (as evidenced by even a simple Google Scholar search on their name). We should be encouraging addition of this content, not rolling it back in one fell swoop with allegations of OR. -- Samir 05:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I see no OR, but WP:UNDUE may be an issue here. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 05:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What I see here is a new, enthusiastic, and very competent wikipedian. Who just might be a little out of their depth in a content issue, to put it bluntly. OK, we've identified the problem, now lets look for solutions.  I would like to think I've started that here--Shirt58 (talk) 11:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Me, too; this is an editor who can be a real asset to the community. All they really need is to understand what is not vandalism, and they'll be fine here!  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 11:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hyhgux, please trout yourself a few times for not reading WP:OR properly and mishandling the situation. Blackmane (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this point (or, at the very least, I need some more convincing.) I'm not disputing that this guy is a legitimate scientist. But, I would caution you all on giving too much weight to that fact. I could point you to at least half a dozen Nobel prize winning scientists who then went on to become fierce advocates on one form of pseudoscience or another. I'm not saying that's the case here, just that we can't simply rely on the fact that he's a professional in the field to conclude that his hypothesis holds any weight within the field.

I have searched on Google Scholar and I frankly am getting the impression that this is hypothesis has not been accepted by many in field. His work has not been cited by many others in the field, and I can find no references to "ZN-world theory" by anyone other than him. The language in the Wiki article also made me very skeptical of this. I mean: "The Zn-World theory of Armen Mulkidjanian is the most realistic. sophisticated extension and improvement of Wächtershäuser´s pyrite hypothesis." Really? Maybe it is, and I certainly am NOT an expert in this field (nor am I a scientist.) But, this sounds like self-promotion more than it sounds like science.JoelWhy (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "I have searched on Google Scholar and I frankly am getting the impression that this is hypothesis has not been accepted by many in field" - You are free to express scepticism of the hypothesis by providing reliable academic sources which refute it. But I would like to note that we do not remove information just because it's not true, we remove it if it is unsourced. The paragraphs that have been removed are clearly sourced reliably. &mdash;Dark 14:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, to clarify, my hesitation to accept this is not whether it's true or not -- it's whether it's noteworthy. There are probably a million hypothesis related to abiogenesis (and every other major theory in the sciences.) We don't include all of them (even when sourced.) We include those which are noteworthy. If this is a hypothesis that is accepted by an insignificant fraction of those working in the field, it wouldn't be included. I'm not sure that this is the case, here, but based on my search into the issue, it sure seems that way. That being said, I really have no stake in this game. If I am wrong about that, I would be happy to support the addition.JoelWhy (talk) 14:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue is the rollback of the edits, which shouldn't have been done claiming OR. Discussion on whether undue weight is being placed on this hypothesis should be held at the article's talk page (where it had started) as opposed to just rolling back the edits. I am not an expert whatsoever on the field, but the PNAS paper was what made me think this warranted consideration for inclusion. The section needs to be rewritten also, because it does read rather confidently. Other gauges like article cites can be used to determine the relative significance of the hypothesis, but that is best discussed on the article talk page -- Samir 15:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. I have pasted the relevant comments into the talk page in the abiogenesis page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelWhy (talk • contribs) 15:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour at AfD
Skashifakram is behaving disruptively at Articles for deletion/List of Muslim Nobel Laureates‎. His/her initial !vote was cast here, then he added a second here. He was advised that he couldn't cast multiple !votes here, and acknowledged it here. Another editor made this attempt to reason with him. Then he proceeded to add more and more. I struck out all but the first here, but he partially reverted the edit here, complaining about "tampering". This seems very disruptive &mdash; could someone intervene? Jakew (talk) 12:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've blocked - there weren't any warnings at the user Talk page, but the attempted discussion in the AfD made it clear enough. I've offered to unblock as soon as they agree to stop trying add multiple !votes. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Ummm, it's not a vote. Why does it matter in the slightest whether someone precedes everything they say at an AfD with "keep"? Any admin worth the membership fee will ignore them. Blocking for what amounts to a minor etiquette problem (certainly no less annoying than editors who insist on adding question or comment before every reply they make, something which has never gone punished AFAIK) is a little troubling. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait--there was a fee? Beyond my soul? Drmies (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course it's a "vote," the mythology of it notwithstanding. Save for SPA votestacking or other blatant examples of chicanery, when was the last time you saw a closing admin say "Be damned to the head count, I agree with the minority POV and that's how this will be closed?"  Ravenswing  15:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ravenswing, please give admins a little more credit than that. I can't give you a diff of when that happened the last time, but when I close something, I look for this. But an admin should never say that, "damned be the head count", because it is not a head count. It's not. Drmies (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Any close predicated on one editor's multiple !votes would be overturned at DRV faster than you could blink, and any admin who would close an AFD without reading it enough to note that an editor posted a bold Keep multiple times (and had been called on it) shouldn't be closing AFDs. I'm also a little uncomfortable with blocking an editor for what appears to be a minor breach usual practice. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Boing, I think this "edit-warring" is really minor--I see only two reverts of their Keeps being struck through. Please reconsider. Drmies (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Editor has already agreed to stop and I've unblocked. But fair enough, I'd have gone with the consensus here and unblocked had I seen this first. In fact, I should have added my usual comment (which is there on my user page) that anyone is welcome to revert any admin action of mine if they think it is mistaken. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright then. Let's close this. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for review of block by EncycloPetey
had a content dispute with on the Book of Habakkuk article over WP:ERA dating. However, EncycloPetey's last edit was to revert WP Editor 2011's "illegal changes" and then to immediately block WP Editor 2011 for edit warring for 48 hours, presumably so that EncycloPetey's edit would not be reverted. 48 hours just seems a bit much when WP Editor 2011 has had no previous block, and has (from what I can tell) never been warned about edit warring in any capacity. The blocking administrator also failed to leave a block template on the blocked user's talk page, so the blocked user likely has no idea how to appeal their block, or even that they can do so. During the past two days, each of them made two reversions back to their preferred versions, each of them explaining on their talk pages why they made the edits, so I'm at a loss as to why WP Editor 2011 was edit warring, and EncycloPetey was not. Looking at the article's contribs, it looks like somewhere around a third of the edits to that article have been made by EncycloPetey, so the user doesn't appear to be WP:UNINVOLVED by any means. I'm not involved in this dispute, but an editor with administrative privileges using their tools during a content dispute to maintain their preferred version and block the other editor concerned me, so I would greatly appreciate it if administrators could take a look at this and review both WP Editor 2011's block and EncycloPetey's actions. I left a message on EncycloPetey's talk page ~15 hours ago asking the editor to clarify why they made this block, but as of posting this message, EncycloPetey has not edited further and their contribs show relatively infrequent editing, so I wanted to bring this here so that this could be reviewed in a more timely manner and the block adjusted if doing so is appropriate. - SudoGhost 18:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WP Editor 2011 and EncycloPetey have both been notified. - SudoGhost 18:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow.... I've unblocked WP Editor 2011 as this is a clear violation of WP:INVOLVED. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good call to unblock. Entirely agree that this was a textbook case of an involved admin. Does the unblock put this report to bed? In my view it would be good to hear from EncycloPetey before we do. I'd want to hear that he accepts this was a breach of WP:UNINVOLVED, and an undertaking to be more careful in future. <font face="century gothic" color="#0E6E2D">Kim Dent-Brown <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0E6E2D">(Talk)  20:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Spot on Kim - unblock was entirely correct, and it would be beneficial to hear from EncycloPetey on the matter. GiantSnowman 20:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is worth noting that WP Editor 2011 was simply lying in his edit summary "Undid revision 481432198 by EncycloPetey (talk) since this was the same change made against the rules by this editor on 12 Dec 2011". [This http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Habakkuk] was the condition of the article before EncycloPetey made any edits on 12 December. As you can see that version of the article contained both era styles, which is clearly against the MOS, which calls for one style per article. EP simply made the article consistent throughout. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How was he lying? This was indeed "the same change" that EncycloPetey made on 12 Dec 2011, there's nothing untrue in the edit summary. They were both "making the article consistent", and WP Editor 2011 was making it consistent with the first version of the article. Not saying WP Editor 2011 was correct, but this was not some critical disruption that caused for an immediate block by an involved administrator, it was a content dispute. Nor was it "illegal", which is an odd choice of words for an administrator to make in an edit summary. - SudoGhost 22:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I missed the "against the rules" part. However, I don't think it was a matter of lying so much as a misunderstanding. - SudoGhost 22:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

[I've re-opened the discussion, which seems as yet unresolved--if an admin made a wrong and "involved" decision this board can comment. If this gains no more traction, it can be closed in 24 hours, maybe. Drmies (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Apparently this issue isn't resolved. EncycloPetey apparently doesn't think this is an WP:INVOLVED issue, stating that "all my interaction on this particular issue has been in the capacity of an administrator". I don't see how blocking an editor for having a content dispute with you isn't a violation of WP:INVOLVED, and this statement seems to suggest that this problem will potentially repeat itself in the future. - SudoGhost 05:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Where did that edit go? But also, the thread was just about the block itself or not? It's not like ANI can make someone listen short of community sanctions. Is it thought that this is serious enough for escalation? - 124.148.170.131 (talk) 12:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * He undid it a few minutes later with an edit summary stating "undo my edit - I had not spotted that the issue was closed before I had a chance to respond". --64.85.220.19 (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * An administrator using their tools in a content dispute to block an editor to win an edit war for an escalated period of time when the user has no previous blocks, without warning the user or so much as placing a block template on their talk page? To top if off, that administrator makes no comment that this will not happen again, quite the opposite, not seeing that it is even an issue by egregiously misinterpreting their actions there as somehow not being WP:INVOLVED? Yes, I do think that this is a serious issue. - SudoGhost 14:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've reviewed this, and agree that it was a clear-cut case of an involved admin using his tools in a dispute. Indeed, it would have been a poor block if he hadn't been an involved admin. Whether it should be escalated further depends (a) on whether EncycloPetey takes on board the opinion from multiple people that this was a serious misuse of his admin tools, and agrees not to do it anymore, and (b) on whether this is a one-off, or a pattern of behavior. The first has definitely not happened yet; I don't know about the second. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If I may, I've known 'Petey for a few years and have never seen him abuse admin tools, so I think the comment about a pattern of behavior is unwarranted. I've only ever known him to be a polite and dedicated editor. I have not reviewed the particulars of the case, so I can't comment on it. I would say, however, that there's clearly no evidence that EncycloPetey is going to go on a rampage abusing the tools, so can we tone down the rhetoric here, give him some time to reflect and respond? From someone uninvolved, the discussion here, on his talk page, and at Talk:Book of Habakkuk could be perceived as piling on. Just a kind reminder to WP:AGF. Rkitko (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this a general comment, or did you indent this correctly and it's a response to me? If you re-read my comment, I didn't say it was a pattern, I said I didn't know if it was a pattern or not, and that would affect whether it should be escalated or not. I also said we should wait to see his response. You've misused AGF to mean "don't criticize someone who did something they shouldn't have", and the "tone down the rhetoric" comment, if made as a general comment, I find puzzling (I don't see anyone in this thread making any rhetorical excesses), and if directed at me, I find insulting (I probably took that in a way it wasn't intended) (because I guarantee I'm not making any, and I have not made any comments about this anywhere other than here). --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't bring it to ANI to WP:ABF, but out of a concern that the block should not have been made, and that this behavior might continue, especially because EncycloPetey's last comment on the matter suggests they don't see anything wrong with their actions. - SudoGhost 01:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've reviewed and would also agree that they were definitely involved. I can see no way that edits like this and this could be considered admin actions, hence they are involved.
 * Looking at recent blocks there's another that stand out as problematic. User:EncycloPetey blocked User:Drphilharmonic at 04:27 on 17 Jan for edit warring on Brassicaceae despite them apparently being one of the people that Drphilharmonic was in an edit war with - for example this edit by EncycloPetey which he made with the edit summary "Undid revision 471764899 by Drphilharmonic (talk) - incorrect grammar and incorrect hyphenation". This is clearly a content dispute not an admin action and was made at 22:51 on 16 January well before the block.
 * I am also worried somewhat by the block of User:86.164.252.184 which must have been for edits to Chlorophyll. Unless there's some previous edits with a different IP I don't think edits like this warrant a block for spamming especially as the IP was not warned and EncylcoPetey just used the default undo edit summary so the IP could find out no information in the edit log either as to what they did wrong. Even when EncycloPetey blocked they did not leave a message to explain the problem.
 * EncycloPetey has only made seven blocks in the last 11 months and I thought it unfair to review further back given the time scales involved. Personally I find 3 of their 7 blocks to be at least debatable and think this is a worrying proportion It would appear that EncycloPetey has a different understanding of involved than the wider community and, at a minimum, I'd like to see them admit this and make an undertaking to not act in the same way in future. Dpmuk (talk) 05:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My main concern is that this might happen again, and if there's a pattern of this then I certainly think it needs to be addressed. I think the easiest and most satisfactory way to address this is by EncycloPetey acknowledging and understanding that this was an inappropriate use of the administrative tools, and promising not to repeat this. However, as of their last comment on the matter, they apparently don't think that this was an WP:INVOLVED issue, which would seem to suggest that they would have no intention of stopping this behavior, which I think is very problematic. - SudoGhost 03:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * EncycloPetey still hasn't edited, but I think some sort of comment by EncycloPetey would be needed before this could be considered resolved. - SudoGhost 02:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Subtle IP vandalism? May need review
I've long fallen out of the way of how and where these types of actions are noted, but having just had to repair numerous instances of what appears to be subtle IP vandalism by and, and noting that they edit over an area extending well beyond my interest area, all edits by these IPs over recent months and especially in the last few days should be treated as suspect. If you want to see what I mean for some examples, my own contributions today relating to postcodes of Australia contain the reversions. Orderinchaos 07:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've blocked both IPs for 3 months. This is a first time block for one of them but I'm operating under the assumption it's all related; they both geolocate to Oregon and it looks like one's a school so the other's probably someone's home. However, reviewing the content changes requires a knowledge of Aussie postcodes and soap operas that I don't have :) EyeSerene talk 09:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

More incoming paid promotional COI work
Just a heads-up for those that track these things: related to a previous ANI thread (archived here) it appears a deal has been struck for additional articles (see ). EyeSerene talk 09:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, it's a thing:
 * https://www.elance.com/r/contractors/q-Wikipedia%20Writing/
 * https://www.elance.com/r/contractors/q-Wikipedia%20Editing/

--Kim Bruning (talk) 13:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC) excreted waste meets rotational air displacement device
 * Well spotted. I'm looking into it. WilliamH (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK I've done a little digging. Here are the articles in question:
 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dave's Travel Corner
 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Napa Wine Project
 * The job in question is marked as cancelled. It looks to me like the initial submission is his own doing and the subsequent submissions are the contractor's, except that this time he gave his work to the person who hired him to resubmit it through the account that belongs to the hirer, probably mindful of the fact that all his socks were recently rumbled. WilliamH (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not wonder that someone would accept work for contributing articles for pay. I wonder that someone with such remarkably low a degree of competence would advertise his services for doing this, or would have the gall to accept money for such feeble work. Presumably he has some so-far successful articles to his credit to give as examples, and we need to give the highest priority to finding them. Then the market will deal with him.  DGG ( talk ) 21:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Various now-blocked accounts and thus their contributions can be seen via that previous ANI thread. WilliamH (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Pedro Almodóvar death report
A heads-up. There are unconfirmed reports on Twitter that Pedro Almodóvar has died.--A bit iffy (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've watchlisted the article and will monitor it for unsourced edits regarding the rumour. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 16:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Some suggestions on Twitter that the Spanish government have confirmed it, other suggestions that it's a hoax.--A bit iffy (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm keeping my eye on the new reports - no reliable sources are mentioning it (as of yet). It will either be confirmed in the next few hours or blow over completely as another Twitter death hoax. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 16:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's a hoax: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/318689/20120323/pedro-almodovar-dead-alive-hoax.htm --A bit iffy (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Come on folks. There is a new Twitter death rumour every hour. Unless there is serious evidence of disruption (more than, say, one IP which self-reverted two minutes later, as here) then bringing it to ANI just gives those responsible what they're looking for. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe someone will be inspired to work on his article, so it doesn't have one section per film, and one film per section. Drmies (talk) 18:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Broken template with unclear problem
Template:Weather box appears to be broken (badly), but I am not seeing any problems (or any recent edits) to it. Take a look at Sebring, Florida or Miami (the first two instances I found of the problem) and take a look at the precipitation data. There's nothing obviously broken in the template, but I am by no means a template guru. Can someone take a look at this high-usage template and figure out what happened to it?  Horologium  (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm about as far from a template guru as you can get, but I think I fixed the problem. Special:RecentChangesLinked/Template:Weather box is handy.  You may have to clear the cache of the page to see the correct version. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Repeated violations of COI despite warnings
(previously editing as has been editing the article  for several years. The user has confirmed both via OTRS ticket and on various pages that she is the subject of the article. (See for instance:, ) Ms. Handal has repeatedly removed sourced material from the article  and removed the COI tag. Much of the editing that she has done has involved copying portions of her website to this article (this is the rationale for the OTRS ticket mentioned above). The user has been repeatedly warned about the COI policy but has continued to remove sourced information. Given that Ms. Handal seems to want to have ownership of this article regardless of the COI policy, I think that some sanctions are in order. GabrielF (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've rechecked the editor's talk page to see if there is anything new since I last reviewed the COI issue in 2008. Lots of people have tried to explain our system to her, but in March 2012 she has resumed active editing of the article contrary to policy. For example, she has removed well-sourced commentary and links to published reviews of her work. Four years have passed since she began editing Wikipedia, you would expect that she should be willing to properly express her concerns on talk pages. Since nothing else has worked, and since there is no question of unsourced defamation, I reluctantly propose a one-month block from editing. The only alternative is to *give her* the article and let her post anything she wants and remove anything she finds inconvenient, even though well-sourced. EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a shed load of warnings on talk her page dating back to a long time ago (2008), but no evidence that she's ever responded to anyone's concerns about her WP:COI editing at all. Whilst assuming good faith is important in COI cases, refusal to get the point can't be helped and nor can a chronic lack of communication -- especially not after four years. However, since no escalating blocks have been used recently, it would be unfair to take the enforcement immediately to one month; she's only been blocked once, in 2008, for a rather odd duration of 31 hours. I'm going to go ahead and set a 48 hour block for now and if she continues, a one-month block would be appropriate. --Tristessa (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Her offical website mentions a e-mail adress. Has anyone tried to contact her that way? HandsomeFella (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I find it odd she removes a photograph she apparently does not like, for it is certainly within her power to donate a better one, & we normally accept any such reasonable preference. I assume from this she still does not understand what to do, rather than that she intends to do the wrong thing.  DGG ( talk ) 22:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * DGG, this may be the most beautiful poet I've seen in a long time. I'm ordering some books. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard
Edits here by User:AwayEnter strike me as carrying highly charged language that verges on a WP:NLT violation. I gave them a template warning, and they responded in a way that left me extemely uncomfortable. Could I get some more eyes on this one? -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  20:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The response given to the template warning was, in its entirety, "No threats were made, only facts were presented." User_talk:AwayEnter -AwayEnter (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Response
 * Your "facts were presented"' using phrases such as "serious misrepresentations of fact"; "dangerous potential to legitimize and perpetuate these detrimental misrepresentations"; "recorded in legal action"; "dangerously misrepresents the subject"; and "makes false claims". Those reek of the courtroom, or at least the cease-and-desist letter; and appear to represent an intent to intimidate. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  21:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The comment that suggests "an intent to intimidate" is frighteningly similar to what defines harassment "In the legal sense, it is intentional behaviour which is found threatening or disturbing." The language used in the comment above is nearly identical to the language of the law. Are admins immune to WP:NLT violations? AwayEnter (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Nah, admins may be thick-skinned but they aren't immune. However, most of us (including non-admins like me) are immune to frivolous claims.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Seems to reek more of someone who thinks that using long words gives their comments more credibility. (I'm sure courtrooms see that tendency too, but then so do many other places.) I'm a big supporter of interpreting "no legal threats" broadly, but even a broad definition doesn't cover the diff for which you templated the editor. You've given them a templated warning, we know that they read it, so there's nothing more to be done unless they proceed to issue something that can be more clearly perceived as a legal threat. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That was precisely my reaction, too. Too convoluted to take seriously. More like a parody of a poorly drawn legal document.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Night Court had more clear, lasting legal statements. What we have is someone trying hard to sound more credible, but yes, teetering on NLT only so far... ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 22:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Look ... invoking NLT is pretty much the nuclear weapon almost always guaranteed to earn the offender a long - if not indef - block. As such, I think we have a responsibility to recognize that violations must be genuine, tangible legal threats, not merely pompous big words which make us uncomfortable, however much they allegedly "reek of the courtroom."  Stipulating that they do, so what?  Ravenswing  04:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

AfD requiring closure
without contacting a particular admin, this AfD Articles for deletion/Intellectsoft was Relisted on 15 March and now requires closure. thanks. LibStar (talk) 04:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not anymore. Drmies (talk) 04:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Repeated violations of COI despite warnings
(previously editing as has been editing the article  for several years. The user has confirmed both via OTRS ticket and on various pages that she is the subject of the article. (See for instance:, ) Ms. Handal has repeatedly removed sourced material from the article  and removed the COI tag. Much of the editing that she has done has involved copying portions of her website to this article (this is the rationale for the OTRS ticket mentioned above). The user has been repeatedly warned about the COI policy but has continued to remove sourced information. Given that Ms. Handal seems to want to have ownership of this article regardless of the COI policy, I think that some sanctions are in order. GabrielF (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've rechecked the editor's talk page to see if there is anything new since I last reviewed the COI issue in 2008. Lots of people have tried to explain our system to her, but in March 2012 she has resumed active editing of the article contrary to policy. For example, she has removed well-sourced commentary and links to published reviews of her work. Four years have passed since she began editing Wikipedia, you would expect that she should be willing to properly express her concerns on talk pages. Since nothing else has worked, and since there is no question of unsourced defamation, I reluctantly propose a one-month block from editing. The only alternative is to *give her* the article and let her post anything she wants and remove anything she finds inconvenient, even though well-sourced. EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a shed load of warnings on talk her page dating back to a long time ago (2008), but no evidence that she's ever responded to anyone's concerns about her WP:COI editing at all. Whilst assuming good faith is important in COI cases, refusal to get the point can't be helped and nor can a chronic lack of communication -- especially not after four years. However, since no escalating blocks have been used recently, it would be unfair to take the enforcement immediately to one month; she's only been blocked once, in 2008, for a rather odd duration of 31 hours. I'm going to go ahead and set a 48 hour block for now and if she continues, a one-month block would be appropriate. --Tristessa (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Her offical website mentions a e-mail adress. Has anyone tried to contact her that way? HandsomeFella (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I find it odd she removes a photograph she apparently does not like, for it is certainly within her power to donate a better one, & we normally accept any such reasonable preference. I assume from this she still does not understand what to do, rather than that she intends to do the wrong thing.  DGG ( talk ) 22:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * DGG, this may be the most beautiful poet I've seen in a long time. I'm ordering some books. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard
Edits here by User:AwayEnter strike me as carrying highly charged language that verges on a WP:NLT violation. I gave them a template warning, and they responded in a way that left me extemely uncomfortable. Could I get some more eyes on this one? -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  20:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The response given to the template warning was, in its entirety, "No threats were made, only facts were presented." User_talk:AwayEnter -AwayEnter (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Response
 * Your "facts were presented"' using phrases such as "serious misrepresentations of fact"; "dangerous potential to legitimize and perpetuate these detrimental misrepresentations"; "recorded in legal action"; "dangerously misrepresents the subject"; and "makes false claims". Those reek of the courtroom, or at least the cease-and-desist letter; and appear to represent an intent to intimidate. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  21:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The comment that suggests "an intent to intimidate" is frighteningly similar to what defines harassment "In the legal sense, it is intentional behaviour which is found threatening or disturbing." The language used in the comment above is nearly identical to the language of the law. Are admins immune to WP:NLT violations? AwayEnter (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Nah, admins may be thick-skinned but they aren't immune. However, most of us (including non-admins like me) are immune to frivolous claims.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Seems to reek more of someone who thinks that using long words gives their comments more credibility. (I'm sure courtrooms see that tendency too, but then so do many other places.) I'm a big supporter of interpreting "no legal threats" broadly, but even a broad definition doesn't cover the diff for which you templated the editor. You've given them a templated warning, we know that they read it, so there's nothing more to be done unless they proceed to issue something that can be more clearly perceived as a legal threat. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That was precisely my reaction, too. Too convoluted to take seriously. More like a parody of a poorly drawn legal document.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Night Court had more clear, lasting legal statements. What we have is someone trying hard to sound more credible, but yes, teetering on NLT only so far... ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 22:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Look ... invoking NLT is pretty much the nuclear weapon almost always guaranteed to earn the offender a long - if not indef - block. As such, I think we have a responsibility to recognize that violations must be genuine, tangible legal threats, not merely pompous big words which make us uncomfortable, however much they allegedly "reek of the courtroom."  Stipulating that they do, so what?  Ravenswing  04:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

AfD requiring closure
without contacting a particular admin, this AfD Articles for deletion/Intellectsoft was Relisted on 15 March and now requires closure. thanks. LibStar (talk) 04:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not anymore. Drmies (talk) 04:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Help
Hello. I'm a complete noob here, and your instructions on how to contribute are extremely complicated for someone who is very new to contributing to wikipedia. please don't be harsh on me - we all have the start learning somewhere! i thank you in advance for your help.

the information I added to Comparison of DNS blacklists was legitimate and well formatted. The automated system removed it though. How can I add the information again without the system removing it? I'm afraid if I try again with the same information, the system might ban me or something. Can you please help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.145.149 (talk) 07:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your addition was removed by an automated bot that thought it was vandalism. I see that someone else has replaced it on your behalf, and it appears that you have also taken this to the help desk. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 10:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:RFPP
There's a backlog at WP:Requests for page protection, going back at least ten hours. Zagal e jo^^^ 17:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Editor placing COI tags on articles and not discussing
Can I please get an administrator's assistance on this? It's not a grave issue, but attempts to reason with the other editor have been unsuccessful. I created this article on 03/20; on 03/23, MikeWazowski added a COI tag on the article diff alleging that I have an outside conflict of interest with the subject (which I do not). I revised the article a little bit but MikeWazowski put the COI tag back on (03/24) and claimed I was "doing nothing but adding promotional content" about the subject diff. I disagree, but he has not responded back to a message I left for him on his talk page, nor has he included any information on the article's talk page. While the article could use more refs, there is little ground to prove that I am "affiliated" with the subject. If this has to do with him not thinking the subject is notable enough for Wikipedia, I have no objections with a Nomination For Deletion. thank you. --MrMagix (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It has been less than 24 hours since you posted on his talk page, and the tone of your post message didn't strike me as trying to start a conversation as much as complain about his actions. Neither of you has used the talk page on the article.  You didn't even tell him that you have no conflict with the subject matter on his talk page.  I don't see how any admin actions would be beneficial at this stage, as I don't see him doing anything "bad".  Dennis Brown (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC) (not an admin)
 * While COI editing is a pet peeve of mine, I'm going to AGF and assume that MrMagix is not related to the subject based on what he said about himself on his userpage. However, the case of User:Steelpantherwiki is not so clear. However, in both cases MikeWazowski should have immediately followed up his tagging with an explanation on the article's talk page. Therefore, I'm going to BOLDly remove the tag from George Schindler. I'll leave it on Steel Panther but MikeWazowski should post to the article's talk page explaining why he added the tag. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * MrMagix's entire edit history at the time I added the tag had been to either create an article about George Schindler, or add him to other articles. That, along with the username, led to the addition of the COI tag, as it seemed likely. As to not replying, sometimes it happens - I was dealing with another user (now blocked) leaving false warnings on my page, and the SteelPanther editor - sometimes, stuff slips through. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would the username be an issue, if someone had the username "MrHeavyMetal" would you suspect he's associated with Metallica? The username tells me that he's interested in magic and magicians. This could just simply be the first magician he elected to write about. Now if his username was GeorgeSchindler or if MrMagix was a known nickname for the subject, then the case would be a little stronger. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * MrMagix only contacted him once (without claiming that there wasn't a COI), and should have been more patient in waiting for a reply before assuming that he was being ignored. At least try to work out problems on a talk page *first*.   There is no "wrong doing", even if someone else would have handled it differently, and a look at the contribs clearly shows (right or wrong) why the COI would be suspected. It simply isn't an issue for ANI at this stage.   Dennis Brown (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

IP persisting in making drastic changes without sources or explanation
User:74.127.167.105 began editing about a week ago, with an apparent interest in children's television, particularly TV adaptations of the Berenstain Bears. Several of their edits appear to be okay, at least to my uninformed eye (examples: ). They've written some odd things that make me wonder if they're fluent in English, but they haven't reacted to my reversions in those cases. (I don't know whether any of the other information they've added is accurate, but I've left it alone where it seems reasonable.)

Where we keep butting heads is at Berenstain Bears and The Berenstain Bears (1985 TV series). At both these articles, the IP keeps inserting these complete, elaborate episode lists, with episode titles and airdates, that doesn't correlate to any information I've been able to find anywhere (except where the same IP has added the same info to a Berenstain Bears Wikia). At the former article, we have sources that say five BB specials aired from 1979 to 1984; the IP insists 36 "specials" aired in that time. At the 1985 series article, the IP changes the airdates of several episodes and removes many of them entirely. That article has never included sources, but every website I've looked at agrees with what was there, not what the IP insists. From my limited investigation, I think all the IP's episode titles are actual titles of videos or TV episodes released at some point, but with no connection to when the IP says they aired on TV.

I have asked the IP several times to explain the source of their information, but the IP has not responded in any form, and just keeps making the same changes or the same type of changes (or a few other variations, such as in ). I do think they're probably acting in good faith (although I'm constantly wavering in my faith on that), but I don't know what I can do to proceed here, so I'm requesting advice or help in breaking this cycle, since I certainly don't want either article (particularly Berenstain Bears, which was in a much better state to begin with) to sit with information that by all indications is incorrect. Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Well, can we just block him if possible since he is a known IP vandal? As a note, I have already issued a final warning on the talk page. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As his most recent edits appear to be nothing but vandalism and disruption, I've gone ahead and reported him. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the action taken (the user has now been blocked for three days). I'm still baffled by their intentions, but given their unwillingness to communicate, it's hard for me to see any other recourse besides blocking. Theoldsparkle (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Death threat from an IP
See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Acid_throwing&curid=1813817&diff=483750805&oldid=483750775 -badmachine 22:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * How the hell are those IPs not blocked anyway? Look at these article histories:, . Breaking 35RR isn't a blockable offence now? Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Peter I. Vardy & Malleus Fatuorum throwing insults my way.
Hello. On March 23rd I tagged an article for deletion that was created by Peter I. Vardy. My tagging was wrong. I admit that. However, on User_talk:Peter_I._Vardy's talk page, Numerous user's continued to insult and offend me. Including User:Malleus Fatuorum telling me to "fuck off" when I responded to Peter_I._Vardy's message saying he considered to write a "caustic comment" (insult) on my talk page but that he was "beat to it". I also recall a remark on the page calling me an "ignorant American". I am offended by these remarks and am also upset that this behavior was backed by a posse of editors. I claim violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 22:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just back away. You fucked up. You got called on it.  You should have apologized then ignored the rest of the page.  Being told to "fuck off" is not an NPA, although it is uncivil.  You did kinda create the situation, then inflamed it a bit ... now you want someone to block someone? ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 22:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Being told to "fuck off is not a "no personal attack" :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Telling someone to "fuck off" is very uncivil, and seems designed to create drama, as is responding "You fucked up.", while calling someone an "Ignorant American" IS a nationalistic, xenophobic personal attack. I don't see why editors should have to put up with this sort of baiting.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * @Bwilkins. Anyone can make a mistake and he did apologise. If you had nothing constructive to offer it would have bee preferable for you to say nothing at all. Your attitude adds further credibility to the accusations that one of the involved parties here has frequently made about Admins. Leaky  Caldron  23:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're actually paying attention, I'm actually TRYING to get the OP to recognize how they generated then escalated the concept. I always say that "someone else's incivility my explain your own, but it will never excuse it.  Nobody is going to be blocked for calling someone else an "ignorant American" ... you either give them a Twinkle warning, or you back away saying "maybe I deserved that".  Again, no blocks will come from it.  ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 23:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I don't want to stand being called an ignorant American. Just because somebody tagged your article wrong? Just because your comments written behind another user's back? THIS WAS A CLEAR INCIVILTY VIOLATION WETHER I SCREWED UP OR NOT. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 23:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ignorant simply means "unknowing". We don't block for simple incivility. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 23:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The facts speak for themselves. You are an ignorant American.  And if you're a Harvard student then I'm a monkey's uncle. Parrot of Doom 23:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd love to meet your nephew then because I love monkeys. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 23:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * So we're allowed to call people puerile names and slag them off as long as we think it's deserved? I didn't realise. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you know what "puerile" means? Malleus Fatuorum 23:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep. If you're not sure, look it up. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I know what it means, but obviously you don't. Malleus Fatuorum 23:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You do? So why ask? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Enough. Malleus, if you want to have a fight in a dictionary, pick the OED. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum has been blocked 13 times for incivility and disruption was recently admonished by ArbCom for "repeatedly personalizing disputes and engaging in uncivil conduct, personal attacks, and disruptive conduct". Clearly, MF has not taken ArbCom's admonishment to heart, has not reformed his behavior and should be banned from Wikipedia. Enough is enough. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Any excuse for a fight, eh? Have you actually checked your facts? The "ignorant American" comment wasn't made by me. Malleus Fatuorum 00:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow. Look at Malleus's block log! Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 00:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I was referring to your "fuck off" comment. And you just did it again in this edit summary. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Of equal or greater concern is the amount of uncivil conduct against the original poster taking place on this thread - mainly not by Malleus but by those who encourage him, such as User:Parrot of Doom and User:BWilkins. Why are people surprised about editors leaving Wikipedia if we allow this sort of nastiness, and then censor any attempts to complain about it?Nigel Ish (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Please tell me exactly what is incorrect about my statement above. Parrot of Doom 00:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * What did Hghyux's nationality have to do with him being ignorant? Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (to parrot) The issue with your comment is that is it was uncivil and appears to be insulting the OP - and which is only making the situation worse.Nigel Ish (talk) 00:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And whoa, time out ... I have not in any way encouraged or been any part of nastiness. Indeed, I am still engaged with the OP attempting to resolve this - as noted, blocks were not happening, so I'm trying to assist. Everyone ... just fricking drop it here - all will be well in the long run ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 00:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hghyux's nationality and ignorance were the very things that caused him to incorrectly tag an article for deletion. If you'd bothered to read the original discussion on Peter's talk page, you'd have realised that. Parrot of Doom 00:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * His nationality was part of the reason he incorrectly tagged an article for deletion, is that what you think? So Americans mistag articles on British topics all the time, do they? Must be a regular nightmare for the elite among us. I've read the discussion, thanks, and very unedifying it is too. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was, because he was completely ignorant of the notability of a Grade II listed building, as many Americans naturally would be. Parrot of Doom 00:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I concur with AQFK's comment. I participated in the ArbCom case and had hope that Malleus would have at least learned his taste in language is not acceptable in collegial discussion, but he has used inflammatory language such as 'tw*t', 'f*ck off' as well as ad homenim insults such as 'ignorant American'. Malleus should be banned for a period of one week at the very least. This behavior has no place on here and its enabling by editors such as Parrot of Doom and BWilkins is quite frankly uncalled for and reeks of WP:FANCLUB and WP:GANG. <font color="green" face="Mistral">Toa  <font color="green" face="Mistral">Nidhiki <font color="green" face="Mistral">05  00:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I suggest you get your facts straight, because Malleus has not called Hghyux an "ignorant American". And if you're looking for a fan club then perhaps you should look a bit more closely at AQFK's previous interactions with Malleus, particularly when it comes to the September 11 attacks article. Parrot of Doom 00:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well well well, why would I need to tell you about the 9/11 page when it turns out that you're also involved in that mire? What was that about fan clubs? Parrot of Doom 00:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Requesting block for multiple accounts
Requesting a block for. I have warned them about their edits to that change the genres and remove the artist's aliases. Also, because of the similar edits and the fact the the accounts were made at the same time, I believe it is possible that {{{{Userlinks|Bluerosenumber1}} and {{Userlinks|Chuckthecanuck}} are this same person. Xfansd (talk) 04:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This sort of concern should be brought to WP:SPI. I have gone there for you and filed the notice here: Sockpuppet investigations/PetePorter. Feel free to add further evidence that you think will help make the case. Binksternet (talk) 05:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

{{archivebottom}}

(Sigh, I have to do everything around here.) If they're rapidly revert-warring like that, just block them! That being said, I will take care of all the blocks and that SPI case. --MuZemike 17:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

User Abbatai
After the unconsensused deletion of a sourced material with reliable citations, User:Abbatai edited my note at article's talk  and attacked me with harming "So stop your nationalist one-sided propaganda." An admin's attention is welcomed. Gazifikator (talk) 11:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Warned. You could have too.  Ensure everything is properly sourced and from a neutral point of view ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 12:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Tsuchiya Hikaru
I believe that it's time for an indefinite block for Tsuchiya Hikaru. This user persistently empties categories and replaces them with new ones, despite lots of warnings and three blocks. I blocked him eight days ago for a week because of continued disruption, and almost immediately upon the block expiring, he restarted it again, forcing me to un-empty multiple categories. He also has a pattern of disruptive changes to redirects (example) and to the babel links (example). All of this is on top of a nearly total lack of edit summary usage. I don't know what else can be done to resolve these issues; he claims to have an en-2 level of English, so he should be able to understand the big warning messages that are covering half his userpage, so I am driven to believe that only an indefinite block will be able to stop this user's continual disruption. Nyttend (talk) 01:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree... Although I haven't been all that involved, I've reverted a few of his edits over the last few months and have monitored many of his disruptions. Nyttend has been patient with this user and I believe it's time to send him a strong message. Perhaps in Korean? -<b style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC; color:#800000; font-size:small;">Travis Thurston</b><b style="color:#000000;">+</b> 01:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Only a handful of diff's checked, and fully agreed - I have indef'd (after all, I'm an enabler) ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 01:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have attempted to contact this user in the past, because he kept screwing with the babel links on and  (a merge of the latter to the former recently took place, and some babel links were retained on the latter as they did not work on the former). He refused actually answer the questions User:Kwamikagami and I posed to him, but insisted on repeating the acts. This is a welcome block.— Ryulong  (<font color="Gold">竜龙 ) 19:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Sysop impersonation by a member of a known troll organization.
I've gotten a fake notice by a user named User:LEETCHAN. This is owned by one of the members of the troll organization leetchan.org. He issued the noticed as a sysop, but when I checked the page he has no sysop privileges.

They have been stalking me for almost a year. This user needs to be dealt with.

As evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jkid4&redirect=no#March_25.2C_2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkid4 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's one of our standard warning templates. Whether the warning was appropriate or not - and I haven't looked into that - there was no claim that he was a sysop in what he put on your talk. It just says that blocks may result from continued disruption, using standardized text in common use. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The only thing I did was transferring content from a wiki I own to Wikipedia, the article in question was Futaba Channel Jkid4 (talk) 19:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The diff between Jkid4's first edit and the intervention of an admin says it all. The warning was valid, albeit over the top - a level one should have been issued. GiantSnowman 19:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the warning was OTT. Different wiki projects, different rules. I've left an explanation at Jkid4's talkpage.  Incidentally, Jkid4, I don't think you own the Japanese Wikipedia :)  Did you mean that you wrote the article there?  If so, where did you source the info.  If you can add those sources to the English article, it would be fine. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Our Japanese sister project's article lacks sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * PS I've also notified the editor in question. GiantSnowman 19:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Hate speech and harassment
(A follow-up to the above report, .)

A couple of days ago I blocked a number of IPs editing 2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings‎, and protected the article. The user has then gone to attack other pages (Acid throwing and its talk page as well as my talk page, possibly more). The user seems to be Czech - perhaps the "vandal with a grudge". (Or perhaps it's a coordinated attack by multiple users?)

In any case, I think it's a fair guess that any IP used for this purpose can be assumed to be an open proxy, and should be blocked for an extended amount of time. (Any objections?) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Did Elockid have any evidence besides quacking for blocking the most recent one on the French article? BTW, "WE, NATION OF EUROPE, HAVE ALWAYS LIVED IN PEACE !!!" Right. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

UsernameHardBlock review request and also eyes needed
I just gave a UsernameHardBlock to User:UGNazi. The comments on that user page seem somewhat threatening. I'd like both a block review and eyes to be aware of any possible threat from this purported group. Thanks, Lady  of  Shalott  00:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good block, looks like a WP:NOTHERE issue with a pinch of WP:WEBHOST. I'm going to blank the user page as well. Saedon (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, as for building an encyclopedia, they did create an article, UGNazi, but that is also problematic. Lady  of  Shalott  00:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like a ripe candidate for speedy deletion. Any reason we'd keep it? --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I deleted as CSD A7 -- Samir 01:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Peter Barnes (minister) (2nd nomination)
this AfD has gone over 7 days, without contacting a specific admin, I am seeking someone to close it. thanks. LibStar (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Done; that was easier than I expected. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 02:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Incivility
I recently requested User:Banana Fingers to remove the offensive content on his/her userpage. However this request was deleted without being actioned. I feel this user is being unnecessarily aggressive and confrontational per the aforementioned userpage as well as various comments on other users' talk pages. I hope this post results in an improvement in the situation. Cloudz 679 20:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So don't click on their user page. I do see that they have been warned by GiantSnowman, but they seem to be civil in their discussion on your user page.  It appears to be under control.  Let's see what others may say.   Tide  rolls  21:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There is an unacceptable personal attack by BF here. That is almost half a year ago, but the diffs given by Cloudz679 show this user doesn't need much to get frustrated and then has difficulty remaining civil. --Lambiam 22:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * 99,9999999% of his sentences end with "!" (one or more) - and he did that as well in Cloudz's page - i have been told several times that constitutes shouting. With me, after suggesting something about the display of player positions, his reply was this one. Subsequently, i used a bit of sarcasm in my summaries in Juan Luis Guirado you tell me where's the incivility from me, his reply was this.

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If I could just chime in regarding this user, Banana Fingers is honestly a child who throws tantrums when he doesn't get his way, it's really that simple. Ever since I made this realization, which took all of about 5 seconds, I just try to avoid him.  If something can be done to correct his aggressive and confrontational behavior then I am all for it. Thank you for your time. --Spartan008 (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This sounds like a job for Superman RfC/U. <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 07:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit reverting, only due to lack of citing?
I have been in a heated debate for a while with another editor User:Doniago who has a habit of doing wholesale reverts of good-faith article edits, only because the edits are not cited, and NOT because Doniago is challenging the material content of the edits.

The intro to WP:V says:
 * It must be possible to attribute all information in Wikipedia to reliable, published sources that are appropriate for the content in question. However, in practice it is only necessary to provide inline citations for quotations and for any information that has been challenged or that is likely to be challenged.

As I understand it, reverting/deleting whole sections of edits not because they are inaccurate or wrong, but only because it lacked citations, is not a good enough reason to be removing them. Doniago is not challenging any of the text they removed.

This very aggressive editing style of Doniago has been going on for several years, as shown in the player piano edit history. I have not intensively examined Doniago's other edits but this style of editing probably extends to other articles.

Player piano - article does have sources listed and cited at the bottom


 * 10:04, August 31, 2009‎ - revert good-faith edit only because unsourced - wikilinked article has the sourcing
 * 07:55, October 30, 2009‎ - revert good-faith edit only because unsourced
 * 14:29, November 29, 2011‎ - revert good-faith edit only because unsourced
 * 08:00, December 12, 2011‎ - revert good-faith edit only because unsourced
 * 09:26, March 19, 2012 - deleted section on mechanism, after my most recent edit, unsourced but not challenged.

I've also had to deal with this editor on the Uninterruptible power supply article, with Doniago reverting only because the edits were unsourced, not because the edits were challenged as factually incorrect.

There is talk of WMF trying to find ways to attract and keep good editors. Well I am of the opinion that really aggressive deletionary editors like Doniago are part of the problem, driving off people trying to make good faith contributions which just aren't provided with the full citations that Doniago is demanding RIGHT NOW.

So what if there is an old tag in the article that says "not cited in the last 7 years"? That doesn't impose an urgency to cite, that rises to the level of deleting large swaths of high quality, but uncited and unchallenged material.

I tend to believe that if you aren't an expert on an article you shouldn't be editing it. Doniago's reversions of the player piano article suggests to me that this editor is clueless about the article's technical subject matter but is editing anyway, and only by removing uncontested high-quality content for the sole reason that it is not cited.

DMahalko (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How does one know it is high quality if it isn't even cited? WilliamH (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you don't know enough about an article subject matter to contribute, then don't. Your own lack of knowledge should indicate to you to not edit it.


 * Also, citing something doesn't actually prove anything unless people actually go try reading the source and fact-checking. If you haven't done that, you still won't know if an article which you don't know anything about is high quality or not. DMahalko (talk) 22:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source." (WP:BURDEN). Whilst another editor may use a tag instead, or something else, they do not have to. Unsourced material may be removed on sight. "If you don't know enough about an article subject matter to contribute, then don't." ~ This is not how Wikipedia operates, but I've certainly heard it before. WilliamH is right to question; moreover, it is an integral part of what WIkipedia is is that things are referenced to another source (consider WP:OR, for example). It's just what we do. You can ask Doniago to grant more time, but he or she hasn't done anything disruptive unless the reverts were aimed at proviving a point or something vindictive, which you don't mention. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said, the player piano article is already cited with large general sources at the bottom.
 * If unsourced material should be removed that isn't in-line cited, then why hasn't Doniago stripped the article down to a stub containing only the few in-line cites it currently has?
 * The only unsourced content that Doniago is removing is "new" unsourced content, but not any old unsourced content. That to me seems to suggest an agenda for why they are editing the way they are, basically harassing editors adding new material that isn't immediately in-line sourced. I've asked Doniago about it before but hir won't explain it.
 * DMahalko (talk) 22:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the general view on this is that we don't pull out vast chunks of content from an article if it's been there a while, simply on the grounds it is uncited. Prohibiting the addition of unsourced material is another issue altogether. If you are trying to add material and another editor is asking you to provide a source then provide a source.  If it's easy to source then it's not a problem, if it's difficult to source then Donagio is even more justified in requesting one. Betty Logan (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The difference to me is the reason for why another editor is asking for a source. Are they requesting a source because they think the newly added material is actually wrong in some manner, or are they just being a nitpicky rule-quoter with no interest or knowledge of the article and they aren't contesting the new material in its actual factual accuracy?


 * If there's an actual disagreement, then the extra legwork of immediately finding the exact source to an edit is justified.
 * If there is no disagreement or factual dispute, then to me the removal of content being added to an article that is already cited with other general cites is basically harassment.
 * Doniago appears to have a history of doing removals only because of a lack of citations and not because the edits are factually disputed, so to me that is following a pattern of overly-aggressive article editing that should be reigned in.
 * DMahalko (talk) 22:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * But if you don't give me a source, how do I know you're not just making it up. After all, I might not know that much about the subject. But I want to know where you got your information from. That is sufficient challenge. If you want to add the material - say what the source for it is. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no idea of the context of this discussion regarding the specific editor or articles, but just for the record I do quite regularly remove statements that have been unsourced for a fair length of time, usually when they have also been tagged as such. We cannot just keep things here on the basis that a source may turn up. If it does, then the information can always be reinserted. This may perhaps reflect my particular area of interest but since that (India related content) is one of the primary areas where WMF are seeking new input, it does have relevance. If my real opinion had consensus then I would be deleting anything that is unsourced. As it is, I respect a common-sense consensus that people should be given some time to source existing material but that any current edits should be sourced pretty much immediately. - Sitush (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * User:Elen of the Roads, as I say, even if I provide a source, that doesn't prove anything until you actually go check the source yourself against the article and actually learn about the content of the article to verify its factual accuracy.
 * Providing a source does not in fact tell you anything other than I provided a link to something or other. In effect I have checked off a box on some "you will do X" guidelines which does not automatically lead to "therefore all work is done here".
 * In general, if you're really going to nitpick over sourcing then it falls upon you as the fact checker and cite-demander to actually verify the source and become an expert on the subject matter, which you aren't going to do because you don't really care beyond having that checkbox checked off, and because actually learning about the disputed subject matter is more effort than you care to expand.
 * If on the other hand you already know about the subject material, you'd already know whether or not the unsourced content is valid or not even without a citation.


 * Basically if all I provide to people like Doniago as a know-nothing checkmark-noting wiki-elf is that I'm citing some obscure print-only text, the fact that a cite was made does nothing to prove the new article text is correct, and Doniago requiring the presence of said cite without actual verification of the cite doesn't actually prove or improve anything. He has to actually KNOW something about the subject matter, to say if the edit is correct or not. DMahalko (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * An understanding of what he's writing about obviously helps, but most importantly, he has to demonstrate where he got it from. If I am told that Edwin Albert Link's pneumatic player piano technology was used as the basis for aircraft simulators, I want to be able to verify that information for myself. After all, this is supposed to be a reflection of material that has already been published. I want, for example, "Smith, R. (2010) A history of player pianos. Oxford University Press", and which page that can be found on. "It's-verifiable-because-some-guy-on-the-internet-knows-it-to-be-true is not good enough and the burden is on him to better that. WilliamH (talk) 00:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * DMahalko, this isn't a particularly difficult concept to grasp here. WP:V holds that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation."  In order to make such a challenge, Doniago - no more than any other editor (or, for that matter, you yourself) - is neither required to demonstrate his expertise in the subject matter or to submit a rationale for any challenge.  If you can source the information, do so.  If you cannot, then the information cannot be included.  Whether you approve of his motivations, edit history or skill set is irrelevant.  Ravenswing  04:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * DMahalko, you're missing the point. If you provide the source, we can look it up and then we "KNOW something about the subject matter." If it's obscure or in an out-of-the-way physical location, it's still possible to contact someone in that area to look it up for us. That's what the whole "It must be possible to attribute all information in Wikipedia to reliable, published sources" bit means. When you do not provide a citation, it is not possible for us to verify it. Hence, this whole problem. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 12:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm in a similar debate with Doniago (without ill-feeling on either side). I've been using other wikis as a source to fill out info on Orders, decorations and medals and then adding to categories. I know there's a caveat on the use of other wikis, so I don't cite them but instead add a tag to indicate the "source". Where I've cross-checked, it's panned out. I rely on 2 things. Firstly, ODMs are uncontentious and secondly, Russian, Polish, etc authors are likely to have access to foreign language sources. I repeat the quote above: "It must be possible to attribute all information in Wikipedia to reliable, published sources that are appropriate for the content in question. However, in practice it is only necessary to provide inline citations for quotations and for any information that has been challenged or that is likely to be challenged." (my emphasis) I would argue that a sourced Russian article is a source "good enough" for uncontentious info. I've responded to Doniago's deletions in good faith while enquiring why he/she doesn't apply the standard universally. Doniago also argues against other wikis as sources based on their volatility - surely this can apply to all websites? I would also argue that incomplete info is a form of inaccuracy. Folks at 137 (talk) 07:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Folks at 137 - we don't generally use other wikis as sources because they are also written by volunteers. There's nothing wrong with seeing if another wiki has a foreign language source though. But read WP:RS - a website that changes it's content all the time would not constitute a reliable source. A website that changed its info because it had checked and found it was wrong - or because the info had been updated - would be a reliable source. Doniago is not doing anything wrong here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarifications, most useful. I wasn't arguing that Doniago was at fault in his querying my edits - we all do this to improve wiki - but I do wonder why the same standard - lack of citation, the point of this thread - wasn't universally applied by him in the same articles and elsewhere. Folks at 137 (talk) 13:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Folks...no editor is under any obligation to remove unsourced material, much less go through an entire article doing so, and oftentimes I find that it is more useful to remove unsourced material in smaller steps, as it hopefully calls attention to the problems with an article without "gutting" it (I believe in almost all cases when I remove unsourced material I leave an appropriate edit summary). This is why I will also generally, for larger sections of text, move it to the Talk page, where it can be easily located later, rather than merely deleting it. Doniago (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Just chiming in to say that I am aware of and have been following the conversation, but I think everything that I would say has already been said, and quite possibly in a better way than I might have said it. A big thank you to everyone who has addressed the concerns raised regarding my actions. Doniago (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

has done nothing other than spam their user and user talk page, time for a block?. Begonia Brandbygeana (talk) 11:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. indeffed.  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 12:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

A user whose time (to be blocked) has come
Beast00001 has made unconstructive edits to the article on Edvard Munch and has been through all the warning levels but he still continues to vandalize. AndieM13 '' (Leave a message!) 12:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked indef as a vandalism only account, thanks. For next time, (a) WP:AIV is usually a better place to report this kind of thing, and (b) when you report a vandal at AIV, you won't have to notify them of the report. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I didn't know that. Will keep that in mind for next time. Thank you! AndieM13 '' (Leave a message!) 12:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked IP's talk page
I hope this is appropriate to post here - I thought it was something that should be brought to the attention of an Admin. It seems to me that maybe user:27.33.41.106, currently blocked for disruptive editing should be blocked from editing their own talk page (User talk:27.33.41.106) based on the edits there since the block notice. Apologies if this isn't the right venue for this. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 13:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Low-traffic article
New Testament Christian Churches of America, a low traffic article about a small church, has a new SPA user who refuses to discuss in a substantive way on the talk page, but instead edit wars. I tried for help at FRINGE and NPOV noticeboards, but no one cares. I don't want to edit war myself, and all attempts at discussion and explanation by myself and Orangemike have been in vain. He just posts tirades "(what!! USER:Becritical, hasn't gone over there and deleted it) interesting... interesting. Is any body feeling me out there?? Does any body hear me??? Wake up virtual world!!! Its time to calibrate those scales of judgment!!". For example I asked him to give some information and support his edit with a quote, then reminded him... but he ignored me. The user needs to be reached by explanation from an admin with a threat of block, or else just blocked. At this point, it does not appear he is capable of functioning under our rules. Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical 21:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I challenge and encourage all admins to check out New Testament Christian Churches of America talk page, and take note that all changes and updates were all constructive in manner and discussed and reasoning stated on talk page to justify changes. USER:Becritical thinks WiKi is owned by them. USER:BeCritical remedy for anything is delete now ask questions later. --ER 22:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwinramos2 (talk • contribs)

After attempting -and succeeding in- edit warring his changes into the article, he has posted a Edit-warring warning on my talk page   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  23:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

And also Dominus Vobisdu's talk page Apparently he got the idea because Dominus gave him a warning which he removed. Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical 23:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Here are the userlinks for Edwinramos2:
 * The pagelinks for the article are here:
 * Edwinramos2 has reverted at least nine times since 21 March. If he reverts again (before consensus is reached) he should be blocked for edit warring. He seems to be aware that he should use the talk page but does not acknowledge that he should wait for consensus in case of a dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Edwinramos2 has reverted at least nine times since 21 March. If he reverts again (before consensus is reached) he should be blocked for edit warring. He seems to be aware that he should use the talk page but does not acknowledge that he should wait for consensus in case of a dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Edwinramos2 has reverted at least nine times since 21 March. If he reverts again (before consensus is reached) he should be blocked for edit warring. He seems to be aware that he should use the talk page but does not acknowledge that he should wait for consensus in case of a dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Um, I don't know about anyone else, but to me, the content dispute on the article is screaming RfC. An RfC on the article should get the necessary eyeballs to "tip the scales" in favor of reasonable editing  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  01:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Disruption by single purpose accounts, which looks like the case here is a cause for an block not an RFC. Secret account 01:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * See also similar edit warring on 21-22 March at Apothecary: we seemed to be able to come to a consensus at Talk:Apothecary, but only after irate accusations of pro-Muslim bias, etc. Scopecreep (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

After having been warned, he continued to both vandalize and to edit war over the headings some more today. Here is the edit for which he was warned for vandalism, the "cult" removal is the same. Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical 17:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked 48 hours for edit warring. How this should proceed is not clear to me: the editor's talk page post are belligerent and really difficult to read, and I don't see a way out. But perhaps the editor will prove me wrong; I hope so. Drmies (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

possible ongoing sockpuppetry
On March 17th User:The undertow attempted to delete an image from the article on Gang signals. In the preceding hours three IP addresses had made nine attempts to delete this image. This was discussed at

At around the same time commons:User:The undertow left a comment on Commons:Commons:VP, requesting deletion of the image. In that request they asserted they were a former administrator.

I looked to see what kind of record they had as an administrator, and saw they exercised administrator authority for only 291 days prior to raising so many concerns that ARBCom suggested they voluntarily surrender their administrator bits. I saw they earned a 6 month block. I saw they were found to have been entrusted with administrator authority as the sockpuppet User:Law.

Today, March 25, in a comment at they claimed.

This comment concerns me. The two wiki-IDs we know this individual controlled exercised administrator authority not for "many years" -- rather they only exercised that authority for a combined total of 433 days -- about one and a quarter years. Maybe they were simply exagerrating. But I am concerned that this comment may have been an acknowledgment that they succeeded in being entrusted with administrator authority under more that these two sockpuppets. I am concerned they might be exercising administrator authority today, under other sockpuppets. Geo Swan (talk) 02:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the statements on Commons are remarkably weak evidence to go fishing for other socks aside from the IP ducks you mentioned at WP:SPI. Use of sock IPs to take down an image strikes me as something that someone with a hypothetical sleeper en.wp admin account wouldn't need to do. You can see if a Checkuser other than the one that responded to your WP:SPI request is willing to look through it more. But if I were you, I would focus on discussing the systemic issue of whether unused PD Commons images can be deleted on request post hoc, on Commons, as opposed to spilling your dispute onto this project with rather flimsy concerns based on this fellow just exaggerating the amount of time during which he had admin rights here. -- Samir 06:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Genuine rogue admins are a serious problem in general. Rogue admins who have been able to successfully employ sockpuppetry to setup multiple wiki-IDs so they control multiple admin IDs is a problem that really concerns me.  I thought this was sufficient justification to raise this concern here.


 * When his sockpuppet, User:Law was identified as a sockpuppet, and it was determined that a single individual had successfully employed sockpuppetry in order to be entrusted with administrator authority, several people said we had to examine the request for adminstator process -- to make sure this didn't happen again. If we take commons:User:The undertow's comment at face value he did succeed in fooling the community more than twice.  I think this would be a significant problem.


 * Most administrators do a good job. Unfortunately, the corps of adminstrators does include individuals who ignore our policies, and who will abuse their authority to retaliate against ordinary contributors who have asked them good faith questions they don't want to answer.


 * I have had rogue administrators try to bully me, or abuse their administrator authority to retaliate against me for good faith, policy comopliant behavior that nevertheless bugged them. It is extremely unpleasant.  Between them User:The undertow and User:Law this individual exercised administrator powerfor 433 days.  He claimed to have exercised administrator authority for "many years" -- in what seems like a confession that he used sockpuppetry to become an adminstrator multiple times.  This implies he may be excercising administrator authority NOW.


 * I do not agree this is a trivial concern. Geo Swan (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I apologize for the exaggeration. It only seemed to be many years. I should have been more concise by adding that I was a user for many years, and an administrator for 433 days. I seldom edit, and only with this account. Although I cannot request a CU, as it is my understanding, I completely endorse the use of one, in order to establish if I have been entrusted with administrator tools under a sock puppet, or even if I am simply editing under another username. I am only "here" to address an issue on Commons, not to re-join the ranks of Wikipedia, and plan on adhering to any decision made here or on Commons. <font style="color:#820900">the_undertow <font style="color:#820900"> talk  17:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

War of the Pacific
I added, , , ,  tags to War of the Pacific in order to get consensus about a lot of flaws affecting the page. In the talk page there are at least 10 unressolved issues and other editors support my aim:
 * Wifione (admin)
 * Alex

I provided the reasons for tagging, for example the case of "Grau's chavalry", a biased and peacook sentence that had been refused by a lot of editors in a RfC (see Talk:War_of_the_Pacific), but the sentence is still there.

MarshalN20 has deleted the tags in the article page and refuse to discuss the issues.

I ask the admins to intervene and to decide whether the article can be published without the tags. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 12:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ANI isn't for content disputes; the only reason this should be here, if at all, is if you wish to discuss MarshalN20's behaviour. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Is it alright to use a WP:BOOMERANG in this case? Keysanger's behaviour in regards to posting his tags and placing forth a series of "questions" into the article has been criticized time and again by several editors as disruptive:
 * Donald Richardson:
 * IP 84.23.155.84: "Someone has tagged this article as: neutrality is disputed. No arguments are offered, why should the tag remain?"
 * Dentren: "Will delete the tag for now. Please reinsert it if some serious NPOV issue is found."
 * Selecciones de la Vida: "No need for excessive tagging, it is evident that there are exisiting disputes."
 * Cambalachero: "Finally, on a more technical issue, we do not use many different tags in an article if they are all for basically the same problem."
 * Cloudaoc: "I don't think than Keysanger can obtain what he wants, but meanwhile, the article remains unchanged and full of tags ("original research, "no NPoV", etc) put by Keysanger to keep the readers suspicious about its reliability."
 * Alex Harvey: "Are you trying to build consensus - or make a point about how terrible the article is?"
 * Despite all of these several notifications, Keysanger continues to disrupt the article with his excessive tagging and talk page questions. Instead of trying to discuss each issue one by one, he insists on discussing several things at the same time (a task which ultimately is neither efficient or good for the quality of the article). His excessive tagging is an obvious breach of WP:POINT and WP:NPOV. Based on these points, I request that administrator's handle the situation with Keysanger. Whether you decide to make him understand why what he is doing is wrong (albeit he has already been told this several times), or if you simply decide to block him for continuing disruptions, the decision is now up to you. Best of wishes.-- MarshalN20 | <font color="Olive">T <font color="Silver">al <font color="Olive">k 13:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll agree, tagging like that is a POINT violation. Hobit (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound paranoid but...
IP editor 173.99.103.237 has marked several files I created for deletion or merger. I don't think it's just a coincidence. TomCat4680 (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Whoever it is is hiding behind a cell phone, from looking at the WHOIS information. --MuZemike 21:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well can you do anything about it? Seems like they're mad at me for some reason. TomCat4680 (talk) 00:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Admin used powers in content dispute
In the article Shooting of Trayvon Martin, it seems that Drmies used admin tools to advance his/her position in a content dispute by first protecting the page and then changing to his/her preferred version. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * While I do think drmies qualifies as "involved" for the purpose of this discussion, I do not think his action rise to the level of needing ANI. There are several discussions ongoing of this issue in different venues. I think it was inappropriate of him to fully protect, and it should be unprotected, but no further action should be taken against drmies. He self reported himself to the AN post as well, which is further show of good faith on his part.

Gaijin42 (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Trayvon_Martin.2C_Marijuanna
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Protection
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Drmies#protection.21.3F

Please discuss this issue at WP:AN, section "Shooting of Trayvon Martin". I've copied both of the above comments over there. Nyttend (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not involved with editing this article in any way, and it was only brought to my attention after a post at the WP:BLPN. Maybe I'm missing something, but as an outside observer, it appears that Drmies is abusing their admin tools to win a dispute they're involved in. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, this is an incident. WP:AN is the wrong venue to discuss specific incidents of an admin misusing their tools.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no more of a sacred trust than the tools we lay upon certain users who should be trusted to act neutrally when protected pages. This misuse of admin tools goes strictly against WP:FULL and this incident should not be swept u dee the carpet. An involved admin protecting an article then swiftly changing the content of that article is a blatant misuse of tools and trust. -- JOJ <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  22:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless you're proposing a block and/or desysop, I'm not sure why this counts as something for ANI. He voluntarily brought it up at AN when someone proposed that he was an involved editor, discussion is ongoing there. Unless there is something that urgently needs an admin bit to fix, this is needlessly forking the discussion. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 23:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine. I propose that Drmies be desysoped until he/she can prove to the community that he/she will not abuse the tools that have been granted to him/her.-- JOJ <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  23:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the problem with AN is that it's a noticeboard for other admins. The abuse of admin tools is something that concerns the entire community, not just other admins.  I guess I can open an RfC or post something at the Village Pump to make sure we get more feedback from a broader selection of the community.  Should I do that?  In any case, Drmies locked the page and then restored his preferred version.  Only someone with the admin bit can undue either of those actions.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Last I checked, anyone could participate in a discussion at AN, regardless of userright status.... Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Concern on recent high-speed deletions by Fastily
Quickly, before I get blocked, Fastily has to be one of the worst admins I've ever seen. He'[s going around tagging images that were uploaded by the copyright holder (or files sourced to the US Govemrnent) and released either into public domain or under multilicense GFDL and creative commons as "missing permission". ,, , and according to his deletion log, he's deleted as many as 88 pages/images in a span of about 5 minutes. There's no way in hell any human being reviewed all of these appropriately. Fastily should be desysopped and blocked. Night Ranger (talk) 02:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to comment too much here, since I was a dick to Fastily the only time we've spoken, but - an edit summary of "p" is not acceptable, everything else aside. And holy cats, that's a lot of very fast deletions. Can someone who's not pissed in Fastily's wheaties like I have ask him if he's using a script? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's clearly not me then, because I keep seeing instances of clearly inappropriate deletions by him.  Snowolf How can I help? 03:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As can be seen at Night Ranger's talk page, Fastily recently made two pretty bad deletions of cat pages NR created, so yes, NR has a personal gripe here. But more to the point, it seems like Fastily's consistently brought to ANI in regards to bad/questionable deletions and/or overall deletion practices. The biggest concern is simply that he doesn't seem to respond to them at all&mdash;his response usually amounts to a one-liner and nothing more.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 04:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Working too fast, making too many errors, and not communicating well with others is exactly what got Betacommand/Delta blocked by ArbCom after many years of that exact behavior. I would hate to see Fastily go down that road, but this pattern of behavior is sadly close to what Betacommand used to do right up until the most recent ArbCom case.  It would be nice if Fastily instead modified his own behavior and worked better on improving his accuracy in deleting files and on his ability to communicate with other editors regarding his deletions, as well as his ability to admit and correct for his own mistakes in this area.  If that doesn't happen, this will not end well.  -- Jayron  32  04:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In response to the above:
 * I check my all the pages I ultimately delete, compile a list of pages to delete, and use a script to run through them.
 * I have restored the two categories in question as a result of . I have better things to do with my time on Wikipedia than engage in drama.
 * The tags on File:History of New England.pdf and File:Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia.ogg were indeed mistakes. I do, however, stand by the tag on File:Woodman Spare that Tree.ogg (it is a derivative work with no obvious copyright information on it's sources). I would also like to note that I transferred over 500 files to commons over the last two days while screening them all for potential copyright problems.  Being human, I do, and will make mistakes regardless of how careful I am.  However, I'm sad that NightRanger didn't first mention these tagging errors on my talk page (in which case they would have been promptly corrected and we wouldn't be having this discussion), choosing instead, to come to ANI seeking vengeance.
 * - F ASTILY  (TALK) 04:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Not this again. I raised a similar issue with him here and it even caused me to seek clarification of the CSD criteria and so indirectly led to |this change in the CSD criteria (after discussion).  After all the whole point of the source tag is to help prove that the file is usable here.  If this can be done another way then it is not necessary to have a source but I'm not sure Fastily agrees with / gets that idea.  I've reverted the tagging of the PDF as it clearly has an appropriate release on the last page so what it's source was is irrelevant for determining copyright status.
 * What I found more disturbing however is their seeming lack of willingness to discuss people's concerns. Most queries are responded to with a very short link to a sub page.  I was lucky enough to get a whole sentence in reply, but that was it, which is hardly in the spirit of a collaborative encyclopaedia.  Disturbingly I've not seen any replies or changes in edit habits despite a multitude of recent ANI threads.  I'm sure they do lots of good work, and they may even be correct in most cases but this lack of discussion is very worrying.  It suggests rightly or wrongly that they are unwilling to listen to others or to change their ways if that is what consensus suggests they should do.  I really do think this is at the point where an RfC/U may be appropriate. Dpmuk (talk) 04:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In reply to Fastily's post which I edit conflicted with. If this was a one of then it may be wikidrama but it's not.  Concerns have been raised several times both here and on your talk page.  I'm unsure what better things you have to be doing than discussing your edits with editors that have genuine concerns and certainly aren't trolling - discussion is an essential part of a collaborative encyclopaedia and failure to discuss is a serious problem.  Your reply also suggests that you didn't even bother to read this thread properly.  You mention restoring two categories yet the original complaint was about your tagging of pages. Dpmuk (talk) 04:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm, funny you should say that, I haven't linked anyone to User:Fastily/E in weeks. Furthermore, if you'll look at my recent talk page archives, you'll see that I actually make an effort to discuss with users.  Believe it or not, unlike Betacommand here, I am of the belief that I serve the community, and am therefore not deaf to its complaints. - F ASTILY  (TALK)  04:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I was about to expand on what I'd posted based on your reply above. To be honest I have no real opinion on whether you're "deaf to complaints" or not but it does seem obvious to me that you often come across, possibly inadvertently, as being that way.  Even if you had taken the concerns raised here on board a comment like "I have better things to do with my time on Wikipedia than engage in drama" does not suggest you had - it suggests (to me at least) that you'd restored the categories as the easiest way out rather than because you'd taken the concerns on board.  Personally I'd have been happier to see you leave them deleted and explain why then simply restore and leave such a short statement.  This was also how I felt when you replied to my comments I reference above - I was left with the impression (rightly or wrongly) that you hadn't taken on board what I'd said and you'd just replied in the manner which you thought would give you the easiest way out.
 * Given the amount of actions you undertake I honestly don't think your error rate seems too high and I will also admit that in many of the areas you work we don't have enough admins and so it probably can be hard to prioritize replying fully to all queries versus dealing with backlogs. Bearing all that in mind I do honestly think what we have here is a communication issue rather than and significant problem with your actions (and this is why I suggested an RfC/U to try to get you communicating).  If you honestly do take note of every error you make and take on board the concerns raised then it would appear that if you could give that impression as well as acting that way we may avoid many of these issues.  Hope you don't take any of this the wrong way.  Dpmuk (talk) 04:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the problem here is that so many nasty people play 'no talkies' and when someone who is rather busy is brief then it looks bad, whether it is or not. The speed of editing and error rate doesn't matter. If people want to avoid mistakes the best way to do that is to do nothing at all. He seems to have a page to tell people what they want to know, and it seems more helpful to refer someone to G10 or whatever on that page than say nothing at all when deleting a page. Shrug. Unfortunately no talkies seems allowed by policy in many circumstances, but Fastily doesn't seem to adhere to the no talkies idea as much as some other editors. He seems chatty but busy. Penyulap   talk 05:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's interesting. We had a very lengthy and on-going discussion on AN that you basically made a couple of comments on and walked away while people continued to discuss you for days without any further input from you at all over several raised issues. You even went so far, in early february, to claim a complaint about you from December was "extremely old" You then further went on to self-impose a restriction that didn't remotely begin to address the concerns being raised (in that they were from entirely different areas of admin work) and called all further complaints moot. I'm not really sure how that makes you not deaf to the community's complaints.--Crossmr (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Links for the lazy, please? The archives are huge. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You took part in the discussion Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive232. The last comment he makes to that thread is, as far as I'm considered, a lie. He walks away at that point, and people continued to discuss him for 3 weeks before it got archived with no further input from him. Look for the part where you asked me for diffs, I provided them, and Fastily's response was "all of these are extremely old", despite one of them barely being 2 months old. He then says "I hereby agree to self-abstain from closing long, contentious discussions without providing a statement of some sort. At any rate, I no longer plan on closing such discussions anyways, so I guess that makes the concerns we're having here moot :P" with a cute little emoticon no less. Despite the concerns being raised not only being about his closes, but his deletions he declares all concerns done because he's going to self-impose a restriction that he no longer does closes. Not sure how that addresses the bad deletions at all, but as far as he was concerned they were a done deal because of that. So again, not really sure how this is an indication that he's listening to the community's complaints. It looks like quite the opposite.--Crossmr (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Which it appears he's now done again. Despite on-going discussion and direct statements being made to him, he's continued to edit without returning to this discussion. I don't really see any evidence that Fastily is listening to the community's concern and instead appears to be saying whatever he feels is necessary at the time to appease the community and then walking away. As I mentioned before, the Deja Vu is very strong.--Crossmr (talk) 14:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Just my take on the three files cited above: File:History of New England.pdf was a useless PDF ("wikibooks") compilation of existing Wikipedia articles, falsely tagged as uploader's "own work" and public domain. Could have been speedy deleted on sight as a copyvio (done so now). File:Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia.ogg is legit copyright-wise (obviously user-created), but has no foreseeable encyclopedic use; nominated at FFD now. File:Woodman Spare that Tree.ogg seems legit to me; it's a user-created, synthesized computer rendering of a song that itself is obviously PD-old. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the speedy of File:History of New England.pdf as it's nowhere close to being an "unambiguous copyright violation". I've just checked again and all the appropriate attribution and licensing information is in the pdf so this is simply a case of wrong tagging rather than a copyright infringement and we don't speedy for getting the tags wrong.  I'd agree that their seems little point in hosting it given that it's just a copy of our articles but I'd suggest restoration if the user asks for it (e.g. if they want to use it as a historical snapshot). Dpmuk (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, even if the copyright had been fixed (and I agree it would have been fixable in principle), it would still fall under WP:CSD#F10, "files that are neither image, sound, nor video files, are not used in any article, and have no foreseeable encyclopedic use", so it's rather moot. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well true, they'd have to come up with a good reason for keeping it, and I think that's unlikely to occur, which is why I didn't restore it. Given that most of the work do is in copyrights I pointed it out as I didn't want people to think I'd missed something when I commented above. Dpmuk (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion regarding the deletion rationales of the images or the speed at which they were deleted, but I do have concerns about Fastily's deletion log entry for the two sockpuppet categories as "Attack Pages". It looks to me (at least from the comments on Night Ranger's talk page and in the block log) like Kumioko was indeed blocked for sockpuppetry, the socks were tagged and the populated categories were created. I agree that they could constitute attack pages of the accounts tagged were not Kumioko's socks, or if the category pages had personal attack language in them (did they?), but otherwise a sockpuppet category doesn't seem to be anything like an attack page. I'm also a little concerned by Fastily's responses when Night Ranger requested an explanation: basically providing non answers, answering questions with questions and then deleting the thread with the edit summary "troll". NR's subsequent response to that was not appropriate, but at least a little understandable. I'd be angry too. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * TLDR: In Wikipedia, socks are sock unless they have admin friends. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Which admin are you talking about? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet categories are not "attack pages" if the socks are correctly tagged. If they were, deleting them under G10 is a no-no. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * correctly tagged being the key phrase here. :-) — Ched : <font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000fa;"> ? 12:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if the sock accounts were tagged incorrectly, a category is not an attack page. You could make a case for someone tagging random accounts as socks as attack pages I guess, but as far as I can tell those were confirmed socks of Kumioko. Attack pages say things like "Joey is a Nazi", or "such and such person is *insert unsupported negative claim here*". Not a category that simply populates user pages based on userpage templates. Kumioko was, indeed, blocked for abusing multiple accounts. The deletion rationales of those categories aren't correct and without condoning his subsequent behavior, I can see why NR was upset. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

CommentIn my humble opinion, if Fastily feels that he has better things to do than engage in drama then I suggest he move to the (relatively) non-controversial areas of expanding articles and editing out-dated or bad references which require minimum interaction with others. These are areas where smart scripting etc. is of good use. My point is that Fastily's behavior is borderline contempt (or maybe even full contempt) that clearly demonstrates his beliefs that other editor's are not competent enough to question his conduct or maybe he is far superior to others. I can't imagine an experienced user not being able to answer simple queries for technical or other reasons. Wikishagnik (talk) 07:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I can understand the view that Fastily tends to show up here on a semi-regular basis over these types of deletion things. I can even understand the concept of comparing some things to delta/beta.  My problem here though is this:  Some people are actually good at doing computer programming, and perhaps they're not the most "chit-chatty" types of folks.  But if you try to talk to them, they can give you some very valuable information, and be very helpful in the end.  You may not come away with a "warm fuzzy feeling", but that doesn't make them "contemptuous".  Sure, maybe a break now and then from various activities can be good for all of us - but in the end, if you stick with what you're good at - then it shouldn't be an ABF issue. — Ched : <font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000fa;"> ?  15:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is the deletion logs are incorrect. Autopopulated categories aren't attack pages any way you slice it. See my comment above. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I recently had an image deleted, no warning, that was a drawing made by me in the public domain?? Bzuk (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC).
 * Ched, do you honestly believe that's the issue here? I can understand somebody being pre-occupied and focussed in their work and I too have met my share of Geeks (scholars etc.) but civility and trust are very important in Wikipedia. A person merely busy now can choose to reply later. A person not very communicative can make a few terse statements. We are all used to that in Wikipedia, but refusing to pariticipate in a Wikipedia discussion to me shows either contempt for the policy structure of Wikipedia or towards its editor's. Wikishagnik (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Fastily is clearly working too fast/carelessly. He recently deleted a page] with over 1000 edits and 16k of text as a copyright violation because someone inserted 200 bytes which may have violated copyright. (I have removed them, but the first admin to review it thought it was reverse copying.) The page remained deleted nearly 2 months before someone requested restoration at [[WP:REFUND.  Errors are bound to happen, but I don't see how an error like that can be made unless someone is either 1) automating deletion without evaluating merits or 2) going too fast to properly evaluate things.

Additionally, I have read over the previous ANI conversation and find the lack of communication quite disturbing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I just took a second to review Fastily's last 10 deletions and quickly found 2 errors - both Aztec Warriors and Rhetorical Strategies were deleted as A10, when they should not have been. At minimum, both are plausible search terms and Aztec Warriors arguably expands on the topic (albeit without references).  To delete good faith contributions such as these is very BITEy IMO. (I have restored the articles and redirected, so anyone can review them for his or herself.)--ThaddeusB (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Expanding the review to the last 34 deletions (six pages) from article space, I found:
 * The X-101st deleted under A1 when it had sufficient context (doesn't fit any speedy criteria, but not restored because its clearly not notable)
 * Prince Tupouto'a Tungi a redirect that had existed since 2006 and is clearly valid, but pointed to bad location b/c of a bot fixing a double redirect after a bad page move. NOte:Fastily himself deleted the implausible title it was briefly pointing to and so in theory should have known the situation even w/o checking the article history.  (restored)
 * W. eugene smith fund deleted as G11, but not promotional and most likely notable (restored and moved to proper capitalization/name)
 * The Voice - Britain's Favourite Black Newspaper deleted as G11, perhaps validly so. However, the content is clearly written by a fan, not a business person, and is a good faith attempt at writing at article, including references.  (I have not restored because The Voice (newspaper) already exists and I don't want to clean up the language and merge myself.  It does, however, have unique content)
 * System 12 created by a (good faith but improper) page move to System 12 (disambiguation) and then G7'ed leaving the dab page impossible to find (move undone)
 * April Masini deleted as G4. While the article was deleted after AfD in the fall, G4 doesn't really apply as the content is completely different, with many references added. ( I have held off on restoring for now. Restored upon request of article re-writer.)
 * I should note that the vast majority of Fastily's deletions are files w/insufficient source info or unused non-free images and thus are probably fine. (Although I think it is clear he doesn't check and just deletes are such pictures that has passed the "expiration" date.)  However, 8/34 is a ridiculous high error rate for article space. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: Fastily has announced a Wikibreak saying he is burnt out. Hopefully after some time off, he'll come back more focused and make fewer errors. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * COMMENT WE JUST HAD A MONTHLONG DISCUSSION OF HIS DELETION ACTIVITIES, with the strong suggestion by several editors of taking action against him.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Recall that this was mentioned in Wikipedia Signpost/2012-02-20/Discussion report regarding Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive232.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Mm, well, somehow the notion that he's taking a Wikibreak just as the heat's turned up again is no surprise. Let's not let that affect the discussion.  Thaddeus is absolutely right: 25% is an appalling error rate, one for which we'd haul a newbie up by the short hairs, and is intolerable in an admin with deletion tools at his command.  As others have said, this is damned reminiscent of Betacommand's antics, which drove away and/or soured many good editors.  Perhaps a restriction on automated admin actions would be something useful to hand him when he gets back.  Ravenswing  20:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Once again its time other admins stepped up to this area. There aren't many active in those areas which means F deals with a lot. The level of mistakes are too high but so is the workload. Look at his archives there is no evidence he doesn't engage with people on his talk page, he always has. He used to use automated responses but no longer does, he replies in full. In regard to speed he compiles lists to delete and does it in batches, which is why the deletions are done quickly not because he does not look at them. There has been a witch hunt against Fastily in the past every time it comes up its the same people that complain. If people really think there is a problem create a RFC and move on. This just goes round in circles.<font color="Maroon">Edinburgh  Wanderer  23:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no excuses. There are only three possible reasons for an error rate so high: incompetence, indifference or inattention.  You can decide for yourself which it is, but I'm sure you'll agree that none of the above are desirable in an editor or tolerable in an admin.  It is also quite possible for uninvolved people who have never had any interaction with him (raises hand) to examine the evidence and conclude that his editing pattern is out of line.  Bizarre as the premise may be, there are actually frequent complaints about some editors and admins for no sinister reasons beyond that they are chronic offenders.  Ravenswing  03:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd add a fourth reason - some people work to different policies than others. Not sure if it applies in this case but I've certainly encountered taggers and even admins who speedy unourced or even poorly formatted articles. I recently went to Fastily's page with a query about a specific deletion and had a perfectly civil response, so I'd be happy to park this until after he returns from his wiki break and we get a chance to see if he then takes on board some of the criticisms here.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  21:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no witch hunt here. Here are two facts from recent discussions: Fastily dismissed a 2 month old AN/I thread as "extremely old" and then claimed an IP was forum shopping by taking an undeletion request to a noticeboard and not discussing it with him when the diffs clearly showed the IP took it to Fastily's talk page nearly 24 hours before he took it to the noticeboard. When questioned about the first, he stopped participating in the discussion despite it continuing on for nearly 3 weeks after that point. When questioned about the second he stopped participating in the discussion and declared a wiki-break. These are not the desirable ways for handling interaction with community members.--Crossmr (talk) 13:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Fastily is pretty much the only admin that works in PUF and FfD, he does hundreds of deletions a week because of this. The number of mistakes is tiny. If there were other people also doing the work, it would fall less on his shoulders, and he'd be able to spend more time on each item. That being said, Wikipedia only has about a dozen to two dozen people who work in the file namespace, only a few of them admins. Any area where there are many, many more people complaining about how work is being done than there are people doing the work, you're going to have massive bleedoff of workers and the area is going to be largely dysfunctional. The file namespace isn't the largest, it's just the most extreme case.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  14:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * While this thread was directly instigated by some questionable FfDs, there's rather more to it that that. I've been a little concerned of late by some (IMO) somewhat hasty deletions by Fastily at TfD (which had default summaries provided by a bot: I would personally expect any XfD with differing opinions to be accompanied by a manual deletion rationale), but that was merely concern over the method rather than because I thought the closes were wrong as such. I appreciate that we have backlogs all over XfD and that we really do need help in these areas, but false positives beget drama and harm the community more than backlogs do. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

There is one thought that I believe that most know intuitively but few put into words relevant to both Betacommand/Delta and Fastily, (and many less severe situations that people are uncomfortable with)  even if they hadn't made outright errors. Most Wikipedia guidelines are not written with sufficient precision and exactness so that one person can just do major things based on their interpretation of any part of it. Giving notice, opportunity for discussion, actually having discussion when requested, making a careful review/investigation of the situaiotn are things that are intuitively expected before major actions, and intuitively considered necessary in light of those imperfections. It would be best if the concept of somebody feeling free to say that they get to play rapid judge, jury and executioner because they are "just following the rules" were to end. North8000 (talk) 14:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

@ThaddeusB - from your examples above, can you explain the context of "The X-101st legion was a clan base in Roblox". You say that you did not restore it because it was clearly not notable. You know as well as I do (or at least should) that when a page is marked with a speedy deletion template, when you go to delete it the deletion reason autopopulates with the CSD tag. So, in essence... if you had arrived at that page first, and decided to delete it because it was clearly not notable (tho you apparently know inherently what a Roblox clan base legion is without any further context), what deletion category would you have used? Do you think there is any chance that Fastily went to the page, said 'Uhh A1 doesn't apply, Roblox is clearly the MMOG for kids but beh this is really trivial for its own article', went to delete it and just took the speedy classification of the tag as read? I think its very easy to go and second guess, and expanding on Sven's comment above I wonder how many of the folks taking Fastily to task do any kind of deletion work themselves. Syrthiss (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a wrong deletion b/c CSD does not provide for the deletion of minor fictional characters. I wouldn't have deleted it via CSD and would have told the nominator to use PROD.  IMO, CSD should be followed exactly, but that doesn't mean I am going to make pointless undeletions either.  Furthermore, if this was the only error I certainly would not have commented, but Fastily has regularly made blatantly bad deletions in article space so I took a small sample to try to get some idea of out his error rate on articles. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Syrthiss that some of the comments above are coming from people who have no problem bitching at other people bu can't be arsed to get out there and do the dirty work themselves. Guess what; it gets annoying when people who refuse to accept they may not know as much as you endlessly carp over minutiae and miss the broader picture.  I can't get all worked up over the wrong numeral being appended to a deletion (and as a broader aside, I still don't quite understand why CSD is the one policy which Must Be Followed To The Letter At All Times Or Else); what ultimately matters is that the damn thing was deleted, and clearly should have been.  And yes, I would have accepted A1 as a perfectly valid reason to delete that.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 10:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If I had the bit, I'd certainly get involved, but the reason CSD must be followed to the letter is because there are few checks and balances. Someone tags it, or someone finds and article and just deletes it. They are judge jury and executioner and the average user can't even hold them accountable unless they had a chance to see the article before it disappeared. If an administartor is found to be tagging articles incorrectly when they delete them, it puts into the question the care and attention they're giving to those deletions.--Crossmr (talk) 12:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There seems to be an argument by some that Fastily's behavior is due to overwork. Apparently few or no other admins choose to work in the areas where he works. I think it's important to note that NOBODY on Wikipedia is required to work on anything. The entire project is purely voluntary, so he has no obligation to produce results or work at such a high rate. Therefore, I don't think the argument that he's overworked holds much water because if he's overworked all he has to do is slow down and either let someone else pick up the slack, or let FfD languish long enough that people will take notice and join in rather than expecting him to just carry it all. I don't think he's overworked so much as indifferent. This is much like the argument that Betacommand should be excused for his similar behavior because he did so much work and I see similar responses from similar apologists. But nobody made him do that work and nobody is making Fastily work either. There's no excuse for such a high error rate, the indifferent and often haughty responses to other editors, disappearing whenever a discussion begins about his actions, and taking a wikibreak because he's "burnt out by people harassing him all the time". WP:DIVA anyone? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And to demonstrate my point above... The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 20:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And thanks for demonstrating my point about the apologists. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Before I became an admin, I might have agreed with you, but now that I've seen it from both sides instead of making assumptions without actually knowing what I was talking about I have a lot more sympathy for Fastily's position. It's very, very easy to criticize, and in no way do I think Fastily is completely blame-free (some mistakes are documented, look for ones that DGG points out in previous discussions), but talking in pompous dogmatic language saying "How DARE thee" doesn't actually help move towards resolution of the problem.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 21:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Blade re your comment "what ultimately matters is that the damn thing was deleted, and clearly should have been." Deletion codes matter because they are part of our communication with other editors. People see the deletion reason when they start to create a new article of the same name. If something has been deleted because of copyvio or for being overly promotional then we are happy to have a new attempt made to write the article, if the article was deleted because the subject doesn't yet merit an encyclopaedia article then we want people to wait until the subject has become notable. It's also an important part of our communication with the person whose work we are deleting. If they are writing about subjects that don't meet our criteria or then we need to tell them that, deleting articles under the wrong code means giving newbies the wrong reason for rejecting their work. Now there is an argument that some codes could be merged, if we decide that vandals and creators of attack pages are very rarely going to become good editors then a deletion reason of "meh"  might not harm us - until that is someone else starts creating a page of that name. But many newbies start out writing about footballers who have been signed but have not yet played and various other "newbie" mistakes, and in those cases getting the deletion reason right is probably more important than actually deleting the article. An editor whose work has been rejected for a sensible reason that was appropriately communicated is I believe more likely to stay with us and try to meet our rules. An editor whose work has been deleted arbitrarily for a reason that doesn't seem to make sense is I suspect less likely to stay and I fear more likely to consider us unprofessional and inaccurate.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  06:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Blade, as I said above, I don't buy this "martyr" excuse. Fastily is a volunteer like the rest of us and has no obligation to do what he does. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I've also seen similar behavior from Fastily, most notably in his super-fast nominations of dozens (hundreds?) of orphaned sound files several months ago. Because often files are deleted without further review at FFD, it is important for a nominator to have a decent success rate of identifying deletion-worthy files. Fastily had an extremely high error rate and did not respond well to criticism. I tried to check all the nominated sound files for several days, but I ran out of time reviewing and I'm sure dozens of worthy sound files were deleted. See old talk page revision. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

What is the Next Step?
So far I haven't commented on this thread, but it appears that many editors feel that something more deliberate should be done with Fastily. This thread is over a week old and is still getting comments, even days after Fastily gave himself a much needed wikibreak. Yet it appears that some feel that this is not enough, and perhaps something more should be done. Whether it is a sort of "topic ban" from deleting articles, a complete desysop, or a lengthy block. None of us who have edited for any length of time have not had our fair share of mistakes. Yet it appears that Fastily makes a few more mistakes than others. This is apparent by looking at the number of times Fastily is the topic of discussion at ANI. Hardly a week goes by without seeing some thread with his name on it. The number of "mistakes" made by Fastily only seems to have contributed to the frustration some feel while editing Wikipedia. We all get stressed with our little Wikipedia hobby sometimes. This shouldn't be the case, nor should normal everyday users have to continue to argue against deletions time and time again. Fastily gets so many editors complaining about deletions, he has even set up his own user space page to deal with them. That's a big red flag in my book. So then, what should be the next step in this process?-- JOJ <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  18:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That page is pretty ridiculous. It is basically telling everybody who wants to have a discussion to go pound sand. North8000 (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fastily will conveniently be on wikibreak until the day after this thread is archived. 12.90.146.190 (talk) 18:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Who's sock has been left in the dryer here? Calabe1992 18:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The next step is exactly what was suggested last time: RFC/U. Shit or get off the pot, people. Stop asking the same question again and again, and stop letting the same people with bees in their bonnets get all tough about it, then do nothing. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 19:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * @Jojhutton: What's so bad about having a subpage with deletion rationales? I have one myself, which existed over a year before Fastily created his. Does that say something about my deletions?
 * Anywho, as for the topic at hand. I see where others are coming from. While taking care of the daily image deletion at SD, I found that Fastily's tagging has gone downhill as well. All these files were tagged with missing permission, despite the fact that the summaries read "Read by Alex Killby", which is the uploader's username. Similar issues arose with File:2da1xiao.ogg, File:Gdpz4.gif, File:Keralatourism.ogg, File:Ru-Cmapm.ogg and File:Tony Sideways.ogg. Who knows how this issue stretches back—and with months of him exclusively deleting files himself, who knows how many files have been deleting incorrectly. Other admins (such as myself, who work in the same area) stopped simply because we can't keep up with Fastily's deletion rate. He has the ability to delete thousands of images within five minutes. It takes me at least an hour to finish deleting everything in the image categories at SD (where I use Twinkle to help me with batch deletions), WP:FFD and WP:PUF. And I think that's one of the problems, his pace is far too fast. Sure, it lives up to his username, but still... — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  19:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the problem here is that he tags if there is no source information in the recommended format regardless of whether it's there in some other manner or indeed is even necessary to determine copyright status. This is suggestive of automated unchecked editing but assuming good faith I can only assume it's a case of not checking properly (possibly only checking that is indeed no source information in the recommended format) as they say above they do check.  I'm thinking of stating to draft a RfC/U when I can find the time.  I'm not even sure we have a problem here but repeated threads at ANI is not really productive when it comes to discussing their edits as a whole and determining whether there's a wide problem rather than problems with a few one off situations.  For most editors with this number of ANI threads I'd assume there was a problem but taking into account the number of edits they make I'm not so sure here.  Hopefully an RfC/U where there was more centralised discussion would at a minimum help determine whether community consensus is that there is or isn't a problem with their edits taken as whole.  Dpmuk (talk) 20:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I propose the RFCU route. However, I don't know how to start an RFCU. I would be happy to participate in one, however. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I would like to reply to the original title of this section What is the next step? Going by the strong opinions of various user's but also repecting the basic tenets of Wikipedia, I would like to suggest the following.
 * Why do we need an rfc to prove the obvious?. We can right here enact an indefinite ban from participation in deletion processes. That he is not checking adequately is proven by the log evidence that he can not be checking at all. There is the possibility that some supernatural  ability permits him to be always right, but that would need some pretty extraordinary evidence (& is invalidated by the number of complaints that have been upheld).   Like any ban here, it can be challenged at arb com, but the burden can be on he who wishes to challenge it. The argument "I check my all the pages I ultimately delete, compile a list of pages to delete, and use a script to run through them." is highly implausible, for when would he be doing the checking, how would his script deal with those deleted before his script got to them or those where another editor  had declined the deletion, and no conceivable script could take proper account of objections made in the interval. If he does have such a miraculous script, he should prove it by posting the code & then everyone will befit.  Otherwise, I consider that claim of his a bad faith claim, and one warranting immediate action to prevent the resumption whenever he returns from the break.  What he has been doing is radically disruptive to Wikipedia as not just rejecting good content but in discouraging new contributors, and admin status is no protection for someone doing that. How would we treat an admin who worked at the speed he did, but declining every deletion?     DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Peronal meeting - as an extreme departure of the regular practice on Wikipedia of discussing issues of dispute I suggest that some senior editor's of Wikipedia meet the user Fastily in person and take his opinon. It has been suggested that Fastily might not be the person who takes part in administrator's discussions, possibly becasue he is busy with other Wikipedia responsibilities. A personal meeting might break more ice with Fastilty and help him express his opinion throuugh others. He is an experienced user of Wikipedia and surely a valuable contributor. I suggest a friendly meet arranged either through a local Wikipedia chapter or over email etc. before we finalize and topic bans or deletion bans.
 * Discuss image deletion policies - I have been personally stung with deletion of images without any discussion. I am inclined to believe that such deletions are the result of a bias against certain types of pictures - e.g. - photographs of imprtant places / people from amateur photoographers - and not on the basis of the actual copyright disclosures. Like all users I used the normal upload wizard to upload this image and explained all that could be explained. If some information was missing then as a user I should be let to know what I was expected to add. Leaving notes on the talk page of the deleting editor has produced no results. Strangely enough, the same editor's who expertly delete hundred's of images are also the one's who are too busy to give reasons. We probably need several seperate discussions to address all issues regarding such abrupt deletion of images but let's get the ball rolling on this one.

I still hold on to my opinion that user Fastily's actions are more a result of extreme contempt of regular Wikipedia practices, policies and users, than the mistakes of an honest and busy person. He has made ample comments to support this. In my case, good evidence is taking a precedence over good faith. A user has the right to make Wikipedia a better source of information, knowledge etc. but certainly has no right to take actions that leave hundreds of people dazed and confused. -00:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC) Wikishagnik (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is getting ridiculous as has been said many a time take to RFCU if you want otherwise this is going nowhere. Its the same people every time now that are trying to force there views. That is the option that has been proposed at every discussion but as yet no one has done this. Instead they have brought this up at every discussion board or opportunity possible which is exactly why Fastily feels he has been hounded and to be honest i agree with him. Also are other admins willing to get involved in some of the areas Fastily deals with otherwise thats going to get out of hand and it will become fairly evident the good work fattily does. But for one reason i cant see it and thats because it gets a lot of flak. <font color="Maroon">Edinburgh   Wanderer  00:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How is RfC, a non-binding process that fastily can't be forced to participate in going to do anything for this situation? We've recently seen Fastily walk away from more than one discussion the moment the discussions don't seem to be going his way. As I pointed out to Fastily if he doesn't want to see things being brought up again and again he should actually stick around and discuss them for once rather than making a placating comment and then walking away until the next discussion comes up and doing it all over again.--Crossmr (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Edinburgh Wanderer please understand that what you state as hounding is actually a lot of very valid questions that have never been answered. What I perceive as get over with it as your point-of-view is exactly what this discussion is about. It would be rather convenient for any admin to take a hasty (or harsh) action against Fastily but that is precisely what some of us are trying to avoid, as all of us are volunteers. I wouldn't mind if Fastily did a little less of good work and actually did no work for some time. Let other admins worry about important work that would be left incomplete (which I am sure they will). Wikishagnik (talk) 01:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

General comment, an admin needs to be open to feedback and willing to discuss issues related to his or hers admin activities. That's as much an obligation as anything else involved as an admin...that's the biggest failing I see here. RxS (talk) 05:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Any comments on how we deal with drama/wikibreak/drama cycles? Both generally and in this specific case. (While I've not looked at all the particulars myself, it has been suggested that this has happened w/ Fastily before, and concerns that it will happen this time. Anyone? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to what I said, you took part in it, and I linked you to the discussion already. In general as to how to approach these kinds of things, I would suggest that the community no longer accept self-imposed sanctions or wiki-breaks as a resolution to situations. What inevitably happens is that the subject or their defenders will then turn around and claim those things have no teeth since they chose to do it themselves and were under no obligation to actually follow them. Like the recent situation we had with Baseball bugs who self-imposed a month long AN/I ban, then came back early with a very poor thread and then several people jumped in defending him claiming since he self-imposed, it didn't mean anything. Despite the fact that the community basically killed on-going discussion for that very thing because he did that. In the future, I would suggest all discussions continue until a resolution is reached, and if the wiki-break/self-imposed restrictions meet or exceed the community's resolution, fine, if not, they'll have to be adjusted to at least match what the community wants at a minimum.--Crossmr (talk) 13:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I've done a few small analyses of Fastily's deletions in the past, and found that he has a steady percentage of mistakes that's not very high (much lower than the percentage of my edits that I have to go back and fix something on), but because he does so many, even a <5% error rate will start turning out volumes. The errors are random, consistent with someone going too fast at a fairly repetetive task, and occasionally putting the shells in the bowl and tossing the nut, or finding themselves trying to shell their kid brother's Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle that got in the bag by mistake. That said, if you consistently don't fill in the license templates or FURs right, you'll probably find your stuff consistently deleted.

And he does respond on his talkpage - if you ask him to undelete something, he generally just does it. But his talkpage archives quite fast (I manually archive mine when people start complaining that it takes more than 10 minutes to load, his seems to turnround in 72 hrs), so requests get missed. And, since most queries have a standard answer, he just points to a standard set of answers. But from years in customer service, I know that this is not what most customers want. They want a bit of personal attention, something that relates specifically to them.

Perhaps the answer is to have a better mechanism for responding to the questions and requests for undeletion. A place where people asking "why was my image deleted" could speak to someone from a team dedicated to helping people add suitable images, who could talk them through the problems. Where I work, the same people aren't expected to be front line customer service giving information about (say) planning applications, and make decisions on whether someone's planning application gets approved. Just a thought. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * speaking generally, there are several reasons to ask the original administrator: first, to avoid undercutting their authority and decreasing the likelihood of wheel-warring;   second, because they might have a good explanation that the deletion message by itself does not make obvious; third, to give them an opportunity to learn by being aware of  the complaints & themselves correcting their own errors; fourth,   having previously analyzed the situation, they are in the best position to give real advice to the requestor.  Obviously, if someone gives stock answers via a form interface, they are destroying the usefulness of most of this.  The net effect of it is to discourage users with bona fide complaints from carrying it further--especially when deletion review, upon getting a request from someone whose item was deleted, generally send them back to the deleting administrator. When someone  encounters this, it  always seems like the sort of runaround they;re accustomed to getting from   the most arrogant of monopolistic companies. (and a virtual monopoly at this point is exactly our position).
 * anyone can delete very rapidly--the only thing keeping any of us from going as quickly as Twinkle can let us is that we could not deal with the questions. Properly dealing with users is the limitation--any admin has the obligation to start no more than they can properly finish. If an admin cannot answer the questions on a personal level, that admin is going too fast. If someone is unwilling to deal with people individually, the person has no viable role as an admin here dealing with deletion.  DGG ( talk ) 22:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I have unarchived this discussion as we need to reach a resolution and figure out how to move forward rather than just letting this die until the issue arises again. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fastily has left for the time being, so I'm not sure what is to be gained by kicking a man while he's down. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, good to know that if my behavior is ever questioned at AN/I I can go on Wikibreak to end the discussion... - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, 28bytes is right - this needs to go to RFC/U. The discusion has not ended, it simply needs moving. GiantSnowman 16:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how productive even an RFC/U will be without Fastily there actively defending his side. I am reminded of the RFC/U in absentia of User:YellowMonkey, which ended inconclusively—put indefinitely on hold because YM was not around to further the discussion. Now, granted, Fastily has announced that he is leaving and planning on coming back, unlike YM, who just dropped of the face of the earth. Nevertheless, I am sceptical of any such investigations/mediations that do not involve the party at the centre of the debate. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Burpelson AFB, I understand your frustration, but to clarify: you don't have to end the discussion, you just have to take it to a more appropriate venue. I know RfC/Us are a giant pain to put together and participate in, but that's where the discussion has to continue, if it is to continue. 28bytes (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm most interested in seeing how Fastily acts when he comes back from his self imposed wiki break. Will he have finally come to the conclusion that what he was doing was disruptive and was, simply put, pissung a lot of people off? Or will he just continue to mass delete? Hopefully a lesson will have been learned. And even though he isn't editing at the moment, I'm fairly sure that he is reading every word of this thread. Aren't you? Hopefully we won't have any more Fastily related threads at ANI for a while. A lot if people jumped on his case this time. Lot more than normal, and that's saying something. It's not all sour grapes, as some have suggested. It's about right and wrong. It's about making sure that if an admin makes a mistake, or multiple mistakes, that they are held accountable, just like everyone else. Yes mistakes happen, but there seems to be a much higher rate of mistakes and a much higher rate of ANI discussions surrounding Fastily than most users. Where there's smoke there's fire. -- JOJ <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  18:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * AN/I is well within its power to enact a topic ban or apply other restrictions if it so wishes, among many other things. How is RfC a more appropriate venue, other than the fact that the results are non-binding, fastily doesn't have to participate, etc. Fastily leaving is irrelevant. Just because he's left doesn't mean the community can't decide what to do if/when he comes back.--Crossmr (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm glad someone has some sense. Deleting those two categories as G10 was pure nonsense, he was piling on along with other people, particularly after I was blocked. When I asked him for an explanation for G10 he refused to provide a rationale. And it looks like he has a loooong history of these kinds of bad deletions and not responding appropriately to queries. Night Ranger (talk) 01:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to add my comments to any RFC/U but I have no idea how to put one together and since I'm not one of the principal complainants here it should probably be one of them and not me anyway. Hopefully one of them will do so. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well that's Betacommand and Fastily dealt with, who is next on the hit list? Black Kite (talk) 11:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Tendentious IP editor 194.60.38.198
IP editor 194.60.38.198 is identified by Wikipedia as registered to the United Kingdom Houses of Parliament. It has had a long history of making edits that are almost exclusively to biographies of British politicians, often removing negative statements that seem adequately sourced. Take a look at the IP's archives. Look at these four 1 2 3 4 trying to remove negative information about Chris Kelly (British politician), no edit summaries, I warned each time but no discussion, just simple reverts. Also see here. Some edits seem constructive like this one but no sources. I get the feeling that this IP is attached to a public computer at Parliament, maybe in the library or something, and random staffers use it to edit Wikipedia. I suggest blocking the IP and requiring the users to log in, at least then we'd be able to see how many different people are editing, let the good individual editors edit, and stop those editors that can't work within Wikipedia guidelines. Zad68 (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if this is the right venue: I'd suggest AIV if another one of those edits are made. I've just reverted the IP on Judith Jolly, Baroness Jolly (what a name) where they introduced non-neutral biographical content copied from this PDF. You'd given them a final warning; next stop AIV, methinks. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No problems about blocking if it does persist. It's not like it's David Cameron on the other end... narrows eyes...or is it... Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just remember: as soon as it is blocked, you MUST leave a notice for the WMF Communications Committee. Nyttend (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hehe, let that "you" be you, then? Thanks for the reminder. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 fraud: User is being unreasonable?
I made a section in the talk page, asking why fraud is not mentioned in the article, and i gave video proof and articles with evidence of fraud. So the user Jack Bornholm added an image which accused me of being a troll and basically said "dont feed the troll", which i thought was unreasonable and borderline personal attack.

So i reverted him here and said in the edit summary: "reverted addition of image claiming i am a troll for bring up fraud not being mentioned in article, which is a fact and which i provided video evidence for". Then he added the image back and said "Dont censor the talkpage".

Anyone else of the opinion that this is unreasonable. My request is that he remove the image accusing me of being a troll for bringing up fraud--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Responses

 * You are using the talk page as a WP:SOAPBOX about something you admittedly don't understand, using inflammatory language and without good sources.  This continued after it being pointed out to you.  Simple solution, don't use the page as a soapbox.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 23:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ok, that source may not be suitable for WP because it allows user content, but there are many other sources which mention fraud, yet fraud & vote rigging is not mentioned even once in the article: Business inside, simple news, msnbc, local newspaper, professional blogs abc news,

Given your postings at Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012, I suggest you read WP:NOTFORUM, and WP:BOOMERANG. And then find something more useful to do with your time, and ours. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * yes, i know WP is not a forum. so your saying that talking about fraud and why its not mentioned in article even though its covered by the media, then that violates WP:NOTFORUM??--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

As I also qouted from What Wikipedia is not. The Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 was starting to become a forum for for general discussion of the article's subject. Disrupting the more calm discussions on article improvements. Anyone reading the discussion can see that I myself also was starting to trolling. So I dont simply accuse Miscon for being a troll, we can all become trolls from time to time. The image is there to remember not to feed them (others trolls and our own). The discussion is not productive. Jack Bornholm (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think I can see everyone's points here. Absolutely, WP is not a soapbox / forum, and absolutely, article talk pages aren't for in-depth discussions about the subject of the article. However, I think it's OTT to call the other editor a troll, and if there are reliable sources (as there seem to be) on the fraud subject, then refusing to mention it isn't NPOV.  I think Misconceptions2 has a valid reason for being upset, and doesn't deserve a bad-faith accusation (even if the trolling image was to "remind everyone", Misconceptions2 clearly feels it was directed primarily at them).  Simple aoplogies and agreeing that people misunderstood each other go a long way.  And making sure that anything mentioned in RS has due weight and is not omitted from the article is necessary.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 04:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked for breaching the restriction on disruptive conduct they agreed to in order to be unblocked. I don't endorse calling editors a 'troll' however, and that did nothing to cool down the situation or discourage Misconceptions2's POV-pushing at Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 Nick-D (talk) 09:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand others have a point but my opinion is that accusing somone of being a troll for bringing up a legitimate subject is the definition of trolling. Misconceptions2 has done nothing wrong here, I would remove that "troll" image. <font face="Tahoma" color="#800000">Barry  <font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#0E6E2E">(Why don't we talk?)  14:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Slow edit war continues
This user continues to slow edit war on this page despite receiving a previous block []. Please see block log []. Gravyring (talk) 23:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * where has he reverted 3 times in 24 hours?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * One doesn't have to break 3RR to be edit warring. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 23:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That topic is under WP:TROUBLES sanctions (not Carlingford Lough but what to call where it is, since it's on a border. Everyone is on a 1RR. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The links for this problem are at:
 * I suggest a new rule: in exchange for not being blocked on sight, single-issue POV-warriors in AE-related subjects are not allowed to report other users to noticeboards. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Carlingford Lough is on the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. An discussion is taking place at Talk:Carlingford Lough. The dispute is over how to describe the border between the two political units.

There is a WP:TROUBLES template on the article's talk page. Bjmullan doesn't seem to have broken the 1RR, though he has continued to revert over a period of days. Counting the edits of all the participants, there seem to be 21 or more reverts since March 1. It doesn't look good to have a lot of reverting during an active RfC. Maybe these guys could ask for an admin to close the RfC, which has been open since March 6. EdJohnston (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't really know anything about this, or the WP:TROUBLES area in general. However, it always makes me uncomfortable seeing reports like this. It takes two to edit war (well, more than a single person at least), and content issues shouldn't be decided through blocks. I'm sure those of you with tools and an interest in the area can work this out, but I hope that there's more than "block first, and deal with the situation later" solutions going on. — <span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 01:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Could I direct editors to this talk page discussion. BJ reverted this sock abusing IP, who has form on this article. Reverting the edits by IP's are covered on Troubles articles as non sactionable, for exactly this reason. We also have two SPA accounts on both the article and talk page which needs to be looked at. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  09:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe Domer48 is in breach of his probation. Here  which I believe falls under The Troubles sanctions. Under probation, Domer is only allowed to make 1 edit per page per week but under WP:Adam_Carroll, he has made 4 edits in 2 weeks regarding the persons nationality. This is surely in breach of their probation outlined here . An admin should look at this.Hackneyhound (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This is ✅ to be again. Blocking -  A l is o n  ❤ 09:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What/who is confirmed as Factocop? The Cavalry (Message me) 11:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The IP sock. Bjmullan (or indeed anyone) gets a free pass on reverting Factocop socks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fantastic, thanks for clearing that up! The Cavalry (Message me) 11:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikihounding by IP 68.113.122.83
I'm not sure if this is the appropriate place to deal with this issue, since I've never been harassed on here before, but the anonymous IP 68.113.122.83 has been making threats on my talk page in violation of WP:HOUND and then restoring them after I deleted them in violation of WP:DRC. The original issue was that user's repeated vandalism of Logan_Airport despite discussion on the talk page agreeing that their edit was false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeIsKr (talk • contribs) 01:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you need to re-read the policy on vandalism. It's at WP:VAN. You referred to the IP's edits on your talk page as vandalism here, for instance--but this is not vandalism. I also don't see how the IP's edits constitute hounding--they don't even come close. Moreover, on the Logan talk page you start the talk page discussion, by referring to the IP as a troll. That's really bad manners. You may be interested in The Mote and the Beam. The rest is an editing dispute, and if you (and the IP) would tone down the rhetoric, you might actually be able to solve it. Drmies (talk) 04:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Erm, Drmies, context. Might have been better if you mentioned what Nathan said to David, though that is probably very much more harsh than is required here.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you see that a certain Snoozlepet jumped to BeIsKr's defense, giving the IP a final warning and reporting them at AIV? I'm bothered by the perceived need editors feel to jump to ANI and to call so many IP edits vandalism. I think the mote applies perfectly, and should have a hatnote leading to WP:BOOMERANG--while BeIsKr accuses someone of HOUNDING, they are themselves BITING. "Oh, someone disagreed with me! I'm being oppressed!" Drmies (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Trolling or impersonation of law enforcement
I have already reported this user at WP:UAA but there seems to be a backlog there and this user is engaging in harassment that needs to be stopped ASAP. User has stated that s/he is "looking for a few illegals" and has baselessly labeled a user as an "illegal Mexican". S/he has also questioned my ethnicity as if it matters on this site. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 17:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked indef for trolling. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 17:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Can we give an ANI shout-out to Daniel Case for their continuous attention to that page? Daniel, sorry that we always leave you to it. I've taken care of a few just now. Drmies (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Western betrayal
I have placed a 7 day block for new users and IP users on article Western betrayal and its talk page, because one or more editors using IP addresses have been stirring up passions, which has led to a lot of comments about editors rather than article development. I have hatted those threads.

However there is a subsidiary problem User:Volunteer Marek has been deleting comments by IP addresses on other user talk pages. This has led to one of the users Malick78 repeatedly reverting an edit made by Malick78 back onto user talk:Volunteer Marek which Volunteer Marek has repeatedly deleted. I have warned both of the to stop.

As I intend to be involved in the development of Western betrayal it would be useful if another administrator was to review my actions and amend them if they are so minded. -- PBS (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * For the record, the IP comments I removed where made by 98.92.207.190 and 72.145.253.232 I believe (this person has by now used so many different IPs that I might have confused them). These two addresses, in addition to these, are the same person as this IP  who was blocked for one year by User:SarekOfVulcan on March 8th for disruptive editing, and whose previous comments had to be oversighted. Hence this is a person who is evading a block in order to post personal attacks and harassment against myself, as well as to WP:CANVASS. As result removing these comments is perfectly justified per WP:BAN, Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban, not to mention WP:TALK which states that Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism.  is fine.


 * I was planning on filing a formal WP:SPI but I'm pretty busy atm and those take some time to write up (this is also why I haven't reported Malick78 yet) in regard to these IPs (they're all socks of User:Leidseplein though that part is not obvious unless you're familiar with the user - hence an SPI).


 * I don't have time to fully explain the Malick78 part of the story here. Basically it's someone who I asked as far back (maybe even earlier, can't remember) as August 2010 not to post to my talk page (notice the rude message I am removing). Because of a dispute we had on one article Malick78 though has taken upon himself to follow me to various articles and try to come up with reasons, all of them essentially spurious, to criticize my editing (one example out of many). Along the way he figured out my nationality and began making disparaging remarks about Poles as a group (, as well as making numerous personal attacks (one out of many). I told him not to post to my talk page again on October 2010  and of course more recently, after which he, like Philip says, began edit warring to force his comments on to my talk page. As far as I know Malick78 is not connected to the person behind the IP addresses but is merely enjoying the harassment campaign they're subjecting me to, so he is trying to enable that person to the best of his ability. Volunteer Marek  22:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * SPI report here . Volunteer Marek 06:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmm, me thinks VM doth protest too much. Firstly, let's remind new-comers that VM is the same person as Radeksz who was part of the EEML, which was punished for various things, including coordinating activity off-WP (including, it happens, ganging up on an article of mine about two years ago, if I remember rightly, which they had AFDed. It was reinstated after the EEML issue came to light). I don't know why he changed his name after being punished, you take a guess, but either way - when we started bumping into each other (him now as VM) perhaps a year back - we immediately didn't see eye to eye (though then I didn't know that he was the same guy as Radeksz). To suggest that it is me who is at fault, is of course just one side of the story. VM edits disruptively, seems to assume he owns pages and takes a lot of offence when others edit them and it's not to his liking, and he himself is happy to use insults (I believe I don't, yet I admit with this editor I don't try to soften my views). To suggest I have an issue with his Polishness is wrong and opportunistic: I live in Poland, speak Polish, and there is a six-month old foetus in my wife's womb that is half-Polish. I'm not anti-Polish ;) I do however dislike a certain group of jingoistic and over-sensitive Polish editors on WP who seem to tag-team all opposition, quashing all dissent on Polish articles. Many are from the old EEML, unsurprisingly. As for me following him around WP - I've made thousands of edits and he and I both have a Polish connection, so we're likely to bump into each other at times. That's just wiki-life. (As it happens, he seems to take a keen interest in my actions - commenting on my sandbox as soon as anything changes.)
 * As for readding stuff on his talkpage: well, WP:TALK says that editors should only remove content if it's a personal attack. What I wrote on his talk page wasn't. It also says: "Editing—or even removing—others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection." I objected (he hadn't answered my complaint about him deleting stuff on my talk page) and he continued to delete/revert my edits. WP:TALK doesn't mention what to do when somebody removes your comment - so, I reverted. PBS later pointed me to WP:DRC, which I was not aware of, but hey - it's an essay, not a guideline or policy. But as a sign of goodwill - I'll refrain from doing so in future.
 * Regarding his removal of a 3rd party's comment from my talk page (and others') - I believe VM did it solely for the purpose of hiding something he considered personally embarrassing - that it was perhaps by a banned user provides just a faint veneer of respectability to the actions. He should have asked me to remove it - since the message was to me personally, and not just a random defamatory comment. As we see here in an edit summary, other editors didn't like his intervention either or agree with his self-justification.
 * As to posting on VM's talk page, I see no reason not to do so in future if his conduct (e.g. deleting things from my page without getting my say-so) warrants it. If he oversteps the mark, he has to be told somehow.Malick78 (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * From WP:TALK, specifically WP:OWNTALK: "Personal talk page cleanup: On your own user talk page, you may archive threads at your discretion. Simply deleting others' comments on your talk page is permitted, but most editors prefer archiving." This is the guideline on which the DRC essay is based. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I first came to this talk page and its Western betrayal article on 20 March, merely in response to a question I noticed concerning the section When to use and when not to use "[sic]", in a quote of a quote. I have not tried to research the history of the article or it talk page, or of its participants.


 * I quickly found that throughout the talk page User:Volunteer Marek was deleting a number of posts rather than responding or challenging them, or using strikeout, which seemed like much better methods of dealing with posts which may have been inappropriate rather than simply deleting them. These deleted posts may or may not have been posted by socks, or banned users - I had no way of knowing. In my opinion none of them that I saw were "harmful", did not contain "personal attacks", and were certainly not "vandalism". They may or may not have been "trolling". Essentially they were objecting to the practice of deletions of posts on the page, and to the apparent WP:Ownership of the page by Volunteer Marek. In briefly reviewing the talk page I had separately come to the same conclusion myself, that Volunteer Marek appeared to "own" the page. I thus reinstated two of the posts that had been deleted, in my opinion deleted on an entirely arbitrary basis, apparently because Volunteer Marek disagreed with them. (All these off-topic discussions have recently been hatted, appropriately, by User:Philip Baird Shearer).


 * Soon after I first objected to the deletions of posts I received a notification that I had a new message on my own user talk page. When I went to read it I found that Volunteer Marek had already gone to my talk page, and deleted the message posted to me by a different user. I was astounded and infuriated by what was clearly vandalism, and I used very bad language, for which I later apologized, and now apologize again here. It is my understanding that Volunteer Marek has also deleted messages from the user talk pages of User:Malick78 and of User:Philip Baird Shearer that had been posted by others. Milkunderwood (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have been hounded by this person (the one behind the IPs) on (and probably off, but nm that for now) Wiki for awhile. They have been blocked for disruptive editing. What is actually amazing in this whole mess is that the other IPs haven't been blocked yet and that some users (not necessarily you) insist on aiding and abetting this person.
 * As to charges of "ownership" that's just plainly false. Before this month, I have hardly made any edits to the article. In fact the last time I made any edits before Malick78 showed up was precisely when the person behind the IPs was active there. Which was... oh... almost exactly a year ago. In the year between March 2011 and March 2012, plenty of various users have edited the article, made changes, adjustments etc. This is blindly obvious just by looking at the article's history. Likewise, I have not reverted you, nor PBS nor Paul Siebert on the article either. Volunteer Marek 19:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I have no particular interest one way or the other in the article Western betrayal, and have only quickly skimmed through it. I have no dog in that fight. By "ownership" I was referring to the article's talk page. As you say, you have not reverted my posts; but you did delete a post from another editor, posted to my talk page. This is vandalism. Milkunderwood (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * By this logic oversight edits would be vandalism. Bottom line, when dealing with SP/IP posts that seem to focus on stalking/harassing/outing, we do allow for their reversion. I am not familiar with most details of the recent discussion at Western betrayal page, but reviewing some edits, I do think that it is likely VM is being harassed/stalked by somebody. I suggest that he should disengage himself from this debate, to avoid collateral damage, while a neutral admin looks into this case and determines which SP/IP edits need to be blanked, and their originators, banned. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 20:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * As I said, none of the deleted posts that I saw were in any way inappropriate, except as they might have been posted by a sock or banned user - which I was not aware of, and am still not convinced of. I am not aware of the history of "harassment". In my experience in wandering around Wikipedia, posts made by socks or banned users have been struck with an explanation provided, or collapsed, but never simply deleted. Deletion (on an article's talk page) should properly be applied only to incontrovertible WP:Vandalism: "irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page." I did not see any posts deleted that were vandalism, or anywhere near it. They were simply objecting to earlier posts being deleted. (This is as opposed to normal reverts to changes to an article itself.) Maybe I'm misapplying WP policy, but to my mind, having someone come to my talk page and deleting a post to me, from someone else, also constitutes vandalism.


 * Do you not make a distinction between deleting posts on an article's talk page, and deleting 3rd-party posts on a user's talk page? Milkunderwood (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I usually consider deleting anything from another talk page bad form (one own comments excepted, under refactor). At the same time, I can imagine a situation in which this can be justified (again, oversight, and such), but I have not read the comments in question (I don't see them diffed anywhere here), so I cannot comment on them specifically. I do believe, however, that I've seen in the past IP/SPA hate-filled/vandal comments on my talk page removed by third parties, and I usually agreed with them that such comments have no place on our project. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 22:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Geolocating the IPs indicates that they are very likely the same person: main sock 1 sock 2. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That may very well be. I don't see how this controverts what I was saying. Milkunderwood (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see where I announced that I was trying to "controvert" you. Merely providing technical evidence for the IP-socking that you are "still not convinced of". Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Two points: firstly VM has a history of behaving as if he 'owns' pages - see here for instance. Any criticism of a page (not even of him) and he starts accusing people of "harassment" or "trolling".
 * Secondly, Piotrus above was in the EEML with VM. He has also left "warnings" on my talk page when VM has felt, presumably, "threatened" by others' disapproval of his edits. I'd suspect he knows quite a lot about the discussion at Western Betrayal. Malick78 (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Two points: firstly VM has a history of behaving as if he 'owns' pages - see here for instance - oh for christ sake! Here's what happened:
 * March 2, 21:05, Malick78 adds a 'fact' tag and a "[sic]" inside a quote on Western Betrayal article.
 * March 2, 21:26 I provide the requested citation and remove the 'sic' since it was inside a direct quote.
 * In the meantime I was writing up the Feeder of lice article, getting it to DYK (I was planning on getting it to GA status but frankly I am so sick of all this harassment I feel like I really don't want to contribute anything to Wikipedia at the moment)
 * An hour later, March 2, 22:14, Malick78 pops up on the Feeder of lice article DYK nomination and starts making baseless criticisms in an attempt to sabotage it in revenge . He's told of by other people He does the same thing on the talk page of the article itself . He's told off by others and warned about his behavior.
 * And all of this because I simply dared to provide a source for a 'fact' tag Malick78 left and removed an unwarranted "sic"! Somebody's got problems here and it's not me. And this was after I had asked him to leave me alone  to which he threatened "As for coming to your talk page, I will frequent it as and when I like", which is pretty much a clear statement of intent to harass.
 * And yes, this goes back to at least September 2011, when I made some criticism on Malick78's article (because it was sloppily written and used unreliable source). He did the same thing back then; showed up to an article I wrote or spend a lot of time on, and began trying to find something wrong with it for "payback". And he's been doing it on and off ever since.
 * A frequent personal attack Malick78 engages in is to insinuate or directly accuse me of not knowing English or speaking English badly. As it happens, I'm pretty sure that I have been speaking English longer than Malick78 himself and am far better at it. It's just a gratuitous personal attack based on the fact that in our original interaction I - whom he believes to be a non-native speaker - "dared" to criticize his English grammar (which was in fact deserving of criticism).
 * I would very much support and appreciate an interaction ban for Malick78 here. Volunteer Marek 21:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As shown below, you seem to have been stalking me in February. As for your English - I commented that "Western Betrayal" sounds bad to a native ear, and you disagreed - so it seemed pertinent to comment that perhaps you weren't a native. You go by a Polish name and it didn't seem a great leap in logic.Malick78 (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Invoking EEML, which was last enforced in 2010, adds nothing of substance to your case and really makes it seem as though you are adopting a "me vs. those people" WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. Drop it. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If someone comes here and says they have had little contact with a page, it sounds like they are claiming neutrality. Yet this person acted in concert, against the rules, with one of the main actors in this issue. There's surely some worth in pointing that out to independent editors who may have to make a decision on this matter? Isn't there?
 * Oh, and I just noticed these two things: here, on 12 February 2012, VM reverts me on a page he has never edited before, a mere 17 minutes after I had edited it. And here he does even better, on 9 February, he tells me off just 2 minutes after I left a comment - on another page he'd never edited on. On both occasions, he'd never ever edited there before. Hope you got that. So, the only conclusion I can make, is that he was following my edits... (and in one case even reverted me). Make of that what you will. But please remember it when he claims that I follow him around... Malick78 (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * VM and Piotrus are both Polish editors and have similar interests and views. You don't need to squawk about ancient conspiracies when it's more reasonable to assume that they probably keep tabs on each other's contributions here. You're just mudslinging with EEML.
 * VM can get very testy at times, I will admit. The first diff you provided was a good example of that. On the other hand, your comment that provoked VM's response in the second link was pretty inane, IMO, and deserved the verbal slap-upside-the-head it received. Just because a name has a foreign-looking spelling doesn't mean it's automatically unusable, especially with a Polish name, where any anglicisation is likely based on German and would as such cause a POV ruckus. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not mudslinging with the EEML. It's a justified concern. As for your second point: whether my comment was inane or not, to follow me to page he'd never taken an interest in before and then be so rude... shows a lot of bad faith. And stalking.Malick78 (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I didn't "provoke" his response. He went fishing for something to complain about. It's really quite obvious.Malick78 (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A case which has lain dormant for so long is not a "justified concern". It's a scary-looking 4-letter acronym that people like to screech about in order to defame editors long after the fact. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Can somebody take a look at User_talk:Malick78? I don't think that comments like "Only their obsessession with their agenda and the eventual disinterest they create in honest Wikipedians encourages their desperate existence." or "Interacting with them can be soul destroying..." are indicative of AGF and such, yet based on those comments I doubt my further involvement on Malick's talk page is going to be constructive. PS. For the record, I have asked Malick to pay attention to civility issues before (User_talk:Malick78). --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 23:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Piotrus, that first quote was added by user 72.145.253.232, not me. The second, "Interacting with them can be soul destroying...", is mine, but is mild for a perceived attack. Isn't it just a description of how I feel? Malick78 (talk) 23:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Since you asked for clarification of my comment on my talk page: yes, I realize that one of the two quotes is not by you. I cited it here as an example of how this thread on your talk page has degenerated. and yes, I consider it worrisome that instead of removing / moderating / warning the anon, you seem to be mutually supporting one another in the combative attitude, particularly after I asked you to be more civil and collegial. Still, I recognize that it seems fruitless for me to interject on your talk page anymore, and thus I am asking neutral admins found here to review this discussion and draw their own conclusions. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 19:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please point me to any policy or guideline concerning deletions or reverts of posts made, not to articles, but to talk pages? I have a difficult time finding my way through Wikipedia's thicket of policies and guidelines. In the absence of knowing what may be prescribed or proscribed, I can only apply what seems to be common sense to me:
 * On a user's talk page:
 * no one except that user may delete or alter any post on that user's talk page, for any reason whatever, including incontrovertibly outright vandalism, solely as defined there, other than:
 * editing or deleting a post made by yourself, only (in which case it should be made clear what was done, and why); or
 * performing a simple formatting operation for clarity, by indenting or outdenting, or very occasionally rearranging the sequence of posts as needed, when a post may have been improperly placed in the middle of another post; and being absolutely certain that no change in either text or meaning has occurred; but
 * a post may be commented on, for instance to state that the poster is known to be a banned sock, etc.
 * Any other action taken by a third party should be considered vandalism.

Milkunderwood (talk) 05:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * On an article's talk page:
 * no non-neutral participant may delete or alter any other user's post, except where the post is incontrovertibly outright vandalism, solely as defined there, and excluding posts perceived to be "harassment" or a "personal attack" - no one other than an agreed-upon neutral observer may delete, revert, edit, strikeout or collapse such a post; but excepting only
 * performing a simple formatting operation for clarity, by indenting or outdenting, or very occasionally rearranging the sequence of posts as needed, when a post may have been improperly placed in the middle of another post; and being absolutely certain that no change in either text or meaning has occurred; but
 * a post may be commented on, for instance to state that the poster is known to be a banned sock, etc.
 * Any other action taken by a non-neutral participant should be considered vandalism.

Are censorship of others' statements in own talk page apporipate?
The talk page of User:AlienX2009 (talk) contains the following sentence:

"...please do not use inappropriate swear words on this talk page please or they will be censored."

Is this apporipate? Because I heard that talk-page censorship is frowned upon here. J u n k c o p s (want to talk?|my log) 11:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If it's their own talkpage, and it doesn't change the meaning of the text overall, they can basically do what they want ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 11:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is, but it's scarcely an onerous imposition to not express oneself in obscenities, which after all isn't precisely civil in the first place.  Ravenswing  14:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't allow swear words on my talkpage. I always replace a letter in such words with a hyphen. GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Per User pages "Material that clearly does not somehow further the goals of the project may be removed", which includes the user the user talk page is about removing such material. It is hard to imagine unwelcome swearing on a user talk page being seen as justifiable for furthering the goals of the project. --Fæ (talk) 15:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * He's quite entitled to ask people not to cuss on his talkpage - and particularly not to cuss him out on his talkpage, I would have thought. And he's quite entitled to remove any content he wants, including cussing. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Usual confusion. CENSORED does not apply to user pages only to articles. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have the same disclaimer on the top of my page. It's simple courtesy; you can express your opinion without having to resort to F-bombs, and I star out the words. I don't want to have to read them every time I get a new message alert. <font face="Myriad Web"> Nate  • ( chatter ) 21:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have a userbox detailing what issues I will revert out of hand if brought up on my talk page, and all of them are either linked to PC/FR or topic areas I actively avoid. I have had no complaints yet. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 22:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, running around to other peoples talk pages and "cleaning up" what you consider to be swear words is not appropriate. No one has mentioned that here obviously, but it seems to me to be an appropriate item to at least touch on. That and fortifying the concept that rules for article space do not necessarily extend into user space (or Wikipedia/project space, or the Help space...), although many of them do. — <span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 01:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Running about to mess with the talk pages of others is an absolute "no-no" and is not to the purpose. To the purpose here is the consideration that many editors are verbally castigated for removing certain things from their talk pages. Admins especially like to do this kind of reproving, yet I see it is up to the user to do as the user pleases with his own talk page. I think what admins need to do is stop sending the community mixed messages about what can be done on one's own talk page. I recall a dozen times I have posted, asking an admin permission to remove something. No one should have to do that. Nor should my talk page be concerned with pleasing all the nitpickers who want critical posts to remain alongside positive posts (I have heard that complaint from admins too).— Djathink imacowboy  18:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Totalbirds4321 is a newest sockpuppet of the blocked User:Bbtregervdfv who has abused multiple accounts, please ban the IP address
Here is the edit diff by User:Totalbirds4321:

Here is an edit diff at the same article by the indefinately blocked sockpuppet of User:Bbtregervdfv, User:Gmbfj.

Here is an edit diff at the same article by another indefinately blocked sockpuppet of User:Bbtregervdfv, User:Plusspacere

The user is clearly the newest of the sockpuppets of User:Bbtregervdfv who appears to admire Chiang Kai Shek while refusing to recognize that China was internally split since 1927 between Chiang's Nationalist Government of the Republic and Mao Zedong's Communist-controlled territories of China from 1927 to 1949. The user in each case refused to accept an image showing Chiang, Mao, and the US Ambassador to China meeting in 1945 - the ambassador held meetings with both Chiang and Mao during World War II, as both were the powers that be in China during the war. He/she removes it on false claims of "removing vandalism" or "repairing" the article - an image of Chiang, Mao, and the US ambassador to China standing beside each other is obviously not vandalism and how is removing the image "repairing the article"?

User:Bbtregervdfv is completely disruptive and is repeatedly evading blocks through sockpuppet use. Inedefinately blocking each sockpuppet individually has failed to prevent this user from abusive and disruptive activity because he/she just creates another sockpuppet account and does the same disruptive edits. The user has no intention of upholding Wikipedia's rules, please indefinately block or ban the IP address of User:Bbtregervdfv and this user's various sockpuppets such as User:Totalbirds4321.--R-41 (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅, blocked and tagged. An IP or range block is not possible. In future please file this sort of thing at Sockpuppet investigations, it does exactly what it says on the tin. :) WilliamH (talk) 00:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Ramdev
One particular editor repeatedly changes the "Introduction" section, distorting the article's point of view and sacrificing readability for English-language users in favor of the use of obscure, Indian words. I would appreciate it if an administrator would look into the situation. Morrowulf (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Morrowulf: I assume you're referring to, who keeps making similar minor changes. To be honest, the changes that the user is making appear to be in good faith and are innocuous (they certainly aren't vandalism, and you shouldn't revert them as such with Twinkle). I will leave a message on his talk page requesting that he refrain from continuing to revert to his wording and discuss the matter on the article's talk page, but I do believe you're making somewhat of a mountain out of a molehill to bring this to AN/I; you really should have tried to discuss it with him first. --Tristessa (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

IP hopper..
An IP hopper is using multiple IPs in the 216.66 range to carry out vandalism. He has mainly hit Materialscientist's talk page and a couple others. Rangeblock may be needed. Calabe1992 19:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Block review please
After the drama at User talk:Swifty recently, and his repeated accusations of hounding (see User talk:Swifty/Archives/2012/03), he's come from an unblock and gone straight to making thinly-veiled threats against the admin he accused of hounding him, at User talk:Kww. That looks completely unacceptable to me, and combined with his apparent inability or unwillingness to understand and follow the collegial behaviour required here (again see that talk page archive), I really don't think he has any place on this project. Consequently, I have indef-blocked him for the threat, but I'd like for that decision to be reviewed if people wouldn't mind - I'll be happy to modify or reverse the block if consensus says so. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * He took the rope and hanged himself. That's the end of this. <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">Eagles  <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">24/7  <font color="003B48" size="1px">(C) 20:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I had unblocked him because he fulfilled my original unblock criteria (agreeing to not abuse the G7 criteria further). I didn't have any real hope for him remaining unblocked for any long period of time, but didn't want to feed his apparent belief that I am persecuting him. I agree that he doesn't show any particular promise of being a useful editor.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I see nothing wrong with the block. On this he states "there will be problems." No thanks. Calabe1992 20:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Kww, if you hadn't unblocked him, no other administrator was going to. I think you went above and beyond AGF, and the user immediately reverted back to his disruptive behavior. <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">Eagles  <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">24/7  <font color="003B48" size="1px">(C) 20:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Good block. Responding to an unblock by almost immediately running off to re-ignite a fight - with bonus pseudo-legal threats and wikilawyering! - is one of the most efficient ways to earn a reinstatement of your block. Swifty, if you want to be unblocked, you need to disengage from your dislike of these other editors, not pursue it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. Good block; nothing to add here. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 20:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

That's fine and cool and thank you for that I appreciate that Boing! My significant other has also read everything going on and he'd like me to say that as far as what he read I made no threats to any user. Making a statement on what was talked about between me and him is making awareness not threatening anyone and as far as his statement goes he made it to Wikipedia in general not any specific user as I pointed out when I put the unblock. He reports Wikipedia what am I to do? I'm not responsible for his actions if he does and that's what I was letting Kww know cause I don't want to be the one in trouble or blocked for his actions as that wouldn't be fair to me. You can post that on the ANI if you want Boing! <b style="font-family:Arial; color:blue;">Swifty</b>* <sup style="margin-left:0.37ex; color:darkblue;">talk <sub style="margin-left:-3ex; color:darkblue;">contribs 20:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC) "Oh, and the message above was not the entirely of your threat - you also said 'But I'm done with this if you keep monitoring me I'm not responsible for my significant others actions okay?' -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)" If he reports Wikipedia for Kww's actions I'm not and I don't want to be held responsible for it. And that's what I meant. People are vindictive on here but it ain't me. <b style="font-family:Arial; color:blue;">Swifty</b>* <sup style="margin-left:0.37ex; color:darkblue;">talk <sub style="margin-left:-3ex; color:darkblue;">contribs 20:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC) (copied from Swifty's talk page -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC) )

hello this is josh, ricky's signficant other and yes i did threaten to report wikipedia because of unfair treatment towards ricky and because of everything written above i am. anyone who goes around and follows an editor is intimidating and harassing them and thats whats been happening to him and after what i've seen post above yes wikipedia will be brought to justice for what they have done. i do not believe hes being treated fairly and if you want to block him then block him for the same reason hes been blcoked on his old account but not for warning someone what i was telling him i do. thats not fair to him - josh. (copied from Swifty's talk page -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC) )
 * This may be an even quicker way to get oneself blocked: handing one's account access over to one's SO so they can lobby for you. This account may now be compromised, as well as the issuer of threats. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support indef- Eagles247 said it well: this user has hanged himself with the WP:ROPE he was given. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  21:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

*I realize I'm supposed to take this seriously, but ... where exactly is he going to "report Wikipedia"? Now, putting my grown-up admin hat back on, we don't need a pile-on ANI thread for this, this is resolved. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe the block is "appropriate" to the current situation, but how it got to that situation is another matter. Swifty was tagging a bunch of files "inappropriately" and was warned by kww, apparently at 16:41, 23 March, according to . Swifty then argues with kww for a few edits, including one undo of kww at 17:12 followed by some edits attempting to start an arbitration process against kww, which suggest that Swifty was 1) upset with kww, 2) not set on a sequence of file tagging. Then at 17:20, 23 March, kww blocks Swifty. Not only did kww's block hurt rather than help the situation, since Swiftly was starting a process about kww, kww's block could be viewed as retribution. Gimmetoo (talk) 21:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Swifty was attempting to remove all of his previous uploads, claiming he has a right to do so. Kww warned him to stop, but Swifty persisted in disruption. The same can be said if I block a vandal I've warned who persisted in vandalizing articles. That's not retribution, that's following policy. <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">Eagles  <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">24/7  <font color="003B48" size="1px">(C) 21:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You claim Swifty "persisted in disruption". "Persist" doesn't describe the one undo. Or are you asserting that disputing with kww is disruption? Because when a user accuses an admin of "hounding", formally starts a process, and notifies the admin, and then gets blocked by that admin about a minute after the notice, some might see it as confirmation of the hounding. It's certainly not what I would view as administrative best practice. Rather, "incendiary" comes to mind. Gimmetoo (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I was about to disagree, but then I saw that someone slapped one of those fucking indef scarlet letters on Swifty's user page, so I'll undo my resolve tag, and my omment above, so as not to imply that I'm part of a group of people that think that's a classy way to act. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks folks, all done and leave it to unblock requests now, I guess -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Western betrayal
I have placed a 7 day block for new users and IP users on article Western betrayal and its talk page, because one or more editors using IP addresses have been stirring up passions, which has led to a lot of comments about editors rather than article development. I have hatted those threads.

However there is a subsidiary problem User:Volunteer Marek has been deleting comments by IP addresses on other user talk pages. This has led to one of the users Malick78 repeatedly reverting an edit made by Malick78 back onto user talk:Volunteer Marek which Volunteer Marek has repeatedly deleted. I have warned both of the to stop.

As I intend to be involved in the development of Western betrayal it would be useful if another administrator was to review my actions and amend them if they are so minded. -- PBS (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * For the record, the IP comments I removed where made by 98.92.207.190 and 72.145.253.232 I believe (this person has by now used so many different IPs that I might have confused them). These two addresses, in addition to these, are the same person as this IP  who was blocked for one year by User:SarekOfVulcan on March 8th for disruptive editing, and whose previous comments had to be oversighted. Hence this is a person who is evading a block in order to post personal attacks and harassment against myself, as well as to WP:CANVASS. As result removing these comments is perfectly justified per WP:BAN, Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban, not to mention WP:TALK which states that Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism.  is fine.


 * I was planning on filing a formal WP:SPI but I'm pretty busy atm and those take some time to write up (this is also why I haven't reported Malick78 yet) in regard to these IPs (they're all socks of User:Leidseplein though that part is not obvious unless you're familiar with the user - hence an SPI).


 * I don't have time to fully explain the Malick78 part of the story here. Basically it's someone who I asked as far back (maybe even earlier, can't remember) as August 2010 not to post to my talk page (notice the rude message I am removing). Because of a dispute we had on one article Malick78 though has taken upon himself to follow me to various articles and try to come up with reasons, all of them essentially spurious, to criticize my editing (one example out of many). Along the way he figured out my nationality and began making disparaging remarks about Poles as a group (, as well as making numerous personal attacks (one out of many). I told him not to post to my talk page again on October 2010  and of course more recently, after which he, like Philip says, began edit warring to force his comments on to my talk page. As far as I know Malick78 is not connected to the person behind the IP addresses but is merely enjoying the harassment campaign they're subjecting me to, so he is trying to enable that person to the best of his ability. Volunteer Marek  22:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * SPI report here . Volunteer Marek 06:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmm, me thinks VM doth protest too much. Firstly, let's remind new-comers that VM is the same person as Radeksz who was part of the EEML, which was punished for various things, including coordinating activity off-WP (including, it happens, ganging up on an article of mine about two years ago, if I remember rightly, which they had AFDed. It was reinstated after the EEML issue came to light). I don't know why he changed his name after being punished, you take a guess, but either way - when we started bumping into each other (him now as VM) perhaps a year back - we immediately didn't see eye to eye (though then I didn't know that he was the same guy as Radeksz). To suggest that it is me who is at fault, is of course just one side of the story. VM edits disruptively, seems to assume he owns pages and takes a lot of offence when others edit them and it's not to his liking, and he himself is happy to use insults (I believe I don't, yet I admit with this editor I don't try to soften my views). To suggest I have an issue with his Polishness is wrong and opportunistic: I live in Poland, speak Polish, and there is a six-month old foetus in my wife's womb that is half-Polish. I'm not anti-Polish ;) I do however dislike a certain group of jingoistic and over-sensitive Polish editors on WP who seem to tag-team all opposition, quashing all dissent on Polish articles. Many are from the old EEML, unsurprisingly. As for me following him around WP - I've made thousands of edits and he and I both have a Polish connection, so we're likely to bump into each other at times. That's just wiki-life. (As it happens, he seems to take a keen interest in my actions - commenting on my sandbox as soon as anything changes.)
 * As for readding stuff on his talkpage: well, WP:TALK says that editors should only remove content if it's a personal attack. What I wrote on his talk page wasn't. It also says: "Editing—or even removing—others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection." I objected (he hadn't answered my complaint about him deleting stuff on my talk page) and he continued to delete/revert my edits. WP:TALK doesn't mention what to do when somebody removes your comment - so, I reverted. PBS later pointed me to WP:DRC, which I was not aware of, but hey - it's an essay, not a guideline or policy. But as a sign of goodwill - I'll refrain from doing so in future.
 * Regarding his removal of a 3rd party's comment from my talk page (and others') - I believe VM did it solely for the purpose of hiding something he considered personally embarrassing - that it was perhaps by a banned user provides just a faint veneer of respectability to the actions. He should have asked me to remove it - since the message was to me personally, and not just a random defamatory comment. As we see here in an edit summary, other editors didn't like his intervention either or agree with his self-justification.
 * As to posting on VM's talk page, I see no reason not to do so in future if his conduct (e.g. deleting things from my page without getting my say-so) warrants it. If he oversteps the mark, he has to be told somehow.Malick78 (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * From WP:TALK, specifically WP:OWNTALK: "Personal talk page cleanup: On your own user talk page, you may archive threads at your discretion. Simply deleting others' comments on your talk page is permitted, but most editors prefer archiving." This is the guideline on which the DRC essay is based. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I first came to this talk page and its Western betrayal article on 20 March, merely in response to a question I noticed concerning the section When to use and when not to use "[sic]", in a quote of a quote. I have not tried to research the history of the article or it talk page, or of its participants.


 * I quickly found that throughout the talk page User:Volunteer Marek was deleting a number of posts rather than responding or challenging them, or using strikeout, which seemed like much better methods of dealing with posts which may have been inappropriate rather than simply deleting them. These deleted posts may or may not have been posted by socks, or banned users - I had no way of knowing. In my opinion none of them that I saw were "harmful", did not contain "personal attacks", and were certainly not "vandalism". They may or may not have been "trolling". Essentially they were objecting to the practice of deletions of posts on the page, and to the apparent WP:Ownership of the page by Volunteer Marek. In briefly reviewing the talk page I had separately come to the same conclusion myself, that Volunteer Marek appeared to "own" the page. I thus reinstated two of the posts that had been deleted, in my opinion deleted on an entirely arbitrary basis, apparently because Volunteer Marek disagreed with them. (All these off-topic discussions have recently been hatted, appropriately, by User:Philip Baird Shearer).


 * Soon after I first objected to the deletions of posts I received a notification that I had a new message on my own user talk page. When I went to read it I found that Volunteer Marek had already gone to my talk page, and deleted the message posted to me by a different user. I was astounded and infuriated by what was clearly vandalism, and I used very bad language, for which I later apologized, and now apologize again here. It is my understanding that Volunteer Marek has also deleted messages from the user talk pages of User:Malick78 and of User:Philip Baird Shearer that had been posted by others. Milkunderwood (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have been hounded by this person (the one behind the IPs) on (and probably off, but nm that for now) Wiki for awhile. They have been blocked for disruptive editing. What is actually amazing in this whole mess is that the other IPs haven't been blocked yet and that some users (not necessarily you) insist on aiding and abetting this person.
 * As to charges of "ownership" that's just plainly false. Before this month, I have hardly made any edits to the article. In fact the last time I made any edits before Malick78 showed up was precisely when the person behind the IPs was active there. Which was... oh... almost exactly a year ago. In the year between March 2011 and March 2012, plenty of various users have edited the article, made changes, adjustments etc. This is blindly obvious just by looking at the article's history. Likewise, I have not reverted you, nor PBS nor Paul Siebert on the article either. Volunteer Marek 19:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I have no particular interest one way or the other in the article Western betrayal, and have only quickly skimmed through it. I have no dog in that fight. By "ownership" I was referring to the article's talk page. As you say, you have not reverted my posts; but you did delete a post from another editor, posted to my talk page. This is vandalism. Milkunderwood (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * By this logic oversight edits would be vandalism. Bottom line, when dealing with SP/IP posts that seem to focus on stalking/harassing/outing, we do allow for their reversion. I am not familiar with most details of the recent discussion at Western betrayal page, but reviewing some edits, I do think that it is likely VM is being harassed/stalked by somebody. I suggest that he should disengage himself from this debate, to avoid collateral damage, while a neutral admin looks into this case and determines which SP/IP edits need to be blanked, and their originators, banned. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 20:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * As I said, none of the deleted posts that I saw were in any way inappropriate, except as they might have been posted by a sock or banned user - which I was not aware of, and am still not convinced of. I am not aware of the history of "harassment". In my experience in wandering around Wikipedia, posts made by socks or banned users have been struck with an explanation provided, or collapsed, but never simply deleted. Deletion (on an article's talk page) should properly be applied only to incontrovertible WP:Vandalism: "irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page." I did not see any posts deleted that were vandalism, or anywhere near it. They were simply objecting to earlier posts being deleted. (This is as opposed to normal reverts to changes to an article itself.) Maybe I'm misapplying WP policy, but to my mind, having someone come to my talk page and deleting a post to me, from someone else, also constitutes vandalism.


 * Do you not make a distinction between deleting posts on an article's talk page, and deleting 3rd-party posts on a user's talk page? Milkunderwood (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I usually consider deleting anything from another talk page bad form (one own comments excepted, under refactor). At the same time, I can imagine a situation in which this can be justified (again, oversight, and such), but I have not read the comments in question (I don't see them diffed anywhere here), so I cannot comment on them specifically. I do believe, however, that I've seen in the past IP/SPA hate-filled/vandal comments on my talk page removed by third parties, and I usually agreed with them that such comments have no place on our project. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 22:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Geolocating the IPs indicates that they are very likely the same person: main sock 1 sock 2. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That may very well be. I don't see how this controverts what I was saying. Milkunderwood (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see where I announced that I was trying to "controvert" you. Merely providing technical evidence for the IP-socking that you are "still not convinced of". Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Two points: firstly VM has a history of behaving as if he 'owns' pages - see here for instance. Any criticism of a page (not even of him) and he starts accusing people of "harassment" or "trolling".
 * Secondly, Piotrus above was in the EEML with VM. He has also left "warnings" on my talk page when VM has felt, presumably, "threatened" by others' disapproval of his edits. I'd suspect he knows quite a lot about the discussion at Western Betrayal. Malick78 (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Two points: firstly VM has a history of behaving as if he 'owns' pages - see here for instance - oh for christ sake! Here's what happened:
 * March 2, 21:05, Malick78 adds a 'fact' tag and a "[sic]" inside a quote on Western Betrayal article.
 * March 2, 21:26 I provide the requested citation and remove the 'sic' since it was inside a direct quote.
 * In the meantime I was writing up the Feeder of lice article, getting it to DYK (I was planning on getting it to GA status but frankly I am so sick of all this harassment I feel like I really don't want to contribute anything to Wikipedia at the moment)
 * An hour later, March 2, 22:14, Malick78 pops up on the Feeder of lice article DYK nomination and starts making baseless criticisms in an attempt to sabotage it in revenge . He's told of by other people He does the same thing on the talk page of the article itself . He's told off by others and warned about his behavior.
 * And all of this because I simply dared to provide a source for a 'fact' tag Malick78 left and removed an unwarranted "sic"! Somebody's got problems here and it's not me. And this was after I had asked him to leave me alone  to which he threatened "As for coming to your talk page, I will frequent it as and when I like", which is pretty much a clear statement of intent to harass.
 * And yes, this goes back to at least September 2011, when I made some criticism on Malick78's article (because it was sloppily written and used unreliable source). He did the same thing back then; showed up to an article I wrote or spend a lot of time on, and began trying to find something wrong with it for "payback". And he's been doing it on and off ever since.
 * A frequent personal attack Malick78 engages in is to insinuate or directly accuse me of not knowing English or speaking English badly. As it happens, I'm pretty sure that I have been speaking English longer than Malick78 himself and am far better at it. It's just a gratuitous personal attack based on the fact that in our original interaction I - whom he believes to be a non-native speaker - "dared" to criticize his English grammar (which was in fact deserving of criticism).
 * I would very much support and appreciate an interaction ban for Malick78 here. Volunteer Marek 21:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As shown below, you seem to have been stalking me in February. As for your English - I commented that "Western Betrayal" sounds bad to a native ear, and you disagreed - so it seemed pertinent to comment that perhaps you weren't a native. You go by a Polish name and it didn't seem a great leap in logic.Malick78 (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Invoking EEML, which was last enforced in 2010, adds nothing of substance to your case and really makes it seem as though you are adopting a "me vs. those people" WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. Drop it. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If someone comes here and says they have had little contact with a page, it sounds like they are claiming neutrality. Yet this person acted in concert, against the rules, with one of the main actors in this issue. There's surely some worth in pointing that out to independent editors who may have to make a decision on this matter? Isn't there?
 * Oh, and I just noticed these two things: here, on 12 February 2012, VM reverts me on a page he has never edited before, a mere 17 minutes after I had edited it. And here he does even better, on 9 February, he tells me off just 2 minutes after I left a comment - on another page he'd never edited on. On both occasions, he'd never ever edited there before. Hope you got that. So, the only conclusion I can make, is that he was following my edits... (and in one case even reverted me). Make of that what you will. But please remember it when he claims that I follow him around... Malick78 (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * VM and Piotrus are both Polish editors and have similar interests and views. You don't need to squawk about ancient conspiracies when it's more reasonable to assume that they probably keep tabs on each other's contributions here. You're just mudslinging with EEML.
 * VM can get very testy at times, I will admit. The first diff you provided was a good example of that. On the other hand, your comment that provoked VM's response in the second link was pretty inane, IMO, and deserved the verbal slap-upside-the-head it received. Just because a name has a foreign-looking spelling doesn't mean it's automatically unusable, especially with a Polish name, where any anglicisation is likely based on German and would as such cause a POV ruckus. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not mudslinging with the EEML. It's a justified concern. As for your second point: whether my comment was inane or not, to follow me to page he'd never taken an interest in before and then be so rude... shows a lot of bad faith. And stalking.Malick78 (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I didn't "provoke" his response. He went fishing for something to complain about. It's really quite obvious.Malick78 (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A case which has lain dormant for so long is not a "justified concern". It's a scary-looking 4-letter acronym that people like to screech about in order to defame editors long after the fact. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Can somebody take a look at User_talk:Malick78? I don't think that comments like "Only their obsessession with their agenda and the eventual disinterest they create in honest Wikipedians encourages their desperate existence." or "Interacting with them can be soul destroying..." are indicative of AGF and such, yet based on those comments I doubt my further involvement on Malick's talk page is going to be constructive. PS. For the record, I have asked Malick to pay attention to civility issues before (User_talk:Malick78). --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 23:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Piotrus, that first quote was added by user 72.145.253.232, not me. The second, "Interacting with them can be soul destroying...", is mine, but is mild for a perceived attack. Isn't it just a description of how I feel? Malick78 (talk) 23:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Since you asked for clarification of my comment on my talk page: yes, I realize that one of the two quotes is not by you. I cited it here as an example of how this thread on your talk page has degenerated. and yes, I consider it worrisome that instead of removing / moderating / warning the anon, you seem to be mutually supporting one another in the combative attitude, particularly after I asked you to be more civil and collegial. Still, I recognize that it seems fruitless for me to interject on your talk page anymore, and thus I am asking neutral admins found here to review this discussion and draw their own conclusions. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 19:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please point me to any policy or guideline concerning deletions or reverts of posts made, not to articles, but to talk pages? I have a difficult time finding my way through Wikipedia's thicket of policies and guidelines. In the absence of knowing what may be prescribed or proscribed, I can only apply what seems to be common sense to me:
 * On a user's talk page:
 * no one except that user may delete or alter any post on that user's talk page, for any reason whatever, including incontrovertibly outright vandalism, solely as defined there, other than:
 * editing or deleting a post made by yourself, only (in which case it should be made clear what was done, and why); or
 * performing a simple formatting operation for clarity, by indenting or outdenting, or very occasionally rearranging the sequence of posts as needed, when a post may have been improperly placed in the middle of another post; and being absolutely certain that no change in either text or meaning has occurred; but
 * a post may be commented on, for instance to state that the poster is known to be a banned sock, etc.
 * Any other action taken by a third party should be considered vandalism.

Milkunderwood (talk) 05:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * On an article's talk page:
 * no non-neutral participant may delete or alter any other user's post, except where the post is incontrovertibly outright vandalism, solely as defined there, and excluding posts perceived to be "harassment" or a "personal attack" - no one other than an agreed-upon neutral observer may delete, revert, edit, strikeout or collapse such a post; but excepting only
 * performing a simple formatting operation for clarity, by indenting or outdenting, or very occasionally rearranging the sequence of posts as needed, when a post may have been improperly placed in the middle of another post; and being absolutely certain that no change in either text or meaning has occurred; but
 * a post may be commented on, for instance to state that the poster is known to be a banned sock, etc.
 * Any other action taken by a non-neutral participant should be considered vandalism.

User:EagleEye edit warring and WP:IDHT
User blocked for 24 hours by TParis Saedon (talk) 02:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC) has been attempting to add content sourced to a blogspot blog to the article mundane astrology. I have spent way, way too much time trying to explain to this person that blogs are not considered an RS except in very certain circumstances but the user refuses to acknowledge the policy. I created a report at WP:3RRN but it's gone unanswered and and this point the user is on his 6th revert after AndytheGrump reverted his addition as well and reexplained the policy that I have explained. Going over his talk page, you can see the WP:IDHT attitude as well as some strange interpretations of policy (e.g. I can't revert him since I haven't added sourced content to the page...what?)

Full disclosure: I accidentally violated 3RR as well, and mentioned it in my report, but when I noticed I stopped reverting and will not do so again. This user doesn't appear to believe that the rules apply to him and appears to be an astrology POV pusher, so can someone please block him for the 3RR and once again explain that blogs are not RS? Thanks. Will notify user in a moment. Saedon (talk) 02:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to give an idea of what this user is trying to add: "Mundane Astrology in the early 21st century saw the successful prediction by the American mundane astrologer Theodore White of Japan's Fukushima Earthquake which occurred March 11, 2011. Amazingly enough, and to the astonishment of worldwide seismotologists, Theodore White also accurately predicted the exact magnitude of Japan's historic earthquake before it happened." Of course I'm the POV pusher :). Saedon (talk) 02:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good block, TParis beat me too it. EagleEye would do well to use this time to review various content policies. It is not POV to use words like pseudoscience or fringe - neutrality does not mean giving undue weight to scientifically incorrect or minority positions. WilliamH (talk) 02:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Given the ongoing case of WP:IDHT that is evident on User talk:EagleEye, even after the block, I suspect we will be getting more problems when the block is lifted - perhaps a previously-uninvolved admin could try to get the point across, and save us future hassle? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just tried it. WilliamH (talk) 03:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, well I think I've exhausted my efforts. Doesn't look like they are any nearer to understanding it, and I simply think they're going to walk right back into it when the block expires. WilliamH (talk) 04:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That looks to be the case so why not indef until they can demonstrate they understand policy and that they will follow it? They're making it quite clear they  intend to continue the same so it's the very definition of a preventative block.  S Æ don <sup style="color:#000000;">talk  06:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand Wikipedia policy well and will adhere to it. But I will not participate with POV bad editors. They are very bad for Wikipedia. I am learning more about the process but am not happy with the particular POV editors who break Wikipedia guidelines and policies while threatening an editor with an "indefinite block" but have not shown any civility, or teamwork with another Wikipedia editor unless they are part of their gang. There should be no gangs on Wikipedia. I donate money to Wikipedia as well, but this experience today has made me doubt whether to give any more money to Wikipedia and I have plenty to give. I would prefer help from a qualified Wikipedia editor who is honest, not-POV and is a good and balanced editor; however, at this time I am rethinking if to support Wikipedia at all considering the lack of help from the POV editors who participate in no discussion on the Talk page, but name-call, personally attack and insults with violations of Wikipedia policies I have endured today. It has left a sour taste in my mouth so I will just gather up all the violations of Wikipedia policies by means of the users and their comments in the meantime. But thank you for letting me know. Eagle Eye 06:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Cute. So, User:Saedon posts here saying he won't argue with Eagle Eye anymore, but "signs" as "Eagle Eye", then tried to hide it by removing the signature added by SineBot. I think it's time for indeffing both accounts until Eagle Eye / Saedon gets their story straight. Sounds like we may have a Good Hand / Bad Hand issue. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 13:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, he's reposting a post that EagleEye made on his talkpage . The thing that Saedon did do wrong was to tell EagleEye that his block is going to be expanded to indefinite. This post is in response to that. I think Saedon should stay off his talkpage, but unless EagleEye is prepared to listen to what he doesn't want to hear, we'll be back here when the block has expired. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, gotcha. Not a clear way to quote someone then. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 14:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is patently clear that this individual a) has no understanding or acceptance of why they are blocked and that b) s/he will continue the behaviour after the block expires. I strongly recommend an indefinite block. WilliamH (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with both a and b, but I'd suggest allowing them a bit more rope - it'll be easy enough to act after the 24h expires, if necessary. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Elen, I didn't tell him his block would be extended, I told him that I was going to request that it be extended here and offered to move any response he had. I'm very experienced in the fringe topic area and have dealt with dozens of problem users in depth, so I'm not sure why you think I should stay off his talk page.  I'm, of course, always willing to listen to user input so if you think I have been out of line I would appreciate it if you'd let me know how.  @Hand: I'm not a new user and would certainly never do something as audacious as try to post as someone else.  I suppose I could have mentioned that I was quoting him but considering the easy to find paper trail on his talk page (and our copyright policy) I figured this would be the cleanest way to do so.  Back to the topic at hand: if you really don't think a block extension is necessary then I'm fine with that.  I don't have the same optimism that this user will turn around, though it's possible that when the 24h is up and they've calmed down they'll get the point, but judging from my experience I see all the normal red flags.  Since no one is willing to extend the block, would anyone be willing to take over the duties of trying to explain things?  They still don't seem to think that using blogs is problematic.  S Æ don <sup style="color:#000000;">talk  19:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I apologise for a misread on that one - you said you had asked, not that it would happen. My bad. I think you should stay off his talkpage only to avoid getting into a fight with the guy. It's not worth it. Others will deal with him. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll also apologize for the misunderstanding of your edit, Saedon. In my defense, there was nothing to indicate it was a quote, and this wouldn't be the first time someone tried a trick like that. Usually just tossing it in a blockquote tag, or even just quotemarks, is enough to let us know you're quoting. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 22:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think usual practice, or at least the clearest in my experience, is just to precede the copied text with something like (copied from User talk:Example by User:NULL) at the beginning. On the block itself, I think this user is going to be back here within a week of his unblock so there's no harm in giving him rope. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  01:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries on either count, Hand and Elen. I used to put a note when I moved text but IIRC during the long DreamFocus discussion during his last block all of his text was moved from his talk page directly and I liked how clean it looked.  But anyway, I'm happy to do what ever the community wants.  Hand, William or Elen, would either of you mind throwing  on EagleEye's page and logging at Requests_for_arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist?  Probably the easiest way to go about this.   S Æ don <sup style="color:#000000;">talk  19:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I struck Hand that Feeds from the above request, I've always thought s/he was an admin but I was wrong S Æ don <sup style="color:#000000;">talk  22:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Xanderliptak is Back
That editor has returned. For those who don't know, the editor uploaded a number of his personally-drawn images to commons, with the usual free license, and then yelped when they were edited to remove his personal watermark (thus depriving him of his ability to use them to advertise his website). He fought this war for over a year. Then about a year ago, he issued a threatening letter to the folks who operate commons, making the claim that the images were copyright violations (if so, he himself was the violator), and he got his way - they deleted the images. He was also indef'd bother there and here. One would have thought that was the end of that sordid affair. But now he's back. Any admin's suggestions would be welcome. Once I notify the editor, I'm not going to say anything more unless asked to or compelled to. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd better say that give a final warning to the user about his actions. If he still claims those as copyright violations; I'd better suggest deleting each and every file he uploads. And if this is serious, just put a indef block with autoblock enabled; email disabled; cannot edit own talk page. He's already blocked by Timothy.  Dipankan says..  ( "Be bold and edit!" ) 09:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've declined the appeal as the user has been socking regularly (see Sockpuppet investigations/Xanderliptak/Archive. The community may wish to make him a WP:STANDARD OFFER should he appeal again.Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Just in case anyone was giving this any consideration, I strongly suggest reading this and this (as well as the talk page of the RfC/U) before even thinking about granting an unblock. One of the most pertinent issues is the infrequent intersection of Xanderliptak's versions of events and what actually happened. In my opinion, this is once again very much in evidence in his unblock request, and anybody looking at this issue should take a look at what has actually happened in the past. → ROUX   ₪  20:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about me - I'm certainly not thinking about unblocking him. Perhaps in some alternate universe where it's perfectly ok for blocked users to just start another account.....Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just making sure everyone has the relevant info. There's a lot to dig down into, which is why I linked to the RfC/U, as it summarizes the actual problems, and while Xanderliptak's account of past events is certainly interesting, it is not accurate in any sense of the word. → ROUX   ₪  21:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Around the time he was sent packing at Commons (and here), he made an outrageous legal threat, in a successful attempt at getting his own uploads deleted after more than a year of constant disruption. He was blocked 14 months ago, not "2 years" ago as his current unblock request states (and which also omits any reference to his successful legal threat against wikimedia). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

One of Tak's more bizarre claims is that because he's not banned, then he's free to make other accounts. (Yes, he's been told otherwise, but he still makes the same claim - as per his usual M.O. of spinning things the way he wants them to be.) So, the question arises, is it time to discuss a ban of Tak and all his socks? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * has since indef blocked the user . I think this is fair enough; there doesn't seem to be much potential gain from letting the user play out an encore of his past. As regards Elen's suggestion of a WP:SO I think it may be somewhat unwise given his disruption at Commons &mdash; just deflecting him to another project to cause the same trouble with his uploads is pointless, especially given the lack of productivity. --Tristessa (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * He was indeffed on 7 November 2010 - but has since returned to his talk page, and has used other accounts in the meantime apparently. GiantSnowman 16:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right. That'll teach me to look at timestamps! Would you be kind enough to list the suspected alternate account(s) you know of? --Tristessa (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Happens to the best of us! There's a full list of socks here. GiantSnowman 16:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Alright then. has already talk blocked the master account today (16:59, 27 March 2012) and the other accounts at the SPI all seem to be blocked. What, therefore, is left to do here? Is he using any other sockpuppets at the moment that aren't listed on SPI? --Tristessa (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Tristessa and Giant Snowman, I hate to say this, but you are exemplifying the usual Wikipedia attitude of dive in first and ask questions later. Please familiarize yourself with this and this (as well as the talk page of the RfC/U) before continuing to comment. As things stand, Boing!Said Zebedee has revoked talkpage access, as Xanderliptak was repeatedly altering comments made by other people and would not stop. → ROUX   ₪  19:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * They already figured it out 2 hours before you posted. ಠ_ಠ &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Are censorship of others' statements in own talk page apporipate?
The talk page of User:AlienX2009 (talk) contains the following sentence:

"...please do not use inappropriate swear words on this talk page please or they will be censored."

Is this apporipate? Because I heard that talk-page censorship is frowned upon here. J u n k c o p s (want to talk?|my log) 11:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If it's their own talkpage, and it doesn't change the meaning of the text overall, they can basically do what they want ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 11:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is, but it's scarcely an onerous imposition to not express oneself in obscenities, which after all isn't precisely civil in the first place.  Ravenswing  14:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't allow swear words on my talkpage. I always replace a letter in such words with a hyphen. GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Per User pages "Material that clearly does not somehow further the goals of the project may be removed", which includes the user the user talk page is about removing such material. It is hard to imagine unwelcome swearing on a user talk page being seen as justifiable for furthering the goals of the project. --Fæ (talk) 15:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * He's quite entitled to ask people not to cuss on his talkpage - and particularly not to cuss him out on his talkpage, I would have thought. And he's quite entitled to remove any content he wants, including cussing. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Usual confusion. CENSORED does not apply to user pages only to articles. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have the same disclaimer on the top of my page. It's simple courtesy; you can express your opinion without having to resort to F-bombs, and I star out the words. I don't want to have to read them every time I get a new message alert. <font face="Myriad Web"> Nate  • ( chatter ) 21:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have a userbox detailing what issues I will revert out of hand if brought up on my talk page, and all of them are either linked to PC/FR or topic areas I actively avoid. I have had no complaints yet. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 22:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, running around to other peoples talk pages and "cleaning up" what you consider to be swear words is not appropriate. No one has mentioned that here obviously, but it seems to me to be an appropriate item to at least touch on. That and fortifying the concept that rules for article space do not necessarily extend into user space (or Wikipedia/project space, or the Help space...), although many of them do. — <span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 01:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Running about to mess with the talk pages of others is an absolute "no-no" and is not to the purpose. To the purpose here is the consideration that many editors are verbally castigated for removing certain things from their talk pages. Admins especially like to do this kind of reproving, yet I see it is up to the user to do as the user pleases with his own talk page. I think what admins need to do is stop sending the community mixed messages about what can be done on one's own talk page. I recall a dozen times I have posted, asking an admin permission to remove something. No one should have to do that. Nor should my talk page be concerned with pleasing all the nitpickers who want critical posts to remain alongside positive posts (I have heard that complaint from admins too).— Djathink imacowboy  18:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Totalbirds4321 is a newest sockpuppet of the blocked User:Bbtregervdfv who has abused multiple accounts, please ban the IP address
Here is the edit diff by User:Totalbirds4321:

Here is an edit diff at the same article by the indefinately blocked sockpuppet of User:Bbtregervdfv, User:Gmbfj.

Here is an edit diff at the same article by another indefinately blocked sockpuppet of User:Bbtregervdfv, User:Plusspacere

The user is clearly the newest of the sockpuppets of User:Bbtregervdfv who appears to admire Chiang Kai Shek while refusing to recognize that China was internally split since 1927 between Chiang's Nationalist Government of the Republic and Mao Zedong's Communist-controlled territories of China from 1927 to 1949. The user in each case refused to accept an image showing Chiang, Mao, and the US Ambassador to China meeting in 1945 - the ambassador held meetings with both Chiang and Mao during World War II, as both were the powers that be in China during the war. He/she removes it on false claims of "removing vandalism" or "repairing" the article - an image of Chiang, Mao, and the US ambassador to China standing beside each other is obviously not vandalism and how is removing the image "repairing the article"?

User:Bbtregervdfv is completely disruptive and is repeatedly evading blocks through sockpuppet use. Inedefinately blocking each sockpuppet individually has failed to prevent this user from abusive and disruptive activity because he/she just creates another sockpuppet account and does the same disruptive edits. The user has no intention of upholding Wikipedia's rules, please indefinately block or ban the IP address of User:Bbtregervdfv and this user's various sockpuppets such as User:Totalbirds4321.--R-41 (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅, blocked and tagged. An IP or range block is not possible. In future please file this sort of thing at Sockpuppet investigations, it does exactly what it says on the tin. :) WilliamH (talk) 00:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Manik Sarkar
The BLP on Manik Sarkar, an Indian politician, was in a mess for three reasons: most of the text for the article was lifted straight from other online sources, ; it was unsourced and contained poor English. I removed the text citing copyright vio on the talk page. One of the main registered editors has been warned but the text is repeatedly re-added, possibly by socks. The collection of editors seem interested in guidelines not at all. Thanks Span (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Span: I've warned the most recent IP, done some minor cleanup on the article to fix the lesions left by the removed text and semiprotected the page (which should prevent the roving IPs from readding the text) for 1 week. Let me know if there's anything else that needs to be done. --Tristessa (talk) 19:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Span (talk) 00:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Ramdev
One particular editor repeatedly changes the "Introduction" section, distorting the article's point of view and sacrificing readability for English-language users in favor of the use of obscure, Indian words. I would appreciate it if an administrator would look into the situation. Morrowulf (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Morrowulf: I assume you're referring to, who keeps making similar minor changes. To be honest, the changes that the user is making appear to be in good faith and are innocuous (they certainly aren't vandalism, and you shouldn't revert them as such with Twinkle). I will leave a message on his talk page requesting that he refrain from continuing to revert to his wording and discuss the matter on the article's talk page, but I do believe you're making somewhat of a mountain out of a molehill to bring this to AN/I; you really should have tried to discuss it with him first. --Tristessa (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

IP hopper..
An IP hopper is using multiple IPs in the 216.66 range to carry out vandalism. He has mainly hit Materialscientist's talk page and a couple others. Rangeblock may be needed. Calabe1992 19:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Block review please
After the drama at User talk:Swifty recently, and his repeated accusations of hounding (see User talk:Swifty/Archives/2012/03), he's come from an unblock and gone straight to making thinly-veiled threats against the admin he accused of hounding him, at User talk:Kww. That looks completely unacceptable to me, and combined with his apparent inability or unwillingness to understand and follow the collegial behaviour required here (again see that talk page archive), I really don't think he has any place on this project. Consequently, I have indef-blocked him for the threat, but I'd like for that decision to be reviewed if people wouldn't mind - I'll be happy to modify or reverse the block if consensus says so. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * He took the rope and hanged himself. That's the end of this. <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">Eagles  <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">24/7  <font color="003B48" size="1px">(C) 20:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I had unblocked him because he fulfilled my original unblock criteria (agreeing to not abuse the G7 criteria further). I didn't have any real hope for him remaining unblocked for any long period of time, but didn't want to feed his apparent belief that I am persecuting him. I agree that he doesn't show any particular promise of being a useful editor.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I see nothing wrong with the block. On this he states "there will be problems." No thanks. Calabe1992 20:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Kww, if you hadn't unblocked him, no other administrator was going to. I think you went above and beyond AGF, and the user immediately reverted back to his disruptive behavior. <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">Eagles  <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">24/7  <font color="003B48" size="1px">(C) 20:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Good block. Responding to an unblock by almost immediately running off to re-ignite a fight - with bonus pseudo-legal threats and wikilawyering! - is one of the most efficient ways to earn a reinstatement of your block. Swifty, if you want to be unblocked, you need to disengage from your dislike of these other editors, not pursue it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. Good block; nothing to add here. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 20:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

That's fine and cool and thank you for that I appreciate that Boing! My significant other has also read everything going on and he'd like me to say that as far as what he read I made no threats to any user. Making a statement on what was talked about between me and him is making awareness not threatening anyone and as far as his statement goes he made it to Wikipedia in general not any specific user as I pointed out when I put the unblock. He reports Wikipedia what am I to do? I'm not responsible for his actions if he does and that's what I was letting Kww know cause I don't want to be the one in trouble or blocked for his actions as that wouldn't be fair to me. You can post that on the ANI if you want Boing! <b style="font-family:Arial; color:blue;">Swifty</b>* <sup style="margin-left:0.37ex; color:darkblue;">talk <sub style="margin-left:-3ex; color:darkblue;">contribs 20:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC) "Oh, and the message above was not the entirely of your threat - you also said 'But I'm done with this if you keep monitoring me I'm not responsible for my significant others actions okay?' -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)" If he reports Wikipedia for Kww's actions I'm not and I don't want to be held responsible for it. And that's what I meant. People are vindictive on here but it ain't me. <b style="font-family:Arial; color:blue;">Swifty</b>* <sup style="margin-left:0.37ex; color:darkblue;">talk <sub style="margin-left:-3ex; color:darkblue;">contribs 20:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC) (copied from Swifty's talk page -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC) )

hello this is josh, ricky's signficant other and yes i did threaten to report wikipedia because of unfair treatment towards ricky and because of everything written above i am. anyone who goes around and follows an editor is intimidating and harassing them and thats whats been happening to him and after what i've seen post above yes wikipedia will be brought to justice for what they have done. i do not believe hes being treated fairly and if you want to block him then block him for the same reason hes been blcoked on his old account but not for warning someone what i was telling him i do. thats not fair to him - josh. (copied from Swifty's talk page -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC) )
 * This may be an even quicker way to get oneself blocked: handing one's account access over to one's SO so they can lobby for you. This account may now be compromised, as well as the issuer of threats. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support indef- Eagles247 said it well: this user has hanged himself with the WP:ROPE he was given. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  21:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

*I realize I'm supposed to take this seriously, but ... where exactly is he going to "report Wikipedia"? Now, putting my grown-up admin hat back on, we don't need a pile-on ANI thread for this, this is resolved. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe the block is "appropriate" to the current situation, but how it got to that situation is another matter. Swifty was tagging a bunch of files "inappropriately" and was warned by kww, apparently at 16:41, 23 March, according to . Swifty then argues with kww for a few edits, including one undo of kww at 17:12 followed by some edits attempting to start an arbitration process against kww, which suggest that Swifty was 1) upset with kww, 2) not set on a sequence of file tagging. Then at 17:20, 23 March, kww blocks Swifty. Not only did kww's block hurt rather than help the situation, since Swiftly was starting a process about kww, kww's block could be viewed as retribution. Gimmetoo (talk) 21:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Swifty was attempting to remove all of his previous uploads, claiming he has a right to do so. Kww warned him to stop, but Swifty persisted in disruption. The same can be said if I block a vandal I've warned who persisted in vandalizing articles. That's not retribution, that's following policy. <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">Eagles  <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">24/7  <font color="003B48" size="1px">(C) 21:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You claim Swifty "persisted in disruption". "Persist" doesn't describe the one undo. Or are you asserting that disputing with kww is disruption? Because when a user accuses an admin of "hounding", formally starts a process, and notifies the admin, and then gets blocked by that admin about a minute after the notice, some might see it as confirmation of the hounding. It's certainly not what I would view as administrative best practice. Rather, "incendiary" comes to mind. Gimmetoo (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I was about to disagree, but then I saw that someone slapped one of those fucking indef scarlet letters on Swifty's user page, so I'll undo my resolve tag, and my omment above, so as not to imply that I'm part of a group of people that think that's a classy way to act. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks folks, all done and leave it to unblock requests now, I guess -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

ANI links displaying offensive image in popups
I put in a request at the help desk, but no one seems to be answering. In WP:POPUPS, hovering the mouse over any link to WP:ANI is currently displaying an offensive image. Can anyone figure out what's going on? Calabe1992 23:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a note, I'm not seeing it. North8000 (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am, you have to wait. Images are the last to load, hover over his ANI link and wait about 3 seconds or so for the image to load.--Crossmr (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe I've fixed it. Let me know if it's still showing up for you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's gone now.--Crossmr (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. What happened that caused this? Calabe1992 23:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * . Someone used nowiki to prevent the image from displaying, but evidently nowiki doesn't work in the popups display.  I kind of dorked his comment up, I'll try to clean it up without re-displaying it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of advanced mathematics
I am currently engaging in a heated discussion centred on advanced mathematical topics, with a group of around 50 small boys. 2.120.88.30 (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 50 small boys, football in the park, jumpers for goalposts... has this got anything to do with Wikipedia? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. I reverted them the first time around but left them this time, just to be sure... Calabe1992 23:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not quite 50, in fact 49 of them. 2.120.88.30 (talk) 23:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is trolling, we're done. Nothing to do here. Calabe1992 23:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Berbah repeatedly inserting non-free screenshots failing WP:NFCC
has a clear disregard for WP:NFCC. In just under a year of activity he's received over 70 warnings for various non-free image related problems, but pretty much ignores them. Recently he's been going around inserting non-free screenshots from music videos into a bunch of song articles. I removed most of them and tagged the images for deletion because they were being used in a strictly decorative manner (no sourced discussion of the images or the imagery of the video in question in most cases). I also gave Berbah a pretty sternly-worded warning, since he's also moved over to Commons and uploaded the non-free screenshots there under false licenses. This hasn't stopped him: He's continued to re-insert the images and remove the deletion tags from the image pages, both through his account and through several IPs, including, , and. I'm not sure what to do, since Berbah obviously doesn't care about our non-free content criteria and hasn't responded to any messages left on his talk page. He seems preoccupied with inserting non-free music video screenshots into many song articles, which doesn't jibe with NFCC at all. What's to be done? --IllaZilla (talk) 04:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * He was blocked a year ago for the same thing, and he's just done it again. I have blocked indefinitely - if he ever sees the light, editing privileges can be restored. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) FWIW, this issue isn't so black and white as the above account would suggest. Berbah does indeed seem to have a recent history of adding screen shots of music videos to the music video section of articles about American pop music songs.  The original poster, IllaZilla, in turn appears to be rapidly removing images from articles about popular music, often with incorrect assertions of so-called "decorative" use.  The purported 70 warnings are mostly automated notifications that came after IllaZilla and other editors nominated or delinked the images.  It's not obvious that all or even most of Berbah's image uses are NFCC violations.  They certainly aren't decorative, or clear violations.  Nor is there a clear contempt for policy - quite the opposite, Berbah has added non-free use rationales in each case.  If these rationales are incorrect or unpersuasive that is something to address, but it is not helpful to accuse someone of ignoring a policy they are following.  In my spot check of the most recent examples (including the one for which IllaZilla gave Berbah the block warning) they were added in association with commentary about the music videos.  The commentary itself sourced in some cases and unsourced in others, which takes us into the realm of Manual of Style/Writing about fiction.  In one recent example Berbah and IllaZilla joined several others in edit warring over removing an image from The One That Got Away (song), a Katy Perry song, and over adding an orphan tag to the image in question. that Berbah had originally uploaded in November, 2011.  The material depicted in the screen shot (the making of the video, the actors, the scene in question, etc.) are the subject of sourced commentary, and the image has a full non-free use rationale.  At the risk of making an argument IllaZilla has not articulated, one could argue for removal on the basis that the image isn't really necessary to understand the subject per WP:NFCC, or as a simple matter of article style and editorial discretion.  If so, that discussion ought to be had on the article talk page or some other appropriate venue, rather than here, and supported by cogent points on both sides rather than edit warring and administrative reports.  The mass edits, edit warring, and possible socking or meatpuppeting are potential problems on both sides, and it would be better if the editors could address the content question head-on instead of getting into these behavioral matters.  It appears that the editors of the music article have generally allowed album or single covers in infoboxes for identification purposes, but in most cases have avoided screen shots of the associated videos.  If so, perhaps a consensus has emerged that this is the way to do music articles.  Perhaps that is codified somewhere, but it is not a foregone conclusion based on NFCC policy or guidelines.  One could argue both sides.  If there is a site-wide consensus not to include the images and the issue is that the editor is making lots of content edits that violate the consensus, that needs to be carefully established.  - Wikidemon (talk) 12:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflict) - The editor obviously had trouble in the past getting the hang of the image templates, as many new editors do.  He was blocked last year after uploading 35 images without proper copyright tags, followed by a matching slew of notices from the image tagging bots.  He wasn't clearly defying the notices, though - they came after the uploads.  The editor is now complying with the image templates and rationales, that's not what this dispute is about.  It's two editors (and others, on each side) disagreeing whether screencaps should be used in article sections about music videos, a content question.  The block may have been appropriate to prevent further edit warring and disruption, but the instruction to follow policy indirectly endorses one side over the other.  - Wikidemon (talk) 13:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Berbah has been here for almost a year but this and this are the only 2 times he has said anything to anybody. Well, in any case, you have left what looks like the first non-bot non-robo-nastygram comment on his talk page. Let's see how he responds. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm more concerned about the copyright items uploaded under no license/wrong license/as free when they are copyright etc. I know the upload process is less than simple, but he's had a year to learn how to use it, and he's still not got it, and he's making a lot of work for people. If someone with patience and a cluebat can get him on track, any admin is welcome to unblock him.  Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In response to Wikidemon, and in the interest of transperency: Yes, I removed most of these screencaps from articles on the basis of NFCC #8. One of Berbah's edits popped up on my watchlist, where he'd inserted a screenshot into an article where there was no sourced critical commentary about the video, and when I checked his contribs I saw much more of the same. Coupled with the numerous warnings on his talk page, this prompted me to go through the articles and images in question, and I found many not accompanied by sourced prose and many also lacking licensing tags. That's why I went on a removal-spree of Berbah's images, because it was clear to me that he lacked an understanding of fair use criteria and wasn't even considering "contextual significance". His attitude seems to be "every song article gets a screenshot", which won't fly. I was really pushed over the edge when I found he'd been uploading non-free screenshots to Commons, claiming them as his "own work". And no, the 70+ warnings didn't "come after IllaZilla and other editors nominated or delinked the images"...yes, there have been some orphan/speedy deletion notifications, but those are just the recent ones and comprise only about the most recent dozen of Berbah's warnings. Myself and 2 other editors have explicitly asked Berbah to stop indiscriminately adding screenshots without regard for contextual significance:  , but he's persisted anyway.
 * You're correct that the various music projects generally allow the cover art in the infobox for identification purposes. This is explicitly allowed per WP:NFCI as long as the article contains critical commentary of the release in question. Screencaps of music videos, however, are another matter: In every case here the article already had a non-free cover image in its infobox, and the screencap was an additional piece of non-free content being added to the article. To justify this, it's not enough that there be some discussion of the music video; that discussion has to be sourced, and it has to be about the look or style of the video to a degree that having a non-free screencap of the video "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". In most of the articles involved here, all there is is a description of what happens in the video, not much in the way of sourced commentary about its look/style/filming technique/etc. My response to this was the same as it would have been if I'd found non-free screencaps of movies being plugged into plot sections of film articles: removal of the images per NFCC #8 and tagging of them for deletion as orphaned. When Burbah didn't respond to the warning I gave him, and instead started reverting me through IPs, things got heated. In hindsight, yes there are a few articles among the lot where arguments could probably be made that the use of the screencap passes NFCC #8, but no one involved (Berbah, mainly) seems to have made any such arguments or even considered contextual significance; they put screenshots in just to have them, and that's what I call "strictly decorative" use: Use without regard for contextual significance. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, thanks for the explanation. I think the warning, report, and block were reasonable under the circumstances of an editor who just isn't getting it.  Even if they've gone up from 0% compliant images to 20% or even 50% of the images being okay, that's still unacceptably sloppy and it's time they got with the program.   The background question of what is permitted by NFC is still there, but it's not a great occasion to address that.  I just hope that if the editor is trying and has some hope of coming around, we don't scare them away with all this procedure stuff.  - Wikidemon (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The question of whether any particular image is or is not "about the look or style of the video to a degree that having a non-free screencap of the video 'would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding' " is not one for an individual admin to make via speedy; it's a value judgment, not black-and-white, and such a judgment requires a community decision. The same goes for images of portions of a plot--they may be blatantly inappropriate, but if there is any conceivable argument to be made, it needs an open argument. I may or may not like the view that the community will take of such an image, but I wouldn't attempt to judge them all by myself. DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * When it comes to non-free content, the onus of showing that it "significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" lies with whomever adds it or wants to keep it. No one, least of all Berbah, has made any attempt to discuss any of the images' uses on the respective article talk pages, at least as far as I have seen (I'm not watchlisting the articles). I felt that they failed NFCC #8, and no one argued the contrary. I never asked any admins to make judgment calls; I tagged them as Di-orphaned fair use after removing them from the articles. The policy is not "leave the non-free content in place if there is any conceivable argument to be made"...especially if no one appears to be making any such arguments. If there is no sourced critical commentary discussing the visual aesthetics of the video or the scene depicted, then I have no qualms about removing the image. Anyone is welcome to find some secondary sources and add the relevant prose to the articles such that a screencap would be necessary to enhance reader understanding, but it's sad that editors are often only persuaded to do this in order to save non-free images. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

While I will agree fully with IllaZilla's interpretation of WP:NFCC, I'm really uncomfortable with this block. The music projects have crept from blatantly ignoring WP:NFCC only in terms of cover images to blatantly ignoring WP:NFCC in terms of both cover images and video screencaps. While I would like to see both classes of images nearly universally abolished, it looks to me like Berbah was following what he believed to be standard practice.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Unblock appeal by DeFacto


We have received an appeal on UTRS from this user. As the block was discussed here previously and validated, I thought it would be appropriate to gather input before making any decision.

I indicated that, considering his editing history, there would likely be conditions on any unblock, such as a topic ban or a 1RR/0RR restriction (possibly in a topic area). He said that he will not agree to a topic ban but that he might agree to a 1RR restriction if it is necessary. --Chris (talk) 14:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Suggest a 2 edit per week limit for an indefinite period on each article related to "metrication" - I would trust that would keep things under control for an editor who has an appreciable number of edits now. Unless, of course, I misread what the problem topic is. Collect (talk) 15:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Did a checkuser ever figure out if User:DaftEco and User:DaftEco2 were socks, or someone impersonating a sock to get them in further trouble? My spidey sense told me at the time it wasn't de Facto, but my spidey sense is definitely not infallible. I don't see an SPI or anything on-wiki. If they're unrelated, then something like what Collect is proposing sounds reasonable. If they're related, then I'm more concerned. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I remember seeing a comment somewhere that dismissed DaftEco as a troublemaker and not a DeFacto sock - but I can't remember where, sorry. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Floquenbeam, based on the language I am inclined to think your spidey sense is correct. Drmies (talk)
 * I'm surprised that someone who's been around as long as you have still made the old "Floq might know what he's talking about" mistake. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * DaftEco was blocked as a DeFacto sock, and DaftEco2 was blocked as a DaftEco sock. No SPI. GiantSnowman 16:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to connect some dots here, the following are ✅ matches to each other:
 * TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 16:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying - created. GiantSnowman 16:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you, that helps. I oppose unblocking. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 16:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying - created. GiantSnowman 16:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you, that helps. I oppose unblocking. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Judging by the above unblock appeal, which seems to me to be saying "It was everybody else's fault - I'm just misunderstood", I would Oppose an unblock at this time. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Boing. Or, at the very least, an initial topic ban. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, after reading the entire thing (thanks for fixing that, whoever did it), I oppose. The user is dead set on returning to the same area and righting a wrong: not a good sign. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose.  MBisanz  talk 16:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose granting an unblock. The problem is still very recent (March 2012). A look at the editor's talk page does not inspire confidence. The unblock request above seems to be full of WP:BATTLE thinking. His 'mitigating factor' is "my determination, in the face of a very apparent personal-POV-inspired determination (by an editor with a history of anti-imperial/pro-metric edits across numerous articles) to have the Asda content (pro-imperial) removed from the "Metrication in the United Kingdom" article, to argue for the preservation of a certain level of neutrality in the article by keeping some dissenting content." So his excuse is that the people on the other side of the debate were behaving so badly. See WP:NOTTHEM. EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The concept of a topic ban is simple: it's that the community doesn't trust the user not to stir up trouble in that area. He might agree to a modest restriction if "it is necessary?"  He thinks that there are actually "mitigating factors" to edit warring and sockpuppetry?  Looking at the drama on DeFacto's talk page, I'm afraid I don't readily swallow that someone so adamant that he was being screwed and railroaded has suddenly seen the light, and am more of an opinion that he'll say whatever it takes - however much as little as his pride will allow him to swallow - to get unblocked.  Why is this request being given any more credence than any other editor who pulls out the "But the other guy!" card?  Ravenswing  17:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose unblock. The entire request sums up as, "I understand my behavior was inappropriate, but I only did it because these other people were being inappropriate." Not exactly getting the point, IMO. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose unblocking. Far from indicating that the user has understood the issues, the above request takes great pains to blame everyone except for the editor themselves for the blocking; it is extremely self-exculpatory. Given the evidence of sockpuppetry linked to above, there is insufficient evidence of sanction compliance to suggest the user will avoid the temptation of recidivism; indeed, the motivation for desiring the unblock appears to be so the user can continue their battle. --Tristessa (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose unblocking unless it comes with an indefinite topic ban from metrication related issues. <font face="century gothic" color="#0E6E2D">Kim Dent-Brown  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0E6E2D">(Talk)  17:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose The sheer wording of the request is more a declaration of war instead of a peace offer. Night of the Big Wind  <sub style="color:maroon;">talk  17:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - he just doesn't get it, does he? GiantSnowman 20:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Abso-lutley-fecking-no. The "defacto" ban he's about to get will be ironic, won't it ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 23:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Although the plea claims responsibility, it immediately turns to mitigation. The body does not show acceptance but rather a conspiracy. Not willing to consider a topic ban is a poor starting position. Glrx (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Query Should all the users mentioned in the appeal be told there's a discussion in ANI that involves them? Personally, I'd be happy to see this closed as a snowball but if the block might be lifted I'd like to see a strict topic ban regarding metrication. Editors of articles concerning Formula 1 might appreciate a ban there too. NebY (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Very possibly. I didn't notify DeFacto since I'd already informed him via email about this discussion, but I didn't even think about the editors he mentioned in his request.  It's a tricky question... those editors are probably more likely than others to oppose an unblock, so it's possible that notifying them of this thread without notifying any others could be considered policy-enforced canvassing.  Seems like a lose-lose scenario. :( --Chris (talk) 01:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Well, you won't have to advise me. I found this myself. There's no evidence whatsoever in that appeal above that DeFacto has any idea of what the real problem is, nor any understanding of how to avoid it again. There's a telling phrase in there - "following HiLo48's withdrawal". Yes, I withdrew, not because I had changed my mind, but because I had a life elsewhere, and could not cope with Defacto's ubiquitous presence. He was always there, always demanding that other editors find more sources to back up their views that what was he was posting was undue. It's one of those tactics that looks nice and civil on the surface, but is in fact a way in which DeFacto owned the articles. He is passionate. Too passionate. And has no comprehension of what he is doing and the impact of that behaviour on the articles and Wikipedia as a whole. HiLo48 (talk) 00:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This is why I don't like community unblock discussions. Consensus would seem to be against unblocking DeFacto at this time, and that's fine. But it's important to remember that most editors come here with good intentions, and whatever else people might think of DeFacto, there can be little doubt that he started out with good intentions. Some editors, for one reason or another, get carried away or prove unsuited to Wikipedia, and sometimes need to be removed from the project (not always permanently), but that is not a reason to disregard an editor's previous good contributions. Much less so to openly mock them. Let's all try to remember that other editors—yes, even those who are indefinitely blocked—are real people, and think what effect our comments will have on them. (And, for the record, I'm the original blocking admin). HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  01:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Previous discussions (and policy?) at this point would also mean that he would now be DeFacto banned. Calabe1992 01:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, first, way to not get the point, Calabe1992. Also, that's a really stupid rule, and if I had remembered that's how it worked, I wouldn't have opposed.  If, in the future, DeFacto can convince an admin through an unblock request to unblock him, with appropriate conditions, then he should be unblocked.  Having the bad luck to have your unblock request discussed at ANI should not morph into a "community ban" that can only be overridden by another ANI discussion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I don't agree at all with the "de-facto ban" rule. Calabe1992 01:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If somebody was blocked as the result of an AN/I discussion, unblocking without a discussion would seem to be to be contraindicated. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (shrugs) I've seen you on quite a few occasions, HJ, discuss various editors and their actions in disparaging terms, however much they were real people, could very well had good intentions and might have found your comments injurious to their feelings.  That being said, no one has "disregarded" DeFacto's good contributions; we just believe - as is the case with every single experienced editor who runs afoul of indef blocks - that they do not outweigh the harm done to the project by his antics.  What I don't like is the syndrome where the amount of incivility, edit warring, article ownership and tendentiousness one can get away with increases exponentially with one's edit count.  Ravenswing  04:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

William Greer
I haven't sorted through the vandalism, but talk page semi-protected edit requests highlight the problems. Dru of Id (talk) 04:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Our Lady of Akita
User History2007 is challenging the validity of MiracleHunter.com as a source of reference for the Catholic Church's position on the article Our Lady of Akita.

Under Vatican Approval in the Talk Page, History2007 claims MiracleHunter.com is full of errors and is non-WP. I asked him what errors are on the site, he didn't explain. He instead claims the site is non-WP because "Who operates miraclehunter.com? Any clue from the website? None." and "What evidence is there that the operator is not making things up? None."

In reply, I quoted the site: "Michael O'Neill, creator of MiracleHunter.com, will be presenting a paper at the 2012 MSA Conference." (from the homepage) and I told him about the Church documents referenced on the Akita page of MiracleHunter.com, which I have referenced in the article.

Oct13 (talk) 04:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this would be more appropriate at WP:RSN, the editors there are generally well versed on determining if something is a reliable source or not. - SudoGhost 05:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Stefan2 Wikihounding, harassment
After I opposed a few of his nominations at possibly unfree files, a couple of which seem to be clearly in bad faith, he's gone through to tag several images I've uploaded. Despite my indication on his talk page that he should stop, he continued to post notices on my talk page and tag files, and nominate several for deletion. As he persists in the hounding, I suggest he be blocked until such a time that he indicates he will stop.--Crossmr (talk) 02:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not possible to make any assumptions about copyright status of images. If the copyright status can't be proven, one has to assume that images are unfree. See Commons:COM:PRP, for example. Your comments in the deletion discussions suggested that you don't know image policies, so I checked your images for errors and proposed some obvious ones for deletion. For example, non-free images must be subject to critical commentary, must not be used in galleries and must not be used excessively, as explained at WP:NFC and WP:NFCC, and photos of South Korean buildings can't be hosted on Commons unless the architect died at least 50 years ago, as explained at Commons:COM:FOP. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is possible to assume that uploaders acted in good faith and properly copied licensing data years ago when images were first uploaded. Which you've failed to do. Not only that you clearly tried to misrepresent an individuals edits in your nominations by indicating they were a serial copyright violator when they were not. When it clearly stated on their talk page they were not. The fact is, you didn't like my opposing you and started going through all my uploads here, and even at commons trying to find a problem. That's clearly wikihounding.-Crossmr (talk) 02:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

As clear evidence of his intent to hound me and not actually do image work: This edit to commons. After claiming pictures of south korean buildings aren't permitted on commons, he only nominates a couple of my images, but goes ahead and cleans up similar images by other users. If he truly believed those pictures weren't permitted on commons he would have nominated it for deletion instead of cleaning it up and adding a category. Yes it's a commons edit, but it's just a very clear demonstration of the harassment that started here because I opposed him here. Most specifically I took issue with 4 of his listings on the 23rd where he described an editors uploads as ''Not own work? Many copyright issues mentioned on the uploader's talk page, but I can't find the image anywhere else.'' (bolding mine), when you visit the page. You see exactly 2 complaints and in the first complaint another user clearly points out that he talked to the webmaster of the site in question and it was indeed the user. I've no doubt the second complaint was the same thing. I also noted that he appeared to be assuming bad faith of users who uploaded images years ago because source pages had been deleted/hidden/etc and this is when the deluge of tagging, nominating and clear harassment started. He directly targetted my edits here and on commons because I opposed him (and not just him, I also opposed some other people who listed images as well), so there was no intent on my part to focus on him, when he's clearly come after me in retaliation.--Crossmr (talk) 03:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't clean up the image on Commons, I categorised it so that I would more easily be able to nominate a large number of images in the same report. In the end, it failed because I couldn't find any date of construction, but my plan is to try to find a date later, unless anyone else already has proposed the images for deletion by then.
 * One can usually not AGF when it comes to copyrights. Many users don't know how copyrights work or what a derivative work is (cf. your own photos of South Korean buildings) and users often get insufficient permissions, so it is necessary to be very careful when it comes to copyright issues. In the case you mentioned, I see 6 copyright-related notices on the user's talk page before my notices, and 5 of them have since been deleted (I haven't checked if the 6th one has been changed). If you check the deletion log, you can see that the webmaster-related text was deleted with the deletion comment "permission claimed but never supplied". That is, no evidence that Wikipedia was ever allowed to use that material.
 * If the source is gone, there is no way to verify a licence. People uploading from Flickr often get the licence wrong so images have to be deleted if they can't be proven to be free. That is exactly why there are licence reviews on Commons so that there is some evidence kept that the images have been on Flickr under a free licence at some point. You might also notice that it was not I but a different user who placed the Flickr images on that request page in the first place. Obviously, there are at least two users who agree that the sourcing is insufficient.
 * There has been no retaliation from my side. However, your posts to the deletion pages suggested that you didn't understand image policies and copyright rules, so I checked your images and proposed some of them for deletion. You might have noticed that many of the images I proposed for deletion actually weren't uploaded by you; they were images uploaded by other people which I happened to find in an article where one of your images appeared. --Stefan2 (talk) 04:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We always assume good faith, which you've failed to do repeatedly. You even went so far as to imply a user could be editing the exif data on a years old image simply to try and get a google image on here. You went further to accuse an editor of being a serial copyright violator in your rationale to taint the discussion when there was zero evidence that that was the case on the talk page. I found a lot of your deletion rationales to be extremely light on evidence or reasoning, and not just yours and posted my opinion as such. You then proceeded to go after every image I've uploaded to two projects as a result. WP:HOUND, WP:AGF give them good long hard reads.--Crossmr (talk) 05:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * One has to be very careful with copyright issues. I have seen many uploads from Flickr and other external sites where users have provided wrong licence information (for example by missing an NC or an ND or by thinking that any image found on the Internet is in the public domain).
 * There are many reasons for EXIF data to change. Some images have no EXIF data (might be caused by editing the images in a program which deletes the data) and I don't find it too unlikely that some programs might alter the EXIF time so that it shows the modification time in an image editor instead of the time when the photo was taken (although programs really are supposed to store such information in a different field). Editing using Exiftool or the like might be less likely.
 * Note that I'm going to be away during a large part of the weekend, so I might not be able to write any further comments until tomorrow afternoon. I'm bringing a mobile phone, but it isn't very convenient for writing long messages. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * One also has to be careful how they treat other users, and constantly doing so with assumptions of bad faith is not the direction to take. Immediately auditing an editors contributions because they oppose you is also not the direction to take. To be honest you've clearly come across as a bully in this process with your bad faith assumptions of uploader's behaviour and your immediate reaction to my opposing some of your listings. You have no evidence that any of those editors made a mistake adding the licensing data to those images. None at all, and you're asking them to prove the impossible because you know the original pages are gone now.Further more you have zero evidence to suggest that uploader was tampering with the exif data. He didn't even know enough on how to properly rotate his image, and you think he's fudging the exif data?--Crossmr (talk) 12:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I recommend this request is considered resolved. I can see no need for admin action while there is ongoing dialogue and Stefan2 appears to be taking care to explain their actions. Unfortunately Crossmr has confused this request for action by including discussion about Commons images. If a pattern of imagestalking on Wikipedia is apparent and persists, then I suggest the complaint is preferably resolved by direct discussion on user pages sticking to the principle of Assume good faith, or taken to  Wikiquette assistance if external opinions might help. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not remotely resolved. I used his actions at commons to demonstrate the lengths he's going to to harass me. Immediately after opposing Stefan, he started going through every single file I've uploaded here, and then when he ran out of files, he went to commons to continue. My evidence at commons was to show that he was specifically harassing me by nominating my files for deletion (both here and at commons) while other similar images from other users were simply being cleaned up. As further evidence, some of his deletion reasoning is extremely weak. As an example he nominated File:Anyangjerseyscompare.png for deletion with the rationale: Excessive use of non-free images of clothes. Not an article on clothes; fails both WP:FTCG#3 and WP:FTCG#8. (whatever that means, I don't see any numbers on the pages he's linking to). Yet the image is directly referenced in and talked about in a section on the article. In addition, the image was present and checked during the Good Article process. He further nominates File:Changchunfight.jpg with the rationale: Not subject to critical commentary, so fails WP:NFCC#8. Non-free image not needed; any free image of the same hockey team would work equally well. Which is as far as I can tell an outright lie. Not only does the image contain a full caption detailing it's significance, the event is also referenced in the main prose as a significant event in the team's history. The bench clearing brawl lead to a league leading number of suspensions which is still the record (and likely will be forever, as it's a very high number). So he claims there is no critical commentary, which there is, and then claims an "image of the hockey team would work" but this image isn't being used to illustrate the hockey team it's being used to illustrate a significant event in their history. It seems he simply has no understanding of what it is he's nominating for deletion and the reasons for doing so. His immediate move to start tagging and nominating images with such spurious and honestly nonsensical reasoning clearly appears to be retaliatory hounding and harassment. I should be able to give my opinion on noticeboard discussions without being subjected to that kind of retaliatory behaviour. Yes, he's trying to play nice and justify his actions now, but they don't really stand up to scrutiny when inspected.--Crossmr (talk) 12:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the fact that for the longest time there were only the 2 parties talking shows that someone failed to try to have that exact same discussion prior to coming here for admin action. Discussion is first step.  If you're trying to show a pattern of behaviour, WP:RFC/U is thataway.  If I was Stefan, I would back far away from any specific users ... far, far away. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 12:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I posted to his talk page, when he continued to hammer away, I brought it here. He was already hounding me, I wasn't going to hound him to stop. That's the point of this noticeboard to deal with disruptive users which is how he's acting.--Crossmr (talk) 13:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

So just so I have the facts here, we're saying that:
 * Flat out lying in nominations
 * linking to non-existent policies as deletion rationales
 * re-applying tags that had been long since removed from images
 * doing all of the above to every image a user has uploaded immediately after having a debate with them and in a very short time frame, and then following them to another project to continue the action is not harassment and totally fine by our community's standards? I just want to be sure when this comes up again.--Crossmr (talk) 04:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am back again. I have added a lots of links at the top of this discussions. To my knowledge, they link to all pages where both Crossmr and I have been discussing things recently, and the links make finding the discussions easier. In particular, I suggest that you take a look at the link to Commons:COM:AN/B where I have recently written a long reply, addressing concerns stated there.
 * I am not aware of any nominations in which I have been lying. If you feel that I have been unclear or if I have made an error in a nominations, feel free to comment in that nomination. If users list a confusing source, it may suggest that the image was taken from somewhere. Ideally, the uploaders would comment on the deletion discussions and explain how the images were obtained.
 * I'm not sure which non-existent policies you think I'm linking to. Could you clarify?
 * I didn't notice that you had already removed non-free reduce templates from those images. See my long comment on this at Commons:COM:AN/B.
 * I don't think that I tagged all of your images. Also note that many of the images I proposed for deletion at that point weren't uploaded by you – many of them were logos uploaded by other people and used in the article China Dragon. I didn't think that I was harassing you and I wasn't angry or anything. As LX wrote in the Commons discussion, "To go through a user's contributions when there is reason to believe that they may be systematically making some mistake (such as adding unsourced facts to Wikipedia or uploading non-free images to Commons) is pretty standard practice and is not indicative of an assumption of bad faith." The discussion on a Warhammer 40,000 image suggested to me that Crossmr might have an incomplete understanding of derivative works, so I decided to check his contributions and found some images which I thought weren't in compliance with policy, although not always because of derivative work-related issues.
 * I don't think that I am more strict than other people in determining whether an image is free or not. See, for example, Possibly unfree files/2012 February 29, where a different user is very strict when determining the validity of the licence of an image. My nominations don't seem to be more strict than that one. I will now go to the deletion discussions and clarify my statements for some of my nominations. I also suggest that you read my post at Commons:COM:AN/B where I wrote a much longer reply. The two discussions partially deal with the same matter, and I tried to avoid writing the same thing at two places.
 * I am sorry if you felt uncomfortable with my nominations of some of your images; that was never my intention. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've already linked it twice, . While you can certainly come up with an interesting reason for all of your edits, the fundamental sum of the events tells a different story. WP:HOUND is quite clear and non-ambiguous Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. You not only did it here, you took it to another project as well. If there were images that genuinely needed discussing, that's one thing, but you took this well beyond that by:
 * Tagging images that had already been tagged, and not just removed by me. There is no legal standard for the size of FUR images, our bot has a threshold for tagging but that's it
 * Nominating my images for deletion while editing other user's similar images but not nominating them at commons
 * At best we'll say fudging the truth, over the nomination of File:Changchunfight.jpg, claiming there is no critical commentary, but then your nomination also seems to clearly indicate that you have no idea what the image is or how it is being used
 * Whatever this is, as indicated you may have meant to link to something else, but that's a pretty strange error to make. Seems to me you may have been in such a hurry to get at my images you weren't really paying attention to what you're doing. Even not withstanding the bad linking, the image was in a GA during the GA process and deemed fine, to nominate it for deletion at that point stinks of sour grapes.
 * Continuing to tag and make posts to my talk page, across 2 projects when I clearly indicated that I wanted you to stop and offering no response until I filed an AN/I thread
 * Doing all of the above only minutes after we'd engaged in debate over several images.
 * Yes, you have provided some excuses for a couple of those but I don't really feel they hold up to scrutiny. Had you stopped when I posted to your talk page, I may have viewed it differently. But you were so wrapped up in getting at my uploads, and in the process making several mistakes, that you failed to engage in further discussion. This is why it's clearly a WP:HOUND issue. Was I perfect in my image uploads? Probably not, most people aren't. Nor did I find you perfect in your nominations. I found several incidents of bad faith assumptions on your part that didn't extend simply to the technical question of copyright at best. But what I didn't do after engaging you in debate on those topics was to go out and comb through your contrib history looking for more problems, fill up your talk page with notices and then follow you to other projects to do the same.--Crossmr (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

And he continues to lie. There have been two sentences in the article discussing that event since I added the image to the article. As well as a full caption explaining its significance as a historic event in the team and league's history. Since it's clear he wants to continue to harass me I must renew my request that he be blocked.--Crossmr (talk)
 * I would like to repeat my request to consider this thread resolved. The discussion here appears to duplicate much of Administrators'_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections and as this discussion is primarily about allegations of imagestalking and replies that are mostly about Commons copyright related policies (and even is inappropriately bringing in quotes from the Commons discussion), this seems to have veered well off-topic for WP:AN/I. This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors; I cannot see that a remotely likely outcome here, so by definition this is the wrong noticeboard to raise this discussion. Fæ (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Two different projects. And most of the things in discussion are on en.wiki not commons. Only 3 images at commons, about a dozen here. The question here is clearly abou tWP:HOUND which is an administrator issue. You seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding why I linked commons here, it was for one reason: To demonstrate the lengths he was going to to hound me, and to show a clear example of how he was specifically targeting my edits.--Crossmr (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I refer you to the latest reply on Commons which has been taking account of your claims about Wikipedia, not just Commons. Please stick to one noticeboard rather than forum shopping across both projects in parallel with the same complaints based on the same material. I suggest you keep in mind that repeatedly calling another long term contributor a liar (without giving the benefit of the doubt that they might have made an error) is unlikely to be seen as trying to assume good faith. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fae, I think it's inappropriate to call this "forum shopping" when there are issues with images at both Commons and here. We can't do anything about the Commons edits, obviously, but it's not forum shopping when the issue has apparently occurred here as well. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 12:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's correct. The incident started here, and Stefan took it to commons to continue it. As I've pointed out a couple of times I've only linked them to demonstrate the depth of what he's done. They're two parts of the same incident but En.wiki can't do anything on commons and commons admins can't do anything on en.wiki. As such I reported it in both places when he refused to engage me in discussion.--Crossmr (talk) 13:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec, HandThatFeeds) Thanks, I'm happy to accept that observation. If there is a muliti-project harassment problem then evidence should be raised at meta rather than creating parallel complaints across the projects. As has already been said, I do not believe there is anything here for administrative action and though Stefan has apparently attempted to explain his actions in good faith, they have been sensibly advised to back far, far away rather than encourage more drama. Crossmr has raised much here about Commons edits and similarly raised complaints about Wikipedia edits on Commons; I am certain that most readers would agree this has badly muddied any case presented. --Fæ (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Then please let me attempt to de-muddy what has happened here and make it into something slightly more readable and explainable:
 * I found myself on PUF images. After commenting on what I went there for, I decided to give the day's listings a read as I don't usually head into that area.
 * I commented on several listings, including some of stefan's
 * Some of those turned into back and forth debates
 * Immediately following a couple of those debates (one over technical application and one over what I considered to be a bad faith issue on his part) he started going through all my uploads
 * After I started to get notices on my talk page, I posted to his talk page indicating I wanted him to stop
 * He did not engage me in any further discussion at that point and continued to post notices to my talk page and then I started getting e-mail notices about talk page notices on commons
 * I notified him that since he failed to respond and was continuing in what I indicated to him earlier what I considered harassment I was posting here, which I did and also posted at commons since he took the behaviour there.
 * Here are the key issues as to why I feel this is a WP:HOUND (with quotes from hound) issue:
 * Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, - over a few hours he singled me out and basically audited every upload I made across 2 projects
 * joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. - While he didn't join multiple discussions, he went after multiple images at once and started debates in multiple areas, and attempted to confront a high number of my uploads in a very short period of time
 * is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor this is debatable, we can't read his mind, but I indicated on his talk page that I wasn't looking very favourably on what he was doing and he continued, so he was aware that it was likely to cause me distress or annoyance.
 * Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia. he didn't follow me from place to place on wikipedia, but he did follow me to another project, hence the relevance of linking the information from commons.
 * This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. - Doing this immediately after we'd just engaged in debate over a couple of images, and failing to respond to my talk page message is one of the larger factors in my viewing this as hounding and harassment.
 * In terms of specific behaviour that also made me feel this was hounding:
 * The re-tagging of images which had already had the tags cleared by myself and other users, and in my case with explanation. He claims he didn't notice they'd already been tagged, I can't help but feel that means he wasn't really paying attention then.
 * Nominating my images for deletion while editing other user's similar images but not nominating them at commons - sure, he had an excuse ready that he "didn't know the age of the building and that he didn't really have any more time for deletions that day" but the fact remains that he went in and specifically targeted my images while bypassing others. Yes this is at commons, we can't act on it, but it can show behaviour pattern.
 * The nomination of an image that passed the GA process with funny rationales (he's fixed that now, but the error he made again makes me feel like he wasn't paying attention)
 * The now recent comment he made where claimed the event in the image wasn't on the page, when it clearly has been for over 2 years. We don't want to call it a lie, fine, but he already nominated it with what I consider a nonsensical deletion rationale and then came back to make that statement. He should have been paying much greater attention with his follow-up comment.
 * For me, these all clearly add up to hounding and harassment. It's some of the over-the-top and extra things which give it away. If he'd truly found a couple of misused images fine, but the tagging, and ignoring other's images, and then following me over to commons, is what pushes this from a simple good faith check to something more.--Crossmr (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * To Fæ: The discussion is related to actions on both Wikipedia and Commons which is why more or less the same discussion is held at two places. I agree that it is confusing and that it would be practical to have only one discussion. I see that Rillke closed the Commons discussion with, so unless Crossmr wants to continue discussing the Commons actions somewhere, it might mean that we now only have one discussion left.
 * I would like to comment that WP:HOUND states that "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy." I was trying to fix what I interpreted as violations of Wikipedia policies (WP:NFCC) and Commons policies (Commons:COM:FOP). I never saw this as anything wrong. One or more of the discussions suggested that Crossmr might not have a full understanding of derivative works so I thought that it would be appropriate to check his uploads. I opened up a lot of images in different tabs and started reporting images which I thought were inappropriate. Maybe I should have answered faster when he posted a message to my talk page.
 * Many of the deletion requests posted at that time were not related to his uploads but to images uploaded by other people to an article on a hockey team. I was planning to make a mass deletion report in Commons:Category:Lotte Department Store too, but I couldn't find any dates of construction of the buildings, only dates of opening of the shops. Some shops might have reused pre-existing buildings. See also the related discussion at Commons:User talk:Stefan4.
 * I think that it may be appropriate to include a quotation from your own user page: "Don't take the deletion of articles personally." Although we aren't talking about articles, the situation is the same. If I find an image which doesn't seem to comply with some image policy, I propose it for deletion, and I never base my decision on whether to propose it for deletion on who the uploader is. I tried to clarify the deletion rationale in the cases where you found them unclear. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I take the hounding personally. I've already unambiguously stated that there may be issues with a couple of specific images. I've noticed throughout this process a few of your excuses have been of the "I didn't see that" nature. Like the fact that the image was covered in the article, or the reduce tags had already been applied and removed from images by myself and another editor. For someone who spent such a long time going through all my uploads, I would expect them to pay much greater attention to what they're doing. However, if I combine that with the nominations we see starting here and this nomination  as examples, I'm beginning to get the impression that you may not be editing with due care. As it seems you are often misunderstanding or missing some obvious piece of information. This would explain some of your behaviour but not all of it. However, when I further consider how far backwards you'll bend over to try and assume bad faith of uploaders, like in this case  where you claim we need more evidence, though the uploader clearly an unambiguously stating that he made the image, and the fact that it is in a higher image, that does not show evidence of being upsized. Upsized images are generally pretty rough. Much rougher than that one. Or here when you imply that an uploader who doesn't have the apparent technical knowledge to rotate his image  may have gone so far to tamper with exif data years ago simply to get a google image on the encyclopedia, despite spending time looking, I couldn't find that image on google images. I'm left with a much different picture. You say there was no intention to hound, yet even though I posted to your talk, you continued, without discussing anything with me. You followed my images to another project and continued there. That shows a very clear focus. You have an excuse for every edit, but Occam's razor is often invoked for a reason. And the behaviour adds up to text book hounding and harassment. You spent a significant amount of time focused on my edits, refused to engage in discussion and followed me to another project. Hound says a lot more than using an editors contribs to fix perceived policy violations is ok. There is also a full explanation on how to go about it, and what kind of behaviour is inappropriate.--Crossmr (talk) 08:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Stefan, I think you have explained your point of view well and you are (literally) within policy. However, Five pillars#4 caters for a wide interpretation of respect, and if a fellow contributor in good standing complains that they feel harassed, it seems only civil behaviour that one takes it seriously and back off if necessary. Wikipedia will not fall over and die just because you have not personally dealt with every doubtful image that Crossmr has ever uploaded. We regularly see people feeling "imagestalked" when several images are suddenly marked for deletion on the same day, and it certainly seems unfair to expect the uploader to review and take part in a large number of multiple discussions. A more civil approach might be to select a very small number of examples of problematic uploads, mark these for deletion discussion and engage with the uploader to see if there is a misunderstanding. Such a discussion is likely to have the same outcome but the path to get there would be collaborative rather than adversarial.
 * I still don't see any need for administrator action here. However, as has been suggested more than once, it would be a good thing for you to leave further challenges of Crossmr's uploads to others, if you continue to pursue his "every upload", particularly across projects, then you will look less like a champion of good copyright and more like an obsessive hunter of other contributors, worth a second look by those of us worried about how our projects can remain a civil and welcoming space. Would you consider making a commitment to follow this non-adversarial approach? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that my actions made Crossmr unhappy. When I saw the notice about new messages to my talk page, I guess that it would have been better to go to my talk page immediately and comment on the matter. I'm sorry that it ended up this way.
 * The rotation issue that Crossmr mentions above is the result of a software change in Mediawiki version 1.18, see Commons:COM:ROTATEFIX. Before version 1.18, the image was shown using a different orientation. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

RevDel help
Can someone fix my deletion of this diff so that the text doesn't show up in the following revisions? My first use of RevDel and it appears I'm doing it wrong. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately you'll need to rev-del all the revisions between the time the text was added and the time you removed it. There's not a way to modify the intermediate revisions so that they don't include that text. 28bytes (talk) 11:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You'd need to remove the intervening diffs as well as they are independent versions of the page. (Although I'm not sure if that falls under RevDel, which we're supposed to use frugally, unless I am missing a connotation) --Errant (chat!) 11:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Argh. That's a pity (and somewhat odd: I'd always assumed pages were stored as diffs rather than as full-text, and so reconstructing a revision minus an offensive diff would elide it from the intervening ones). Seeing as there's productive history afterwards I've just deleted it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

indefinite protection of userpage over userbox
Hi, I don't know where else to take this so I assumed here would be the best place to allow the community to discuss the matter.

Admin Salvio giuliano recently decided to indefinitely protect my userpage due to a userbox he didn't like. I, and several other users, have attempted to explain that without any response back.
 * A. The userbox was a joke, and is protected by WP:Userbox
 * B. It could be a legitimate belief and thus the trolling accusation could fall under WP:NPA

I'm not trying to point fingers, I just feel as though the protection was ridiculous and wanted to know how the community felt about the matter. I will gladly remove the userbox if there is an issue with it, I just want to be able to edit my own userpage again. Thank you :) -badmachine 03:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow. I see on Salvio giuliano's that he's open not only to trout slapping, but to recall.  He's eligible for being whacked by the biggest goddamn rainbow trout that can be pulled out of the drink for this one, if not some serious review of his admin record and what other user pages he's felt free to censor and lock.  I'd be very interested to hear what possible justification he has to proffer for this.  Ravenswing  04:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Salvio is a good egg. Never would Salvio try to do anything out of order to anyone. I am an interested editor because Salvio protected my page for me after some horrid attacks were made against me there. Please try and work out the issue with Salvio, and remember Salvio may not always be immediately available to reply ... but I do not dare to presume to speak for Salvio.— Djathink imacowboy  04:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply: Yes, well, whether you are a fan or not of Salvio's does not excuse his actions. I would be livid to the point of obscenity were any admin, whatever his putative good-guyness, to unilaterally censor out a viewpoint for which he didn't care from my user page, and then to protect that page to prevent me from any further edits to it.  Short of a "I Heart Child Molesters" userbox, I can't possibly imagine a justification for it.  Ravenswing  06:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, could we take it down a few pegs? There's nothing he's done that's irreversible, nor are you capable of reading his mind and telling us what he was thinking.  Histrionics may look good on the silver screen, but they aren't helpful here.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 07:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

If you're requesting community input on whether to keep the giant GNAA banner on your page after the page protection is lifted, my input would be "please don't." I've never understood the appeal of an organization that tosses around a racial slur for the lulz. If Salvio made a habit of going around removing Satanism userboxes from people's user pages, I would be concerned, but here he appeared to remove a number of things (including the Satanism box, the GNAA banner, and a 666-pixel wide image of somebody's cock) from your userpage with the not-that-implausible edit summary of "rm. trolling". Regardless, my recommendation to Salvio would be to unprotect the page, and my recommendation to you would be to not put things on there that a reasonable person could mistake for trolling. 28bytes (talk) 05:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't get the humor behind GNAA nonsense either...but oh well. The image is blocked by the bad image filter so wouldn't show up for anyone (...unless admins see through filters.) I see absolutely nothing wrong with the userbox, joke or not. I see no attempt at discussion before action was taken...only a message with a heading of 'Satanism' saying that userspace was being misused. Remove and discuss? Prefer discuss first, but oh well. Remove, protect, notify and then stop discussing? Not the way it should be done. --Onorem♠Dil 05:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK...so there was some discussion first that I'd missed. I still don't agree that adding a image that nobody sees, a GNAA image and a satanism userbox are grounds for removal and protection. It may not be useful stuff, but I don't see how it's disruptive. --Onorem♠Dil 05:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Salvio issued this warning to Badmachine on the 19th. Shorty after, Badmachine was blocked for one week by User:Guerillero for "trolling and baiting". Reading machine's talk page, it seems his user page has stirred up a variety of trouble. I am also curious to hear Salvio's explanation, because it's probably a pretty good one.-- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  06:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I probably wouldn't have protected the page myself, but is it a good idea to use a religious figure as a joke? We do have Wikipedians that identify as Satanists, and people would be up in arms if someone made joke Mohammed userboxes. AniMate 06:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with AniMate here. While we allow jokes within reason on userpages, they shouldn't cause needless offence. Adding a religion as a joke could easily cause needless offence to adherents of that religion as religion is often a sensitive matter. (N.B. I'm not commenting on Salvio giuliano's actions.) Nil Einne (talk) 06:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's an in-joke over on Encyclopedia Dramatica, as I said, if you feel it is inappropriate, then it shall not be readded :) -badmachine 07:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll comment here and not on my talk page, since this charlie foxtrot moved a bit too quickly for me to reply swiftly. Wikipedia is lousy when it comes to dealing with low-level trolling and this is one such case. Badmachine was already warned that sexual images are not appropriate on userpages and yet he reinserted one not too long ago, he then added a very large image of the GNAA logo whose caption was "gaynigs4life" and, finally, he placed on his userpage a custom-made userbox according to which he hails Satan everyday. I consider all this trolling the idea that I did this out of religious discrimination is ludicrous and reflects more on those making that silly accusation than on me, in my opinion  and, since this is most definitely not the first time badmachine does something of the kind, I took action, also protecting his userpage to prevent him from misusing any further  as a side note, when badmachine was brought to ANI the first time for having various images of a penis on his userpage, I warned him that I would protect his userpage if he tried something like that again; he did, but the image was added to the blacklist, so protection was not needed then. Now it was and I'm not going to lift it. Badmachine has been using his userpage to troll and since talking to him did not achieve anything, a different approach had to be taken. "Stop or I'll say stop again" is not the best way to proceed if one wants to be taken seriously... I'll leave it for the community to decide whether I acted inappropriately or not and, if there is consensus that protection was wrong, then I'll accept that. That said, if anyone wants to start a petition for my recall, feel free to do so.  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 11:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * See Sockpuppet_investigations/Pickbothmanlol/Archive. At the time it was thought that badmachine was a sock of (or even the sockmaster for) a number of My Little Pony/GNAA trolling socks. User:Alison vouched for badmachine being a real person (which of course does not stop them being disruptive unfortunately), and at the time, well prior to this, I warned the user not to replace the offensive items on their userpage, and they said they would not do so. Normally if it is necessary to lock the userpage, it is a given that it is also necessary to block the user for the same duration, so Salvio has actually been kind here. I'm not sure I'm seeing useful edits from badmachine. Persuade me I'm wrong, but if a user's main purpose is to see how many disruptive things they can add to their userpage, they aren't that great an asset. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Observation From an outsider's point of view, it looks like Salvio used a hammer in a situation where a hammer was called for. This isn't religious discrimination or censorship, it's effective and justified troll-busting, with the troll crying "foul!".  Dennis Brown (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Outside comment So a troll (and an obvious one at that) gets called out for being one, and the ADMIN is the party who's causing trouble? Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Stipulating that Badmachine is being a troll here - and while questions of being able to read minds were floated at me, I could likewise ask it of others here - what's the issue? You cannot charge him with posting offensive material; if exhortations to Satanism (for instance) are prima facie offensive on Badmachine's page, they must be offensive everywhere else on Wikipedia too, and I doubt anyone's going through the roster of Wikipedian Satanists to grill them on their bonafides.  The worst anyone can claim is that he's trying to get the goat of people staring at his talk page ... in which case, what's compelling any of you to give him an audience? "OK, could we take it down a few pegs? ... Histrionics may look good on the silver screen, but they aren't helpful here."  Useful advice; possibly some folks here could benefit by it.  Ravenswing  15:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the key thing here is that Wikipedia is a project to create an encyclopaedia. While editors have kindly been given userspace by the project in which to express a little more of themselves, this isn't Myspace, Facebook or Deviant Art. There's no reason at all to provide space for user generated content that isn't somehow helping to build the encyclopaedia. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to have more vanity content than I do/did -badmachine 17:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I have stuff I do on the project. You have willies and GNAA banners. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It isn't what you say, it's how you say it that differentiates "having an opinion" and "being a troll". I would have jumped on Silvio if I had even a tiny suspicion that he was censoring someone's beliefs, this simply isn't the case here.  Using your user pages to intentionally cause controversy is rather pointy and isn't an acceptable use. Viewing the previous discussions (Elen links above) further demonstrates his efforts to make a point here.  Dennis Brown (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Having said my little part about Salvio: I'll address something Blade said: 'OK, could we take it down a few pegs? There's nothing he's done that's irreversible, nor are you capable of reading his mind and telling us what he was thinking. Histrionics may look good on the silver screen, but they aren't helpful here.' I agree. (Hopefully, Blade, that wasn't directed at me.) Another editor said we cannot read each others' minds and that is also a good point. But what is important is that if you request or welcome community input, unless it's pretty egregious, don't throw our posts back in our teeth. Reactions are part of the process. OK? — Djathink  imacowboy  19:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Everything is "reverse-able", so that point is moot. If someone blanks 50 pages in one minute, that can be reversed, too.  Being reversible isn't the litmus test for taking action, determining the editor's likelihood of continued disruption is.  When an editor lacks the ability to say "Yeah, I now understand what I did wrong", then the likelihood is quite high. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My issue is, what did I do wrong? -badmachine 21:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You do things deliberately because other people find them offensive, and then pretend you don't know what happened. Drop the bullshit. → ROUX   ₪  21:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I see nothing wrong in removing thumb|center|666px with an edit summary "rm. trolling". Bulwersator (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

General comments and requests
Over the past number of weeks, there has been an increase in the amount of GNAA-related trolling and disruption. It is unclear whether and to what extent the trolling is being perpetrated by the "real" GNAA, or by imposters claiming to be affiliated with the GNAA, nor does it matter very much. What matters is that the diversion of community time and creation of rancor created by disputes like this one is precisely what the people engaging in the intentionally provocative behavior are seeking to create. The corollaries are that:
 * good-faith users are asked in the strongest terms to refrain from emulating or enabling the disruptive behavior&mdash;and putting a GNAA-related userbox on one's page is about as blatant an example of this as can be imagined; and
 * administrators and other editors acting in good faith to respond to such disruption, actual or perceived, are working in the best interests of the project and are entitled to a reasonable degree of discretion, the assumption of good faith, and the avoidance of name-calling as they do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Seeing as ANI essentially does nothing to stop trolling - even to the point of treating any word that is 'troll'-related as a 'dirty' word - I can't see what your point is. Either you quash the trolls' activities and pay attention when trolling is reported, or else go read WP:RATSASS when you see trolling: isn't that the usual advice?— Djathink imacowboy  17:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Newyorkbrad is correct. This case looks exactly like a user experimenting to determine what is the most outrageous thing they can keep on their user page—who cares whether that is trolling or good faith editing? What matters is that it stop now. Also, remove the GNAA logo from the top of User talk:Badmachine. Who cares whether the user just likes the attractive lettering, or whether they are promoting an organization whose sole reason for existence is trolling? An open website dedicated to building an encyclopedia is a sitting duck for trolls who are rewarded when editors tie themselves in knots debating whether GNAA might be useful for building the encyclopedia. Per WP:DENY, just remove the trolling, with escalating responses if repeated. Johnuniq (talk) 23:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This entire thread is an exercise in trolling. Banhammers to the ready... Carrite (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)