Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive755

Request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Content removed; userpage locked; now responding to notes at talk page. No new admin action necessary. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

After posting some speculative amateur psychoanalysis at Talk:Luka Magnotta, a user, User:Franck Holland, now seems to have taken it upon himself to personally hunt down past Wikipedia editors who might potentially have been Magnotta himself. He initially posted a list of every single Wikipedia user who ever edited the early pre-notability incarnations of Magnotta's article directly to the talk page, including several well-known and well-established users, and repeatedly reverted it when it was removed as unproductive — but once I warned him on his user talk page that it was unnecessary and unproductive and that he could be blocked if he continued, he began adding the list to his own userpage instead. Another user then removed it from there, but Franck reverted that again.

I still think it's unproductive and inappropriate — after all, if we ever actually need that information we already have access to the pages' edit histories anyway — but since he's been so persistent about it I just wanted to ask for some assistance in enforcing the necessary escalation. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• comment i would like to point out that at least a few of the editors listed there have edited since Magnotta's arrest today. i also removed the list from his user page, but he restored it, complete with my own user name. -badmachine 18:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Topic ban request: Jews in India & Saint Thomas Christians

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would be grateful if an uninvolved admin would look into the contributions of Robin klein, with particular reference to the general sanctions currently in place for Indian caste/community articles as per this discussion.

Robin klein has a particular opinion regarding the Jewish origins etc of the Indian community known under various names, such as Saint Thomas Christians. An example of their waywardness can be seen in this thread, which subsequently ended up at DRN here. The issue was also raised here at ANI, on various user talk pages and (IIRC), at WP:RSN. Robin klein also frequently voices his belief that the consensus surrounding the choice of name is wrong, eg: here.

They have recently created a new article - Kerala Nasrani Christian music - and both the title and the content are yet another example of his tendentiousness regarding his opinion, which is based mostly on original research and misrepresentations of sources. This is despite the numerous attempts to "set him straight" previously. Talk:Kerala Nasrani Christian music says it all, and it is astonishing that this is a DYK nominee. Given that Robin klein has previously been informed of the sanctions available - for example, here - I think that it is about time someone topic banned them from the subject of Jews in India and from articles relating to Saint Thomas Christians (by whatever name they may be referred to). It would need likely to be broadly construed, given RK's predilection for engaging in long talk page WP:IDHT behaviour. - Sitush (talk) 20:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I can testify to Robin's fairly staggering issues with POV-pushing, failure to get the point, and general bias-based incompetence. For months they've been inserting highly problematic material regarding supposed Jewish origins for the Saint Thomas Christians into various articles; when others disagree, Robin obfuscates the discussion with long, accusatory rants and slings baseless accusations of everything from vandalism to conspiracy.[1][2][3][4] The fact that they created this new fork with all the same POV and OR problems after repeated warnings - including at this foot-shooting ANI report - shows this isn't going to get any better.

I propose that Robin klein be topic banned from articles on the Saint Thomas Christians and the Jews in India, broadly construed.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for all the inconvenience that happened on the page Saint Thomas Christians. However, I think it is unfair to blame it all just on me. It would not have started in the first place if the Baum citation that User:Cuchullain had stated in the article was not deleted way back on december 14th 2011 [5]. I thank Cuchullain for trying to rectify the problem with Baum citation now that the discussion is going on [6]. I feel like a fool that I did not find out about the tampering of Baum citation all these months. A lot of conflict would not have happened if only it was noticed and addressed much earlier.

As for the music article Kerala Nasrani Christian music I agree there may be passages in the article that may be open to interpretation. However, it is not done on purpose. It is likely that POV might have crept up as a solo editor when I started this page. But it is not done on intent. This does generally happen when a person starts a page dealing with culture or religion or the like, other editors need to come and improve the article in collaborative editing. In my capacity in order to have as much NPOV as possible I tried to get an Indian source and made a separate section dedicated to Syrian christian folk songs which are largely in malayalam. You could have said that I am engaged in POV editing if I wrote only about Nasrani syrian music and chant accentuation both of which is influenced by Jewish music. But I have made a separate section dedicated to Nasrani folk songs that are sung in the native language of kerala (malayalam). If I had written this article without a detailed description of folk songs in malayalam then you could have called it as POV. But I have gathered information from whatever legitimate sources that I could get regarding nasrani folk songs in malayalam language. I added in the page whatever I could, given my access to sources. I have tried to give balanced perspective by referring to Indian source of Choondal from Kerala.

I need to say, I feel this is very unfair to me when the editor who deleted the Baum citation goes unaccounted for. Now that Cuchullain is sorting out the deliberate removal of the citation the issue is being resolved. None of the edit conflicts would have happened if the tampering of citation on 14th dec 2011 [7] that went unnoticed had not happened. Why on earth would I need to be involved in conflict and waste time? In fact even now there is discussion going on regarding the deletion of the citation between Cuchullain and the editor in question [8]. Please do not make me into a whipping boy or scapegoat. I feel I am being discredited and persecuted. Please try to be fair to me. Again I apologize. thanks Robin klein (talk) 23:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Robin k, you have said all this before. Not merely with reference to the music article but other articles also. You seem almost every time to plead some sort of personal failing, assign it to a common failing and then resume your usual stuff despite the previous acknowledgement. It will not wash any more and, in any event, if taken in good faith your admissions pretty much confirm a competence issue. If you cannot edit in a manner that is even close to neutral after all this time then perhaps you should not be editing at all. You are responsible for your own actions. - Sitush (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The above is an excellent demonstration of Cúchullain's observations, and my comments on it can be found in the previous thread (linked above). Robin clearly has a great deal of prose to unburden on anyone attempting discourse on the article, and volume seems to be a trade off for clarity. Robin is not the only person guilty of this, and I am very close to handing out a couple more article bans to other editors, but given the broader community was asked to look at this I'll let the discussion about Robin run its course. In case it's not clear, I explicitly disclose that I'd support Sitush's request. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Not sure we need to have this discussion, he's be warned per WP:GS and the last discussion (less than a couple of weeks ago) was in support of the ban but leaving it to Salvio or Blade to take action when they found it necessary, I don't think we need to go through that again. My 2p towards saving cheap storage space. —SpacemanSpiff 13:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Update: I have just imposed a topic ban on Robin. I think the consensus here is clear and this disruption needed to be stopped. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Apparent new sock

Touchy Feely Dan (talk · contribs) is a new account with unusual behaviour, which I won't specify further here to avoid spilling the beans, although it will be obvious to experienced users. User asserts on user talk page that they've never edited here before. I'm thinking our old friend NoCal100 (talk · contribs), recently reincarnated as the now-blocked Top of the Tower (talk · contribs) et. al. Bringing it here to request checkuser assistance rather than SPI for broader community input. --OhioStandard (talk) 01:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

"Unusual behavior" — do you mean unusual for a new account or unusual for anyone? If the first, I agree; if the second, I disagree. Could you explain why you think it's NoCal100? Or is that something you won't specify publicly per WP:BEANS? Nyttend (talk) 01:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Unusual for a new account. I'd rather not spill the beans; I'll e-mail you shortly, and any other admin who expresses an interest. Please feel free to forward contents to any other admin or checkuser. --OhioStandard (talk) 01:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Email received; I'll give an on-wiki response that doesn't reveal anything specific about the details you sent me. Nyttend (talk) 02:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Broader community input? Policy specifies WP:SPI for a reason -- the volunteers there specialize in investigating possible socks, and (in some cases) have additional tools to assist, if necessary. Would you rather to a cardiologist or a general practitioner if you have heart problem? Nobody Ent 02:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I really like you, Ent, and generally appreciate your contributions, but I do wish you weren't quite so quick on the draw to reprimand or correct established users. We have a well-established tradition of bringing seeming quackers here for just that reason, to see whether others hear the quacking, too. As you may be aware, SPI doesn't deal especially well with ... well, nevermind. There's a reason I'm not going to say more, here. Have some faith in your fellow editors, please. --OhioStandard (talk) 03:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I wish established users weren't so quick to bite newbies. Wikipedia:Sockpuppets#Handling suspected sock puppets is Wikipedia policy. Nobody Ent 03:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm one of the last editors you'll ever see doing so. Take a look at the extraordinary amount of time I spent across multiple pages trying to assist the genuinely new user Notahelix aka "Voice of 5-23". Or the extraordinary time I put into helping the new account, Tylerjet. Correctly it seems, I suspected the latter account was an experienced user, a serial copyright violator, btw, but I didn't confront him about it, because I wasn't sure. I just kept on offering assistance. He eventually left without a word when he realised we wouldn't let him keep on copypasting from sources, as he'd no doubt done previously, and is no doubt continuing to do, under another account.

One does eventually learn not to spend time on the obvious socks, though, when such a high percentage of the accounts active at any given time in a topic area are bogus. But I've never "bitten" a genuine newcomer, someone who later turned out to be legit. Not once. There's a first time for everything, though, and it's certainly possible I'm mistaken in this instance. We'll see. --OhioStandard (talk) 05:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, one more affirmation of my intrinsically non-bitey nature. :-) Don't be afraid to click on the "overturn accident" link at the end of the short section, though. --OhioStandard (talk) 07:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)  If an editor tells a joke in a forest ...

I agree that the account's behavior is unusual for a new account, but I'm not seeing the connection to NoCal. Unfortunately, I don't have e-mail enabled (and I'm not an admin, anyway), so telling me would have to involve "spilling the beans." Can you point me in the general direction - edit history content-trends, edit-history non-content trends, edit summaries, something like that - without pointing at specifics? If not, I'll try to figure it out from Nyttend's forthcoming non-specific on-wiki response. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 03:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

OhioStandard primarily looks at editing patterns and wording issues as evidence. Nyttend (talk) 04:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked at Touchy Feely Dan but information about NoCal socks is available here. I would encourage editors to use any method they want to ask for help about sockpuppets. When people ask for help and advice about potential sockpuppets in good faith they should be helped. SPI may be policy but it's imperfect. Some of the admins who deal with the socks in the I-P conflict topic area presumably know this because they deal with socks without the SPI red tape overhead when it makes sense to do that. IAR is policy too. Editors who have edited in the topic area for years know a sock when they see one and the risk of biting genuine newbies is small, but they often won't know who the sockmaster is so they won't file an SPI report. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Civility is a pillar. The advantage of filing an SPI is that it does not require notifying the user, so a true newbie will never even know if there was a suspicion; therefore the bite probablity is significantly less than ANI. The contention editors "know a sock," cannot be proven given Wikipedia's privacy rules, so the risk is unknown. ANI requires notification, so a new editor gets dragged into a very hostile environment. As editors are the most significant resource Wikipedia has every effort should be made to attract and retain them. Sockpuppets are a dime a dozen and just not getting worked up about. If SPI has deficiences, the solution is to fix SPI, not to misuse ANI. Nobody Ent 21:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we can indeed "know a sock", and this is hardly misuse of ANI. Spend some time dealing with serial sockers and you'll realise why we get "worked up about" them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Socking is particularly egregious in the I-P topic area due to the ARBPIA sanctions. Good faith editors are liable, and regularly get hit with severe sanctions for inadvertent breaches in protocol, meanwhile they have to contend with numerous prolific sockmasters who don't have to concern themselves with the rules and just make a new account within days of the old one getting blocked. Dlv999 (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

History of Champagne RM closed by an involved admin

Amatulic has an closed an RM at Talk:History_of_Champagne [9]. There are several reasons why this action must be reversed and the issue reviewed by an uninvolved administrator:

• "An editor who has previously closed a move request relating to the same article may not be seen as unbiased” (WP:RMCI). Amatulic closed a similar RM as “premature” several weeks ago.[10]

• "Any editor who has participated in a move discussion, either in support of the move or in opposition to it, will very likely not be seen as an unbiased judge of that discussion.” (WP:RMCI) Amatulic has referred to the proposed change as a “common lexical error”.[11]
• An admin is considered WP:INVOLVED if he has, “current or past conflicts with an editor". I have reported this issue to ANI previously.[12] Amatulic has also made various accusations against me.[13]

The direct involvement of editors affiliated with the champagne industry, who may have little experience on Wiki but understandably feel passionately with regard to this subject, creates a heightened potential for conflict for interest. I hope the discussion can be reopened and proceed while being monitored with appropriate rigor. Kauffner (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It certainly seems inappropriate for Amatulic to close that RM. For the first two reasons rather than the third but inappropriate for sure. Perhaps he/she would consider reopening it before someone else does. --regentspark (comment) 13:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who looks at my contributions in this dispute can clearly see that I was not involved in any sense of WP:INVOLVED. Any "participation" on my part was to comment in an administrative capacity only, not to promote a point of view in the dispute. Any "current or past conflicts" were manufactured by Kauffner himself, and the past "accusations" were administrative in nature. Finally, the implication that I have anything to do with the champagne industry is similarly out of line.

As to the RM itself, it clearly went beyond its 7 days, and clearly the arguments showed no consensus. If any other admin would have closed it differently, I'd be interested to know the reasoning. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you're involved or not but the appearance of involvement does exist because you closed it once before. If you've closed it once there really is no reason to close it again. Plenty of other admins out there. The simplest, drama reduction course of action is to reopen it and let someone else close it. --regentspark (comment) 13:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

No, that wouldn't reduce the drama, because the next closer would be a "drive-by admin". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Point taken.--regentspark (comment) 17:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course, Kauffner's upcoming block for beating the head horse well past the point of disruption well be a welcome sight for anyone who drinks either Champagne- or Bordeaux-styled wines - or indeed, anyone who edits such articles. Maybe Mosel is next? Rhine? Anything else? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Well I have to admit as a wine editor, Kauffner's actions have been a bit disruptive. We already went through a long, contentious discussion at the main Champagne article that failed to gain consensus last month. So soon after he goes after a peripheral article to get the title of History of Champagne (an article about both the wine and Champagne region, mind you) changed? What was his goal? To create internal inconsistency with both the Champagne article and the standard capitalization used on every other wine history article (see History of Chianti, History of Sherry, etc)? With so many reliable sources[14][15][16][17] using the standard capitalization of Champagne, it is clear that there is no "threat" to Wikipedia that makes this battle worth raging on so many fronts for Kauffner. It just seems like a heavy-handed way for him to make a WP:POINT for something that less than a month ago he couldn't garner consensus for. Truly it would be nice to have a break from this or can we expect another go around next month on another peripheral article like Grower Champagne or Champagne in popular culture? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 16:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Re "an article about both the wine and Champagne region, mind you": This is not an accurate characterisation of that article. It starts off with "The history of Champagne [linked in article to Champagne (wine), not Champagne (wine region) or any other geographic area] has seen the wine [own emphasis] evolve", indicating up front that the article is primarily about the wine. Whatever local history is in the article is included insofar as it can be made to relate directly to the wine. Granted, that may be partially because the wine is much of the region's history, but the fact remains that that article is primarily about the history of the wine. No comment on the rest of the dispute here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Well not to threadjack this too far, but as the original author of this article I will point you to things like the 2nd and 5th paragraphs of the lead, the Early History and the World War I and II sections as well as numerous other places in the article where the history of Champagne the wine is closely intertwined with the history of the Champagne people and wine region. I wrote the article that way because that is how the reliable sources describe it. Truly only the small English influences and the even smaller From sweet to brut sections could be thought of as exclusively dealing with the wine but throughout the rest of the text it is clear that the history of the wine and the history of the region are deeply connected. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 22:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It would appear that perhaps a topic ban from Wine and Wine-region related articles (broadly construed) might be a necessity for User:Kauffner as it appears his intent is to disrupt across the gamut. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

No, passion is not disruption. Disruption was caused by an unnecessary, premature second close of a discussion by the same admin. All that was required was to let it run it's course count the votes, determine consensus. If there is a pattern of disruption an WP:RFC/U would be in order. Nobody Ent 21:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Playing Russian-Roulette "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" when a decision is made is, indeed, disruptive. We have another editor on this project who's in deep water because he doesn't think diacritics belong in an English encyclopedia - now we have one who doesn't believe that city/region titles need to be capitalized. What a gigantic fuckup of the English language by both. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the disruptive parts of Kauffner's tactics (at least with wine articles) is the heavy-handed, backdoor ways he tries to jam his wishes through. With Champagne, when he first encountered differing opinions to his wish to lower case everything, he went ahead and did the edit anyways. He sort of rewrote WP:BRD into Discuss, find objections, Do it anyways which was terribly bad faith. Then after he encountered further difficulties in getting consensus to change the main Champagne article, he starts WP:FORUMSHOPping and going after these peripheral articles like History of Champagne--first in the middle of the original of the Champagne discussion and then a month after. One can only guess that he hopes that if he gets the right mix of WP:RM regulars at a moment when other editors who are concerned about his changes are busy with off-wiki life that he gets one of these backdoor consensus through--perhaps to intentionally create inconsistency among a mass of articles so that they may eventually have to succumb to his will. That, again, seems to be contrary to the Wikipedia spirit of building consensus and good faith editing. It's like an editor wanting to get the iPod article changed to Ipod and after failing to get consensus on that main article starts going after the iPad, iTunes and iPod mini, etc articles until eventually he gets his way. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 16:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it is worth noting the that Amatulic originally got involved in this issue at Agne's request.[18] I was surprised to discover that asking your favorite admin to close does not actually violate WP:ADMINSHOP. Kauffner (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

If I was actually asking my favorite admin to close, then yes it would. But as you can see by actually reading the diff I was asking for advice on how to deal with this in the most civil and responsible way--even if that meant walking away. See my last line "What are your thoughts on how best I should proceed? I greatly respect your opinion and if you think I should back down or go another path, I certainly will." I take pride in conducting myself WP:CIVILly and responsibly and after years of editing on Wikipedia, I know that when things get heated it is best to step aside and get an outside reality check. That is not adminshopping in the slightest. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 16:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Kauffner, that was a crass and rude comment to make ("asking your favorite admin"). Admin shopping means asking multiple admins until you get one that does what you want, not applicable here. Having worked with a specific admin before is not against policy. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Where did this come from? Anyway, you have a nice day, too. Kauffner (talk) 08:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Musukundan

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

Myself, and other editors, have repeatedly asked User:Musukundan to stop copyright violations, copy-paste moves and creating non-appropriate articles, but he simply refuses to communicate, repeating similar behaviour. Some recent examples [19] from TASMAC, [20] from Tamil Nadu Rice Research Institute and more. There is also an issue of edit warring, e.g. [21] reverting a redirect by copy pasting another article. Maybe some administrator help will start them communicating? --Muhandes (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Given that this behavior is cross-wiki and his month-long block on Commons for the same reason last week as well as an earlier block for copyvios here doesn't seem to have got the message across, and that he doesn't communicate at all, I have blocked him indefinitely. He can of course be unblocked once he figures out his errors and agrees not to repeat them. —SpacemanSpiff 16:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, I hope they do get the message. --Muhandes (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Nangparbat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Thirdashan is he, please block. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Just trying to remove pov DS why you so defensive? Thirdashan (talk) 16:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Quack. Already blocked by Spiff. --regentspark (comment) 16:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks guys, now I need work out who the swede ip is. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Yet another Sock of Nangparbat 86.139.57.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has replied on my talk page,(he might be on a proxy/webhost) can this one also be blocked please--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 18:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be blocked now thanks--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 19:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:LEGAL - 156.111.18.140

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

 Done blocked by BWilkins. Nobody Ent 21:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

156.111.18.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), legal threat here --Tgeairn (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Archivesharer redux for more antics from this person. Яehevkor ✉ 17:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Recommend block for legal threats and disruption.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Raheem Kassam

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There appears to be a mild invasion of anons and single-purpose accounts in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raheem Kassam. Please someone who knows the ropes, put a proper notice on the page and tag the accounts as invalid for AfD. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Admin needed to close complex RfC at talk:Mexico

We need an uninvolved admin to close a complex rFc at talk Mexico in which editors have argued about how to present the legal status of the Spanish language within Mexico in the infobox and in the article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

AIV Backlog

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Got a bit of a backlog at WP:AIV. If an admin or two could take a look, it would be appreciated. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Old Church Slavonic

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can the talk page Talk:Old Church Slavonic please be reviewed. There are many fallacies. Editors who are prejudiced against ethnic Macedonian have objected to the use of the linguistic term "Macedonian recension". Their misconception is that the term refers to the modern state and/or its people. As a result, and in order to align the article with their views, the editors invented the term "Western Bulgarian" and so forth. The world's foremost English-language experts (Schmalstieg, Nandris, Lunt) in the topic consistently use the term "Macedonian recension" (alongside "Bulgarian recension"). All previous attempts to spell out the misunderstanding to the editors and amend the article as per academic usage has resulted in edit and flame wars. Unfortunately, the only people who care to take an interest in the integrity of the article are those people with an agenda. --101.112.129.98 (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• This isn't an issue for ANI. You need to bring up the concerns on the talk page of the article. Then, if there is a dispute in the content, the proper venue is WP:DRN. ANI is for "incidents" that require immediate attention of an administrator only. Before going to any board, we should try to discuss with our fellow editors first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

You'll notice many, many words' worth of "discussion" on the talk page. It does require the urgent attention of an administrator because nobody has cared to do anything for years. --101.112.129.98 (talk) 15:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

There has only been one comment this year. The discussion for your changes needs to start now, on that talk page, then if you can't find consensus, go to WP:DRN. I'm not going to start blocking people for disagreeing back in 2011, nor is any other admin likely to. WP:ANI is not for discussing content issues, WP:DRN is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:BITE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

And misuse of twinkle, unless I am missing something here I do not see any vandalisim. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The inserted text: POK-pakistan occupied kashmir appears to be a POV insertion. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Darkness Shines, may I question how this was worthy of wasting space here on ANI? Surely, there's a talk page for a reason. Mar4d (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think escalating a concern about biting newcomers to ANI is a bit extreme, see Wikipedia:UNCIVIL#Dealing_with_incivility. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hoaxing at the article for the "Cigarette holder".

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Cigarette holder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There appears to be a wilful hoax at the article for the "Cigarette holder", concerning the words "and are still widely popular accessories in many aspects of Japanese fashion". No citation was ever given, and if I were to engage the services of the "Google" Internet search engine, with the words "Japanese cigarette holder", only some sixty-one (61) results would had been returned [22]. The hoax appears to had been started by the same person who has now reverted my "dubious" tag, at the possibly-restored version back in the year 2006 [23]. The question is, if such a thing had such a supposed importance in Japan, then why is there no, as of now and as of yet, Japanese-language version of this article? The user concerned has been issued with the appropriate notice (uw-hoax), having now been read. — KC9TV 16:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• I notice that two people, Kintetsubuffalo and NawlinWiki have reverted your tag. I didn't notice any discussion of it on the talk page. WP:BRD would say you should approach the subject there, and perhaps drop a note on both of the editors talk page pointing to the discussion. Like so many today, this is a content dispute, which belongs on the article talk page, then if you can't reach consensus, belongs at WP:DRN. That there is no Japanese article on the subject doesn't mean anything, as Wikipedia is a work in progress, both the English and Japanese language versions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Another thing, last warning to KC9TV: the jokes you've attempted twice (1 & 2) on User talk:NawlinWiki are not funny at all and they've been duly reverted, post them again at your own peril. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 16:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• You are not him, and you are not even an administrator, as far as I know. — KC9TV 16:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• P.S.: Do you also blog, David, at some other forum by any chance? Your name does sound familiar. The Daily Telegraph? — KC9TV 17:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I would be curious to know whose sockpuppet KC9TV is, as it is unlikely a 5 week user got to be a troll so rapidly. Checkuser, anyone?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

To quote Bushranger...WP:SPI is that a-way ---> Not really an appropriate topic for ANI. Nothing else to do here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

For interest Jewelrymaking Through History: An Encyclopedia (published 2007) - Page 53 - "Today cigarette holders are still widely popular on the Japanese fashion scene." If it was a hoax it was apparently quite successful. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Published in the year 2007, whereas the words "Today cigarette holders are still widely popular on the Japanese fashion scene", or words to that effect, were already in Wikipedia by the year 2006. — KC9TV 17:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I can read. You might want to re-read what I wrote. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

That statement was in fact also without citation in that book. You don't actually have a source that is no earlier than the year 1970, but earlier than the year 2005 or 2006, have you? Who doesn't nick stuff off from Wikipedia verbatim, as a primary source, in this day and age? — KC9TV 17:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I've taken up the content point/dispute here. Please comment there. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 18:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Sean and Dennis!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• And I thank you too! No ill-feelings, eh? Nothing personal, it is just business! Now, see, and good luck with your SPI/CheckUser! Now, can we close this? I thank you. — KC9TV 18:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Aopollo

Aopollo (talk · contribs): This is a single-purpose account. With the exception of one useful edit in Chervonohrad, all other edits seems to be removal of Russian spelling from the articles on Ukrainian cities. This spelling is a sensitive issue, debated for years, see, for instance, Talk:Kharkiv. The user got already a number of warning including the last one (admittedly, from the same user), but their only reaction was to continue removing the spelling. I do not see any way to regularize the situation, this is why I bring it here. Note that I am not the side of the conflict, and I do not care whether Russian spelling should be in the articles; I just happen to know that such edits are likely to cause large-scale edit warring. The user will be now notified.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is an example of this editor's editing, where his removal of the Russian alternative has been reverted by three different editors, but he persists. --Taivo (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

This is blockable if it continues, but I'm interested if anyone knows if this might be a sock from a known drawer. Drmies (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

This pattern of removing Russian names from Ukrainian city articles is usually done by anonymous IPs. It's been awhile since a named user has done this. There was an anon IP at work just a short time before Aopollo started and changed a number of articles that Aopollo didn't change: [24]. They overlapped at Luhansk and Odessa. This was the anon IP's last edit. This was Aopollo's first edit. There's only a three-minute gap between the two, so it's obvious that the anon IP changed into Aopollo. But before this, it's been a while since another named editor was removing Russian names en masse. At Rivne, for example, the last time a named editor removed the Russian name was User:Ahonc in August of 2011, at Kharkiv it was User:Rkononenko in March of 2012, but neither of these users acted to remove Russian names en masse, and Ahonc certainly did not engage in any kind of edit war. As I said, it's almost always anon IPs. --Taivo (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

At the time, I put a sock template on User talk:96.236.153.90 because it seemed obvious that he/she was probably the same person as Aopollo. Special:Contributions/Aopollo shows that his/her first contribution under that ID was on 5 June. Though this [25] shows that the account was created on 14 May.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Ibckgb

This user account has been editing pages on International Bank of Commerce and its CEO. After I removed chunks of material copied from the firm's website, the user identified in a Talk page message as "the public relations agency for IBC Bank" (User_talk:AllyD#ibckgb). I added a COI-Username notice on 4th June (User_talk:Ibckgb). Today (after an IP had restored the Copyvio text which I've re-deleted), the PR Agency editor is again editing the article: not directly problematic edits, but they are clearly editing as a Shared Account. AllyD (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

diff the public relations agency, Ally politely addresses user two days ago, no response. Recommend indef until user(s) start talking... Nobody Ent 21:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

4.28.32.194 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is also a concern, likely the same person(s). I'm chasing diffs now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Likely copyvios for this IP, which is a static IP, by the way, located in same geographic area as the bank they are writing about. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Indef is a strong response, but since both the user account and the IP are either the same person or group, I would understand if someone blocked the IP for a year and indef'ed the reg'ed user, if neither will address the issues here. Leaving ANI tag for IP now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Why did they sign their name [26] with J04n's name? Notifying J04n Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• For the record, I know nothing about this situation, the user(s), the company or the page in question. Not sure why they decided to use my identity. J04n(talk page) 01:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
• We have enough reason to block right now, copyvio and impersonation. I'm inclined to wait just a bit (but not too long), to see if we need to block the IP as well, since a CU won't link the name with the IP address and I think they are the same. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done I kept digging and just decided to indef block Ibckgb for "Improper username, Copyright Infringe, Impersonating an admin in your sig." as well as a 1 year block on the static IP for meatpuppetry and infringement. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Vandal attempting to compromise my account

I recently got an email stating that User:58.170.87.193 has requested a reminder of my account details. This IP was actually recently blocked after I reported him to AIV (with the block set to expire in about a day). Is it possible that he will be able to hack into my account? Canuck^{89 (talk to me)} 21:54, June 6, 2012 (UTC)

To prevent such an occurrence, create and utilize a Wikipedia:Committed identity. This will allow to regain control of your acct if it is hacked. To prevent such a hijacking, also see Wikipedia:Personal security practices and Wikipedia:User account security. Also, be sure to use a strong password. These practices should sufficiently protect your acct. Rgrds. --64.85.217.69 (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

To answer the original question, the "reminder of your account details" is automatically sent if you click "Forgot your login details?" from the login screen. It won't permit the user to hack into your Wikipedia account -- most likely, they're just trying to harass you. --Carnildo (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Spiral Staircase

Fresh User:Spiral Staircase is wracking heavock in the IPA chart range. Can someone blok them? (and send an invitation to talk). ANI notification done. -DePiep (talk) 00:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't see anything wrong at all — just a little editing of headers and moving some pages from awkward titles to grammatically correct titles. What's the issue? Nyttend (talk) 00:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

1) the old names are sourced names (nice yuo like private names - but no), 2) no talking, 3) disturbing links. -DePiep (talk) 01:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi DePiep, sorry to cause any offence, I see you are heavily invested in those pages. The rename is because the grammar is wrong. Chart is singular, so you have a vowel chart, not a vowels chart. It's the same as a "train station" rather than a "trains station" a "cars park" etc. "IPA vowels - chart with audio" would also be correct grammar but not without a '-' or ':'. You could also describe it as a "Chart of vowels". As a native speaker I don't consider this to be controversial, and therefore didn't see any merit in discussing it. (WP:BOLD)

I changed the links to link to pages that match the actual link titles (which exist) as a separate edit. If you don't like it revert it, or change the redirects to pages that better match the titles.

Please don't request my account to be blocked less than 10 minutes after you put something on my talk page, it doesn't come across as WP:CIVIL, especially as the edits were 10 hours ago.

Keep up the good work! Spiral Staircase (talk) 01:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Мэн-1

Мэн-1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I came across this user via Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Мэн-1's European Championships articles. User:Мэн-1 removed the MfD notices (while the discussion is in progress) and added back in the commented out categories from the user subpages. User talk:Мэн-1 is soft redirected to the Russian Wikipedia, where there appears to be some sort of block notice. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I've restored the MfD notices, commented out the categories again and explained the issue to the user. Hopefully, that'll put an end to that. In terms of the Russian account, it was blocked for creating hoaxes, which is concerning, but I don't know if the behavior has continued here. Any sign of that? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The user has not contributed to any mainspace pages on the English Wikipedia since February 2010. What reason does he have for having an account here at all? – PeeJay 11:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe he or she is planning to very slowly improve the userspace drafts into better articles? We'll only know if he or she starts talking. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Unlikely. From what I saw them post on User:Tbhotch's talk page, they've been using an IP for which they pay for a few hours use at a time. – PeeJay 16:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to update, the user has come back and, finding the pages deleted following the MfD, restored them. I've G4ed them and given him a block warning. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Theolimn

• Theolimn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User insists on inserting personal comments and replacing sourced information with propaganda despite warnings, as seen from here. Although his/her edits are concentrated on the article of Cyprus intercommunal violence, there are some edits on other articles: [27] (this is a very good example of the general tone of his/her writing). Seems to be a single-purpose account aimed to heroize EOKA fighters and demonize Turkish Cypriots anyway. --Seksen (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I've notified the editor of this discussion. Please remember that this is required when filing a report on ANI. :)

I generally find a useful first step in these kinds of situations is to explain as clearly as possible to an editor the way things work. Sometimes, they simply don't understand our policies and practices and pointing them out can change the direction. Obviously, we want to keep any editor who is willing to work within policy to improve articles. :) I've left him a basic note explaining what kind of content we look for and how to work out disagreements. If he starts to engage, please be patient with him. If he continues without engagement, after our practices have been explained, then the situation is different. I would recommend waiting to see where he goes from here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no hope because the content he keeps adding is really nasty (e.g. changes "a Turkish Cypriot couple" to "two Turkish Cypriot prostitutes" - could even qualify under WP:LIBEL, but assuming good faith is preferable of course), but let's see. --Seksen (talk) 17:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to keep an eye on him (including watching the article). If I should happen to overlook a return to the problem, please feel free to drop me a note directly. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Boomerang2 (returning sock of BoomerangWiki)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Boomerang2 (talk · contribs) is a SPA for editing Boomerang (TV channel)-related articles, which has repeatedly asserted ownership over the articles and engages in other disruptive editing, particularly:

• personal attacks and vandalism: [28] [29] [30] and a few others (warnings: [31] [32] [33])
• signature forgery: the entirety of User talk:Boomerang2#A barnstar for you! and User:Boomerang2#A barnstar for you!; when he gets into a dispute or edit war with another user, he often adds a forged award from them to his user page (warning: [34])

The account claims to be operated by Turner Broadcasting, which owns Boomerang (e.g., [35] [36]). It is also an obvious sock of BoomerangWiki (talk · contribs), which had already been warned and blocked for having an improper username [37] [38].

The user has ignored or removed all warnings from their talk page, including a recent request to change their username and to remove the forged signatures from their user and user talk pages. [39] —Psychonaut (talk) 07:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Should be indefinitely banned immediately. Leaving "ownership" warnings on user and IP talk pages after reverting changes saying "contact Turner Broadcasting if you have any questions" strikes at the heart of Wikipedia's core pillars. QU ^TalkQu 09:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I have indeffed them. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Also  Confirmed is Sumi the Mascot (talk · contribs). I have a strong sense that these are all socks of banned user Simulation12 (talk · contribs), as that user has had a history of harassment and impersonating official companies and entities in order to stake ownership to articles, as well as impersonating other editors. --MuZemike 17:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I've tagged both Boomerang2 and Sumi the Mascot as clear socks of Simulation12. Here is why:

1. Boomerang2's userpage version is a complete ripoff of NeilN's userpage. Compare to Checker Fred's, MikeySalinas17's, and Saylaveer's ripoffs of my userpage.
2. Blatant impersonation of network officials, fictional characters, or other people. Compare the following:
   • Boomerang2 (talk · contribs)
   • Dr. Marion Moseby (talk · contribs)
   • FETCH! With Ruff Ruffman (talk · contribs)
   • JimConroy38 (talk · contribs)
   • WGBH Boston (talk · contribs)
3. All of Sumi the Mascot's edits and interests are a dead ringer with those from Simulation12 and his army of socks, including edits to PBS Kids Go! and Fetch! with Ruff Ruffman back in 2010. Yes, this one would be a textbook sleeper sock.

My guess is that this user will probably continue, and he will engage in both on- and off-wiki harassment of anyone who gets in his line of fire. If any other similar socks are seen, please let me know. --MuZemike 17:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow...You guys realize that Sim12 actually is (or is a spectacularly good impersonator of) a tween-age kid? Can't believe she (think it's a she) has actually hung around this long...normally childish editor/vandals like this one lose interest long before now! But based on the evidence above I will agree--this looks like another series of Sim12 socks. (Ol' Simmy was one of my first LTA encounters when I was a new admin, before I became an old, defunct, inactive admin. Good times.)GJC 15:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I've tagged BoomerangWiki (talk · contribs) as a WP:DUCK. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

What about ECLYPIA™ (talk · contribs)? Why would Boomerang2 blank their page?[40] The impersonation name and the topic interests are curious. Doc talk 21:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

ECLYPIA™ looks to be another sockpuppet. It's also edited nothing but Boomerang-related articles, and racked up a bunch of warnings for vandalism and disruption. Boomerang2's blanking of ECLYPIA™'s talk page may not have been vandalism but rather an effort to hide that account's warnings. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks to be a sock, Goggling ECLYPIA returns a user under this name that posted to, lo and behold, the Boomerang2 official forum. Blackmane (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

If you check the history for Boomerang (TV channel) and List of programs broadcast by Boomerang, you'll actually find a lot of single-purpose accounts (such as 24.126.200.17 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) which edit nothing but Boomerang-related articles. Like Boomerang2, some of them seem to regularly add dubious and/or unsourced information to articles, and their edits are frequently reverted. I'm not sure if they're all socks of Boomerang2—I don't have much experience editing articles on children's TV so maybe they just tend to attract these sorts of editors. Could be they're child fans who aren't competent enough to understand Wikipedia's purpose and policies. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Keysanger's "Capture" of the War of the Pacific Article

User:Keysanger has been involved in a long-standing edit war with editors in the War of the Pacific article. As you can see, the article has been tagged with alleged "multiple issues" for nearly a year now. The only editor arguing those issues is Keysanger, while everyone else (including myself, User:Cloudaoc, Alexh, User:Dentren, and User:Chiton magnificus, among several others) has opposed his rationale. Recently, editor Chiton made a proposal to remove those tags ([41]), which Cloudaoc and myself expressed our support towards ([42]). Nonetheless, Keysanger replied in a long rant, accusing the article's editors of "systematically pushing Peruvian POV" and associating them with "street gangs". Given this situation, I request that administrators please end Keysanger's "capture" of the War of the Pacific article by finally getting rid of those tags and/or block this constantly disruptive editor. Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Unless there is actually vandalism or blockable disruption that I didn't see, then you likely need to try WP:DRN first, since this sounds like a content dispute. That said, the editor does seem a bit confused as to how BRD and other editing guidelines work, but this can be taken care of DRN. Hopefully. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

We have tried that in the past, but no solution has come from it. The last dispute resolution mediator was User:Alexh19740110, and the current problems with Keysanger stem from the solutions found by the mediator. Keysanger did not agree with them, whereas everyone else agreed with the mediator. Now, for nearly a year, Keysanger persists in holding the article hostage (is there a better term for it?) with tags. After almost a year of this WP:GAMING issue, I do honestly believe that an administrator needs to step in and do something. Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

DRN is still the best place to get an admin to do so, or point to a previous DRN that this is violating. Otherwise, it is difficult to determine by an outside admin, which is why they are likely hesitant to get involved. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Another AIV Backlog

Got another backlog over at WP:AIV. If an admin or two could take a look, it would be appreciated.

On a related note, is it possible to have a bot "announce" an AIV backlog on the admin IRC chatroom, similar to when someone requests for help (by placing the {{help}} template on their talk page). If so, this would greatly reduce the wait time for an admin to check in at AIV and eliminate all "there's a backlog on AIV" posts here on ANI. It could also be carried over to other time-sensitive noticeboards here on en.Wiki. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't remember for sure (I've never used IRC), but I think I've heard about some sort of alert that pops up on IRC when there's a new backlog. Nyttend (talk) 02:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

There very well could be one, since I am not an admin, I wouldn't know about it if it were on the admins-only IRC channel. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is one, unfortunately. T. Canens (talk) 05:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, perhaps that is something that could be created to aid admins in time-sensitive noticeboards like AIV and stop these "another backlog at <insert noticeboard>" notices here on ANI. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

That would require a fundamental change in philosophy. You and I would be glad to help out - if we had the authority. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Legal Nurse Consultant

A dispute has been ongoing between myself and editor TomZiemba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I feel that the statement he added, " It has been claimed that Vickie Milazzo pioneered the field" in the article Legal nurse consultant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is an advertisement, is unfair, and is biased. Additionally, since the user is associated with Vickie Milazzo's organization, I feel that is also a conflict of interest. I have made several attempts to resolve the dispute with TomZiemba Other user's and I have tried discussing on his Talk page, I have requested comment from other editors and I have filed a report on the conflict of interest noticeboard. All attempts to contact this editor by myself and other editors for dispute resolution have been ignored by editor TomZiemba. The only time this editor responds is if the statement is removed. In which case, he simply undoes the change without any attempt to resolve the dispute. Please let me know what can be done to resolve this issue. Several other editors and I agree that his statement should not be there as you can see on the article Talk page. Thanks for your help! Rsanch (talk) 02:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, nothing for admins to do here. Please continue the discussion on the article talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like TomZiemba has been at this for a while and has not responded to multiple invitations to talk, so admin assistance could be needed to encourage that editor to discuss. It's also worth noting that the NY Times article TomZiemba is citing in support of the statement he's been adding does not actually back it up (he's putting in a stronger statement than the one in the Times), and that the article reports that Milazzo's husband is "Thomas M. Ziemba", so there is a legitimate cause for COI concern. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that it's possible that the other editor involved in this dispute, Rsanch, also has a conflict of interest, and may be an employee of another LNC firm. Due to WP:OUTING concerns, I am not going to attempt to confirm this information, but because of its plausibility, I am going to warn both editors not to continue to revert each other, not to attempt to skew the article in favor of any one company, and to follow the suggestions in WP:COI about editing the article. (I take these actions as a non-admin, of course.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Curritocurrito - potential suicide

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Seems to be song lyrics which have been removed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

---

The above user, who is currently the subject of a sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sonia Murillo Perales, has just posted the following message on their userpage:

"Mezu bat dugu zabaltzeko harro daudenak apaltzeko Zentzuak odolustutzeko aiztoa prest. Guk bihotzak josiko ditugu berriz ardi txuria sentitzen garelako artalde beltzean ardi beltza sentitzen garen moduan, artalde txurian honetarako jaio nintzen ta honengatik hilko naiz."

The user comes from Zaragoza in Spain. I tried using Google translate to translate this message from Basque to English, and it was translated as:

"We are proud to spread a message of decreasing bleeding knife to the senses. Our hearts are full of the white sheep, black sheep black sheep because we feel as we feel, I die for my flock I was born for this blank."

This sounds potentially as if it could be a suicide message. The user has never previously left any text on their userpage. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 06:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I notice that the user has made a few edits since posting the above message on their userpage, so it might not be as urgent as I first feared. However this user has a history of unusual and often disruptive editing behaviour, as outlined at the sockpuppet investigation page and also at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#Tropical Families and tropical genera. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Follow the guidelines at WP:SUICIDE, and email emergency@wikipedia.org. And when you do that, request that they oversight this entire section too, as for the sake of privacy, no one unnecessary should have seen this. Did you read the header of this page, or the giant edit notice that appears above the page before you posted? elektrikSHOOS (talk) 07:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Disregard all of the above. I ran a Google search of the phrase. They're song lyrics. It's hardly a suicide threat. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 07:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you regard this thread as closed, and should I still advise the user of its existence? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'd say the song lyrics are still a copyright violation and should be removed. I'll notify the user myself. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 07:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The lyrics have been removed, and I've revdel'd them per RD1 as copyvio. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Need some help

Hello I am new to wikipedia and need help an admin called user:Denniss Is threating to block me because he/she is constantly removing everything I write for fun I think. I dont know what to do can someone help me. The admin is threating to block me possibly permanently Claimsort11 (talk) 07:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Denniss is an admin, but not on Wikipedia. He has no power to block you. Now then, the basic concern with your edits is that you removed half a sentence that was cited to a source without providing a reason, and you added a new paragraph that contained no source. When someone on Wikipedia reverts your changes, you are expected to discuss the matter with that user, instead of simply edit warring. Failing to heed this advice will get you blocked, even if you think the other person is acting like a butt (in this case, the final warning was certainly over-the-top). Someguy1221 (talk) 08:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

He needs a "warning" too for scaring off the newbies.Lihaas (talk) 11:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

So what should I do? Claimsort11 (talk) 12:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Use edit summaries to explain your edits, provide sources. Dougweller (talk) 14:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Thewolfchild

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Thewolfchild (talk · contribs)

Hello. User:Thewolfchild has created a list of people (editors) who complained of his behavior and interactions with others on his talk page. The header was: Wikipedia University - Institute of the Clowning Arts & Sciences. Class of 2012. Congratulations Clown College Graduates! The page was nominated for speedy deletion as an {{db-attack}}. I've deleted the page and left an explanatory note on Thewolfchild's talk page. Thewolfchild's response on my talk page seems to me somewhat upset, but I may be mistaken. I admit that deletion of the above mentioned sandbox and my subsequent comments were influenced by reading of Thewolfchild's talk page. I refuse to continue communicating with an obvious troll (I think that User:Thewolfchild is an exemplary case of WP:TROLL) and I'm asking here for an independent assessment. Thanks for any opinion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Huh, seems you're not kidding. OK, here we go... I was playing around with something, in jest and temporarily, in my sandbox only, and not posted anywhere else. You found it sooo offensive that you had to immediately delete it, only to re-post here on the widely read ANI boards? You made no effort to "communicate", you simply left a comment telling me off and then went on to delete the entire page, including non-related content. Why not just remove the section you had an issue with? Or the user names? Why not contact me tell your concerns and ask me to correct it? I tried asking you about your concerns and you refused to answer. Instead, you claim I'm "upset". (why? DID I USE ALOT OF CAPS? Did I use alot of exclamation and question marks?!?!???!!!) If anything, I believe you're the one getting to emotional here. Lastly, I may be many things, but I am not a troll. You have gone overboard, and I expect more of an admin... - thewolfchild 09:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

You should pop on over to User_talk:Vejvančický to see my response to your first rant over there, then maybe rethink not only the above, but indeed all of your interactions on Wikipedia (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I popped. I saw. I re-thunk. And I answered. But I have to wonder, just why is it that when someone asks a question of a admin that the admin doesn't care to answer, it suddenly makes the asker "angry"? - thewolfchild 10:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

@thewolfchild: I found the page in the CAT:CSD, it was nominated for deletion by another editor. You've called the editors who disagree with you "wiki academy clown class graduates". Why don't you address their concerns in a normal way instead of creating cowardly lists hidden in your user space? Usually I tend to avoid people of your kind and I'm not a frequent visitor here on ANI, as I don't think it's worthy of my time. But today I posted here immediatelly because I consider your behavior as grossly dishonest and offensive. I want to see this admin action of mine reviewed and scrutinized by others, independently. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

You could have simply pointed out your concern and I would have removed it. As you said... it was "hidden" in my userspace (for all of what... 2 days?), how offensive can that be? But regardless, it's gone and I'm not disputing the removal. But I do feel the ANI was needless. With the initial issue resolved, now you and your friends are digging thru old news for... what? To pick a fight? Flex some sysop muscle? Seems you admins are dying to delete and block instead of trying to discuss and resolve (you know... like in a collegial environment). AND - just how am I "grossly dishonest"? - thewolfchild 12:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

thewolfchild, I have no admin friends and my status here is totally unimportant, at least to me. I do not need to step on others to feel better, I edit here A) because I want to help to keep this project strong B) for fun. I edit articles and the last thing I want to do is to moralize wikimartyrs. However, I can't accept mean and cowardly attacks, no matter how long they are in wiki space. That's just me. You talk about a collegial environment yet you treat others like crap, calling them crybabies and hipocrites, creating stupid and disparaging lists instead of providing constructive answers. That's the dishonesty on your part. I don't think all your edits are unconstructive and bad, it's just your style of communication with others. Please no more bullshit about my hypothetical friends and sysop muscle. That's a trolling aspect in your comments, and I expect (with regret) more of it. Please, avoid that. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Vej, According to you I "step on others to feel better", I'm a "wikimartyr", I'm "mean and cowardly", "stupid and disparaging" and "dishonest". Any other "constructive" comments? While you're busy "treating me like crap", keep in mind that the "collegial" comment wasn't mine, I just responded to it. You say I created "lists" (pleural). I created one - in my sandbox. It's gone now. Get over it. Then you go on about me calling someone a "crybaby" and a "hypocrit". First you are the one now taking things out of context. Comments like "crybaby" were made during an antagonistic debate over reverts. Insults were thrown at me as well. The issue has since been put to rest. As for calling someone a "hypocrit"... yes, I've done that before and I will do it again. When someone takes a moral stand, then acts in a manner that contradicts their position, they are a hypocrit. Take you for example... you are a hypocrite. And while we are talking about definitions, I may be a smart-ass, but I am not a troll. You keep throwing that word around, but you ain't backing it up. You paranoid thin-skinnedness does not make me dishonest. I called it in the beginning - you over-reacted and now you're just trying to pile it on to justify all this. Talk about "bullshit". Your repeated protestations are starting to wear. Your initial concern has been addressed, is there anything else you are hoping to accomplish here? - thewolfchild 14:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Answered above. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Vej; Show me how I'm "an obvious troll". - thewolfchild 12:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• You were right to delete it - merely show the policy and back away. I don't think bringing it to ANI (even for a review) is going to dispel any anger :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• LOL! Who's angry? - thewolfchild 10:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• I've also deleted a section on his talk page where he edited another user's talkpage comments to change their meaning and then altered their signature to read "Hypocrite" and "Cry Baby". Whilst he might want to parade the fact on his talk page that he is capable of being sarcastic and patronising (neither particularly useful traits for a collegial environment) he certainly doesn't get to do that. Black Kite (talk) 09:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Then I was wrong :-) Bringing all of his behaviour here was was the right thing to do! Not the good way to grab the attention of the project in the long or short run (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

This ANI is for my sandbox. If you have some constructive comments to make regarding this issue, then please do. However, if you have a separate concern, regarding a separate issue on a different page, then perhaps you would care to address it with me on my talk page to see if your concerns can be resolved. Failing that, perhaps bring an ANI for that issue. I think that much like your very good and close friends, "Vejvančický" and "Bwilkins", you have gotten quite carried away here. - thewolfchild 10:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

In case you had not noticed when you read the top of the page, all behaviours will be taken into account for incidents posted here. You really should attempt to address your behaviours in front of the admin community - you're not making yourself out well right now (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

What's to address? There was a joke in my sandbox that Vej didn't like - its's gone. There were some comments from an old agrument that has since been addressed by another admin and reviewed at an ANI. They're gone now too. You guys are just digging now, fueled by your own self-importance. And I have to "make myself out well"? Problems solved. Move on. I'm sure there's plenty of other wrongs your could be righting now... - thewolfchild 13:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I just want to clarify that User:Black Kite and User:Bwilkins are not my very good and close friends. My work here is independent. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Methinks... - thewolfchild 13:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Besides that, the topic is "User:Thewolfchild", not "User:Thewolfchild's sandbox". Nothing indicates this would be just about the sandbox and nothing else.--Atlan (talk) 10:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

And my commet didn't state that "this this would be just about the sandbox and nothing else." For the sake of simplicity, the comments should focus on the topic at hand, instead of going all over the road with multiple complaints from different pages. Don't you agree? - thewolfchild 13:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

...and he has restored the attack on that editor on his talkpage. Final warning issued. Black Kite (talk) 10:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting read when you expand those sections. Copy/pastes (losing all attribution); modification of comments to suit his needs; cherrypicking; endless sarcasm. Really doesn't get the "community" aspect of Wikipedia (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Specifics? - thewolfchild 13:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The more I dig into his interactions, edits, talkpage and all contributions, the more I'm becoming convinced that we as a project are, indeed, being trolled. When he signed up, he agreed to the 5 pillars - not just a selected one or two. His behaviour right in front the community when asked to explain and amend shows it's not going to change - he's just as sarcastic, arrogant, and wrong. I'm becoming sadly convinced that WP:RBI is the best way forward unless they (or anyone) can magically show some better way forward (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is sad. Show me, exactly, how I am a troll. Then, reconsider your comments about "...asked to explain and amend shows it's not going to change - he's just as sarcastic, arrogant, and wrong...". An issue was brought forward. I provided an explanation and amended it. Then a second issue was brought forward and was also explained and amended as well. So I'm sarcastic sometimes - so what? If you tried to kick every sarcsatic user out of wikipedia, (including some of the other contributors and admins on this very ANI) then this site would become a very lonely place. "Arrogant"? That is merely your opinion. I call it "confident". Either way, show me a wiki policy against it. "Wrong" about what? As I've said, I addressed the concernes that were brought up in this ANI so, what am I "wrong" about now? AND... WP:RBI?, (I guess if you were a state governor, you'd put shoplifters in the gas chamber, huh?)... you show me exactly how I'm a vandal. As for "moving forward", I have made overtures for resolution - with no response. What have you done? I look forward to your responses. - thewolfchild 13:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It may have very well been wrong but it cant be unilaterally deleted by an admin who then refuses to discuss. It should benom'd for deletion here ot elsewhere. As WP is a community drive even the something like this needs cdiscussion (however easy it may seem) instead of arbitrary decisions refusing ot discuss. The comment on the users talk page to fined a nother playground was not the most civil thing either. This doesnt show any DR having been tried.

But lets not dig into everything from the issue on hand. It dealt with this page alone not his overall behaviour, which should be discussed on another board if need beLihaas (talk) 11:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

As BWilkins said above, all behaviour can, and will be, taken into account when an ANI is raised. Per WP:UP#POLEMIC and WP:UP#DELETE, attack pages are usually deleted without the need for MFD or AFD. Had their behvaiour been the only thing being discussed then WP:WQA would have been the starting point, but as it's now part of a wider issue, ANI is actually the appropriate place for this to be aired. Blackmane (talk) 11:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

@Lihaas: You are right. I should've said that I refuse to discuss it privately on my talk page, which is what I meant. You may notice that I joined the discussion here without much delay. I don't need others to defend me for anything, which is - I believe - apparent from my edit history. However, I apologize for any confusion. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thewolfchild's previous appearance at AN/I, for those who want a taste of where this is likely to go. --Calton | Talk 13:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Gee, Cal... you must have alot of free time. Anything else to add? - thewolfchild 14:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Gotta' love these ANI's. Admins have dragged me here complaining of insults and policy violations, yet let's look at some of their comments about, or towards, me - right here in the ANI;

Vejvančický;

• "If you don't like this place, find another playground..."
• "Thewolfchild's response on my talk page seems to me somewhat upset, but I may be mistaken...",
• "I refuse to continue communicating with an obvious troll.",
• "(I think that User:Thewolfchild is an exemplary case of WP:TROLL)",
• "Why don't you address their concerns in a normal way instead of creating cowardly lists...",
• "Usually I tend to avoid people of your kind...",
• "I consider your behavior as grossly dishonest and offensive...",
• "I do not need to step on others to feel better...",
• "...last thing I want to do is to moralize wikimartyrs.",
• "...mean and cowardly attacks...",
• "...you treat others like crap...",
• "...creating stupid and disparaging lists...",
• "That's the dishonesty on your part...",
• "Please no more bullshit...",
• "That's a trolling aspect in your comments..."

BWilkins;

• "...see my response to your first rant...".
• "...I don't think bringing it to ANI (even for a review) is going to dispel any anger.",
• "...you're not making yourself out well right now.",
• "...modification of comments to suit his needs; cherrypicking; endless sarcasm. Really doesn't get the "community" aspect of Wikipedia.",
• "The more I dig into his interactions... the more I'm becoming convinced that we... are, indeed, being trolled.",
• "...he's just as sarcastic, arrogant, and wrong...",

(With honourable mention going to the rest of the bangwagon; Black Kite, Atlan, Blackmane and Calton)

Very contructive, mature and articulate. I can see why you guys are admins. You actually have the nerve to preach about policy, the pillars, politeness, community, collegial atmosphere, hand-holding, kumbayah, etc, etc... ?

Not one of you tried to discuss and resolve. Not one of you has answered any of my questions regarding your claims, accusations and insults. One minor issue is suddenly brought to ANI, the issue is immediately resolved without dispute, yet you all keep going on, and on and on. Slow day at the office? - thewolfchild 15:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

May I ask a tediously obvious question? What administrative action is being requested here? (I mean things that require use of the buttons, such as blocking or page protection.) If there isn't anything specific I propose to close this discussion as I'm not sure it's serving a useful purpose right now. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Already blocked for 24h by Sarek of Vulcan, presumably for this after warnings. So, yes, closing this now. Black Kite (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User: Bzg0515 COI

User: Bzg0515 seems to have a COI problem per User talk:Bzg0515. 3/4 of his articles are deleted and the other is pending a deletion discussion that is certain to fail. Nevertheless these are his only edits.

Sorry if thsi is the wrong noticeboard. Never sought any action on COI, and i though, per my last use, COIN is for queries.Lihaas (talk) 11:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention an obvious username issue. Blackmane (talk) 11:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly...why wasnt this clsed as quick as the one below? ;)Lihaas (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Kitty101423

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Kitty101423 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single purpose account that has been active for about two years. She has been involved in a conflict with King's College School, Cambridge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and has been repeatedly adding some rather opinionated original research to the article (e.g. "Some parents are now asking why the headmaster is still employed by the school, having caused it so much damage and disgrace"). She typically ignores requests to discuss her information, doesn't ask for help, and engages in edit wars, making identical, uncommented edits which are always reverted. She was blocked by Nyttend yesterday and hours after the block expired she resumed her behaviour. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 12:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that this editor appears to be interested only in disrupting the article by adding disparaging remarks; no response to attempts to engage, no appearance on article talk page. It's hard to see prospects for this person having a productive future here; given that the article in question is low-traffic, I think a lengthy block is advisable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Considering that this edit warring and BLP violations have been going on for years now, I just blocked Kitty101423 indefinitely. If they can agree to edit without violating policy, any admin can unblock without consulting me.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unblock help please (been waiting four hours already)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On my talk page I have requested an unblock - I wasn't sure which template to use as it's been so long since I bothered much with Wikipedia. I seem to have been caught ought by a block on Brighton & Hove City Council IP addresses related to another user. Now I'm at home and can edit, but I will be back at work tomorrow and might want to insert a wikilink or suchlike in my lunch break. Is there any way for me to be able to edit while logged in and not be blocked for someone else's egregious behaviour? And by the by, is there any point in the unblock templates when no-one seems to take any notice of them? And also by the by, I did try emailing the original blocking admin, he emailed back to ask my username a few hours ago and nothing since. I'll now drop him a line on his talk page to mention this thread. DuncanHill (talk) 16:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

In a month you will have been around here for six years, and you have a grand total of about three hours being blocked during that time. It seems to me that you're a good candidate for IP block exemption, so I've given it to you. If for some reason you decide that you don't want it, you can always request its removal. Nyttend (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks :) DuncanHill (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Simonmaker30 copyright violations

This user has been uploading copyright violations of book blurbs for quite some time. Hammered (Kevin Hearne novel) was deleted on 4th June for this reason and xe recreated it today. Having gone through the users contributions I have found 5 further copyvio new articles about books. User was warned by deleting admin on 4th June but seems to ignoring that warning and the plethora of templates that preceded it. I am still wading through contribs for copyright issues and I suggest user is deserving of a block even in the absence of finding more examples. Pol430 talk to me 18:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Almost a month's worth of warnings with no change in behavior. Blocked for one week. — madman 19:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I've been through most of their contribs relating to page creation and have tagged a further 7 articles for CSD G12. Would be grateful if a patrolling admin could check -- User:Pol430/CSD log. Found a couple of existing articles with CV added; I have cleaned those, and blanked this. Pol430 talk to me 19:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

New Party RFPP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Page semi-protected.[43] Thanks, MastCell - Wikidemon (talk) 22:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Could someone please review New Party (United States) and the page protection request I made at WP:RFPP? The situation speaks for itself and there's a discussion on the article talk page so no need to repeat here. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 21:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dimitar Blagoev

I am attempting to add sourced information regarding this figure's ethnic self-identification. His ethnicity is significant because he declared it publicly (in fact, on public record) in a period when members of the ethnicity in question (ethnic Macedonian) were persecuted and, given the figure's high profile and prominent political activity, was also historically significant.

Here are the refs:

• Куманов, Милен. „Македония: Кратък исторически справочник“, т. III (ТинаПрес, София), 1983 (Bulgarian)
• Орде Иваноски. „Искажување на Димитар Благоев за народността на Македонците пред Бугарскиот парламент во 1917“ (Современост, Скопје), Јануари 1967 (Macedonian)

(and at least a handful more).

Dimitar Blagoev, during his address to Bulgarian parliament in 1917 as an MP, criticizes Bulgaria's foreign policy and national myth, saying:

“ Which history? That history which you have all falsified? We do not acknowledge that history. We see what the reality [actually] is. The fact is, Honorable MPs, that there was a great struggle between the Bulgarian and the Slavic tribes in the Balkans. And this process, as Y[anko] Sakazov states and as others also state, is not for the unification of the Bulgarian nation, but for the conquest of the Slavic tribes in the Balkans and that is why we see the suppression of the Slavic peoples of the Balkan Peninsula who are migrating en mass to Byzantium and Asia Minor, and on the other hand, moving south to Macedonia where the Slavic tribe has been preserved for a long time.

[...]

I am native of Zagoričane; however, I am not a Bulgarian, I am a Macedonian. A Macedonian Slav! And as such, if you must know, I am for a Macedonia as a Slavic land that would have its own government.

[...]

If you are all so convinced that Bulgarians live in Dobruja, that Bulgarians live in Morava [Banovina] and Macedonia, that Bulgarians live in Serres, Drama and Kavala, then why are you afraid of the Russian czar's formula "for peace without annexations and indemnity, and for the right of the people to self-determination"? If you are all convinced that somewhere there there are Bulgarians, then let a referendum be held and we will see what they will say.

”

I have provided the sources; however, a Bulgarian user (Jingiby) is making an effort to silence me and intimidate me. Instead of himself reviewing my edits, he is put off by subject's ethnicity which flies in the face of his country's POV. Rather than discuss the matter at hand, Jingiby resorted to spamming the talk page with a mélange of haphazardly joined passages and quotes which deny the existence of a Macedonian nation. None of the references and notes refereed to the subject at hand.

Despite the fact that official stenographic notations record this individual's declaration in black and white, Jingiby has prefered to provide secondary and tertiary sources which obviously describe the subject's citizenship. Is the Wikipedia community going to override a person's own ethnic self-identification? I don't wish to sound dramatic, but for how much long should the Balkan squabbles hold these articles hostage?! --101.112.160.6 (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I have a few notes regarding this case since I did stumble upon on what was a discussion on the talkpage, albeit not one involving the annon who wrote the previous comment. On the very content of the article, I have only to say that Dimitar Blagoev, as many other Communist figures, had conflicting views in different periods of his life, views dictated by the Communist International's stance. Therefore, his speech in 1917 could not be viewed outside of the context of his preceding and succeeding stances. Which are also mentioned in the article.

And since this is the Administrators' Noticeboard and not one dealing with content disputes, that is pretty much enough talk on article content. There is an article talkpage which could be used to discuss the actual content. Apparently the annon felled it was only good to post a comment accusing another contributor of vandalism. And this comes to show two things:

A) That the annon is quite familiar with wiki terminology (using the term vandalism) and the way the wiki functions (in referring to this noticeboard). Therefore, I gather he or she is most probably a returning user who was most probably at some time blocked, after a notice on this very noticeboard.

B) The annon is not willing to enter any constructive talk, but instead prefers to accuse others of vandalism (when the case is clearly not such) and use the floating IP address to perform as many reverts as he or she pleases. --Laveol ^T 10:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It's vandalism because two reliable sources were deleted! Spin it however you will: you and whoever else is involved in the email campaign are vandals. Don't divert the discussion to my standing as an editor. I have always edited under an IP and have never been cautioned nor blocked under any of them. --101.112.129.98 (talk) 13:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Really! Where and when? Both references are still there and have been never deleted. However, maybe you can show us this secret edit, please. Jingiby (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

You simply duplicated them, substituted his own words with "promoted the ideas of Macedonism". Where does Blagoev say, "I promote Macedonism"? He says, "I am not a Bulgarian, I am a Macedonian, a Macedonian Slav!". Your type of bigotry should go back to the 19th century Balkans, and out of Wikipedia in the 21st. --101.112.129.98 (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Mind WP:NPA, please. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but your claim was two reliable sources were deleted. Where? Jingiby (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

You're excused. Right here. --101.112.129.98 (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as you can see, after my edit both references were still in the article with the clarifying sentence as follows: In a speach to the Bulgarian Parliament in 1917, Blagoev promoted the ideas of Macedonism.[8][9] Aren't they? Jingiby (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Now, Jingiby. That's intentionally misleading. We now know very well that he considered himself a Macedonian. He declared it publicly and, historically speaking, that's very significant. Why politicize his statement and beat around the bush? --101.112.129.98 (talk) 15:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

If you personally believe in something, and leading researchers are convinced of the contrary, this is a great mistake. Jingiby (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how the discussion here could lead to something useful. The case is not one of vandalism and the only point relevant to this page is the annon's comments aimed at other editors. So why don't we just turn to the talkpage and try to resolve the case there. Currently, the only thing we do is flood the noticeboard. --Laveol ^T 16:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Jingiby, please indent your comments to make the conversation easier to follow. Thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

If the discussion continues at the article's talkpage, nothing will be resolved, at least in a neutral way; unless a neutral editor joins the discussion, which does not usually happen. The outnumbered anon editor will likely get discouraged from the usually unrelenting Jingiby and simply abandon his attempts to introduce an interesting point to the article. The only changes [44] that have resulted from the time the anon first tried to edit the page until now is that the word 'welcomed' is now misspelled and that, in 1917, "Blagoev promoted the ideas of Macedonism". I think he did a little more than promote Macedonism; he explicitly stated, according to the source the anon has provided, that he is Macedonian and not Bulgarian. Yet, in the intro it still states, unquestionably, that Blagoev was Bulgarian. --Local hero ^talk 00:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I am indeed discouraged. Not just because of the lack of action for this article; there are numerous articles which the same three or four Bulgarian editors have hijacked. My concern is that the quality of many, many articles has been severely degraded because of these Balkan squabbles. These editors have a loathing for and an aversion toward the word 'Macedonian', so much so that they invent new terminology for Wikipedia (and why is the historical political status of the modern Macedonian language even relevant in an article about OCS?). And almost everywhere you see the same fallacious paragraphs with overloaded misrepresented references, not to mention the spamming on talk pages. Sometimes an article, which might only be a three paragraphs long, has two paragraphs discussing ethnic identity and zero to do with the subject itself. @Local: no neutral editor will ever get involved because (1) they don't to deal with the shitstorm which inevitably always follows, and (2) nobody really cares. --101.112.140.40 (talk) 02:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention "atrocities" about which only tabloids have written and for which there are no academic sources. --101.112.140.40 (talk) 02:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced material

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, I don't know if this right place but User:Smithbuses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) keeps putting unsourced material on East London (bus company) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), I've removed it and then I've requested a source for the information. But this user keeps putting unsourced material and I just don't know what to do. CourtneyBonnick (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:DR? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

For sure this is a content dispute and doesn't belong at ANI. However, I have looked at the article and reverted Smithbuses's changes to the article as unsourced/not source-compliant/unreliably sourced. I've also left a note on their Talk page (the editor is very new and seems to be interested only in this article) explaining the problem. At this point hopefully a simple discussion will resolve the issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Human feces.jpg

The image shown here claims to be on the bad image list. It is not, and considering its content, any vandal using it will likely be disappointed. It is also protected as a generic filename though it's no more generic than File:Human Feces.jpg, which is on the bad image list. I can think of at least three ways to resolve the inconsistencies, but all require an admin. Kilopi (talk) 01:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Immensely discussed Straight pride article was moved/renamed with zero discussion much less consensus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

 moved back Nobody Ent 01:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The Straight pride article was discussed immensely, including a recent huge AFD. Now, contrary to that result, and with zero discussion (much less consensus) somebody just moved / renamed it to Hetero pride. Aside from all of the other issues, it doesn't even match the content of the article. I believe it will take an admin to undo this. Could someone undo this and protect the article against moving? North8000 (talk) 00:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Nah, any nobody can move it back over a redirect with no edits. Nobody Ent 01:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't know that. North8000 (talk) 01:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:DGenao18 creating unsourced stubs for every MLB draft pick

As the title says, User: DGenao18 appears to be methodically creating a stub for every player picked in the 2012 MLB draft. Now, some editors have been tagging these with WP:CSD#A7, which I've been removing because being drafted by a major league team is clearly a claim of importance sufficient to pass A7. However, it may well be the case that these articles should still be deleted, via Prod or AfD, because simply being drafted is not (I think, I'm not familiar with baseball) a claim of sufficient notability to have a standalone article (I think they need to play an actual game first, or be separately notable as a college athlete). Dgeano18's talk page is a mass of deletion notices, along with some warnings. I've left the last one at the bottom, but the article creation seems to be continuing (either he doesn't understand what the orange message means, or is just ignoring all of the messages). The question is, does this editor need to be blocked in order to stop creating the mass of unsourced, likely non-notable articles? I'm not currently using my block button, so I can't do it even if I wanted to, but I'm not actually certain this warrants blocking anyway. However, if another admin thinks it does, please block forthwith (I'll be off WP for a few hours once I notify the user, so I can't respond for a few hours). Qwyrxian (talk) 02:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The WP:NSPORT standard is, as I recall, "participation in a game at the major league level", if they haven't previously achieved notability already. So virtually all of them should be deleted per WP:TOOSOON. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:BASEBALL/N is the specific guideline, which has been cited to the editor in question. I also noted a two week block was already issued, with no effect or change of behavior. However, I also note that very few of the articles created by this person have actually been deleted. I have not investigated whether these are active blp prods or not; there are so many articles. N419BH 03:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems that "very few of the articles created by this person have actually been deleted" is mistaken. 24 articles created by this user had been deleted before the time of the above post, and two more since then. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I went and deleted all but one as clearly non-notable. Marcus Stroman was a first-round draft pick, so I'll leave the BLP prod up since there's at least the possibility that his college career would be notable enough; if not it will be deleted soon. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:BASEBALL/N I think that one needs to go too as a BLP with no sources, and which contains no relevant information worth saving. The entire article is: "Marcus Stroman was born on May 1 1991 is a right handed picther who got draft in the MLB 2012 Draft by the Toronto Blue Jays in the First round 22 pick." We may be dealing with a non-English speaker which might explain the lack of response. I believe a block is necessary if nothing else for WP:CIR. N419BH 03:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Has this question been raised at the baseball project talk page? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Every single one of those articles could be sourced, I almost guarantee it. Every draft pick will be written up, at least in their local or college newspaper, if not on the bio page of the college baseball team. Furthermore, Wizardman deleted at least one Prod after it had been prodded for only 3 days. Some of these people may well be notable enough for their college play. I'm not saying that they are notable, but I'm definitely certain that BLPPROD won't count here...and even if it did, we need to wait the full 7 days to see if sources can be found. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Team webpages and college newspapers are not WP:INDY and dont count towards establishing notability per WP:GNG.—Bagumba (talk) 07:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I have posted a comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:BASEBALL/N is the relevant SNG and is less stringent than GNG. For baseball, there is no presumption of notability for a player that is merely drafted.—Bagumba (talk) 07:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

86.183.24.95

This IP address has been edit warring with me in two Mariah Carey articles about genres. Me and other users have told them multiple times that the genre listed is only recognized as an influence and therefore it is listed in the composition section as an influence, and nothing more. When I reverted the edits once again, the IP reverted and responded with this. This is getting on my nerves and somebody needs to block this IP or something. He's been told multiple times by me and other users to stop adding the genres and he will not comply. Thanks, Nicholas (talk) 03:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Nangparbat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

86.182.174.123 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) an obvious sock of banned Nangparbat (talk · contribs) please see Special:Contributions/86.182.174.123, can it be blocked please --DℬigXray 08:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

User reverting legitimate warning, also doing personal attacks. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 08:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Above user little boy with no knowledge whos stalking and hounding users should not be editing wikipedia ;) 86.182.174.123 (talk) 08:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Another. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 08:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

More.[45], [46]. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 08:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Would be nice if the child above stopped hounding other users he disagrees with nationalistic indian users must be blocked 86.182.174.123 (talk) 08:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Another. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 08:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The above IP editor assumes that the IP himself is not a child/little-boy/etc, no secondary sources presented whatsoever for himself. As such his comments are senseless and time wasting.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 08:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Obvious troll is obvious. Whether a Nangparbat sock or not (my money's on the socky side of the table), a prompt block is called for. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:ConcernedVancouverite

Hello admins and concerned members. I am posting this in order to bring your attention towards the recent activities of fellow user User:ConcernedVancouverite. I don't know whether he is too obsessed with his attachment with Wikipedia or not, but there are few things about him which are hurting my sentiments of expanding and contributing to Wikipedia.

• He is an active user, with good edits and works great as recent changes patroller. However, he seems to be is very much hurry to find and nominate articles for speedy deletion, without issuing a notice to the creator of the article to improve upon the concerned issues, or rather do those himself. But No. All he wishes to have, is to have them removed as soon as possible. Although this might sound as a responsible task to himself, it becomes a pain to those to who wished to work upon those articles. Give some time people. Let them rectify mistakes.
  

This is frustating, since they'll have to write it all over just because they copied some copyrighted text directly and did not languify it. Patience is a good thing to keep on Wikipedia.

• He made an un necessary sockpuppetry case against me, without undergoing a personal recce of the my contributions.

Kindly suggest me some ways, so that I can work and contribute avoiding him as much as possible (Though I respect him much as my senior and there is no personal offence meant here). Because it's easy to erase things than to create them.

• I myself know of 100's of articles which could be deleted easily on many grounds. But then even I try to secure and wikify them rather them nominate for deletion and show that I'm very responsible at my work.

Please try to understand the real motive of mine. VIVEK RAI :  Friend?  08:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Deleting stuff that editors would ultimately have to rewrite "because they copied some copyrighted text directly" is actually a good thing. Doc talk 08:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Judging from the reporter's talk page and contributions, the reporter appears to be a serial copyright violator, and has persisted in this behaviour long after being warned about it. I just found and tagged several recent pages of his, but don't have time to go through the full list (which admittedly contains a lot of useful contributions as well). Could someone please help in tagging or deleting the rest? I don't know whether a block is in order; he seems communicative but perhaps incapable of distinguishing between plagiarism and original contributions. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

There were copyvio problems at Commons too: Commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_28#Suspect_uploads_may_need_attention. I'll take a look in a while at the contributions here. —SpacemanSpiff 13:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG incoming! The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I had just started editing then and wsn't familiar of all these things. I was gradually made to learn by some good people here. So please don't take any account of the past.VIVEK RAI :  Friend?  08:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• I checked three articles and all of them were copypastes from the sources. In a couple of cases he copy pasted phrases intermixed with each other, but no original content. Deleted those three. If anyone else wishes to check the others, feel free to do so. Eitherways, I'm not sure it's worth wasting time over to check everything. —SpacemanSpiff 17:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Please tell me a thing. How do I get to know whether a website hosts a content within Public domain or not? I do not know where to find it.VIVEK RAI :  Friend?  08:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

If the material was published within the last hundred years or so, and there is no message explicitly placing it into the public domain, then it almost certainly isn't, and you can't copy and paste it into Wikipedia. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• • P.S. I think the section needs renaming, it doesn't have anything to do with the Vancouverite anymore. —SpacemanSpiff 17:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Probable copyright violations are always worth "wasting time" to check, since they expose Wikipedia to legal liability and bring the project into disrepute. As this editor is known to often copy and paste text verbatim from websites, I think we should consider all of his non-minor contributions suspect and examine them accordingly, or else just delete them en masse. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • No. You don't need to be tensed to work upon those. Now that you have brought to my attention the issues with them, I'll work over them since I created them. You don't need to worry.VIVEK RAI :  Friend?  08:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I guess I wasn't clear, I meant we shouldn't bother wasting our time to check, just go directly to the step of deleting or reverting any content contributions. —SpacemanSpiff 18:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • As I said above, you don't need to go into rampage mode for back to back deletion of the articles. I'll do it. Just paste a message with the issue and I'll try resolving it. Assume some good faith over me. Deleting all, would take much labour and energy and motivation out of me.VIVEK RAI :  Friend?  08:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
    • When a COPYVIO is discovered, it must be immediately removed. There's no grace period whatsoever that allows us to keep them up until they can be made "right". Just to be crystal clear on that point. Doc talk 08:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
      • There's no making right, either. A derivative work is no more permitted here than the original. Uncle G (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
    • actually, only if it is an undoubted copyvio that the copyvio must be immediate removed or the article fixed. There are many ways to handle this problem without deleting articles. when it isn't absolutely obvious, only consensus or the WMF can decide what is copyvio. Derivative works are a father complicated matter, as the article just cited shows, if you read it all the way through. A transformative use of a copyrighted work is not a copyvio. (What does in fact count count as such use is of course subject to interpretation in any case, and consensus is the way we interpret things like this, especially as many things that are not legally copyvios are prohibited on WP by the self-imposed limitations in our own fair use policy.) DGG ( talk ) 01:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

* There are some kinds of information, facts which cannot be altered. Suppose a text illustrates the structure of building as - " The building is constructed in a L shape. When you enter through the main gate, you see two fire proof water fountains .... " . Now, How am I supposed to present this content in the article without having a close paraphrasing. VIVEK RAI :  Friend?  06:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The building has an L-shaped design. Two water fountains are visible from the front gate. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing should really be a guideline. Dougweller (talk) 10:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I hand't noticed before that it wasn't. RfC started on whether it should become a guideline. Dpmuk (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

It should be, but I'm afraid the process is likely to wind up capable of being summarized as 'can open, worms everywhere.' - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Working towards a solution

This may be a competence issue. It looks as though people have been trying to explain to him for months what constitutes copyright violation, fair use, public domain, paraphrasing, etc., but he repeatedly questions these explanations, or makes other statements clearly indicating he never understood the explanations to begin with, meanwhile continuing to contribute non-free images and text. See for example:

• Commons:User talk:Tekxtinct#Copyright of images you have uploaded on Commons
• Talk:Shree Jain Vidyalaya#Regarding Copyright_Violation
• Talk:Pari Mahal#I had found this on the Webpage.
• Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 28#Suspect uploads may need attention
• Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 12#I mean this is for my brother(User:mathewJPH)
• Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 13#A question on Image Copyright Issues.
• Talk:National Institute of Disaster Management#Obtained the permission to use the content.
• Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 June 2
• User talk:Vivek Rai#A suggestion
• User talk:Vivek Rai#Copyright of images you have uploaded on Commons
• around two dozen templated copyvio notifications on his Commons and Wikipedia talk pages (the latter of which he usually blanks immediately after receiving)
• (IIRC) several more contributions to talk pages of now-deleted articles
• the entire thread here on ANI

If you take the time to read those pages you'll see him being warned about copyright violations over and over again, or him asking the same copyright questions over and over again. He's invariably provided with very thorough and useful information and advice, but none of it seems to get through to him; to take just one example, on 3 May he asked whether it was OK to contribute text for which the copyright holder granted permission for use on Wikipedia only. He was told in no uncertain terms that this was not sufficient, and why. However, today he tried to argue that the text he copy-pasted from the National Institute of Disaster Management website into the article of the same name was acceptable because the NIDM had granted permission for its publication on Wikipedia.

He seems like an otherwise bright and enthusiastic kid, but at what point (if any) do we concede that he may be, for the time being, incorrigible? —Psychonaut (talk) 14:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Sigh, I'm going to ask him if he'll agree to a "no main space and only one sandbox article" kind of an editing restriction -- essentially no mainspace contributions at all for a few months and he can work on one article at a time in a sandbox, which he'll technically have to get reviewed for copyvios etc before someone can review it and push it out to main space. Only after that has done can he start work on another article in the sandbox. Honestly, this is more lenient than normal in this kind of a situation but he seems to be asking questions, just not understanding the responses, so perhaps this may be worth a last shot. Does that seem like a reasonable solution? —SpacemanSpiff 18:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe he can just be assigned a mentor to work closely with him and review his new articles…? Is there a place where we can solicit volunteers for that sort of thing? —Psychonaut (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:ADOPT may be a starting point, but they focus on inexperienced users, and this might be a little different. Someone who does copyvio clean up regularly may be able to help but I can't commit to a length of time, a couple of articles maybe, but not beyond that. —SpacemanSpiff 20:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The Arbcom occasionally assigns mentors to problematic editors; where do they get them from? Given his youth, enthusiasm, and communicativeness, I think that a very patient experienced editor working closely with Vivek would be vastly preferable to asking him to agree to an edit restriction, or worse yet, blocking him outright. (Then again, I remember the last time I saw an apparently well-meaning young but uncooperative editor placed under mentorship, and it did not turn out well.) —Psychonaut (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Arbcom stopped doing that years ago. The last one where the Committee approved a mentoring proposal initiated by other editors who participated in a case was during the Mattisse case. It turned out to be very significantly unsuccessful, and on review of prior mentoring remedies, it turned out that most of them had similarly poor results. There were exceptions, but no logical way to figure out which situations were more likely to result in a positive outcome. Risker (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's my take:

• Commons:User talk:Tekxtinct#Copyright of images you have uploaded on Commons

Vivek Rai is co-operative, and the problems could be dealt with faster if commons upload interface was upgraded with a place to paste the URL origin of the image, in the wizard, rather than the complicated form.

• Talk:Shree Jain Vidyalaya#Regarding Copyright_Violation

Vivek Rai is co-operative.

• Talk:Pari Mahal#I had found this on the Webpage.

Vivek Rai is co-operative.

• Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 28#Suspect uploads may need attention

Nthep goes into unnecessary detail complicating the differences in language variant between Nthep and Vivek Rai, who talk past each other.

• Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 12#I mean this is for my brother(User:mathewJPH)

complicated into oblivion by another user who claims, at times, to be outside of wikipedia's mainstream demographic, despite being a native speaker of American/British English, with strong native cultural traits of the same. nothing to see here.

• Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 13#A question on Image Copyright Issues.

talking past each other, should have cleared this up with a very simple answer by posting the draft text for licence release so Vivek Rai could give it to the copyright holder who would then sign it. Instead, got a over complex discussion. Vivek Rai understood surprising well however, but the right answer was still not forthcoming unfortunately.

• Talk:National Institute of Disaster Management#Obtained the permission to use the content.

why is this even listed here at all ?? this demonstrates co-operation and competence.

• Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 June 2

co-operation and competence.

• User talk:Vivek Rai#A suggestion

can't tell who is correct here yet.

• User talk:Vivek Rai#Copyright of images you have uploaded on Commons

Both sides attempting to work together, using different eng:var's, meh, they should keep at it.

• around two dozen templated copyvio notifications on his Commons and Wikipedia talk pages (the latter of which he usually blanks immediately after receiving)

omg.

• (IIRC) several more contributions to talk pages of now-deleted articles

and then there was that thing that he did, don't forget to mention that, really everyone, I saw the whole thing myself, it's just like he is saying.

• the entire thread here on ANI

yeah. that too.

Overall, all editors involved are good editors, co-operative and competent. With patience, they can take advantage of the excellent opportunity to get some of the documentation written in Vivek Rai's dialect. Vivek Rai, is intelligent, co-operative and an extremely valuable asset to the project. There is no issue here for ANI, continuing with patience to work together would be a great path to take. Once you have explained the copyright issues to Vivek Rai, he can explain it to others in new supplementary documentation. Penyulap ☏ 12:23, 6 Jun 2012 (UTC)

What I have to say finally

First of all, thanks to everyone for being an active member of this discussion. Now with many people connecting to this topic, I'm seriously learning out from my fallacies. I have identified some mistakes of mine, which I would like to share and wish everyone here, work this issue to a solution generous to the Wikipedia Community.

3 Mistakes of my Life at Wikipedia

• Mistake 1 : When I first came into editing, I didn't know about different copyright concerns. I directly ambushed with loads of copying and Image uploads and eventually what happened is now known to everyone. Fellow Wikipedian Sir User:Nthep , helped me to learn a lot through a series of email and talk conversation. I belief that it is impossible to learn anything without asking every possible detail of the same. That might be evident to you from those stupid questions asked by me.

Rectification to this  : As I am learning in this process, I now find where I was wrong and you could see now that most of images that I have uploaded recently are under appropriate licenses. I didn't even know how to upload logos, but now I am. Issues are bound to be resolved over time. This time, it is the text copyright violation. I understand the gravity of issue and since then tried to follow every action I'm supposed of.

• Mistake 2 : Arrogance.

Rectification to this  : This thing, as it for everyone, turned out to be very devastating and misleading. I'm in the process of complete elimination of the same.

• Mistake 3 : Insincerity on my part.

Rectification to this  : Entering into arguments, misunderstanding people are two main mistakes committed by me. This is a true sign of in sincerity and I don't know how I became like that. This is ought not to happen ever again.

Possible remedies

I request you to kindly not impose any editing restrictions. Also, If you please overlook any previous history of those serial copyright violations as those were a stupid act on my part. I shall firstly try to spend some time learning the vastness of Wikipedia. I assure on my part that such actions are not going to be repeated. Since apologies to Psychonaut, User:ConcernedVancouverite and everyone else hurt unintentionally by me. It'll be an honor for me to work under someone's guidance. VIVEK RAI :  Friend?  15:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I suggest, as a previously uninvolved editor, that you agree to one voluntary restriction on yourself: if you have any doubt whatsoever about potential copyright, you will find at least one other experienced editor and get their opinion on your sandbox version before you post it to article space. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd second Jorgath's suggestion, why don't you start by finding yourself an Adopter? You can place {{Adoptme}} on your talk page and link to this discussion so that the adopter can know what specific assistance you might need. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 11:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest enlisting his assistance to write better, clearer, documentation for copyright images. It is well within his capabilities, and whilst he will find out this information by himself, anyone who wants to improve wikipedia would do well to assist him as a basic quid-pro-quo, help him understand faster than he otherwise would by himself, in exchange for his assistance, not just for his sake, but for the projects sake as well. Penyulap ☏ 12:31, 6 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Would you like to volunteer to help him out so that he doesn't run into any more copyright problems? —Psychonaut (talk) 11:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

inserting here as a reply to Psychonaut rather than PenyulapSeeking aid from a copy-editor would be one option. Copy editors generally rewrite a lot of stuff anyway at least I do when I copy edit Blackmane (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

How about a close on this one ? Penyulap ☏ 10:33, 8 Jun 2012 (UTC)

31.146.35.112 recent edits

Hi, IP 31.146.35.112 has been recently been in an edit war with myself on the Turkish people article. I'm pretty convinced that this is a sockpuppet of User:Ledenierhomme (see my reasons here:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ledenierhomme). Even so, they seem to be continuously stalking me on the Turkish people article and reverting my edits and rewriting sentences which confilt with what the citations actually say. I have tried to discuss the recent conflict on the talk page but they show no form of evidence to support their arguments (although they have listed a bibliography, the page numbers do not support the very few citations that they have quoted- it is evident that it is a mere copy-paste from main articles) and do not want to compromise... if one reads the recent discussion they say things such as "Thanks for playing", as if this recent conflict is a game to them. I was adviced by User:Alison at the Sockpuppet investigations page to ask an admin to block this anon.Turco85 (Talk) 12:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

User:HunterSilver / User:HasperHunter

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi everyone! I hope someone here can help me to resolve this issue: I have reason to believe that User:HunterSilver is a sockpuppet of User:HasperHunter, who was banned indefinitely on April 20, 2012 for abusing multiple accounts. I have these doubts because User:HunterSilver demonstrate the same, unconstructive behavior at List of Prime Ministers of Nepal as User:HasperHunter did some months ago. I hope this matter will be resolved quickly. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 12:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:DUCK. Start a new SPI and feel free to revert all edits on sight.Fasttimes68 (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Not even any need for that. Editing articles on Nepal and Spanish football? Similar edits? Blocked. Black Kite (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive behavior by Earl King Jr.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Earl King Jr. has been disruptive on the talk page of The Zeitgeist Movement. (This ANI is restricted only to the talk page of the article.)

He has deleted my comment on the talk page of the article. My comment contained (a) a response to a comment by another editor (OpenFuture), (b) a discussion of the lead section of the article, in which I tried to explain in detail why, and how, the current lead section, edited by Earl King Jr., could, and should, be improved significantly, and (c) a request for feedback from other editors on my suggested improvements of the lead section of the article.

I reverted his deletion. He then deleted the comment again. I did not revert his second deletion.

In addition, Earl King Jr. has been exhibiting extremely aggressive, offensive, inflammatory, bullying-like behavior throughout the editing process. In almost each and every comment he posted on the talk page over the last several days in response to my comments, he has attacked me personally. Initially I politely asked him to refrain from personal attacks and limit his comments to responding to the substance of my comments, but he refused to do so. I remained calm throughout all his attacks and completely refrained from attacking him (or any editors), but he consistently ignored the substance of my comments (in most cases), and continued his personal attacks on me, virtually in each and every one of his comments over the last several days, as documented here: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff.

Thank you and Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 01:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I looked at those lt diffs and saw no personal attack. I smell a boomerang. Fasttimes68 (talk) 01:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The refactoring complaint is valid, and Earl King's refactoring appears to be because he has tired of Ijon's lengthy posts. Apparently, others on the Talk page agree with Earl King. Technically, the many diffs are a personal attack as they focus on Ijon as an editor rather than on content. He repeatedly accuses Ijon of being biased because Earl King claims that Ijon is a member of the group itself. My assumption is there's some provocation for the accusations, but I haven't read the entire Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm...I don't see any sanctions as necessary. Earl King's refactoring is problematic, but I don't see a personal attack so much as a failure to AGF. Earl King should get a trout for those, and IjonTichy should get a trout for borderline battleground, perhaps? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 02:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I just see one editor passionately wanting his version into the article and several others who like to see the article neutral, myself included. This starts to look like POV-pushing. IjonTichyIjonTichy relentlessly argues for the version he or she wants but the talk page editors have rejected the type of logic and policy used for those edits and repeatedly have pointed out how it is that those edits are not neutral, based on o.r. or syn, and promotional. I boldly got rid of this repetition because the talk page is more or less like a blog now. I maybe deserve the trout but just got sick of trying to find some level to communicate on that would work. IjonTichyIjonTichy's edits are consistently rejected on the talk page but that does not stop the endless talk page reasoning of that editor on the same issues over and over again. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate that, which is why I thought that a trout is all that's necessary for you. I may have misjudged what's necessary for IjonTichyIjonTichy, but I may not have, also. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 13:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, no, you dont remove other peopoles talk page comments twice on a whim. Thats grounds for an immeidate block! If you gfel it inapprooproate ou should discuss it or take it here.Lihaas (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I see no basis at this point for blocking anyone. I see a long, tedious content dispute being thrashed out on the Talk page. Earl, your repetitive comments about Ijon's supposed non-neutral position are not helpful. Ijon, your long-winded posts on the Talk page and unilateral edits to the article are not helpful. Although the Talk page is hard to read - and that's mostly Ijon's fault - it seems to me that consensus is generally against Ijon's changes to the article. However, all of this is generally a content dispute and cannot be resolved at ANI. The personal attacks by Earl are relatively mild. The refactoring has been undone. I suggest the editors take this to WP:DRN or some other content-based process rather than continue this here.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DRN#Resource-based_economy is another article that is being processed on a WP:DRN platform brought there by IjonTichyIjonTichy. The article is Resource-based economy. The talk page on that one is also a contentious thing between multiple neutral editors many of whom crossed over to the current Zeitgeist article to also make it more neutral, in my view. Also Ijon removed information from my talk page recently. It was a post that he made congratulating me on my work and apologizing, so it is puzzling. I will stick with content issues from now on. I harped on his presentation because of its party line aspect from the group in question, and his returning the same edits over and over despite consensus being against that. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Ijon removed his own comment from your Talk page. Although the guidelines aren't 100% clear, removing one's own comment without any intervening edits, as was the case here, is not necessarily prohibited. He did it 6 days after he posted the comment, and it seems fairly clear to me why he did it - he was feeling conciliatory on June 1 and upset on June 7. :-)

In any event, I think we're done here. I've already begun a discussion on the article Talk page in the hope that the issues can be resolved. If not, you can take the content issues somewhere other than ANI, perhaps WP:DRN.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threat at Talk:Dieter Gerhardt

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Somebody claiming to be the subject of this biography made a legal threat here. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd say ... not quite, but reference to no legal threats is in order. Nobody Ent 10:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Clearly I'm missing something - what legal threat? Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It's the use of the word "litigation" in there somewhere, except it was more of a parenthical comment. It's definitely not a legal threat, but the use of legal terms makes it easy to misunderstand. Blackmane (talk) 13:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

If a user starts throwing the term "litigation" around, that qualifies as a legal threat. However, given that wall of text, it's not real clear what he's really saying. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I read that statemeent where he used "litigation" as meaning that he would obtain some sort of legally binding proof that he is who he says he is in response to another editor saying that there is no way to prove that. It looks to be a misuse of the word as there is nothing explicit saying legal action of any sort against anyone. The simplest thing would be to just get a clarification of what Dieter Gerhardt meant and asking him nicely to confirm that there was no legal threat implied, which Ultraexactzz has doneBlackmane (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The way I read it, he agrees that at this point his identity is not really important, but that if he does not get his way with the article, he'll start litigation. But whatever, I'm not really that much interested in that topic anyway, I'll leave editing the article to others. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unsnarling a process

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Frederick William Sanderson (AfD discussion)

Further information: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 107 § Plagiarism, and User talk:Moonriddengirl § Plagiarism

Here's the story so far: Jimbo Wales nominated this for deletion as plagiarism, which it was, and which Jimbo wasn't the first to spot. It's also a copyright violation, as Richard Dawkins' writing is obviously not out of copyright yet. ☺ Other editors marked it as {{copyvio}} and submitted it to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. I've started a rewrite from scratch, at User:Uncle G/Frederick William Sanderson. There's no question as to notability of the subject or anything else. (I have several tabs open in a WWW browser right now that are displaying biographical sources for this historical person.) The only problem here is that we have an edit history that comprises pilfered writing and that isn't free content. As MER-C points out, we really need this just to go through Wikipedia:Copyright problems rather than AFD. I'm a discussion participant, and I don't want to be the AFD closer. So a speedy AFD close in favour of a rapid rewrite and replacement via CP, which I'm going to try to do a little more work on now, is welcome.

And if you can help deal with Paul Randolph, Wolterton Hall, Boyle Farm, and checking Special:Contributions/Thegn for any more copyright problems, that would be good, too.

Uncle G (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Pardon my ignorance here but asking for procedure: Even though it is at AFD and listed for copyvio, can't you still list for CSD#G12, get it deleted and then the AFD is moot? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © —Preceding undated comment added 17:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Now my question is moot, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise closed as speedy delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ban for editor who refuses to sign any Talk page posts

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I just noticed a dispute at 'Wikiquette assistance' where an editor (Midcent) is complaining of being harassed by another editor because Midcent won't sign any of his Talk page posts. I found the entire Wikiquette thread difficult to follow because each time Midcent weighs in, he doesn't sign his posts there either.

While I recognize that it is not a strict policy to sign each and every post, this behavior by Midcent is disruptive and makes regular discussion much more difficult. I will occasionally forget to sign a post, and I occasionally go and sign a post another editor when they forget. The problem I see here is an editor who simply refuses to abide by a simple community standard and is causing problems as a result.

As such, I recommend that a topic ban be implemented on Midcent on all topics where he does not wish to sign his posts, until such time as he demonstrates a desire to behave more in line with community standards on this. While Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines is only a behavioral guideline, and within that signing of posts is described as a "Good practice", Midcent is taking this to an extreme. I found his complaint on Wikiquette exceedingly difficult to follow and wasn't entirely sure who was the complaintant until I checked the History. This kind of confusing behavior is unnecessary and stubborn and I feel that a topic ban in the manner described above is probably a fairly light remedy and while I expect that it will probably lead to a block later, it seems to be a reasonable first step. -- Avanu (talk) 19:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - The user has been here since June 2, 2012 and you two have him at ANI screaming for a ban because he doesn't sign talk page posts correctly?!?!? A trout isn't big enough, I hope the boomerang is. Carrite (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

No, it isn't because he doesn't sign correctly, it is because he insists on NOT signing, even after being told by a lot of people that this is as confusing as heck and he just feels like he's going to do whatever instead of taking a moment to look at why people are confused by his actions. Not signing is understandable if you're new. Continuing to behave in problematic ways after you've been asked to shape up is not. -- Avanu (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely oppose - Signing talk pages is good practice, but ultimately not required. The editor has been here 5 days, and you're asking for a ban because of something that is a strong suggestion, at best? I think you're going about this the wrong way. - SudoGhost 19:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Just look what he's doing. It's just pure and deliberate disruption for no reason. Why do we want him? DeCausa (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think a BAN is a bitey request for obstinate behavior. He can choose to sign posts and participate anywhere he likes. If he wants to not sign, he can stay on his own Talk page and talk to himself, rather than confusing the heck out of the rest of Wikipedia. -- Avanu (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it absolutely is bitey, and has no basis in any guideline or policy. Signatures are not required, there is no rule saying so, only "good practice". Want to enforce signatures? Make it a rule, but don't have something be a suggestion, then scream bloody murder when they don't follow what is supposed to be, at best, suggestion. - SudoGhost 19:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

based on responses here the community doesn't share your view.... and in fact he's now blocked. DeCausa (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Sudo, if you have a good alternative suggestion, I would love to hear it. I suggested a ban, because it doesn't prevent the editor from editing. FuturePerfect has implemented a block, which does prevent the editor from editing. I felt that a ban was a reasonable and decent balance, given the situation, but there may be some approach I didn't consider, and I am open to hearing your suggestion. -- Avanu (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Then the community needs to change how WP:SIGN is worded, because there is an issue here, a discrepancy between what is written and how it is being handled. I'm not saying the person not signing was correct, not by any means, but how this was handled wasn't correct either. - SudoGhost 19:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

With respect, you've missed the point. This isn't about WP:SIGN. It's about deliberate disruption for the sake of it. This isn't a newbie. DeCausa (talk) 19:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Merge thread with above: Could an admin take a look at this user. He apparently refuses to sign his posts. Sounds trivial, but I just noticed this at WQA where he brought an issue. The WQA thread is impossible to follow because he won't sign his posts and God knows what it's like on a talk page he posts at. No reason given why he won't do it - just looks like disruptive behaviour for the sake of it. DeCausa (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not required. I'm not going to sign this post. Please let me know if you do not know who this is.

Then again... Carrite (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• The above unsigned statement is clearly a desire to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. I said as much over at WQA, but the actual blunt wording here is pretty obvious. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree w/ban- Other than obstinance, there is no valid reason for a good faith editor to refuse to sign their posts. Ergo, we are not dealing with an AGF editor. We are dealing with one that has already wasted plenty of time and energy and refuses to budge. I've had my say @ WP:Assistance and I am moving on to better use of my time. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

"we are not dealing with an AGF editor"? That's not what AGF means. Your comment suggest a lack of AGF on your part. - SudoGhost 19:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

You're right. It does. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Midcent, you're kind of proving the point for us there. You obviously recognize that there is a potential for confusion, since you say for us to 'let you know if we don't know who it is', which seems like a logical impossibility since if I don't know who you are, do I just post a question saying.. hey, whoever that guy is that I don't know, could you tell me who you are? If we all behaved like that, we would spend all day trying to sort out these conversations. It isn't difficult to sign a post, and I would think you would have realized that by now, and this is kind of just silly. -- Avanu (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Recommend short term block to give the user a chance. Past that, just indef; we generally don't community ban such new accounts. --Rschen7754 19:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I've told him I'll block him indef if he doesn't start behaving cooperatively. This is not a newbie who hasn't yet understood how the software works, or who simply forgets to sign. He does it deliberately in order to annoy. This project is made for people who cooperate. If a user deliberately refused to cooperate, this isn't the right place for him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Let me be frank: I don't care about whether or not you sign your posts. It is a minor annoyance, and I can check the histories to confirm if I need to. It is rude, but it is allowed. What I do care about is that you are flaunting the fact that Wikipedia doesn't require this, and are literally taunting people with this fact. That is disruptive and clearly against WP:POINT. Myself and others have been known to block someone for doing this, in a skippy minute. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Blocked, since he continued. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• (ec)I'm not happy with a ban for something small. However the problem with talk pages is that a comment could be attributed to another editor who is responding to the same preceding comment. That is simply not acceptable. Add to that the difficulty of following a discussion with a number of comments that are not signed and you have a mess that becomes difficult to follow. If as it it appears above, this is being done to flaunt a loophole in the rules and to annoy, then using a hammer to get the editors attention may be completely justified. So yes, if a short term block does that, then go for it. This may also suggest that we need to review how open ended the requirement to not sign talk page comments should be. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
• Any posts made to the user talk pages, article talk pages and any other discussion pages must be signed sounds pretty clear to me. I'm surprised to see people telling Midcent that he's not required to sign in discussions, because our sig guideline clearly states that he is. A topic ban, as originally suggested, seems to me to be missing the point, which is that this is disruptive behavior, especially somewhere like WQA or ANi, where it can be difficult to track down an unsigned post in the page history. I would normally say that a block would be overkill - Midcent is far from the first newbie to have signature woes - but in this case it's obvious that Midcent is aware of the guideline and choosing to flout it to make a WP:POINT. So, good block by Future Perfect, and I would recommend that the block stand until Midcent agrees to behave non-disruptively and according to our policies/guidelines. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I missed that! FWIW I made a small update to that page at Wikipedia:Signatures#Dealing_with_signatures.27_behaviour_issues to reflect community norms, but what you note, Fluffernutter, may make it redundant. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

@Fluffernutter, the Talk Page Guidelines don't make it a requirement, they just say it is a Good Practice. (and also, guidelines are less strict than policy, which is why we've been saying it is technically optional) -- Avanu (talk) 20:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Avanu, while I understand what you're trying to point out, guidelines are really not optional in the way you mean. "Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply" is the applicable description, and as it indicates, users are expected to follow guidelines except in exceptional circumstances, like where following the guideline would go against common sense. Users generally are not permitted to blithely break guidelines just because they feel like it. In this case, there's no common-sense reason or exceptional circumstances; there's just an editor who doesn't think he should have to do what he's told he has to do, and he's being purposely disruptive in his flouting of the guideline. It really doesn't do him any favors to tell him he doesn't have to do something that community consensus says that everyone has to do unless they have a very good reason not to. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I feel dumb for having missed that. Perhaps the lede of that page should be reworded to make that more clear? It is easy to miss as a single brief mention tucked into a subsection of the page. - SudoGhost 22:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)xBIGINT Good block. As evidence of the disruption being caused, even in this very discussion specifically about an editor and his edits (including to this very discussion), there isn't even a link for that editor to help me see what's going on. Remedying...

• Midcent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

If he can decide to help build the encyclopedia that's great, but I'm not seeing much evidence of that having happened rather than lots of drama for its own sake. DMacks (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'm really scared that several admins seemed to have suggested that signing discussions is not required when that is factually in err.    Thorncrag  20:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• I see that it is required. Always had been told it wasn't. It doesn't come up often enough to need to check, and the disruption was high enough that the signature itself was no longer the issue, the POINTyness was. But I do stand corrected as to my previous belief that it wasn't required. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Good block IMO. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

And hard time for not paying your parking ticket! Wikidemon (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Complaiant cant preudice the discussion with calls for ban and limits. Thats false as it is. Warning/short term ban (at MOST) if decided by the consensus jury for this...BBOMERANG would be extreme too though, ut closeLihaas (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Er, what was that?? DeCausa (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

You'll have to excuse Lihaas ... earlier today he suggested that we could not deal with the entire behaviour of someone at ANI, only a sandbox issue. His foot might be in his mouth now. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Righteous. The policy (before ErrantX's clarification) stated Signature use that is intentionally and persistently disruptive may lead to blocking under the disruptive editing policy. Emphasis mine. Policies are not legal statutes requiring every infraction be explicitly listed. Nobody Ent 20:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Just an fyi for everyone. The user has been editing from at least two IP's, refusing to sign after being advised to so, long before June 2. \

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

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

In fact he's still editing using the latter. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 21:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

What a waste. Join the community; sign your posts. Even as he tries to "close" the situation, they still don't sign. Apparently not a great loss at this time (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The postings by him are still readable because he is the only one who isn't signing his posts. So, by not signing, he effectively is signing his posts. Count Iblis (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

@Count, I was thinking about removing your sig but ...--Bbb23 (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Good block. Signing posts isn't an option, it's a rule as noted earlier. I recall a couple of years ago [actually 3 years ago this week] there was a user called "Docu" or something like that, who refused to sign until he was threatened with banishment. Oddly enough, he was an admin. But at that point in time, the "you must sign" rule was made abundantly clear. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Just as a follow up question, is it even worthwhile letting Midcent keep their talk page access? At this point, they've moved from "I'm not signing because there is no policy that says I must" (which has obviously been soundly disproven) to "I'm not request an unblock until Fut. Perf comes back and sorts things out", which is just plain childish. Blackmane (talk) 08:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I took the liberty of adding the "YesAutosign" template to his page. If he deletes that and continues to refuse to sign, it will be clear that he's just jerking everyone around, and removing talk page access would be reasonable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, shucky-darn, they've locked the talk page. So much for that experiment. FYI, I have the "YesAutosign" template active for myself, to cover those rare occasions when I forget to sign. I don't know why it isn't simply automatic for every user, but whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nangparbat again

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

user:86.129.42.113 please block. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked by Elockid Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

 Nobody Ent 22:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Stumink, 88.104.219.74; spam of the rejected source necrometrics

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Stumink and User:88.104.219.74 appear to be the same user cf: diff diff and note edit summary. I have only templated 88.104.219.74's page with the advertising spam note. Necrometrics is a source thoroughly rejected by WP:RS/N. Sturmink / 88.104.219.74's contributions seem to comprise solely of excess mortality edits; and they are unable to hear clear community opinion regarding an unreliable self-published source. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

At 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia 88.104 and Stumink have been edit warring in a way which avoids the appearance of 3RR. I would propose that an administrator has a chat with them about their editing habits. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

necromatics is a reliable source. there is nothing wrong with using it. give it a rest. necromatics is not a soapbox or means of promotion, what are you on about. Also stop edit warring my reliable sources with reasons which make no sense. how is this website propaganda, scare mongering, Self-promotion or Advertising. Also regarding your accusations of me edit warring on Yugoslav page, i am the one trying to stop someone edit warring and my dispute with this edit warring was backed by numerous editors and no one backed them, so wrong again. please stop going around deleting my reliable sources and falsely accusing me of edit warring. stop edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stumink (talk • contribs) 23:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

You are spamming links to unreliable external websites. Necromatics has been firmly rejected as self-published by a non-expert. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

He has re-added the source after getting a final warning in his talk page. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to note that this edit also includes the destruction of higher quality references than the raw html links previously provided by Stumink/88.104 Fifelfoo (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• From taking a brief look, it seems clear to me that Stumink is adding information from an unreliable source. Necrometrics.com is not reliable - it is self published by one guy and wouldn't be reliable even if he were an expert (as the site has no editorial team). It has been rejected on at least two occasions at WP:RSN.

Stumink - my advice would be just to drop this; I really don't think the source you're using stacks up. Plus, the diff where you obliterate the Lancet source is particularly disturbing. You'll end up blocked if you carry on like this. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

How is necrometrics unreliable. It is a website which sources reliable figures and that is what i am sourcing. Filefoo continues to edit war my reliable figures by claiming the website is unreliable because the website is spam or promotion. How is the website this. They have given me no good reason not to use this website. They are edit warring. They never gave me a valid reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stumink (talk • contribs) 08:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. When multiple editors form a consensus against you, you should resort to dispute resolution instead of just reverting them. If you are obviously right, then make that obvious to other editors. When an administrator is deciding whether to block you for edit warring, he won't care whether your version of the article is better. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

If you wish to revisit the reliability of necrometrics, then taking the issue to WP:RS/N, the reliable sources noticeboard, which (as noted to you above) rejected necrometrics after detailed discussion as it is a self-published source by a non-expert. A consensus formed by WP:RS/N on source quality is usually quite strong. While RS/N is happy to revisit past discussions, given that the last extensive discussion was in February 2012, you would need to present strong and convincing arguments. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It's still used in a few articles[47]. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I am saying that when you claimed that the website was unreliable, you said a nonsensical reason every time like advertising and you never linked those previous wiki discussions. Why should i have accepted what you were doing when you reason made no sense and no editors at that point had backed you. Just saying. Regarding the reliability of the website. The continued reason was that the website was unreliable was that it was some self published persons own work, when actually all the information is reliable referenced figures to other experts, not some random made up stuff. When this website is sourced, they are in fact sourcing experts sources like Eckhardt, B&J, Nat. Geographic and newspapers like the guardian. You say this librarian is not an expert but he is a published author and his work is cited in 45 published books and 80 scholarly articles. He might actually be an expert and he is heavily referenced. Wiki always accepts random historians and newspapers, so why is this guy not accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stumink (talk • contribs) 12:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Question and comment Necrometrics has an exhaustive list of sources from which the site owner pulls his figures. Why is no-one looking for those books instead of using his site? As it stands, his site is a tertiary source already and is operating on a similar principle to Wikipedia's, so using Necrometrics as a source makes Wiki a quarternary(?) source. Stumink, the argument is that the site has no editorial oversight, i.e. there's no one checking over whether the author is referencing correctly. That isn't to say he is wrong, only that no one is checking it. Wiki accepts "random historians and newspapers" precisely because those sources have editorial oversight. Someone, somewhere will have checked the facts. Again, there are exceptions to the rule, hence the need for WP:RS to be followed strictly. The best option here is to use Necrometrics not as a source to be linked to but as a source of sources. Blackmane (talk) 13:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I actually did replace some of the Necromatics sources with the original source as said above, to stop people reverting and removing any casualty info or leaving incorrect figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stumink (talk • contribs) 14:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Which is the way to go. Like I said before, if there is agreement between yourself and the other editors to pursue this course, that is to use the site as a source of sources rather than as the source itself, there should be no problem. You'll get the casualty info into the article, which makes you happy, and everyone else will see that reliable sources have been used, which makes them happy. Blackmane (talk) 14:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you read our policy on original research, did you read the threads indicated in the RS/N archive? Wikipedia does not accept random librarians trying to make extremely controversial original claims about excess mortality because random librarians are not statistical demographers or society appropriate historians. Each source used must itself be reliable, reliability doesn't "inhere" because a self published website cites reliable sources—wikipedia would be reliable if this were the criteria. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Again wiki original research rules only apply to wiki editors. Not that the website did this, but websites independent of wiki don't follow wiki original research rules. Why would they. Any demographer would have to do there own original research. Nothing on the website is original research. It is just sourced figures from a variety of experts or other sources. Wiki is reliable but you just use the source from which the info on wiki was derived from and source that instead. I am just saying there is no big difference between sourcing the website (with all the figures and sources), than with sourcing the original book. This guy is really not a random librarian, he is a published author, who has been sourced and cited by many scholars and published works. Anyway dispute has been resolved. Stumink

As Stumink seems to have agreed that rather than using the website as a source, they're going to hunt down the books and sources Necrometrics uses, I think this can be closed. Blackmane (talk) 08:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blocking IPv6s

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

IPv6 addresses are coming, vandalising (2001:4BA0:FFF9:178:0:0:0:2 (talk · contribs), 2602:306:252E:B239:C5B8:9799:59BC:2FC3 (talk · contribs)), and some even appear as open proxies (2607:F358:1:FED5:22:61B0:6B0A:BFC8 (talk · contribs), 2001:41D0:2:F3B8:0:0:0:15 (talk · contribs)). I've indeffed a couple in rush and believe we must add guidelines to WP:IPB and WP:PROXY. Jasper Deng started a related thread on Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_IP_addresses#IPv6 and has a draft in User:Jasper Deng/IPv6. Admins need a simple message on how to block them. Materialscientist (talk) 06:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Can't we block them just like we block normal ones? I don't remember having any difficulty in blocking at that little IPv6 test wiki that they put up a couple of days ago. Nyttend (talk) 11:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Why would you indef anyone, let alone an IP address, for a single edit inserting youtube links into an article? Please reconsider your action. In the absence of any specific instructions, they should be blocked no differently than IPv4 addresses. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Block in context (4chan-like mass attack, and that wasn't just a youtube link, as I recall). Materialscientist (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

YouTube x 3, actually, but we still don't indef IPs for that. IPv6 is new to most of us, and the block was reduced, so no harm done. Unfortunately, the learning curve on this is probably going to be steep. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, I suspect that IPv6 addresses are less likely to be very dynamic in the near future (since the much larger address space means there's less pressure to allocate addresses on very short leases, at least until global population triples and all our toasters and hearing-aids become IPv6 capable) - in which case we might be less concerned about a long block affecting people other than the original editor. bobrayner (talk) 13:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I am curious to know how dynamic they are now, and whether (some of) the supporting servers are open proxy like. About 1/3 of IPv6 addresses I've met today looked like coming through some proxy servers. Materialscientist (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

At the moment isps who are offering it are giving a 1-6month lease, but i believe there looking at static ips because there is more than enough ips to give ever device in the world today a static ip but it will be dyanmic assigned by the dhcp server so most user will think it will expire but it doesntAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Copied from WT:OP: No, IPv6 misconfiguration wouldn't cause that kind of URL encoding; that's pretty good evidence of a Web proxy, as is the changing of http to https (to avoid certain firewalls and Web filters). I have blocked 2607:F358:1:FED5::/64 and 2001:41D0:2:F3B8::/64 as Web hosting providers (FranTech Solutions and OVH, respectively). The former is actually a /48 range and the latter a /40, but MediaWiki won't allow us to block ranges that big. I can understand why (the OVH range covers some 79 octillion potential hosts, if my math is correct, and it's probably not), but that might need to be changed in the future, because ranges that big are being assigned. — madman 13:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

That being said, even in context I'd have to concur that no indefinite blocks were warranted. — madman 13:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

ther enot really being assigned a huge block but a subnet of it, its like saying ip /16 means they have been assigned all teh ips in that range it doesnt neccessarily mean that but giving a /40 ip6 range does seem huge and strangeAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. OVH was indeed assigned a /40 block and they're free to use every address in that block. RIPE database — madman 14:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

That page also suggest they could have /32 block as well, but the /40 block wont be all possible ips in that ranges is wha ti mean if you where a assigned a ip4 100.0.0.0/8 it doesnt mean oyu have all the ips up to 100.255.255.255 it depends on excat allocations whihc ripe doesnt always tell you but would mean they have a lot of ips as with your ipv6 example they will have a hell a lot of ips but not neccessary all of htem, does that make sense? if not i dnt think i can explain it better since my english is poor, but i dnt think it will matter to much as that sort of block shouldnt be nessary and ad min can block idvidunal ipv6 address i thinkAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

All I can say is that doesn't accord with anything I learned as a network administrator. The network I administered was assigned address blocks by two different ISPs and we were free to use every address within those blocks save for one or two addresses which were used by the routers the ISPs gave us. Address blocks may be subdivided, but they may not overlap.

To use your example, the address block 100.0.0.0/8 may be assigned to an ISP (or some other local Internet registry). The ISP may subdivide that block for particular customers (registering the subdivided blocks with the appropriate RIR or not, as they wish), but they do have use of all the addresses in that block; they're all routed to the ISP. If they've given a customer a particular address they can't use it for their own purposes, of course, but they're free to reclaim it; they're the ones doing the routing within their block. But I don't want to argue that any more.

As for my range block, it's the same kind of block we apply to IPv4 ranges per the policy of open proxies. It's preventative given that there has been evidence of open proxies within that range, more open proxies may appear at any time (they're easy to set up on any hosted server), and there's little collateral as no contributors are expected to edit from that range. If a contributor does need to edit from that range for some reason, he can request an IP block exemption from a Checkuser. — madman 14:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

One of the issues of course is things are still in a major state of flux with lots of transition mechanisns e.g. 6to4, Teredo, tunnel brokers; each with their own assignment policies. Then again, perhaps things will be worse when direct IPv6 becomes common as each ISP has their own assignment policy. BTW, tunnel brokers are an interesting issue, I wonder if they may be more receptive to our community abuse response team then many ISPs. Definitely I know SixXs who I've used before is sometimes said to be fairly strict. 2001:0:4137:9E76:247C:A71:833A:FA41 (talk) 14:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

When the next MediaWiki deployment is done, the rangeblock limit will be raised to /32. Currently you can only do /64.--Jasper Deng (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

To put this in perspective, rangeblocking a /64 is less effective than blocking a single IPv4 address: it's expected that ISPs will hand out /56s to individual users. --Carnildo (talk) 02:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

That's not 100% correct; users only get /56s if they need address space or otherwise request it. Most if not all users should only get /64s. In some ways, being less effective is a good thing: a whole office building does not need to get blocked for one employee's mishaps, and rangeblocking will always be an option. In other words, a primary reason for IPv6 deployment is to avoid collateral damage from when one IPv4 represents an increasing number of different users.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive IP editor refusing to discuss edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 50.81.90.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Over a week ago I became aware of an IP editor making contentious changes to season articles for The Next Food Network Star, Next Great Baker, etc. Despite numerous attempts to engage the editor in discussion via his talk page, he refuses to discuss his edits and instead simply restores them to the articles if his changes are reverted. Because he continued to edit disruptively and refused to discuss, a report was filed at WP:AIV, but this was rejected with a suggestion to file a report here.[48] Rather than do this immediately, a last ditch attempt was made to force the IP to the discussion table, by asking for The Next Food Network Star (season 6) and Food Network Star (season 8) (two pages where the IP was very active) to be semi-protected.[49] However, instead of discussing his edits to these pages, the IP has simply moved on to other pages. Another editor contacted the admin who protected the pages and he was warned the IP.[50] As expected though, the IP has completely ignored the warning and continues to edit disruptively. A resent example is this, where he has removed contestant information, changed colour schemes and removed references, amongst other things. I reverted these changes today, but the IP simply reverted both edits that I made,[51] one of which was fixing the infobox title and not related at all to his edits.[52] This is typical of the IP's editing style. An earlier edit, at Next Great Baker (season 2), removed "plainrowheaders" from the table (plainrowheaders is required by WP:DTT), formatting, added inappropriate capitalisation and, like many of his edits, changed colour schemes.[53] I corrected the inappropriate changes,[54] but tody realised thaey've been restored to the article.[55] Since the latest warning, the IP has moved onto List of Chopped episodes, where his edits are being disputed. It's not possible to resolve any issues with this editor if he refuses to discuss matters. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm the second editor AussieLegend refers to. This is the greyest case of disruptive editing, and oddest, editor I've ever encountered. I've run across this editor occasionally in the past, and found a few questionable edits, but no worries. Recently, he/she popped up and began serial editing several of the elimination shows, notably The Next Food Network Star/Food Network Star's main article and various seasonal articles and Chopped (TV series) along with another program I don't watch. This editor does make some good edits, but among them are too many questionable ones: color changes for cosmetic reasons, removal of sourced and/or relevant content in what appears to be an attempt to make the various seasonal articles uniform (I think...), erroneous names of food items and misspellings of the names of food items. The problem arose when he/she ignored a variety of warnings, refused to discuss and limited his/her responses to an occasional contentious hidden note -- all the while reverting, and reverting, and reverting... ad nauseum. Nothing anyone did budged the editor: this is his/her private playpen and the articles will be as he/she wishes, come hell or high water, even in the face of two articles being page protected and a warning on his/her talk page from an admin. The page protection did have one effect; the IP requested the right to edit the protected articles on their talk pages, demonstrating he/she is able to understand Wikipedia procedures when it suits him/her to do so and to communicate in English. But playing by the rules? Not on the horizon. Most troubling, though, is the sheer number of edits he/she makes, particularly small, fiddly, sometimes pointless edits. As I commented earlier, it's as though he/she is editing the article to the point of destruction. Somewhere, in all these changes, there must be 3RR violations in addition to the IP's failure to discuss, failure to work toward consensus, presumptive ownership of articles (an accusation I find easy to fling around, but which might actually fit this editor) and general disruptive editing. --Drmargi (talk) 07:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Yet another example of the IPcontinuing to revert without explanation.[56]
• Examples ability to communicate in English that were mentioned by Drmargi.[57][58] --AussieLegend (talk) 23:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)]

I just added a detailed summation of some of the issues with Chopped (TV series) and a final warning. The complete refusal to respond to all the warnings is stunning. I think were we to check carefully, we'd find 3RR violations by now. --Drmargi (talk) 23:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone have any questions? --AussieLegend (talk) 06:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Not enough drama for the denizens herein, I guess. Got a deck of cards, Aussie? --Drmargi (talk) 08:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I should have called the thread "User:AussieLegend - potential suicide". That seemed to get a quick response below. Apparently somebody quoting song lyrics is more of an issue than an unresponsive, disruptive editor who keeps bulldozing his edits into articles with no regard for any other editor. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked them for 48 hours. GedUK  11:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully we might finally be able to get this IP to talk, although I must admit to not having high hopes. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank goodness. I'm not sure it's going to have much effect either, although I did see some signs of sentient life via hidden notes recently. But at least, we got some back-up at last. --Drmargi (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Y26Z3 and Legal threat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Y26Z3 (talk · contribs) has been trying everything under the sun to get their preferred version on the Lusitanic article. The discussion and intent aren't the issue, but the way the editor is going about it is becoming increasingly concerning: after coming off of an edit warring block, there was suspected sockpuppetry, leading to the article being full-protected, and now personal attacks, (I don't know how else to interpret "you are insignificant" and "use your brain cells") and now the user is making what appears to be legal threats. WP:LEGAL directed me to take this here, so here it is. - SudoGhost 04:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Good enough for me. I dont think WP:DOLT applies here; so blocked.--v/r - TP 04:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

McSly Harassment

Hi. Few weeks ago, I worked with McSly concerning the article École nationale de l'aviation civile. We worked fine together and the job end by this nice message on my talk page : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:80.13.85.217&redirect=no#.C3.89cole_nationale_de_l.27aviation_civile : "Thanks for implementing the changes. I closed the discussion on WP:DRN.--McSly (talk) 02:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)". Everything was fine. Yesterday evening, this contributor, who was looking carefully on my contributions, proposed two articles (Fabrice Bardeche and Marc Drillech) for deletion only one hour after it has been accepter by KTC. Moreover, he proposed two more articles for deletion I have created : Marc Houalla and Gérard Rozenknop. Seeing that the other contributors voted to "keep" these articles, he started to do harassment and personal attack on two contributors who accepted my articles and with who I have friendly good relationship: Excirial ‎ (he put on my talk page a very nice message) and KTC, by writing "a word of caution" on their talk page with a lot of wrong information http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KTC#Word_of_caution and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Excirial#Creating_an_account.3F. This is completely harassment and personal attack. All the other contributors are friendly and (I hope) happy of what I do to improve Wikipedia. Please do something to stop him doing these things. All the articles I propose are reviewed by another contributor with much more experience than me. I love doing things for Wikipedia, but with no harrasment. Thanks a lot in advance. 80.13.85.217 (talk) 11:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Was anything that I said to KTC or Excirial inaccurate in any way? --McSly (talk) 12:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I think there is some advice needed here for both sides. First to the IP who originally posted the complaint: I don't think what McSly has done amounts to personal attacks or harrassment. It's reasonable to follow up a blocked contributor from one Wikipedia who starts to make very similar edits to the same topic on another language. McSly might even be mistaken that you are blocked on fr-WP but it's still reasonable for them to investigate the curious coincidences. Can you confirm, 80.13.85.217, whether you have edited similar articles on fr-WP? Have you been blocked from there? If McSly is mistaken, then it would be better if you calmly and politely pointed this out rather than bringing it to ANI.

Secondly to McSly; while I understand your motives for questioning this IP, even if this is someone who is blocked elsewhere we really need to look at their edits here and judge them on their merits. I agree that the two articles on Fabrice Bardeche and Marc Drillech are borderline but even they have their defenders at AfD, so these are not clear bad faith article creations. The articles on Marc Houalla and Gérard Rozenknop moreover are very obvious Keep candidates, and both are likely to be snowed very soon. You really shouldn't assume that just because you have doubts about the editor who drafted them, the articles themselves are deletable.

To sum up, I don't think there's anything here at the needing administrator action. 80.13.85.217, I suggest you should be as honest and open as possible about accounts elsewhere and your history on fr-WP, to avoid all doubt. McSly, your vigilance is admirable but don't let it get in the way of making objective judgements about the actual quality of the articles you send to AfD. A more collegial and less confrontational approach from both of you should be possible to achieve and would be a good outcome. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Kim, thanks for the feedback. About the AFDs, given the edit history of the IPs, the page for Fabrice Bardeche and Marc Drillech look promotional and a way to increase the number of links to the IONIS_Education_Group which he seems to like a lot. For Marc Houalla and Gérard Rozenknop, well both of them were deleted as not notable with quite a big margin on the WP-fr ([59] and [60]) which is why I listed them here. I was also planning to afd the other former directors later but I guess I'll skip that part. Different Wikis, different rules I suppose.

On the rest, yes I just wanted to make other editors aware that the IP(78.239.175.7 (talk · contribs) and 80.13.85.217 (talk · contribs)) have been blocked for among other things embellishing and adding promotional material to private school articles.--McSly (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Copy paste from my talk page: "I can only talk about my contributions. On French Wikipedia, after couple of day, McSly decided that myself and another contributor are the same person. After investigation, this was wrong, the two geographical locations are not the same : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:Vérificateur_d%27adresses_IP/Requêtes/mai_2012#Demande_concernant_78.239.175.7_et_80.13.85.217_-_12_mai. He has done everything he could to put me out of the French Wikipedia and he is doing the same here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KTC#Word_of_caution and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Excirial#Creating_an_account.3F. I don't understand why because I didn't know him before. So I was blocked for 6 months due to the contributions of somebody else. Honnestly, no big dill, because I decided for the rest of my life to don't work on French wikipedia anymore. I really prefer the rules on English Wikipedia, I love English language and I really prefer the way of working here : when you are not sure about an article, you write it and he his reviewed by an experimented contributor who decided to accept it or no. Moreover, when I see how the other contributors are nice here, friendly, try to help you (especially when you don't have a lot of experience), give you advise, I am much more happy." 80.13.85.217 (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, would you care to provide any diff from me showing that I'm trying to "put you out of wikipedia" ? the only edit I have on the admin page over there is from February to notice that you are whining a lot [61]. You are forgetting to mention that when you say that 78.239.175.7 (talk · contribs) and 80.13.85.217 (talk · contribs) are 2 different persons, absolutely no one believes you ([62]) (see WP:DUCK). And lastly, since your block on WP-fr is "no big dill [sic]", would you care to explain why you've been using all those sockpuppets ([63]) to go around it ?--McSly (talk) 15:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

These sockpuppets are not mine and the persons who ask is now blocked for at least 3 months. You can see how honest I am on my talk page or here. Concerning "try to put me out on French Wikipedia", yes of course, you can see : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:École_nationale_de_l%27aviation_civile#Historique_des_directeurs, http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:Le_Bistro/17_mai_2012#.C3.89cole_nationale_de_l.27aviation_civile or http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_utilisateur:80.13.85.217. And what you are doing here is really against you. Can you explain me the goals of your two messages : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KTC#Word_of_caution and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Excirial#Creating_an_account.3F? Don't you think you go too far, and it is really harassment and unpolite? Can I do the same with the editors who like you? Please also consider the time lost for other editors and myself. It is much more nice to write article instead of fighting like you, no? 80.13.85.217 (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

You are citing general discussions about content where all the other editors agreed with me and disagreed with you and me notifying other editors of your block with the reasons the admins gave, which is factual. Don't see anything at all that does not fall under normal operations. About you denying that 78.239.175.7 (talk · contribs) and 80.13.85.217 (talk · contribs) are the same person or that the other IPs are not your sockpuppets, I suppose that anybody interested could check the edit pattern, read WP:DUCK and reach a conclusion for themselves. So far, it seems that the conclusion has always been pretty clear and obvious. --McSly (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

IP, according to this page on fr-wp this IP address is blocked there for 6 months for adding false information to articles. I asked you above if you'd be open and honest about affairs there - can you please clear up what this is about? Is it you? Why were you blocked? If it's no big deal, why haven't you appealed and had the block overturned? I am prepared to defend your edits here on en-wp on their own merits, but my willingness to do so reduces when we don't get clear, convincing answers to what is going on here. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

McSly, you didn't answered my questions. Can you explain me the goals of your two messages : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KTC#Word_of_caution and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Excirial#Creating_an_account.3F ? The other editors are not good enough to decide if an article is accepted or not? The other editors are not good enough to decide if somebody is doing good job or not? Or is it against me? You can also write to Nathan2055 because he just gave me a Barnstar? For Kim Dent-Brown, thanks for taking care of this. The only thing I want is to be able to help Wikipedia without having McSly looking all the time what I am doing. As explained above, concerning the French Wikipedia, they have considered (even the geographical locations are not the same) that I am the same person as somebody else and they blocked me for the contributions of somebody. But finally, the person who ask me to be block, is now herself blocked for 3 months and they are going to decide to block her for much more time. But that's another discussion. What I don't like, is these two messages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KTC#Word_of_caution and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Excirial#Creating_an_account.3F. It is so nice when you can help to improve wikipedia without fighting with somebody else (and for no reason, according to me, these two messages are unacceptable). 80.13.85.217 (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Since you are blocked for among other things inserting false information, since it looks like you are reproducing the same text coming from WP-fr here and since it is likely that the other editors don't speak French and therefore may not be able to check the sources provided thoroughly, I sent them a quick message to make them aware of those facts and to quote myself, "be careful when reviewing his submissions". Which is, considering your past, an extremely mild statement. --McSly (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

My past on French Wikipedia is very short. And you know better than me that it is not "for inserting false information" but for contributions of somebody else. I like to be judge of what I do, not what others do. So I can do the same? I can write to other writers to say something against you? Please be serious. What you are doing is not nice at all. Why are you doing this? Because you don't like me? What you do is forbidden by Wikipedia. The other two editors, as you can see, didn't reply to you and didn't care about. And my past here is awarded (see my talk page). Also, please consider that the rules are not the same. Here, an ip cannot create itself an article. You should read this: "This was created through AfC, discounting an argument of self-promotion" --Nouniquenames (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC). I think a good thing, as Kim explained above, is you forget me. You do your work on Wikipedia, and I do mine. And we both take care of not crossing each other. What do you think? Everything was fine until yesterday, why you suddenly decided to fight me? 80.13.85.217 (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

80.13.85.217, arguments such as "I'm being blocked because of what somebody else did" do not ring true and the more you repeat them the more suspicious I become. If your block on fr-wp has no merit, appeal it. Until you do, I'll assume it was justified. Given this odd background I don't think McSly has overstepped the mark in alerting others to your history there; so personally, I find your complaint at the original post to be unwarranted. If you had come here to en-WP and said "Here I am, I'm blocked on fr-WP but I've learned from my mistakes and I want to make a fresh start" then personally I would have had no problem with you. As far as I can see your article edits here have been acceptable and, indeed, I think McSly was wrong on taking at least two of your articles to AfD - but the AfD process will take care of that, and I trust editors there to come to the right conclusion. If you continue to make good article edits you'll have no problem here, but given your lack of frankness over your fr-WP account you must accept that people here will be watching your edits closely. I read French pretty well, and I will be among them. I won't post any further here as I've said my piece; I suggest the two of you follow my lead and let this thread die, unless any other editors want to chip in. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 18:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It appears to me that the article's being created by 80.13.85.217 are the exact same articles that were deemed problematic at fr.wiki - just machinetranslated into English. I don't know why AFC doesn't catch that but in any case submitting articles that you have been made aware are problematic in fr.wiki through AFC in en.wiki does not inspire my confidence in good judgment. I think that we should ask AFC to step up the quality control lest they come to be used as a tool for legitimizing articles of dubious merit. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Submissions are judge solely on the merit of the content according to the AFC reviewer personal understanding of en.wp policies and guidelines. The fact that a similar article might have been deleted in a different language Wikipedia is not a matter of considerations. fr.wp doesn't make en.wp policies and guidelines and vice versa. Who wrote it also doesn't and shouldn't come into it. In terms of the language issue, it's not perfect but as long as it is reasonably understandable, then it is my personal opinion that it should be accepted providing it meets all the other considerations such as WP:N, WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc. Prose and grammars can alway be improved upon later. It can't be improved upon if the article doesn't exist at all. There's already understandable complaints that AFC ask more from newbies submitter in terms of their articles meeting WP:MOS and other various rules before acceptance than we would from someone who just go ahead and register an account and creating it in mainspace themselves. I can only guess the number of articles in mainspace tagged with various cleanup templates that wouldn't be accepted at AFC and yet at the same time wouldn't be deleted at AfD. AFC isn't WP:FAC or WP:GAC, it's not there to wait until an article is perfect before it can be accepted. It jobs are more akin to WP:NPP to ensure obviously bad entries aren't created. Let's not ask too much of newbies editors, or for that matter volunteer reviewers. If you disagree with a decision, then PROD is that way, and AfD is over there. -- KTC (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The substance of my argument is that it seems that it can be a possible and even useful way for an advocate or COI editor to submit articles via AfC because he would then be able to argue that the article has been "approved" and that he is not responsible for any problems, and that a COI cannot exist if AfC editors haven't noted any promotional content. That would obviously just a way of using AfC to game the system. I did not intend to launch a criticism of AfC's work which I am sure is fine. But the problem is that the process seems to provide a loophole for COI editors and advocates. (note that I am not assuming the IP to be guilty at this point just noticing that the process has a loophole that he could be exploiting if he were a COI or advocate editor)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't deny that there are editors who have a COI utilising AFC. For that matter, I'll concede that there could well be COI editors that attempt to game the system using AFC. However, my question to you is what's your alternative? The standard suggestion to a editor with a COI is to {{Request edit}} an article in question so that another (non-COI) editor can take a look. I don't see how this is any different to what's happening at AFC, except we're talking about creating of a new article on mainspace rather than editing of an existing one. Content that's written by someone with COI doesn't automatically imply a problem. The issue are with potential NPOV violation. If as you state, a (truely) netural 3rd party don't see a problem with the actual content, then it's not an issue even if the original writter have a COI. By that, of course I don't mean if another editor notice a potential problem, then they can't raise it, but just because someone with COI can use AFC isn't a problem. In fact, I'll rather such a person submit an article through AFC for a second pair of eyes than to create an account and create the article straight in mainspace. -- KTC (talk) 05:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, part of the benefit to AfC is to allow for possible issues, including COI, to be resolved (net result being an article that is within guidelines). It is not "gaming the system," rather, it is utilizing the system for one of its intended purposes. That AfC volunteers are held to be so easily manipulated is not something that fills my heart with gladness. In fact, that (to me) is worse than McSly's actions, as I can (barely) consider the possibility of McSly's good faith. --Nouniquenames (talk) 05:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

What's going on over at Wiki Project Lebanon?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is suddenly some very odd activity over at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Lebanon!

New editor removing a great deal of page content and talk content - and other odd edits on other pages linked to Lebanon.

Could do with oversight ! Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 12:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• I reverted everything and left a note to the user. Since all their edits are confined to a very narrow time interval, it is unlikely they ever show up again.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you - I will keep a watch! Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 13:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit warring by Leo Corbett

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

For the past several months, Leo Corbett (talk · contribs) has been edit warring on the various pages relating to Power Rangers Samurai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). His primary issue is the addition of a fictional character's surname, despite it not being mentioned at all in the events of the program. As is evident from his talk page, I have been advising him not to add this unverifiable information to articles (as well as to not reintroduce content I deduced as being overly unencyclopedic). He has seen fit to add this content as far back as November (when the show was on broadcast hiatus), in January (when it was still on hiatus), and again this afternoon (despite the inclusion of a hidden message stating it should not be used).

"Leo Corbett" is clearly not getting the point and has not listened to anything I have told him in his 8 month tenure on Wikipedia. He has not done anything except add this content that he's been repeatedly told not to. The only other edits he has made are to add trivial notes concerning broadcast dates in the show's episode list and large swathes of information on a trivial item in the program, along with a mention of a future cast member who has still not shown up in the show. I am tired of having to clean up after him and baby him when he clearly does not plan on listening any time soon as he insists upon this unverified minutae's inclusion.—Ryulong (竜龙) 22:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

40-something edits in 8 months hardly looks like edit-warring to me. What administrator action are you looking for? Blocking some kid for adding cruft to the article about their favourite TV show?
If you are dealing with the area of children's TV shows, expect childish editing. You can chose to tidy up after them, or not to tidy after them. You're not going to speed up the maturation of their brain with a WP:AN/I report.--Shirt58 (talk) 06:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

40-something edits in 8 months where one constantly adds back material that others have advised to be verifiable sounds like a form of edit-warring to me. Just long and drawn out. I appreciate that you were kind to Leo Corbett (talk · contribs) to point out the guide for beginners, but I can understand Ryulong's frustration and if it's not WP:AN/I report, there is nowhere else to air grievances like these. -- Jun.rhee (talk) 07:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

If it were 40 mixed edits in 8 months it would not be edit warring, but 40 edits repeatedly adding in the same material repeatedly despite getting reverted each time falls under the definition of slow-motion edit warring and is as blockable as rapid fire edit warring. Whether their brain matures is irrelevant, the whole point is to dispense with sustained disruptive activities which this clearly is. Blackmane (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

On those grounds, I propose that an official warning be given this user, and that any further disruption of this nature by this user be dealt with by immediate blocks of progressively longer duration, beginning at 24 hours. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Warnings are not just within the purview of admins, any of us can warn users. I've dropped a final disruption and an edit warring warning on their talk page. Maybe that will give them a heads up. (Note: I'm not an admin) Blackmane (talk) 10:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I note that no sysop or established editor in good standing has commented on this discussion, or has added comments to the user's talk page. I would suggest that this is because they have refrained from participation in the cyberbullying of a child.--Shirt58 (talk) 14:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Whether or not there has been a crossing of a Bright-line rule here, whether subtle or obvious, I strike my comments. Apologies will follow.--Shirt58 (talk) 12:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

No, it's because admins generally don't make any move on users who have not been previously warned about what they're doing * might have to strike this statement if it turns out that they've been previously warned. You might want to strike your suggestion that no "established editor in good standing has commented", which suggests that you find that those of us who have commented are not in good standing, and that there is "cyberbullying of a child" going on here. Both of those are personal attacks. Blackmane (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Those are indeed personal attacks; Shirt58, consider yourself warned. As for the OP issue, it's outside my area of exerptise, alas, hence my lack of comments. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes indeed. I'm not particularly insulted, because I can AGF it. But I'm surprised I'm not considered "an established editor in good standing." Well...the reason I can AGF it is that "established" is so loose a term that I can see how I'm not considered "established," but I'm pretty sure I'm "in good standing," since I've never been blocked and I believe the only warning I've ever had was "remember to sign, please." - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to do an NAC on this one. Leo Corbett hasn't edited in a couple of days so nothing can be done until they come back. Blackmane (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SK Foods

After several attempts to have the article SK Foods deleted as an attack page, with allegations that it was all a media fraud, this article was turned into a lengthy POV whitewash of the company, and making all sorts of unsourced BLP allegations and accusations against named publications and named individuals. For example, "Mr. Salyer was a victim of prisoner abuse nearly losing his life to health failure, at the hand of convicted prisoner abuser, [name redacted]" (this had a source, but the source says nothing about abuse of Mr. Salyer).

I've reverted it all back to the stub it used to be, but a look at the pre-revert version shows masses of this - read it and cringe. User:StoneforGoliath is the author of all this, and presumably is responsible for the IP edits too. I've also put a temporary full protection on the article until what to do about it has been decided.

Why am I bringing it here? It's late and I'm tired, and I can't face a closer examination of the article right now, but something needs to be done - maybe block the editor (who has had one IP blocked, assuming it's the same person - all IP addresses are coming from the same region of France)? Or maybe extend the protection? But some admin action is needed - and sorry to dump it on others here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

In the edit history there are three different editors attempting to correct the issues with the SK Foods page, however Boing! said Zebedee is protecting the stub from improvement. That editor is clearly trying to protect the people behind the issues and is not really a Wiki editor. There are literally a hundred thousand people in witness now in the SK Foods issues and they want the issue handled properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StoneforGoliath (talk • contribs) 21:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for "issues" to be "handled properly". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Also WP:NPA. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK seems to apply here too. If the guy suffered in prison, that's unfortunate, but it's really got nothing to do with the food store. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Textbook WP:COATRACK. If the "incident" is notable, then it should be titled as such, but right now, the article is everything Wikipedia is supposed to not be. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, if the most notable thing about that store was the legal case, then that could be the focus of the article, as it seems to be at the moment. The question might be, is the store really notable at all? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Conpsiracy theories are not relevant here Blackmane (talk) 08:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[BLP violations redacted -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)] — Preceding unsigned comment added by StoneforGoliath (talk • contribs) 08:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• OK, I've been over the pre-revert version of the article a bit more closely now, and it was packed with unsupported criminal allegations against a number of named individuals and named companies, and original analysis based on a huge conspiracy theory - there were sources cited, but they did not support the claims being made. It was an egregious violation of WP:BLP policy, which I think should not be allowed to stand in the article history - so I have rev-deleted all of the offending versions. I also think the hatted allegation just above constitutes a serious BLP violation and it should be rev-deleted too, and if nobody disagrees I will do that shortly. Regarding User:StoneforGoliath, I think what is needed is a warning not to break BLP policy again, followed by an indef block if the same kind of editing is repeated. Notability? Well, SK Foods was more than a store - it was a major supplier to the tomato produce market. But if there are doubts, maybe the best thing to do is take it to AfD and let the community decide. I'll leave it a little while to see if anyone disagrees with my take on this, and if not, I'll go ahead with these proposals. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Said hatted allegation makes me wonder if WP:COMPETENCE might be in play too... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • No argument on revdel. I'm debating sending the article to AFD, if someone doesn't beat me to it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks for nominating it - it was better coming from someone other than me, I think, and I shall keep myself uninvolved from the AfD discussion. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
• OK, I've left an explanation/warning at User_talk:StoneforGoliath#SK_Foods_2, and I've unprotected the article. I should be able to handle it now - thanks for the help, folks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • And they've started adding masses of blame-avoidance puffery and "this company was wonderful" stuff again, so I've reverted again and given a final warning - I will block next time. (Just noting this here because we appear to have someone very persistent and I want to be as open about my actions as possible) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Just poking around a bit... but is this also part of the issue? - J Greb (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Perhaps. Looks like he has a whole nest of UNDUE there. Not sure if MfD is appropriate, but it might be. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
        • Same unsupported criminal allegations against named individuals and organizations, which is a blatant BLP violation - I've deleted it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Murder of Lin Jun and Luka Magnotta

Could an uninvolved admin please take a poke at a situation here? Put in simple terms, Luka Magnotta is the only suspect in an infamous Canadian murder. He's had some previous minor notoriety (not enough to warrant his own article at that point), but some editors wish to move the article to Murder of Lin Jun. IMO, the requested move could be considered "no consensus" at the absolute best, and more likely rejected. None the less, some editors have chosen to fork the former article to the latter title anyway (via a copy-paste move without attribution) while others have reverted and redirected the Lin Jun article back to Magnotta. Rather than allowing a multi-editor edit war to escalate, I would appreciate if someone could settle the requested move (it has run for about a week now) and place the article at the title they feel has consensus support, perhaps protecting whichever redirect is left behind - or even deciding that both articles are valid. (I will leave notices of this thread at both article talk pages, but won't at any individual user talk pages since I have not commented on any editors by name). Resolute 14:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

See also Talk:Luka Magnotta#Re-forking of this article. Resolute 14:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Do note that there is a third option, which is to leave the unduly weighty play-by-play on Luka Magnotta Internet self-promotion right where it is and WP:SPINOUT just the Murder of Lin Jun (which currently is pretty much the latter half of the article) to Murder of Lin Jun. A spinout is not a WP:Content fork and can be legitimately proposed with {{split section}}; I'd already used {{edit semiprotected}} to ask that tag be placed on the section "Murder of Lin Jun" (the one notable event in what was otherwise a non-notable mess that failed AfD twice Luka Magnotta, Luka Rocco Magnotta in 2008) but one user is attempting to prevent the split (spinout the murder itself) from even going to any form of vote. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 14:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not so much that they want to move it. The problem is there has been an ongoing RFC regarding the move wherein the majority oppose a move but there's no clear consensus and now instead of moving it, opponents of leaving it at Luka Magnotta are creating a content fork. BLP1E doesn't apply because he's notable for more than just an alleged murder and has appeared in the news media going back nearly 10 years. Additionally, the claims of "weight" are nonsense, just another misuse of guidelines to try and force a preferred version. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

10 years? Really? There was one false rumour in 2007 in which he claimed (using Internet sockpuppets) to be romantically involved with Paul Bernardo's notorious accomplice Karla Homolka only to then run to the Toronto Sun and deny the "affair" (likely not notable, as the event was of his own fabrication). There was some animal abuse noted by the UK Sun tabloid (sibling publication to News of the World) in 2010 and that's about it. The murder is notable, he was Interpol's most wanted international fugitive for a few days, but consensus is (two AfD's) that he was not notable in 2008, period. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The murder is notable for sure but not Eric. Caden ^cool 14:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

That's your opinion. Unfortunately for you, the clear majority of editors disagree. This conflict is a procedural issue, so there's really no need to begin rehashing everyone's opinions on the notability of the murderer vs. the murder. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I dont care if the majority disagrees with me or not. The fact is the murder is notable while Eric isnt. Caden ^cool 15:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but majority rules on Wikipedia. Deal with it. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 15:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Um Crakkerjakk..care to explain your edit summary: "Narcissism is so unbecoming." Caden ^cool 15:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

So you admit that the creation of the fork is a blatant end-around the RFC (which is no consensus) and an attempt to get the article deleted? Your denials are bogus and you keep (deliberately) missing the point. A 4 year old AFD means very little and has nothing to do with the entire body of coverage. There may not have been enough to write an article 4 years ago, that does not mean that what he was doing 4, 5, or 6 years ago, which received coverage, does not come into play whatsoever. Whether or not he started the Homolka rumors himself as a publicity stunt is irrelevant, as we have MANY articles about people whose notability is built on publicity stunts. He also appeared on a gay lifestyle broadcast [64]. I can go on but obviously nothing I say will make any difference since you're determined to get this article deleted. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The murder investigation is notable. The nonsense about Homolka is not, as he in all probability fabricated that himself. The consensus from the original two AfD's is valid. The rest of this is a classic WP:BLP1E, except that the page is now becoming a WP:HATRACK for every claim about the suspect, notable or not, to be picked up by media desperate for anything that looks vaguely related to the case and then dumped here even if much of it is really not news. All of this "Internet controversy" does need to be checked for notability even if it is supposedly sourced. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 13:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

We've had the discussion of a proposed move for over a week. The clear majority was opposed to it. I'm not attempting to prevent a vote on a split (as I've repeatedly stated on the talk page numerous times). I objected to the forking of the page while the discussion regarding a move was still ongoing, let alone the fact that no discussion to fork was even proposed before it was done (which I believe should be proposed only after the discussion regarding the move is concluded). Bottom line - there are a couple of editors who are throwing a little tantrum because they didn't get their own way with regards to their proposal to move (even the original editor who proposed it has conceded that it's failed), so they're trying to side-step the process by taking it upon themselves to fork the article (flagrantly disregarding the fact that this action had already been reverted several times). --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you were attempting to prevent any discussion from leading to a vote on the split here and again here. This is not constructive. I don't agree with the two pages overlapping in their entirety, but {{split section}} on the "Murder of Lin Jun" only is a valid WP:SPINOUT and should be opened for debate. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

As I explained in my edit summary. That edit was deceptive. It was not signed by the editor who created it, and gave a distinct false impression that IncredibleHulk had begun a new thread and then posted in it. It was basically the equivalent of attributing words/intentions to IncredibleHulk without his knowledge (as can be clearly seen when the previous edit of the page is viewed in it's entirety). --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 15:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

If your objection is that an edit is unsigned, there's {{unsigned}} or whatever SineBot uses... no need to remove content added by others. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Nice try, but the editor did sign their post right above it in the same edit. It wasn't an oversight. Even if it was signed, where it was placed was deceptive and distorted another editor's intentions without their knowledge. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems clear enough at this point that your intention is to oppose even the conduct of a talk-page debate on the ({{split section}} on "Murder of Lin Jun") based on your edits at Talk:Luka Magnotta#Split. That section contains a {{edit semiprotected}} requesting "Add {{split section|Murder of Lin Jun|Talk:Luka Magnotta#Split}} to the top of the section 'Murder of Lin Jun'." You opposed adding the tag because you wanted to silence the debate on any WP:SPINOUT and the {{edit semiprotected}} was closed with "no consensus" on the basis of your objections alone. Please let the discussion on the WP:SPINOUT take its course instead of attempting to silence the debate itself before it starts. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

As I've stated before. I'm not necessarily opposed to a split (I honestly have no opinion on the subject). I'm opposed to having two overlapping discussions/votes happening simultaneously. I said in the discussion to move thread over two days ago that a split could be one possible solution to a move. It's sort of difficult to float the idea that I was opposed to something I suggested over two days ago before this current discussion. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Apparently the article has been "created" [65] (for the 5th time) and the open move request is considered "settled"[66], with users involved suggesting to start a "merge discussion". Skullers (talk) 18:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we have two articles that say basically the same thing, one of which is a copy-paste move without proper attribution. This is clearly an end run around a move discussion and is fairly disruptive. Can an uninvolved admin please wade in to help settle things? AniMate 19:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a straightforward violation of WP:CONTENTFORK, where "redundant content forks" are listed under "Unacceptable types of forking". The content is not merely redundant (i.e., an alternate take on the same topic) but word-for-word cut-and-pasted for the most part. Disputed opinions over the correct title of an article are settled through WP:RM, not by a cut-and-paste copy to a new title. Doing such a cut-and-paste while a proposed WP:RM to that very title is still in progress is particularly disruptive. Although administrator intervention would be helpful, I think this is straightforward enough that any editor can step in and revert. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no. What has been split out is basically one section, not the entire article. This is by design. I have no objection to using {{split section}} and discussing this, but no one appears to want to do so. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

No matter what you say it still is a copy paste move without proper attribution. Sorry the requested move discussion didn't go the way you wanted it to, and I'm sorry the parent article is semi-protected and you can't edit there. Discussion is ongoing at Talk:Luka Magnotta and this fork was only made when it started to look like consensus was against moving to the fork's location. AniMate 19:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Just so it's clear, cut and paste moves or splitouts without attribution are copyright violations. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The proper way to fix attribution issues where the source is known is to add the attribution, not delete content for the sake of doing so. Otherwise, we might as well ask any of the other-language wikipedias who used content from en: to go and delete all of those pages right away.

There is no ongoing {{split section}} discussion on Talk:Luka Magnotta, just the WP:RM of the entire page. The split of the murder itself to Murder of Lin Jun should be discussed but WP:RM is not a substitute for doing so and the outcome of WP:RM is not a vote for or against splitting the page (which has some severe WP:BLP1E issues which remain unaddressed). 66.102.83.61 (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to turn the article back into a redirect. You can initiate a discussion on the split at Talk:Luka Magnotta. AniMate 20:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I've tried requesting {{split section}} be added to the section "Murder of Lin Jun" and this was declined. That step is necessary to start the WP:SPINOUT discussion. I'd suggest discussing this before redirecting anything... especially since the redirect you propose implicitly states a WP:BLP is guilty of a WP:CRIME for which he has not yet been charged nor tried. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I've added the template and a section to discuss the possibility of a split. AniMate 20:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if it's considered as an administrative action on your part, but I've removed the template because imo opening another vote at this time will only make things worse as there's already at least 3 different threads on the same issue. Skullers (talk) 21:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

There is only one thread of !votes on whether to split the page, not three. The proper way to get the template to point to that one specific thread (and not others) is {{split section||Talk:Luka Magnotta#Split discussion}} — not arbitrarily removing the template while the discussion is still open. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 03:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Restored the template. Isn't there a talk page template for it, like for move requests? Didn't seem like a way to officially open one but it is already underway. Skullers (talk) 05:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Um, spinout is based on article length, and it does not justify a split on those grounds. You've used it as a rationale at least 7 times now, and it is not a valid reason as it is. Skullers (talk) 20:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The Luka Magnotta article should be kept and the Murder of Lin Jun be moved into the other article. Thats my take on this.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• HELP Can we please get an uninvolved admin to look over the RFC and make a determination of consensus so this dispute can end? The Garbage Skow (talk) 02:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Requesting an interaction ban between Writegeist to me (R-41) and the reverse from me to him

I, R-41 and Writegeist got into an argument a few days ago that resulted in both of us being highly uncivil towards each other. I requested that Writegeist no longer comment on my talk page, I told the user that I would no longer talk to them on their talk page. He has done so, but has used his talk page as a soapbox for statements of defamation against me, noting multiple examples of negative or uncivil behaviour by me while not mentioning any positive behaviour by me. I told Writegeist that if he has a problem with my behaviour he can report it here to Administrator's noticeboard. And he is correct that I have been uncivil in the past few days, but he has also been uncivil to other users. In fact it was an uncivil remark to a WQA volunteer named IRWolfie- (who reported him for trolling in response), that got me angry at him. Here is the diff that shows Writegeist deleting the section he created as a defamation section against me and that I responded to, deleting it in frustration over me returning to edit my response: [67]. As can be seen in the way Writegeist wrote the comment it is an example of Wikipedia:Don't call the kettle black. Also, it is not appropriate for a user to use their talk page to intentionally make defamation about a user.--R-41 (talk) 04:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

As per WP:BOOMERANG, Writegeist will very likely bring up that I have been highly uncivil to him and a few other users. I plead guilty to violation of WP:CIVIL in recent behaviour towards Writegeist and on WikiProject Yugoslavia, I acted in frustration and violated it. However in spite of my disagreements with other users such as Direktor on WikiProject Yugoslavia, I have agreed with Direktor in the past and have cooperated with Direktor.--R-41 (talk) 04:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Back to the point of my request. As the interaction between me and Writegeist has been almost completely negative and that we have a strong dislike for each other, I am requesting an interaction ban between Writegeist to me, and that it include a ban on conversation about me per the criteria described on Wikipedia:Banning policy#Interaction ban as "make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly;", along with all the other criteria for interaction ban. In order to address potential concern for such behaviour by me from Writegeist, I am additionally requesting an interaction ban on me to Writegeist.--R-41 (talk) 04:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

You have not provided sufficient grounds for Writegeist to be sanctioned and have even said that you yourself should be sanctioned. You have made numerous complaints about other editors and should now stop. This discussion thread should be closed. TFD (talk) 04:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Sigh, what is it that's wrong with me then TFD? I don't know, I get frustrated - I have had a really REALLY crappy two weeks in the real world - I had a relatively peaceful but still emotionally-upsetting breakup with my partner whom I've been in a long-term relationship with in the last two weeks, so don't be so snippy about me - I've tried to be civil, and yes I have been uncivil because I am f-ing mad at myself. I gave you the diff to look at, but you won't even consider it because you think I am a pain on Wikipedia If you, an administrator whom I have discussed with and cooperated with in the past won't take me seriously, then what can I do? I am not crying wolf here, this user is making defamatory comments about me on his talk page after I requested that we no longer have interactions. I simply do not want this user to make defamatory comments about me on his talk page or elsewhere. Is that so wrong to ask for it? Please go ahead and ban both me and him from talking about each other any further anywhere on Wikipedia, I don't want to be hounded by this user's defamatory comments anymore.--R-41 (talk) 04:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I saw the comment you made TFD and removed, but I will address its content. I did not post this exclusively due to the personal problem I am having - I said that because that is probably the main reason why I have been highly aggravated and admittedly very uncivil in the past few weeks. I specifically said exactly what I am requesting, Writegeist has been writing defamation about me on his talk page after I requested that he no longer post on my talk page and told him that I would no longer post on his. He has continued to make remarks about me and defamatory material about me on his talk page, as I showed you in the diff. If he wants to report my uncivil behaviour he can report it here. I am asking for an interaction ban - it would only ban him from talking to or about me and me talking to him or about him. That is it.--R-41 (talk) 04:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• Requesting an iban is pointless, because you can simply choose not to interact with someone if you wish. What you are actually asking for is some community sanction to be placed on Writegeist to proscribe him from talking about you on his talk page. I can't see how this is appropriate - I can only see a handful of mentions of you on his talk page and none of them constitute defamation as you claim. The diff you posted is a silly comment by him which doesn't really accomplish anything, but I can't see how it's uncivil really, he's entitled to his opinion. If you don't like what you read on his talk page, my simple suggestion would be not to go there. Just ignore it; who cares what he writes on his talk page? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 05:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • What do I do if Writegeist interjects in a discussion that I am in, and posts comments that show every bad thing I have done in the discussion? He did this on WikiProject Yugoslavia. Am I supposed to run away from anything that I was at that he enters into? The definition of defamation on Wikipedia corresponds with what Writegeist did in the diff I posted here, the definition includes "the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image". I have ignored his earlier comments I noticed he made, but what he did write about me on his talk page about my editing behaviour is important to me, because it demonstrates he is carrying a grudge against me and I believe that measures should be taken so that he is not able to interject in further discussions I have, with the express intention of discrediting me or personally attacking me there.--R-41 (talk) 05:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Well if you want to get legalistic about it, it's not defamation because it's true. Look, you can't stop editors from posting diffs about your previous activity on wikipedia. If you feel this damages your reputation in some way then the best way to remedy it is to start acting constructively (and may I say that this ANI report isn't a good start). Look, you've mentioned already that you're having a tough couple of weeks; may I make the suggestion that maybe it's a good idea to take a break for a bit? Editing whilst in emotional turmoil isn't a great formula for progress. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 06:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Writegeist has removed the section from their talk page. If you want to stop interacting with an editor -- just stop interacting. There's a whole slew of User:Nobody Ent/Secret list of editors I totally ignore editors who, over the years, I've concluded me interacting with will not help Wikipedia, so I just ignore them. It works so well I've actually forgotten most of who's on the list. Long term, what you'll find on Wikipedia is no one is much interested in assisting editors who themselves are not following appropriate practices. Given some of your recent posts e.g. [68] it's in your best interests to keep a low profile rather than initiating posts on AN/I et. al. Nobody Ent 10:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

"it's in your best interests to keep a low profile rather than initiating posts on AN/I et. al." Damn straight, I already admitted here that I've been uncivil in past while due to frustration; I attempted to avoid this by asking Writegeist to desist from writing any further comments about me on his talk page, he refused to answer that. The difference between me and completely self-interested users is that I am willing to accept punitive action for my behaviours - so there is no need to warn me to "keep a low profile" - because I honestly don't care about WP:BOOMERANG - it will bounce back and forth between me and Writegeist for a while - and I fully admit that both me and Writegeist have been unacceptably uncivil to each other, I say go ahead and place an interaction ban on us - that's what I asked for and I said that I would accept it for myself - me and Writegeist do not like each other at all, we are both guilty of WP:UNCIVIL towards each other. Without warning or sanctions, it is likely that Writegeist will interject like he did at WikiProject Yugoslavia into topics I am addressing to attack me, so an interaction ban for both of us towards each other seems to be a completely reasonable action even for me, since as you say my behaviour has been intolerable. But since administrators do not agree with me, I will desist, but will note that I am normally a conscientious editor who seeks cooperation with others, the barnstar I have on my user page is from a user I disagreed with who congradulated me for my courteous behaviour in spite of our disagreement.--R-41 (talk) 11:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Have a cup of tea -- you should see all the "stuff" Writegeist has written about me, and kept on his user talk page for years now, in the belief that someone will believe his interpolations into old discussions. I rather think he keeps track of my every edit at times, and seems to show up in discussions simply because I am there <g> where he has never shown up before, but there is an essay on how to deal with such "preoccupied fellers" on Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

From what you say Writegeist has done, that sounds like WP:WIKIHOUNDING, but evidence would be needed to demonstrate that, but it seems entirely feasible and worth investigation since Writegeist has suddenly shown up on material about/or involving, you after having a substantial dispute with you, and him suddenly showing up on material about/or involving me. But beyond suggesting that you can open up an investigation, Collect, I will not endorse it because I do not know the background of what happened between you and Writegeist.--R-41 (talk) 12:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

For those here who have claimed that what I've complained here about is not significant, I will note a statement on policy about WP:HARASSMENT: Harassment can also include actions calculated to be noticed by the target and clearly suggestive of targeting them, where no direct communication takes place. That is what has taken place on Writegeist's user page, the diff demonstrates this, and upon being asked by me on whether he would desist from using his user page of deliberately posting sections that intend to portray me in a negative manner, Writegeist refused to respond to the question I made about it.--R-41 (talk) 13:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

As per a suggestion that a user who looked at my posts here has stated, he says that TFD is not an administrator, and that no administrators have arrived yet, and suggested that I use a boldface font requesting review by administrators. Therefore I will follow what that user advised me to do and request that administrators review my request for interaction ban: I am requesting review of this by administrators--R-41 (talk) 13:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

History of Champagne RM closed by an involved admin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This section was auto-archived without closure.[69] IMO, the nature of this complaint is such that something or other should be done, so I am relisting.Kauffner (talk) 09:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Amatulic has an closed an RM at Talk:History_of_Champagne [70]. There are several reasons why this action must be reversed and the issue reviewed by an uninvolved administrator:

1. "An editor who has previously closed a move request relating to the same article may not be seen as unbiased” (WP:RMCI). Amatulic closed a similar RM as “premature” several weeks ago.[71]
2. "Any editor who has participated in a move discussion, either in support of the move or in opposition to it, will very likely not be seen as an unbiased judge of that discussion.” (WP:RMCI) Amatulic has referred to the proposed change as a “common lexical error”.[72]
3. An admin is considered WP:INVOLVED if he has, “current or past conflicts with an editor". I have reported this issue to ANI previously.[73] Amatulic has also made various accusations against me.[74]

The direct involvement of editors affiliated with the champagne industry, who may have little experience on Wiki but understandably feel passionately with regard to this subject, creates a heightened potential for conflict for interest. I hope the discussion can be reopened and proceed while being monitored with appropriate rigor. Kauffner (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It certainly seems inappropriate for Amatulic to close that RM. For the first two reasons rather than the third but inappropriate for sure. Perhaps he/she would consider reopening it before someone else does. --regentspark (comment) 13:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who looks at my contributions in this dispute can clearly see that I was not involved in any sense of WP:INVOLVED. Any "participation" on my part was to comment in an administrative capacity only, not to promote a point of view in the dispute. Any "current or past conflicts" were manufactured by Kauffner himself, and the past "accusations" were administrative in nature. Finally, the implication that I have anything to do with the champagne industry is similarly out of line.

As to the RM itself, it clearly went beyond its 7 days, and clearly the arguments showed no consensus. If any other admin would have closed it differently, I'd be interested to know the reasoning. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you're involved or not but the appearance of involvement does exist because you closed it once before. If you've closed it once there really is no reason to close it again. Plenty of other admins out there. The simplest, drama reduction course of action is to reopen it and let someone else close it. --regentspark (comment) 13:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

No, that wouldn't reduce the drama, because the next closer would be a "drive-by admin". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Point taken.--regentspark (comment) 17:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course, Kauffner's upcoming block for beating the head horse well past the point of disruption well be a welcome sight for anyone who drinks either Champagne- or Bordeaux-styled wines - or indeed, anyone who edits such articles. Maybe Mosel is next? Rhine? Anything else? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Well I have to admit as a wine editor, Kauffner's actions have been a bit disruptive. We already went through a long, contentious discussion at the main Champagne article that failed to gain consensus last month. So soon after he goes after a peripheral article to get the title of History of Champagne (an article about both the wine and Champagne region, mind you) changed? What was his goal? To create internal inconsistency with both the Champagne article and the standard capitalization used on every other wine history article (see History of Chianti, History of Sherry, etc)? With so many reliable sources[75][76][77][78] using the standard capitalization of Champagne, it is clear that there is no "threat" to Wikipedia that makes this battle worth raging on so many fronts for Kauffner. It just seems like a heavy-handed way for him to make a WP:POINT for something that less than a month ago he couldn't garner consensus for. Truly it would be nice to have a break from this or can we expect another go around next month on another peripheral article like Grower Champagne or Champagne in popular culture? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 16:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Re "an article about both the wine and Champagne region, mind you": This is not an accurate characterisation of that article. It starts off with "The history of Champagne [linked in article to Champagne (wine), not Champagne (wine region) or any other geographic area] has seen the wine [own emphasis] evolve", indicating up front that the article is primarily about the wine. Whatever local history is in the article is included insofar as it can be made to relate directly to the wine. Granted, that may be partially because the wine is much of the region's history, but the fact remains that that article is primarily about the history of the wine. No comment on the rest of the dispute here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Well not to threadjack this too far, but as the original author of this article I will point you to things like the 2nd and 5th paragraphs of the lead, the Early History and the World War I and II sections as well as numerous other places in the article where the history of Champagne the wine is closely intertwined with the history of the Champagne people and wine region. I wrote the article that way because that is how the reliable sources describe it. Truly only the small English influences and the even smaller From sweet to brut sections could be thought of as exclusively dealing with the wine but throughout the rest of the text it is clear that the history of the wine and the history of the region are deeply connected. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 22:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It would appear that perhaps a topic ban from Wine and Wine-region related articles (broadly construed) might be a necessity for User:Kauffner as it appears his intent is to disrupt across the gamut. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

No, passion is not disruption. Disruption was caused by an unnecessary, premature second close of a discussion by the same admin. All that was required was to let it run it's course count the votes, determine consensus. If there is a pattern of disruption an WP:RFC/U would be in order. Nobody Ent 21:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Playing Russian-Roulette "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" when a decision is made is, indeed, disruptive. We have another editor on this project who's in deep water because he doesn't think diacritics belong in an English encyclopedia - now we have one who doesn't believe that city/region titles need to be capitalized. What a gigantic fuckup of the English language by both. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the disruptive parts of Kauffner's tactics (at least with wine articles) is the heavy-handed, backdoor ways he tries to jam his wishes through. With Champagne, when he first encountered differing opinions to his wish to lower case everything, he went ahead and did the edit anyways. He sort of rewrote WP:BRD into Discuss, find objections, Do it anyways which was terribly bad faith. Then after he encountered further difficulties in getting consensus to change the main Champagne article, he starts WP:FORUMSHOPping and going after these peripheral articles like History of Champagne--first in the middle of the original of the Champagne discussion and then a month after. One can only guess that he hopes that if he gets the right mix of WP:RM regulars at a moment when other editors who are concerned about his changes are busy with off-wiki life that he gets one of these backdoor consensus through--perhaps to intentionally create inconsistency among a mass of articles so that they may eventually have to succumb to his will. That, again, seems to be contrary to the Wikipedia spirit of building consensus and good faith editing. It's like an editor wanting to get the iPod article changed to Ipod and after failing to get consensus on that main article starts going after the iPad, iTunes and iPod mini, etc articles until eventually he gets his way. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 16:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it is worth noting the that Amatulic originally got involved in this issue at Agne's request.[79] I was surprised to discover that asking your favorite admin to close does not actually violate WP:ADMINSHOP. Kauffner (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

If I was actually asking my favorite admin to close, then yes it would. But as you can see by actually reading the diff I was asking for advice on how to deal with this in the most civil and responsible way--even if that meant walking away. See my last line "What are your thoughts on how best I should proceed? I greatly respect your opinion and if you think I should back down or go another path, I certainly will." I take pride in conducting myself WP:CIVILly and responsibly and after years of editing on Wikipedia, I know that when things get heated it is best to step aside and get an outside reality check. That is not adminshopping in the slightest. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 16:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Kauffner, that was a crass and rude comment to make ("asking your favorite admin"). Admin shopping means asking multiple admins until you get one that does what you want, not applicable here. Having worked with a specific admin before is not against policy. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Where did this come from? Anyway, you have a nice day, too. Kauffner (talk) 08:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment while I agree that it would be best if someone else had closed the discussion the closure itself seems sound. I don't really think there is any possibility of another admin not closing this as no consensus. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nangparbat again and again and again

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

user:86.129.42.0 please block Darkness Shines (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Collect

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Collect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Bush family

• First removes a table diff (with "rm non-RS source - genealogy from "personal research" is not considered reliable per se")
• --then removes its sourcing diff (with "rm ELs not chosen to present facts on the family genealogy per se" given as the rationale)

This violation of basic wp:EDIT page (esp. wp:PRESERVE) has the appearance of blatant vandalism.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course, you could have noted your problems with the Pratt Genealogy, the Pratt-Romney genealogy, the problems inherent in using SPS and not RS sourcing in genealogical material inserted into multiple articles, and, of cours, you could have asked me on my UT page about this, and even maybe have notified me of this. You didn't. Cheers. BTW, WP:PRESERVE does not remotely apply here, it refers to properly sourced material poorly presented etc. Note that there were repeated discussions about linking Huntsman to Mitt Romeny etc. in the past - and the general opinion was that genealogical stuff which is not strongly sourced is not encyclopedic. Collect (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC) Bush is no different - when making "genealogical claims" the same standards for sourcing apply as to any claims. The genealogical trivia contest should be considered pretty useless <g>. Collect (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi User:Hodgdon's secret garden - as per my understanding good faith edits WP:AGF are never ever blatant WP:Vandalism, perhaps you should retract that allegation - thanks - Youreallycan 14:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Note also that Kitty Kelley's book was the EL I removed - I suggest that a fair reading of WP:EL indicates that her piece was not related to the genealogy of the Bush family at all. Also please look at the mish-mash which is given as the "family tree" and consider whether it is sourced per WP:RS and also whether it has any remote encyclopedic value. Another of the "reliable sources" I removed was "Bush's Satanic & Witchcraft Bloodlines." ConspiracyPlanet.com. Thanks. Collect (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Could someone please explain how the rmvl of the sourcing to wp:RS Kelley / Random House could be in gd faith?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The place to go to is to assume it was and then discuss it - Bush's Satanic & Witchcraft Bloodlines." ConspiracyPlanet.com., hello!!! - IMO, there is nothing to see here that requires administration - I suggest a return to discussion on the article talkpage is far preferable to this location.Youreallycan 15:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec)First - her book is not about the genealogy. It offers no material about the genealogy which is not present in the article, thus is not valid as an EL. Second - the material in the book was widely criticised as being specifically unreliable (the one major exception to RS standards is where the source has been widely shown to be unreliable - which is the case here). Cheers - but there is no valid rationale for using Kitty Kelley as a reference for genealogy at all. BTW, the article is subject to WP:BLP rules. Collect (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Please re-read wp:EDIT. Whereas this page indicates that sourcing issues can reasonably be template:Fact-tagged, it plainly says only to delete controversial assertions. Nothing in the chart you removed is in dispute.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Maunus Censoring Race (Human Classification)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Maunus has edited into the Cluster Analysis section the view of philosopher Joseph Kaplan that human geographic genetic variation does not cluster, because the sampling is wrong and the plotting algorithm contains assumptions. The Human Genome Organisation released a study in 2009 which found that human geographic genetic variation does cluster, using high resolution sampling and assumption free PCA. Maunus wants that take out. Which one should we go with? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:630:12:1072:EC7D:4743:C486:6971 (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

This isn't the forum for a content dispute - this is for behavior issues. You should head to WP:DRN. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes to first, no to the second ... start with Talk:Race_(human_classification). Edit warring warnings to both editors... Nobody Ent 16:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

BOOOOOMERANGG!!. Page protected, OP blocked. Elockid ^(Talk) 18:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

This was almost certainly Mikemikev. Edits from Imperial College London with usual vocabulary, usual article. Mathsci (talk) 18:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ban proposal of paid editing sockpuppeteer

Cross-posting this here because this is where instances of the behaviour have previously turned up: there is currently a proposal to formalise the de facto ban of a paid editing sockpuppeteer over at the administrators' noticeboard. WilliamH (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

It's actually at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive236#Editing ban proposal -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Someone refactored my original header. WilliamH (talk) 21:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Joshtaylor1998 at Mercia

This is a new user who is making substantial changes to the Mercia article - all unreferenced, unencyclopedic, ungrammatical, etc. I've reverted him a couple of times, with warning edit summaries, and a warning on his talk page. He has not responded at all, but has continued to make edits. I would hazard a guess that his user name reflects his year of birth - his edits suggest that he is a young and enthusiastic user, but someone who is unwilling to engage in discussion. It's not vandalism, so I'm reluctant to revert again, but it would be useful if someone could take a look and try to persuade the editor that he needs to learn how to edit collaboratively. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

American Third Position Party

Moved here from WP:AN Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

This article is always interesting, but I wanted to get some input here. Is this edit completely nonconstructive, or may there be some actual relevancy to NPOV policy buried somewhere in the string of capital letters? Reverting for now, but let me know. Thanks. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, perhaps going to AN was a bit of an extreme move. I strongly feel, though, that this article has been in need of tighter oversight for quite some time. Discussions on the talk page rarely result in any kind of constructive consensus, so I skipped that venue entirely. Anyway... Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I'm fed up with people changing my well intentioned edits. I am only following Wikipedia guidelines, and these hordes of users keep trying to put their POV into the article. Not all legitimate sources describe the a3p as white supremacist, rather as white nationalist, and the party clearly rejects the supremacist label on their website here: http://american3rdposition.com/?page_id=195. In addition the bias from SPLC and ADL against pro-white organizations is well known. Slaja (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't see any rejection of the white supremacist label at that link. HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The long-standing consensus on the talk page of the article is that "white supremacist" is the most reliably-sourced description. Slaja's POV may be detected from their position that the Southern Poverty Law Center and Anti-Defamation League are biased against "pro-white organizations"! --Orange Mike | Talk 02:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

It appears to me that User:Slaja has a pretty severe ownership problem with the article, as can be seen from his edit summaries. He also appears to be prone to serial reverting up to the edit warring bright line. Further, his edits appear to be pushing a specific POV regarding the subject, and he actively discourages any attempts to unskew the article towards a neutral standpoint. Like many POV-pushers, as seen from his comment here, he responds by attacking and accusing NPOV editors of non-neutral editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, Slaja's contributions are not only non-contructive, but disruptive and tendentious POV-pushing. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

While you all think you can live in your delusional world, you can't any longer by the fact that I have cited proper sources that describe A3P as "white nationalist". In addition if you again look at the material of the party itself, it clearly denounces the label supremacist. I've read their entire platform and there is nothing in the slightest bit supremacist about it. Where are these media sources getting opinions from? Hmm?? Could it possibly bias emanating from jewish organization like the SPLC and the ADL? STOP MESSING WITH MY CORRECT EDITS. Slaja (talk) 22:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Slaja's at it again; could somebody who hasn't been actively dealing with his edit-warring please impose a 3RR block on him/her RIGHT NOW? --Orange Mike | Talk 22:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Note also that according to Slaja we are "corrupt" "hordes" and that he/she will never be silenced! (Ironically, I do ride with the Great Dark Horde, although I am not Jewish.) --Orange Mike | Talk 22:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I think hordes is also sometimes used as part of Asian hordes. A bit on a par with the Yellow peril and the Domino theory. Still pretty much part of white supremacist philosophy. HiLo48 (talk) 23:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Archivesharer redux

In relation to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive754#user:Archivesharer. The indef blocked user is now back with the IP 68.174.69.145 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) doing the same old re-factoring edits etc, see their contributions. For what it's worth, I also added to the SPI. Яehevkor ✉ 23:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I've semi-protected User talk:Archivesharer for a month and blocked the IP as a WP:DUCK for a week. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, The Bushranger. Яehevkor ✉ 11:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the contribs, he also removed any mention of Michael de la Force from WP:BLP/N, which can't simply be Undone due to changes afterwards. I'm going to go through and try to fix his "courtesy blanking," since it's nothing of the sort. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

May de la Force be with you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

And now this and this from 156.111.18.140 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Legal threats? Яehevkor ✉ 17:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Recommend blocking the IP as the language borders legal threats.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Now this and this (with personal attacks) and continuing. Яehevkor ✉ 17:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I've manually archived the BLP/N thread here, so it can be watchlisted for further vandalism. Also, the IP claims to be using Columbia University's computer system, so an email to one of their sysadmins might be prudent. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

They seem to be back as Globalenquirer (talk · contribs), editing the archived comment. - SudoGhost 13:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Ban proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Given the fact that Archivesharer (talk · contribs) and his band of merry socks, IP and otherwise, are determined to keep returning over this incredibly WP:LAME name-removal issue, issuing repeated legal threats, vandalising, and displaying an epic level of WP:IDHT (including now claiming, regarding his supposed client, that it is "Not possible for an American to have this name" [80] - !!!), I propose that Archivesharer (and his socks of renown) be determined to be community banned from en.wikipedia.

• Support as proposer. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The net worth of this user is disruption.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support. User has a severe lack of WP:CLUE and a bad case of WP:IDHT. Once the article on Michael de la Force was deleted, Archivesharer decided he could remove any mention of Mr. de la Force, including on the AfD page, BLP/N and even user Talk pages. I'm having to watch the relevant BLP/N archive because, as expected, Archivesharer created a sock just to remove mention of de la Force from it. This user obviously does not understand what he's doing, and refuses to listen to advice. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

  I've semiprotected the archive page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oddly for someone who has a "desire to have not be a part of or included in Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation" [sic], he does not seem to object to using Commons as his hosting service [81]. Voceditenore (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
• Obvious support. Nothing of use has come from this person. Яehevkor ✉ 23:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support from my IPhone, no less. Disclosure: I weighed in on this nonsense as an IP. For several weeks this has wasted the time of numerous editors. Also support contacting Columbia, with copies of disruptive edits made from the university's facilities. This would be appropriate given the multiple statements implying that Columbia was considering legal action against Wikipedia-- the university ought to be informed of these claims, and have the opportunity to find the user. JNW (talk) 02:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Shearonink (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Restored this from archiving, can an uninvolved admin close this? Thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Fram refusing to stop mass category creation while RfC is going on

Over the last several days, a discussion has occurred at User_talk:Fram#Categories regarding Fram's creation of more than 5000 categories since the beginning of March. Several editors have expressed concerns about this mass creation. He was asked to initiate an RfC to discuss the matter, which he dutifully complied with. Subsequent to the initiation of the RfC, Fram has continued to create categories in a similar vein (albeit targeting only modern categories, and restricting himself from more ancient ones). I have asked him repeatedly to please stop the creation of these categories until the RfC concludes. Fram has refused to stop, creating 16 more categories today [82].

All I am asking for is for him to stop this category creation until the RfC concludes. I think this is a reasonable request.

Please note: I am NOT asking for someone to evaluate whether the category creation is right or wrong. That will be handled by the RfC. Would an uninvolved admin please step in to address this issue? I have notified Fram of this discussion. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

3000 is mass creation and shouldn't be done without prior discussion, 16 isn't really "mass" and is less of a big deal. 69.228.171.139 (talk) 07:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

However, both those 16 and those 3000 are part of the ~5000. And some of the recent categorisations of (dis)establishments are also questionable (though before the start of the RfC: Category:1536 disestablishments in Sweden contains Börringe Priory, a priory that was never in its established life in Sweden, but in Danmark ("The kingdom of Denmark became Lutheran in 1536 under Christian III, a staunch Protestant. All religious houses and their attendant income properties reverted to the crown for disposition."). The building the priory is housed in is now in Sweden, so the castle is now an establishment in Sweden, and it is disestablished in 1536, but having it as a 1536 disestablishment in Sweden is confusing). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Note, those 5000 are the category creations only. Fram is using AWB on his main account to implement these categorisations, of lately hundreds, and hundreds earlier and thousands earlier. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

This looks to me like some sort of spill-over from the Rich Farmbrough arbitration case. All those who have posted here were arguing over this sort of thing at the arbitration case. Something to bear in mind when trying to decide what needs doing here. See in particular what Fram posted on their user talk page here, and note that Kumioko (who was also one of those engaged in extensive debate at the arbitration case) has nominated some of these categories for deletion (see Fram's user talk page). The individual actions may be fine, but collectively I am concerned that what is happening here is driven by animosity that may be lingering from the arbitration case. This may need to be raised on the arbitration clarification pages to decide whether those who were arguing at that case need to avoid each other for a few weeks to a month to let things settle down. Carcharoth (talk) 00:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• My interaction with Fram has been rather minimal. I am concerned at the creation of 5000 categories without prior discussion. I asked several times for reference to such a discussion and was not provided with one. I therefore asked Fram to initiate an RfC, which as I noted above he did. However, he continues to create the categories and has refused to stop doing so while the RfC is going on. To blow this up into some sort of retributive strike on Fram by myself is an enormous leap of WP:ABF. I am doing no such thing. All I am asking for is for him to stop making these categories while the RfC is underway. It's as simple as that. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Archivesharer redux 2.0

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please see here and here for past reports. A user 24.97.221.98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) now seems to be following this issue by editing the archives, dunno if it's the same user or a meatpuppet. There was consensus to ban previous not no action on that. Cheers, Яehevkor ✉ 17:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Forgot to include the difs [83] and [84]. Яehevkor ✉ 21:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

IP blocked as a WP:GIANTDUCK, restored the ban discussion for closing below. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

North American League

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Assuming I didn't screw things up (the second time, the first time I kinda did...), it should be all good now. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right place to report this, but User:NostalgiaBuff97501 attempted to create a disambiguation page at North American League. I have no issue with this, but instead of moving the original page (and the associated edit history) to North American League (baseball), the user simply copy and pasted the page content to the new page and then edited the original page as seen by this diff. Basically what is needed is for the new page to be deleted, the original page reverted to the baseball content and then moved back to North American League (baseball). Once this is done, then the disambiguation page can be created at North American League. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe I've managed to sort things out. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Perth

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A recent WP:RM (initiated by myself) from Perth, Western Australia to Perth was closed by JHunterJ (talk · contribs) as "moved", and the page was moved. A short time later, Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk · contribs) reversed this closure [85] and moved the article back.[86]

See Talk:Perth, Western Australia#Requested_move for some subsequent discussion between JHunterJ and Deacon of Pndapetzim.

There are a few problems with this action by Deacon of Pndapetzim:

1. The usual procedure would be to take it to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review. Doing an instant reversal in this way is wheel-warrish. (Also, it is bad form to edit a archived move discussion with a prominent "Please do not modify" in red at the top)
2. Deacon of Pndapetzim has a userbox indicating membership in Wikipedia:WikiProject Medieval Scotland. Since Perth, Scotland was a former capital of medieval Scotland, and Perth, Scotland was the "rival" of Perth, Australia as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in the WP:RM discussion, this at least creates the outward appearance of possibly having a personal stake in the outcome, and for this reason alone it may have been an unwise action.
3. In his reversal comment, Deacon of Pndapetzim appears to question JHunterJ's integrity by stating "Previous close sounds too much like a support and too little like an impartial close."[87]

See also this note by JHunterJ regarding the formulation of his closure summary comments.

I would ask an uninvolved and impartial administrator to restore the original closure outcome of the WP:RM and move the page back to Perth, and then anyone who wishes may naturally start a review at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Did Deacon remove Perth without any explanation? That seems highly suspicious. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 00:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, now it seems Deacon did have an explanation. Deacon stated in this thread on JHunter's talk page that there was no consensus and the overturn was justified. Upon reviewing the discussion on the Perth talk page, it clearly shows that there was no consensus, with a hodgepodge of supports and opposes. I have to say, I think Deacon was justified in overturning the closure. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 01:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Deacon is definitely right. There was no preponderance of opinions either way, and when a discussion is split 50/50, you can't declare consensus one way or the other. Nyttend (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

And this isn't wheel warring, it was a single revert. It doesn't happen that often, but it is acceptable and it was explained. JHunterJ or others can take it to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review if they so choose, but nothing improper happened here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

D should have taken it to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review. As I've explained, WP:NOTVOTE, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, and WP:RMCI indicate a move -- the !votes that were based on Wikipedia guidelines and policies were a consensus for the move. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

That is one option, reverting is the other. You and I might prefer someone go to review rather than revert us on an RM or AFD or other discussion, but I don't see a policy against this type of reversion, so I conclude it is acceptable sometimes but subject to review like any other administrative action. The problem is, this is ANI, not review, and not the proper place to discuss whether or not the close is proper or not, or the revert is proper or not. If you think it was clearly abuse, sure, ANI is fine but I find it hard to believe that a single revert is abuse, and review is the much better, calmer place to review the situation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, hoping the drama would be minimal here. This was a case of a highly controversial discussion, clearly having reached no consensus, being closed in favour of one particular view and being reviewed afterwards. Moreover, one to which the closer expressed a preference in the close rather than, as he is supposed to, summarize discussion and carry out whatever its conclusion is. I think my closure should be relatively uncontroversial. No admin with any relevant experience could seriously claim that this discussion had consensus (see my comments on the page in question).

PS, there is no established procedure for reversing RM closes, but neither is RM a binding process that would necessitate one; it is perfectly normal for page moves to be reversed when they are made in this fashion. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I am an admin with impartiality and experience and the serious claim. You are an admin member of a Scotland project who disagrees with my closure. Stop insinuating that that could only possibly have occurred if I suffer from some admin character defect. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

This is certainly tough, as two Wikiprojects are contested. From an uninvolved view, I have to agree with Deacon. Closing a debate with no consensus and redirecting in one side's favor is clearly out of order. This seems to be very WP: BOOMERANGish. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 01:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

@J, I'm not really sure my academic interests should really be a topic of focus here, but I do not wish to imply any "character defect", and am sorry if it is taken in such a way. At issue here is not anyone's academic interest, but whether or not a particular discussion had consensus. The community would be best served, I think, if you focused on that. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

People should stop throwing this scottish thing around as the majority of opposers are actually australiains, many of whoom reside in Perth, Western Australia. The thing is this has been discussed for most the last 10 years and there has never been a clear consensus, to close either way on what isnt a clear consensus is just creating unnecessary drama any admin can see that the status quo works and has consensus and has had for a considerable time the "new" proposal hasnt shifted that consensus. Gnangarra 02:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

It was a bit "glass houses" for Deacon to question whether JHunterJ was being impartial. Even if you do argue that the reversal was procedurally correct, it really shouldn't have been Deacon who did it, because it could be inferred rightly or wrongly that his academic interests may make Perth, Scotland a primary topic for him within his own personal cognitive sphere. The optics of it are the issue. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 03:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree that D shouldnt have reversed the move, but its worng to say this is just a dispute based on racial lines because it aint when many Australians dont support the move, its more a matter of timing. That said the closure wasnt clear and wasnt reflective of the discussion as it should be discussed, but while others are running around making changes it creates a hostile discussion. The last comment by J on the matter indicates that he also question his decision. Gnangarra 03:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• One last time, Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review is the proper venue, NOT WP:ANI. This is beyond the scope here folks. It needs the slower, calmer venue of review, not the drama of ANI as this doesn't appear to be abuse, but instead a disagreement on a close, the reason Review exists. This should be closed and moved over there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. no one can say that that is the proper place, so please refrain from directing people to policy and processes that have not been accepted by the community. Gnangarra 02:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Judging by the talk page, it appears they are ready enough to go. ANI isn't the right place regardless, so if you have a better venue, please suggest it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
      • there is no discussion indicating that unapproved Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review is being used, please stop misinforming everyone Gnangarra 03:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
        • That is, in fact, the proper place for that discussion. And if it isn't, I believe WP:DRN is. Is there any reason this shouldn't be closed?. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• fruitful and cordial discussion is occuring at User_talk:JHunterJ#Perth please close this and raise concerns there so that everyone is on the same page Gnangarra 03:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • That works too. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Please keep or raise this discussion somewhere other than my talk page as needed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comments:

1. I do not agree with those who claim that the proper forum is Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review. As pointed out above, it is not adopted as a policy or a guideline. In my opinion (expressed early at the talkpage), the page is nowhere near ready for adoption. In particular, it was diverted at the outset by an editor with an axe to grind concerning non-admin closures. The provisions for such closures remain vague on the page, but it has has been manipulated toward normalising a position that has not been subjected to wide or searching scrutiny.
2. [Disclosure: Though an Australian, I had nothing to do with the Perth RM and have formed no strong opinion on the matter; but I have had several run-ins with JHunterJ, often on the very issues that I am about to address here.] JHunterJ has frequently closed RMs without consideration of detailed and clearly articulated arguments, and sometimes cited evidence that has been comprehensively dismissed by counter-evidence and cogent arguments. He has edited relevant policy, naming conventions, or guidelines (sometimes without any discussion toward consensus, or apparent assessment of existing consensus), and then applied those provisions in deciding RMs, sometimes counter to the weight of numbers and the weight of argument in the associated RM discussion.
3. I agree with the assessment by Deacon of Pndapetzim, who I believe acted with complete propriety in this case. He did not begin a process of wheel warring. If anyone did, it was Kwami who reverted a perfectly well-argued administrative action of review. But I do not censure Kwami, who appears to have acted as he saw best and with some circumspection.
4. I hope that JHunterJ will rethink his attitude and his actions, and find something more constructive to do than push what is obviously a particular and partisan view of priorities among vigorously contested provisions at WP:AT, WP:DAB, and related pages. Especially, he should not act so that the energy, time, and talents of knowledgeable editors participating at RM discussions is squandered. For my part, I have stopped participating because of his presence. Life is too short.

Noetica^Tea? 03:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

212.118.232.164 / User:HunterSilver

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi. I think banned User:HunterSilver returned again, with his attempts to push his unconstructive edits at List of Prime Ministers of Nepal, now with this IP address: 212.118.232.164. Just to let you know, User:HunterSilver is a sockpuppet of User:HasperHunter, who was banned indefinitely on April 20, 2012 for abusing multiple accounts. All of them are, in turn, sockpuppets of User:DBSSURFER (A few days ago, I opened a SPI, which can be found here). I'm really becoming tired of this, and I hope someone can solve this issue for good. --Sundostund (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• IP blocked, article semi-protected for a month. Let us know if he comes back on other articles. Black Kite (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

disruptive editor with unsustainable PoV

Hi,

I have been doing battle since 16 May (It all started here) with Stodieck (Talk), who has a technical PoV about aircraft that he is trying to stitch into several articles, including Canard (aeronautics), Stabilizer (aircraft) and Wing configuration. He is abusive, does not listen to reason or accept the majority consensus of other editors. He has most recently taken to misinterpreting sources, which has started to confuse other editors. The main evidence of this may be found on Talk:Stabilizer (aircraft): see my posts from 5 June downwards for diffs and other links. I notice that this user has been censured before on their talk page. Please help, I am at the end of my tether. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Unequal treatment from an admin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello,

This is regarding recent exchange of messages on talk pages User_talk:Thisthat2011 (own), User_talk:Yogesh_Khandke, and User_talk:Boing!_said_Zebedee (admin). The issue also involves a user User:Sitush.

The admin had warned me here(User_talk:Thisthat2011#June_2012) of 'personal attacks on other people', 'constant snide attacks on User:Sitush', and then block here over a discussion here(User_talk:Yogesh_Khandke#For_admin_Dougweller.27s_attention).

On inquiring details on how he reached these conclusion to give warning, he has avoided presenting details and is accusing further 'so please stop trying to stir the shit on one side only'. It appears somehow to be personal attack sweetened with a 'please', a behavior himself warned me against.

He had done something similar earlier User_talk:Thisthat2011/Archive_1#March_2012 here too, which he immediately rectified himself.

So I would like to know why he is warning to myself, but has avoided warning himself and user:Sitush for exactly doing the same. The behavior is inconstant w.r.t. users.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 19:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I was not acting in an admin capacity in that exchange, and so there is no question of my having misused my admin tools. The issue here is not one my my taking sides - as I make clear, I am carefully avoiding taking sides in the dispute, which is between Sitush and Yogesh. But you have been making low-level snide attacks against Sitush ever since you have been here, in disputes that do not involve you. If you have a problem with his behaviour, make a report at to the appropriate venue - as Sitush says, put up or shut up. Now, what admin action do you want taken here? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

So he templated you, then had second thoughts so struck it instead of deleting it, expressed opinions about your actions. He didn't cover it up, he struck it, which I consider the honest way of correcting a mistake (or change of heart, or whatever), as he isn't trying to cover up the fact that he originally said it. He used the phrase so please stop trying to stir the shit on one side only, which clearly isn't a personal attack, even if it is more crudely worded than perhaps you or I would use. "Stirring the pot" is a common English expressions, used here frequently. It clearly isn't an admin action issue as no tools were used and no administrative sanctions were mentioned. It appears you never tried to bring up the issue on his talk page before coming here, and incidentally, you are supposed to do before coming here, per the top of this very page. It does look like you were stirring the pot on the talk page of Yogesh_Khandke, but I don't have the whole backstory, so maybe you had a good reason to say what you said, and/or maybe he had a good reason to say something about it, but no one did or said anything "action-worthy". I don't see any abuse here, just two editors that disagree. So, what exactly is your point, and why are we here at ANI? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a new essay should be written. Wikipedia: Stirring the pot. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 02:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

On my page there is a warning of a ban. Is the warning from an admin, an editor, an observer?

As also, I had asked the admin on my page reasons for his warning. He is still silent on these questions, inspite of messages on his talk page to answer, and still passing 'low-level snide remarks' such as 'But you have been making low-level snide attacks against Sitush ever since you have been here' - is this not a 'low level snide' accusation from an admin?

Is putting forth a question of violating AGF a low-level snide remark that calls for a warning of a ban? Is the user saying that if there is a dispute, no one else should comment?इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 06:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

What the user is saying is perfectly clear on your talk page - because I said it in plain English. Since you have been here, you have been stirring the shit against Sitush by constantly taking sides against him in disputes he has with other editors - typically you have been supporting other tendentious POV-pushing battlefield editors. Sitush has been putting in massive amounts of hard work to fix the appallingly bad articles created and edited by a number of Indian caste warriors and other nationalists whose only aim is to shower their own castes with praise and turn many articles into glorifying puffery. And he has been getting little but grief for it - running from outright egregious attacks, to your style of constant snide digs at him. You are part of the problem here with India-related articles, you are not part of the solution - if you wish to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, you should be helping the editors who are doing all the work of fixing things, not hindering and harassing them as you are constantly trying to do with Sitush. I'll repeat again, if you believe Sitush's behaviour is problematic, put up or shut up by raising a report at the appropriate venue instead of constantly nipping at his heels. And again, what admin action are you asking for here? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

PS: I should also note that the editors you support are frequently those who get blocks and bans for their own behaviour, as is the case this time.

PPS: Putting a standard templated warning on a user talk page is not an admin action - any editor can do so. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

You have not answered questions that I had put forth upon your warning. You have avoided answering it twice, repeating past accusations but not bothering to answer how a question of violating AGF automatically means constant snide remarks, and so on. If you want to warn, be ready to answer how an inquiry on violating AGF automatically means anything. Otherwise drop the bone for all its meaning, and let other admins comment.

I am not sure of the admin action, but the title says it all. It is unequal treatment from the admin that is a matter of concern. If you notice the talk page, Yogesh_Khandke has also requested you "to address the issues such as hounding and complete lack of civility and constant heckling without any provocation on the part of the concerned editor." Selective warning and actions and selective silence is not civil per me, especially on the part of someone who is admin.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 10:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I have answered your question by explaining that it is your general continued low-level sniping that is the problem, not one specific action - and I can't help it if you cannot understand that. Also, the dispute is between Sitush and Yogesh, not you, and I am being even-handed in that by recusing myself from acting on it because I do not believe I am sufficiently uninvolved with the two of them. Now, if you can not point to any abuse of admin tools on my part, and are not asking for any admin action, then I have better things to do with my time - bye. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee you cannot call it shit stirring, is it wrong to be part of a dispute. You mentioned on the ThisThat’s talk page Sitush and Yogesh are grown up enough and know each other well enough by now to conduct their own disputes and to seek neutral help with resolution if they need it - so please stop trying to stir the shit on one side only. Well if two users have some dispute and if they wanted to resolve it among themselves they would have discussed it somewhere else not on wikipedia, many times disputes are resolved by discussions which involve more than one editors(else no one would put pages on watch list). No one is having any doubts about Sitush’s hard work in cleaning up caste articles I have personally noticed Sitush putting great effort in cleaning a lot of articles. If you say that ThisThat should stop anti-Sitush bias I would request you to atop anti-thisthat bias and stop warning him for doing nothing.Do not call him a part of a problem just because he is bold enough to point out a problem/mistake P.S Not sure why you mentioned caste related articles here I don’t see thisthat editing many articles related to caste sarvajna (talk) 09:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

If they're "grown up enough" then they should just fricking do it, and stop the sniping or else a) someone else will bring it up, and/or b) someone else will stop it. Wikipedia is not the place for such childish bullshit, and Boing was absolutely right in notifying the editor that he saw as the prime instigator. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid you are wrong, I can say that Thisthat wanted to clear the dispute so he did a right thing. I am not sure whom are you referring as prime instigator I hope its not Thisthat as he entered the dipute very late and thus cannot be an Instigator. Wikipedia is not a place for childish bullshit of warning people just because they were part of a dispute and tried to help the someone whom they thing are on the right side sarvajna (talk) 10:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

It would be best if all participants in this discussion walk away without insisting on the last word.Nobody Ent 11:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Perth

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A recent WP:RM (initiated by myself) from Perth, Western Australia to Perth was closed by JHunterJ (talk · contribs) as "moved", and the page was moved. A short time later, Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk · contribs) reversed this closure [88] and moved the article back.[89]

See Talk:Perth, Western Australia#Requested_move for some subsequent discussion between JHunterJ and Deacon of Pndapetzim.

There are a few problems with this action by Deacon of Pndapetzim:

1. The usual procedure would be to take it to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review. Doing an instant reversal in this way is wheel-warrish. (Also, it is bad form to edit a archived move discussion with a prominent "Please do not modify" in red at the top)
2. Deacon of Pndapetzim has a userbox indicating membership in Wikipedia:WikiProject Medieval Scotland. Since Perth, Scotland was a former capital of medieval Scotland, and Perth, Scotland was the "rival" of Perth, Australia as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in the WP:RM discussion, this at least creates the outward appearance of possibly having a personal stake in the outcome, and for this reason alone it may have been an unwise action.
3. In his reversal comment, Deacon of Pndapetzim appears to question JHunterJ's integrity by stating "Previous close sounds too much like a support and too little like an impartial close."[90]

See also this note by JHunterJ regarding the formulation of his closure summary comments.

I would ask an uninvolved and impartial administrator to restore the original closure outcome of the WP:RM and move the page back to Perth, and then anyone who wishes may naturally start a review at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Did Deacon remove Perth without any explanation? That seems highly suspicious. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 00:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, now it seems Deacon did have an explanation. Deacon stated in this thread on JHunter's talk page that there was no consensus and the overturn was justified. Upon reviewing the discussion on the Perth talk page, it clearly shows that there was no consensus, with a hodgepodge of supports and opposes. I have to say, I think Deacon was justified in overturning the closure. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 01:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Deacon is definitely right. There was no preponderance of opinions either way, and when a discussion is split 50/50, you can't declare consensus one way or the other. Nyttend (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

And this isn't wheel warring, it was a single revert. It doesn't happen that often, but it is acceptable and it was explained. JHunterJ or others can take it to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review if they so choose, but nothing improper happened here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

D should have taken it to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review. As I've explained, WP:NOTVOTE, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, and WP:RMCI indicate a move -- the !votes that were based on Wikipedia guidelines and policies were a consensus for the move. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

That is one option, reverting is the other. You and I might prefer someone go to review rather than revert us on an RM or AFD or other discussion, but I don't see a policy against this type of reversion, so I conclude it is acceptable sometimes but subject to review like any other administrative action. The problem is, this is ANI, not review, and not the proper place to discuss whether or not the close is proper or not, or the revert is proper or not. If you think it was clearly abuse, sure, ANI is fine but I find it hard to believe that a single revert is abuse, and review is the much better, calmer place to review the situation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, hoping the drama would be minimal here. This was a case of a highly controversial discussion, clearly having reached no consensus, being closed in favour of one particular view and being reviewed afterwards. Moreover, one to which the closer expressed a preference in the close rather than, as he is supposed to, summarize discussion and carry out whatever its conclusion is. I think my closure should be relatively uncontroversial. No admin with any relevant experience could seriously claim that this discussion had consensus (see my comments on the page in question).

PS, there is no established procedure for reversing RM closes, but neither is RM a binding process that would necessitate one; it is perfectly normal for page moves to be reversed when they are made in this fashion. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I am an admin with impartiality and experience and the serious claim. You are an admin member of a Scotland project who disagrees with my closure. Stop insinuating that that could only possibly have occurred if I suffer from some admin character defect. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

This is certainly tough, as two Wikiprojects are contested. From an uninvolved view, I have to agree with Deacon. Closing a debate with no consensus and redirecting in one side's favor is clearly out of order. This seems to be very WP: BOOMERANGish. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 01:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

@J, I'm not really sure my academic interests should really be a topic of focus here, but I do not wish to imply any "character defect", and am sorry if it is taken in such a way. At issue here is not anyone's academic interest, but whether or not a particular discussion had consensus. The community would be best served, I think, if you focused on that. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

People should stop throwing this scottish thing around as the majority of opposers are actually australiains, many of whoom reside in Perth, Western Australia. The thing is this has been discussed for most the last 10 years and there has never been a clear consensus, to close either way on what isnt a clear consensus is just creating unnecessary drama any admin can see that the status quo works and has consensus and has had for a considerable time the "new" proposal hasnt shifted that consensus. Gnangarra 02:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

It was a bit "glass houses" for Deacon to question whether JHunterJ was being impartial. Even if you do argue that the reversal was procedurally correct, it really shouldn't have been Deacon who did it, because it could be inferred rightly or wrongly that his academic interests may make Perth, Scotland a primary topic for him within his own personal cognitive sphere. The optics of it are the issue. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 03:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree that D shouldnt have reversed the move, but its worng to say this is just a dispute based on racial lines because it aint when many Australians dont support the move, its more a matter of timing. That said the closure wasnt clear and wasnt reflective of the discussion as it should be discussed, but while others are running around making changes it creates a hostile discussion. The last comment by J on the matter indicates that he also question his decision. Gnangarra 03:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• One last time, Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review is the proper venue, NOT WP:ANI. This is beyond the scope here folks. It needs the slower, calmer venue of review, not the drama of ANI as this doesn't appear to be abuse, but instead a disagreement on a close, the reason Review exists. This should be closed and moved over there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. no one can say that that is the proper place, so please refrain from directing people to policy and processes that have not been accepted by the community. Gnangarra 02:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Judging by the talk page, it appears they are ready enough to go. ANI isn't the right place regardless, so if you have a better venue, please suggest it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
      • there is no discussion indicating that unapproved Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review is being used, please stop misinforming everyone Gnangarra 03:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
        • That is, in fact, the proper place for that discussion. And if it isn't, I believe WP:DRN is. Is there any reason this shouldn't be closed?. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• fruitful and cordial discussion is occuring at User_talk:JHunterJ#Perth please close this and raise concerns there so that everyone is on the same page Gnangarra 03:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • That works too. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Please keep or raise this discussion somewhere other than my talk page as needed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comments:

1. I do not agree with those who claim that the proper forum is Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review. As pointed out above, it is not adopted as a policy or a guideline. In my opinion (expressed early at the talkpage), the page is nowhere near ready for adoption. In particular, it was diverted at the outset by an editor with an axe to grind concerning non-admin closures. The provisions for such closures remain vague on the page, but it has has been manipulated toward normalising a position that has not been subjected to wide or searching scrutiny.
2. [Disclosure: Though an Australian, I had nothing to do with the Perth RM and have formed no strong opinion on the matter; but I have had several run-ins with JHunterJ, often on the very issues that I am about to address here.] JHunterJ has frequently closed RMs without consideration of detailed and clearly articulated arguments, and sometimes cited evidence that has been comprehensively dismissed by counter-evidence and cogent arguments. He has edited relevant policy, naming conventions, or guidelines (sometimes without any discussion toward consensus, or apparent assessment of existing consensus), and then applied those provisions in deciding RMs, sometimes counter to the weight of numbers and the weight of argument in the associated RM discussion.
3. I agree with the assessment by Deacon of Pndapetzim, who I believe acted with complete propriety in this case. He did not begin a process of wheel warring. If anyone did, it was Kwami who reverted a perfectly well-argued administrative action of review. But I do not censure Kwami, who appears to have acted as he saw best and with some circumspection.
4. I hope that JHunterJ will rethink his attitude and his actions, and find something more constructive to do than push what is obviously a particular and partisan view of priorities among vigorously contested provisions at WP:AT, WP:DAB, and related pages. Especially, he should not act so that the energy, time, and talents of knowledgeable editors participating at RM discussions is squandered. For my part, I have stopped participating because of his presence. Life is too short.

Noetica^Tea? 03:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RPP/AFD backlog

Just FYI... There's a long backlog at WP:RPP. A couple of items have been waiting for attention for almost two days. Zagalejo^^^ 00:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• AFD as well ... I've knocked off most of the backlog, but there are still 20-odd outstanding. Black Kite (talk) 02:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Still over 20 requests left to process if anyone wants to get them out of the way. tutterMouse (talk) 15:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I have worked my mouse to the bare silicon in closing AFDs (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Great but we've still got a backlog close to 30 over at RFPP, nobody's put a dent in it since this was posted and have a good few which are three days old which just seems... negligent. Get to it kiddos, RFPP requests are people too. tutterMouse (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Phony use of a citation by a longtime administrator

I have organized this report into four sections: SUMMARY, REASONS, DOCUMENTATION, and APPENDIX.

SUMMARY. A longtime administrator User:Kwamikagami (or "Kwami", as he often signs himself) made an insertion that he supported with a phony citation. Here it is:[91]
before: Kerala is often referred to as Keralam by the native Malayalis.[then a footnote citing a book by "Oliver Freiberger"]
after: Kerala is pronounced Kēraḷaṁ [kɛ̀rɑ́lə] (listen) by the native Malayalis.[then the same footnote]

Any reader would interpret the new sentence as saying that the inserted phonetic transcription is being sourced to the footnoted book. But the book does not contain any such material. (Moreover, the transcription is rife with inaccuracies both notational and factual (although one of Kwami's specialties at Wikipedia is IPA transcription) and it had never been sourced in all the years that it (or variants) had been appearing in the article.) * * * End of Summary * * *

REASONS FOR lodging this incident report. One month after he made the insertion in question, I reverted it, unaware of who had made it. Within one day, after discussion on the Talk page, Kwami (although not other editors) accepted my changes. But at that point I still didn't realize the old insertion had improprieties because I hadn't done deep investigation into its supporting footnote and into the article history. (All I had done was replace the old source.) Eventually two things happened. It slowly dawned on me that the flaws in the insertion could not be explained by mere inattention, and then this week, Kwami weighed in on a current complaint to AN/I about my own citation practice in a different article. All this plus Kwami's strong bias against me (next paragraph), and because as an admin he should operate at higher standards, are the reasons while I now feel it urgent to make this complaint.

The same administrator has denounced me aggressively twice in recent months. Just last month, he participated on an article talk page to threaten me with being blocked (Talk:Russian_phonology#Discussion, 21:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)). Two months prior to the edit in question, this administrator totally lost his temper at me and established that he is hugely biased against me (Talk:Diasystem#Reply_to_declared_dispute_resolver, 15:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC) and 00:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)). Now he has just commented against me at AN/I about the same Russian phonology article as prior[92], 01:02, 9 June 2012.

DOCUMENTATION. The administrator User:Kwamikagami made an insertion into the article, Kerala in mid April 2012. Kerala is a one of the states of India. For many years, the opening sentence has contained a phonetic transcription of how to say the name. For six years, the attribution ("sourcing") of the phonetic transcription was unsatisfactory, because there wasn't any attribution (a situation I myself rectified in mid May 2012). Although Kwami did not create this situation, he made it worse. Over the years, there was vacillation as to whether the transcribed pronunciation was that of Keralites or of English speakers (probably Britons). There was never an indication given in the article as to which community's pronunciation was being represented (sometimes such an indication was given in the edit summary), AND, the phonetic transcriptions changed over time, AND, citations were never offered. (The native pronunciation of the letter 'e', [e], is close to the vowel in 'day', 'say', whereas the transcription inserted for many years, [ɛ], is the much more open-mounted vowel of the British Received Pronunciation pronunciation as in 'hair'.)

Also for many years, there has been an insertion that Keralites call the state 'Keralam' instead. Until 2009, this insertion, too, was unsupported. The latter claim is just a claim that Keralites add an 'm' at the end, and did not include a phonetic transcription.

What administrator Kwamikagami did at 19:36, 15 April 2012 is that he moved the then current phonetic transcription from the article lead to the existing passage which claimed 'Keralam', then without justification, he augmented the transcription with the false claim that it is the inhabitants' pronunciation, AND he arranged the sentence so as to create the impression that his insertion was sourced by the footnote already long in place to substantiate the 'Keralam' claim). In an associated edit just three hours later, 22:34, he inserted a different transcription in the opening sentence, in the gap created by the prior edit. The differentness of the transcriptions, along with a remark he made a month later (see below) prove he believed that the transcription of 22:34 was an English language one, although this is never stated AND no citation is offered for it.

Here is his change made at 19:36:[93]
before: Kerala is often referred to as Keralam by the native Malayalis.[footnote citing "Oliver Freiberger"]
after: Kerala is pronounced Kēraḷaṁ [kɛ̀rɑ́lə] (listen) by the native Malayalis.[same footnote]

The chief misdeed here is that while the new text is most reasonably interpreted as citing "Freiberger" as the source of the transcription, "Freiberger" is not its source. The "Freiberger" footnote, in place for three years, asserted only that the locals add 'm' to the end of the word. In fact, the only "authority" for Kwami's insertion is that it was present in the article, unsourced, for many years.

In any case, this phonetic transcription was incorrect. Not only are syllable stresses wrong and the vowels transcribed into IPA wrong, the dotted 'L' is transcribed into IPA wrong. The dot indicates the sound is retroflex, but Kwami's IPA transcription uses the wrong IPA symbol! This from an editor who specializes in updating IPA transcriptions! His transcription even overlooks the 'm' that supposedly distinguishes the inhabitants' version of the name!

Granted, there are multiple interpretations of what Kwamikagami's intentions and responsibility are. Perhaps it's plausible that his intention was not for readers to associate the longstanding "Freiberger" footnote with Kwami's inserted phonetic transcription, but to associate it only with the longstanding content it had always been associated with. But this interpretation is unreasonable (given the content of the previous passage as well as its longtime stability, and given how Kwami laid out the footnote). Besides, even if this interpretation were correct, it would entail that Kwami deliberately inserted a claim that has no basis.

An interpretation even more difficult to defend is that this lapse was an oversight. (1) The bad insertion stood for one month, unchallenged. (2) Kwami is not a casual Wikipedian who edits rarely and fleetingly, rather he's one of the most active among us. (3) He chides other editors on the insufficiency of their sourcing. (4) He's a longtime administrator. (5) At first, he swiftly did a global revert of every insertion I had made simultaneous to the one about the phonetic transcription -- incidentally, without acknowledging he was doing so[94] -- which in itself is a misdeed when committed by an administrator. (However, he did relent after I posted a discussion on the Talk page.[95].) For him to restore the original insertion is inconsistent with the interpretation that he had meant to change it but never got around to doing so. Please notice that in making this restoration, he did demonstrate inattentiveness in two ways. First, he still didn't catch the two whoppers I mentioned above, the missing 'm' and the bad 'L' symbol! Second, regarding his rationale that the English pronunciation of a foreign name customarily precedes the native at Wikipedia, the article contained no indication that the pronunciation he claimed is native, is so.

Incidentally, the invocation of "Oliver Freiberger" was not a proper citation because Freiberger is the editor of a collective volume -- that's why I have been putting the name in scare quotes all along. A proper footnote would use the name of the author of the chapter where the cited material appeared (the cited material being the claim of 'Keralam'). This is of course a minor point, but Kwami is supposedly a citation "hawk" (diligent auditor). It would strongly imply he committed the prevalent Wikipedia crime of not checking the citation for proper form and for content. Of course, if he did check it, if he did find it through Google Books as I did, then he incontrovertibly became aware it did not support his insertion.

APPENDIX Partial edit history of the article Kerala relevant to this complaint, only for people who think it's important, which doesn't include me).
(a) 16 Jan 2006. User Saravask inserts a phonetic transcription of 'Kerala', apparently, the first in the history of the article. Text: Kerala (IPA: ['kɛrʌɹlʌ].
(b) as of 01:56, 10 March 2006. User Saravask amended his own IPA transcription. Text: Kerala (IPA: ['kɛɹəlʌ].
(c) as of 23:17, 13 March 2006. User:Saravask amended his own IPA transcription. Text: Kerala (IPA: ['keːɹeɭã]. ES: (use native pronunciation (nasalization, suprasegmentals, etc); gm; clarify chart caption)
(d) as of 19:35, 27 April 2006. User:Saravask (talk | contribs) amended his own IPA transcription. Text: Kerala (. ES: ()
(e) as of 07:12 1 July 2006. User:Grammatical error changed Saravask's transcription. Text: Kerala ( (Anglicised) or [ˈkeːɾəˌɭəm] (native). ES: added native pronunciation.
(f) 2 Jan 2007, IPA transcription had been changed to ['keːɹəˌɭɐ].
(g) Sometime between 11 May 2008 and 22 Jun 2008, a separate section, Etymology was created.
(h) 26 November 2009. User:Caughingjoe inserts reference "Freiberger" to support the claim that the natives say 'Keralam' instead of Kerala'. This claim had been in the article since at least 5 December 2005[96].
(i) 19:36 15 April 2012. User:Kwamikagami wrongly associated the "Freiberger" footnote with a detailed phonetic transcription.
(j) 22:23 16 May 2012. Dale Chock (that's me), citing a grammar of the Malayalam language, removed a phonetic transcription from the section, Etymology and amended the transcription in the lead sentence to native pronunciation.
(k) 01:52, 17 May 2012. Kwamikagami globally reverted me with the ES: "undo: that's not a "correction", that's a different language. English first on WP-en." In fact, instead of putting English first in the lead, he made it English only. (At Wikipedia, it is common practice to include the native pronunciation of names in the opening sentence.)
(l) Two minutes later. Kwami slightly amended his transcription (using updated markup to produce the same result).
(m) 15:23, 17 May 2012. I restored my edits with the ES, "Restore factual enhancements on prehistory and pronunciation. Restore Infobox heading. Clean up citations. See two new sections on talk page."

• * * End of Appendix * * * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dale Chock (talk • contribs) 22:21, 9 June 2012‎ (UTC)

• The above post clearly evidences lack of assumption of good faith and battleground mentality. A cursory review of the OP's contributions will show that this is a consistent pattern.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

A bit of WP:TLDR in there too. I feel like there might be a valid content concern buried somewhere in there and perhaps WP:ECCN would be a better venue (or the article talk page of course). SÆdon^talk 02:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Dale, you're welcome to fix any errors. I didn't read your complaint past the summary (way TLDR), but the problem arose because the India project decided to remove all native script from geography articles, and several people implemented the decision badly. In this case (as in several others), the result was that we claimed the English pronunciation of Kerala was [kɛ̀rɑ́lə], which was not true. I moved the pronunciation down where I thought it would be more appropriate, rather than simply deleting it. — kwami (talk) 02:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• 1. If your AN/I posting comes to 12,522 characters, you might want to stop and ask yourself if maybe you're talking too much. and 2. I don't see a signature on that wall o' text. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• This feels like a tempest in a teacup; I don't see any evidence of any wrongdoing here, no evidence of deliberate bad faith or anything like that. I see nothing to be done here at all. --Jayron32 03:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, we may have more than just a lack of assumption of good faith here. The Kerala thing happened a month ago; Dale didn't said anything until I responded to an edit war of his on Russian phonology, where he was making an unsupported (though very possibly correct) edit against sources. In that discussion he said I had it in for him, though frankly I didn't remember who he was at the time, and now he's using this ANI posting as evidence against my character in that debate, in an argument he added after the debate had been archived.[97] Since I'm a minor party to that and it's now linked to this ANI complaint, perhaps I'm not the one to revert his additions to an archived talk page. — kwami (talk) 04:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I noticed a similar occurrence when I suggested at Wikiquette Assistance that his behavior at Diasystem was WP:OWNy and he has since taken to either accusing me of article ownership or implying as much by saying I'm the most significant contributor to this or that article.

I've un-archived the other thread. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 06:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Bushranger's point (1.) is invalid since I led off with a short summary. I am entitled to fully document an accusation. I went to extra length because (a) the person I'm accusing is an administrator; (b) the article gets 50 edits a month. His point (2.) is valid. I'm sorry for the oversight. I was logged in and in earlier drafts my signature was there. The last thing I can be accused of is concealing my authorship of controversial comments. Bushranger's response is poor administratorship because he doesn't address the complaint: the citation invoked for an insertion does not support the insertion, and the inserter had no reason to think it did; if the inserter had read the cited source, he would have seen so for himself. As for Kwami's annoyance, the timing of my complaint was already addressed by me in a short, titled section right after the Summary. Dale Chock (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• This seems a minor content dispute, and should be resolved elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 20:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • More to the point, if you have a content issue, wouldn't messaging kwami on their talk page 'first before bringing it to drama-central have been the way to go? I mean, seriously... Blackmane (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

212.118.232.164 / User:HunterSilver

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi. I think banned User:HunterSilver returned again, with his attempts to push his unconstructive edits at List of Prime Ministers of Nepal, now with this IP address: 212.118.232.164. Just to let you know, User:HunterSilver is a sockpuppet of User:HasperHunter, who was banned indefinitely on April 20, 2012 for abusing multiple accounts. All of them are, in turn, sockpuppets of User:DBSSURFER (A few days ago, I opened a SPI, which can be found here). I'm really becoming tired of this, and I hope someone can solve this issue for good. --Sundostund (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• IP blocked, article semi-protected for a month. Let us know if he comes back on other articles. Black Kite (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

disruptive editor with unsustainable PoV

Hi,

I have been doing battle since 16 May (It all started here) with Stodieck (Talk), who has a technical PoV about aircraft that he is trying to stitch into several articles, including Canard (aeronautics), Stabilizer (aircraft) and Wing configuration. He is abusive, does not listen to reason or accept the majority consensus of other editors. He has most recently taken to misinterpreting sources, which has started to confuse other editors. The main evidence of this may be found on Talk:Stabilizer (aircraft): see my posts from 5 June downwards for diffs and other links. I notice that this user has been censured before on their talk page. Please help, I am at the end of my tether. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The Zeitgeist Movement (continued)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Previous discussion at ANI

The Zeitgeist Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Discussion at WP:DRN

Reinventor098 (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

After the previous discussion, I set myself up as a quasi-mediator in the ongoing content dispute about the article. I may live to regret that, but, nonetheless, a fair amount of constructive dialog has taken place, both on the article Talk page and at DRN. When, in my view, editors have regressed into name-calling, I have called them on it in an effort to refocus the conversation. Unfortunately, Reinventor, a WP:SPA, has not contributed constructively to these conversations. Instead, he has come back from a block for edit-warring on the article and recommenced his behavior. See here. In addition, he incorrectly labels other editors' actions as vandalism and makes oddly veiled comments at the article Talk page in a section he labeled vandalism ([98]), e.g., "It is a truly sad to see the level of dishonestly here and disheartening to see how malicious many of your controlling parties really are." I think "your" means Wikipedian editors who add material he doesn't like but it's not clear.

I suggest a block is warranted, and significantly longer than the previous 24-hour block.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked 96 hours. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MMA, part 1287

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See also Wikipedia:ANI#MMA_AfD.27s above. I have just closed another disruptive AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 in UFC events (3rd nomination). I have also noted at least one WP:POINT nominations for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/America's Next Top Model, Cycle 19) of articles edited by the few editors who are trying to uphold Wikipedia policy in the MMA area. I'd would suggest that after such a persistent campaign of WP:IDHT by a number of SPAs to turn the encyclopedia into an MMA results service it is probably time to say "enough". Black Kite (talk) 06:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

As an editor who has passively observed the MMA disputes that flare up on the boards every other day (it seems), I'm also of the mind that some unified solution should be adopted—it really has been quite "enough" at this point. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

As only tangently involved (MMA editors trying to change policy/guidelines to make such articles acceptable to which I've commented on), yes, this is far past the point of disruption. That said, the MMA ppl have brought up a good point that if the various individual event articles aren't considered notable, then why do we have articles like 2008 Food City 500, 2011 World Series of Poker results (note, 2011 World Series of Poker exists but is ok), and similar? There is an inconsistency here, and it might step from the larger idea that the various sports arena itself is a walled garden - by no means as great a degree as the MMA - but clearly with a larger allowance for topics and the like. At this point there needs to be a course of action that pulls any decision away from those involved with MMA or at least the troublemakers making such pointy AFD noms, and get to a resolve quickly, but making sure that solution applies uniformly to other sports-based articles. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing that we have articles like 2008 Food City 500 because no-one's got round to deleting or merging them yet. Yes, the solution should apply to all sports, but with well over 3 million articles stuff like that is always going to sneak through; it doesn't mean we should let it go though. Black Kite (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'm fully aware that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a bad argument, except that I recall seeing editors from the various sports (nonMMA) suggest the NASCAR articles are just fine but the MMA ones are a problem. This mirrors a similar discussion about the denial to include eSports (professional video game competitions) within NSPORT because "its not a sport". I do applaud most of the editors that are knee deep in sports, self-aware that sports coverage far outweighs most other contemporary topics and thus having restraint to what is summarized on WP, but there remains some aspects here of walled gardens that we can't sweep away by just closing down the MMA stuff, fairly. --MASEM (t) 23:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a very subtle difference though, one that came out of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 Estoril Open in that an annually repeated sports event is a little different (I am not saying I necessarily agree with that). Mtking ^(edits) 00:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

What's enormously unfortunate about this situation is it's somehow identified as an "MMA" issue when the exact same sets of pages exist all across the site and tend to be the rule for formatting rather than exception. The main difference here is that for various reasons the AfDs on this particular subject have been unusually successful. Simply contrast this with worse entries such as that, or that, or that, or that (the list is trivial to enumerate). When users who feel their area of interest is being singled out see their concerns dismissed by wiki-insiders, it creates a great deal of frustration with the process and thus the highly visible drama. Should the same exceptional deletions happen on any other part of wiki with a significant userbase, the consequences would hardly differ. The challenge to solving such a systemic dilemma is to studying how the system works rather than respond with the same natural instincts which is the hallmark of institutional failure. Agent00f (talk) 19:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• There are some things that will always be the case in Wikipedia or in any similar project without centralized control and therefore without fixed enforceable rules:

1. within a field, the results at AfD will be inconsistent
2. between fields, the accepted emphasis will be inconsistent
3. everyone will think their own interests are being unfairly neglected

I accept this will happen even the areas of most concern to me, and though I continue to push gently for greater coverage of them, I will not forfeit whatever sympathy there is for my minority interests by making a nuisance of myself. DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

My question, how come we have to continually deal with these many AfDs on MMA articles, more often than not with either a "keep" or "no consensus"(no consensus when there are 4-5 votes for deletion and dozens to keep, yet those all are discounted for one reason or another), yet whenever a much less notable event, like say for instance a soon to be cancelled show about modelling that has no lasting significance gets nominated for deletion, the result is always a "Speedy Keep" and the nominator gets scolded? After so many failed deletion attempts by the 1 main MMA deletionist here, shouldn't they too be scolded for continually nominating articles?AugustWest1980 (talk) 14:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

If there's significant element of randomness on wiki by design, then the implication is userbase interests here were specifically unlucky. With this understanding the org shouldn't be unduly alarmed that intrinsic variation produces outliers. IOW, when the stars align, page sets get wrecked and those who use them become displeased proportional to the wreckage. The connection between these last two is basic human psychology which is difficult to trivially amend. Agent00f (talk) 09:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

"I'd would suggest that after such a persistent campaign of WP:IDHT by a number of SPAs to turn the encyclopedia into an MMA results service it is probably time to say enough." What method would you recommend for getting rid of MMA fans? Portillo (talk) 03:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• For those who cannot edit without being disruptive or incivil, then blocks and/or topic bans are clearly indicated; that's not even controversial. That doesn't just apply to MMA fans, but to any editor of Wikipedia. I merely bring the issue to ANI so that more eyes may be available. Black Kite (talk) 11:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Do you think there's a broad enough consensus about deleting the articles at hand that it could be made a CSD category? It's a brutal but effective approach.—Kww(talk) 11:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• No, I don't believe so. Whilst some are clearly non-notable, others are on the fringes. Even the ones that are obviously non-notable have some sources, even if it's clear that they fail WP:NOT and WP:SPORTSEVENT. I think the main issue here isn't the articles (they can be dealt with in time) but the disruption that is spreading to other areas. Black Kite (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, and the AfDs end up like this - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 145. I doubt if that's going to be closed as anything else but Keep, but that is effectively saying that "any sporting event that is mentioned in the newspapers is notable". Without going too much towards WP:WAX, that means you could effectively make a case for (as an example) all 1,760 professional soccer games that happen in England every year. Black Kite (talk) 11:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed respective projects and fan bases are turning the Encyclopaedia into a sports newspaper. Mtking ^(edits) 20:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
• How is that any different from turning the Encyclopedia into a fan site for fashion television shows that have absolutely no lasting notability?AugustWest1980 (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• Is Wikipedia running out of server space to the point where things that meet the WP:GNG aren't acceptable? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There is a reason that the sports notability guidelines don't consider regular games as part of a professional league series as notable just because they were played and reported on, and instead provide seasonal summaries. This is the solution that pro-MMA editors have been suggested to head towards but they fight to include every possible detail against global consensus for this type of information. --MASEM (t) 02:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• What Masem said. Your average NFL or Premiership game, NASCAR race, major American college football or basketball match no doubt nukes your average UFC event for GNG-applicable coverage, and I'm sure that given the green light, there are any number of Manchester United or University of Nebraska supporters who would be positively eager to write articles on them all. If "routine sports coverage" is a valid excuse to shoot down an independent article for the next Celtics-Heat playoff match, it sure is heck a valid one to debar your average MMA event. Ravenswing 05:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• and another one kept that is just like all the rest Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 21, it would appear that the MMA fan base has worn the other editors down ....... Mtking ^(edits) 10:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
• Or perhaps the other editors and moderators are simply tired of your crusade against MMA articles, realize the truth that these events are truly notable(we're still talking about them after a decade has passed), and that deleting them would weaken Wikipedia as a source of knowledge. I wonder how many people will be talking about the results of ANTM #19 in over a decade, yet you consider them to have lasting notability? Such bias proves you simply have an agenda to scrub WP of MMA articles.AugustWest1980 (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

<outdent> I'm not sure if this belongs here, but there is another MMA discussion going on over at Talk:List of professional sports leagues regarding whether they qualify as a league or not, which has been prompted most likely by the same circumstances regarding all the MMA AFDs. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 02:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

What's quite interesting here is that an event card as set of ~10 distinct and separate contests of 15-25min regulation time was mentioned numerous times in the past, yet critics continue to IDHT this basic reality. Each event page is already a collection of individual "games", and direct comparison of notability to X vs Y competitions would be a separate entry for each contest (ie 10 pages for each card). Agent00f (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I will observer that a solution was previously on the table (several times in fact) regarding how to move forward without having to invoke AN/I or AN every single time however the filibustering, polite disruption, point-making, IDHT, and outright obtuseness has been a (perceived) hallmark of the enthusiast community. A previous discussion to endorse general sanctions across the MMA article (and project spaces) had atrophied due to lack of commitment. It is my understanding that the Administrator Corps does not feel that the toolset they have does not endorse actions with respect to these users, therefore there are 2 solutions. First is to open a new discussion on AN regarding authorization of General Sanctions across the MMA article and project spaces. The second is to open an Arbcom case and get a set of discretionary sanctions applied to the MMA article and project spaces. As I'm immensely involved (and any proposal by me would be accused of being part of the cabal to destroy MMA on Wikipedia) I am not an appropriate user to move forward with either proposal. Hasteur (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

What? You pretend to speak for the entirety of the Wikicommunity yet in reality it's you, MtKing, Ravenswing, etc. The exact same editors take part in these frivolous AfDs, the core group of 4-5 deletionists and the hordes of angry MMA fans who tire of this coordinated plan to ruin MMA on Wikipedia. Perhaps the Wikicommunity and administrators in particular don't agree with your suggestion of sanctions on MMA articles, hence none being applied.AugustWest1980 (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Please strike your personal attack above. In no way was your response appropriate to my informing people of two options that have been on the table before. Your commentary here demonstrates the intrinsic flaw in the enthusiast's viewpoint. We are not out to ruin MMA on Wikipedia. We simply want the "walled garden" mentality to cease and for the articles to follow the same guidelines that other projects are required to follow. Are there counter examples where there are worse article? Entirely possible, but for the time being, the eye of scrutiny is on MMA articles. Is it possible that other sports will be touched by this plan to break down the walls and follow the guidelines? Absolutely yes. So to summarize, your premise is faulty and a personal attack on those who are attempting to uphold the policies. Hasteur (talk) 15:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not. My post above is absent of any personal attack. Your argument is flawed as well. You say other projects are required to follow these same guidelines? No they're not. Wikipedia is full of fancruft(America's Next Top Model) that has absolutely no degree of lasting notability. The eye of scrutiny on MMA articles is not Wikipedia as a whole, rather it is the agenda of a few editors who can be counted on one, perhaps two, hands. If you truly wanted to improve the articles to adhere to Wiki standards, improve them! Instead it's one constant AfD after another. When those AfDs don't turn out the way MMA-deletionists intended, they simply nominate them again at a later date, with no attempt at improving them in the meantime.AugustWest1980 (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

*Edit to add, show me one AfD for a UFC ppv recently not started by the MtKing, Hasteur, Ravenswing, TreyGeek, NewConnorMan, or the new POINTy troll Portillo. Just one. Most have been MtKing's doing. Not only does he brag about it, he also openly antagonizes MMA supporters without repercussion, blaming us when his AfDs are shut down without a 'delete' verdict. Sorry, but it is beyond obvious that you guys are not trying to make Wikipedia a better place. Truly, we're supposed to assume good faith, but your collective ruined any hope of that long ago with your antics and irritating smarminess.AugustWest1980 (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I've been reading this debate for awhile now, and I really don't have a horse in this race, but I have a question with regards to notability and the like. First, yes I know other things are on Wikipedia, but what is the difference between the UFC PPVs and the regular WWE and TNA PPVs that have articles here? Are the wrestling PPVs consider inheritable notable? If so, what coverage/guidelines do they get their notability from? Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe WWE is deemed notable per WP: Fabulous Costumes. JoelWhy? talk 14:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

No! Bad JoelWhy! We explicitly discourage fabulous costumes here! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

In response to Wildthing61476, their PPVs typically receive coverage from mainstream media sources such as The Sun and The Star (British national newspapers), Québecor Média (Canoe.ca) and the Miami Herald; not to mention extensive coverage from wrestling-oriented reliable sources such as the Wrestling Observer. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Just as UFC PPV events receive coverage from mainstream media sources such as Yahoo!, the LA Times, the Las Vegas Sun, as well as national newspapers like USA Today. Not to mention the extensive coverage in foreign countries like Brazil, Mexico, the UK, and Japan. Also the multitude of MMA-oriented websites such as Sherdog or BloodyElbow. Oh yeah, and other mainstream sporting media such as ESPN, Sports Illustrated, FoxSports, etc.AugustWest1980 (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I can confirm that Brazil's two main national newspapers, O Estado de S. Paulo and Folha de S.Paulo, regularly cover UFC events, as shown here and here. Evenfiel (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm forced to ask the question, then - if MMA Event articles are well sourced and competently written, what harm do they do to the project? If it's a reputation thing, I've got a list of articles more damaging to Wikipedia's reputation than these. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that coverage in the Sun and the Star, while indicative of some cultural relevance, is not coverage in something that generally meets WP:RS. Also the Sun is owned by a major player in the PPV scene. Rich Farmbrough, 16:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC).

Regardless of Murdoch's many fingers in many pies, coverage by multiple national media sources (not just The Sun) is generally a reasonable claim to notability for article subjects. In response to AugustWest1980, I think your point is fair - if an event had such extensive coverage then I would tend to consider it notable. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - AfD regular, sports fan, no dog in the MMA fight... I don't think the UFC pages are being deleted when challenged; certainly not lately. If there is a caucus attempting to delete them, they will become frustrated and shut down the disruptive mass attacks if more common sense (policy: IAR) and a lower level of mechanical adherence to the mantra of "three sources or bust" (guideline: GNG) is followed by closing administrators. High number events have adequate sourcing and, of course, the answer to preserving the low numbered events over the long haul is to find adequate sourcing for them as well. But I don't think this is any sort of crisis at AfD other than the minor annoyance of excessive cut-and-pasted challenges with no effort to follow WP:BEFORE. This, too, will pass. Carrite (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• That is an excellent point. I believe the only UFC events that have been deleted were ones that went unchallenged. Anytime there is vocal opposition to it the closing admin rules it either "Keep" or "no consensus". Now that these AfDs are being heavily challenged seems those who nominate and support deletion get angry and accuse the "MMA community" of disrupting the process. Ha! AugustWest1980 (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - One thing that really makes me mad is that the people putting UFC article up for deletion do not even check to see if there are good sources out there. They don't follow WP:BEFORE at all. They make no attempt to IMPROVE the article or check to see if it CAN be improved before they nominate it for deletion. Then, when I bring this point up in the afd debate, users like Hasteur have the nerve to tell me that WP:BEFORE isn't a requirement... only a guideline. It is absolutely ridiculous that users like Mtking and Hasteur constantly use WP policy to make their points, and when I make a very valid point that they are not even checking for possible notability before putting it up for deletion, they have the nerve to say it is only a guideline. Not-to-mention, when I'd search for sources myself, I can find sources from news agencies all over the world. LA Times, USA Today, Brazilian, Japanese, and European publications, etc. I even found sources in books and magazines using a google book search. It is ridiculous that articles get deleted if they are unopposed. So I have to run around defending all of the UFC articles because Mtking puts a bunch of them up for deletion at one time. I think if no effort is made to improve an article by finding sources BEFORE they are put up for deletion, then that nomination should automatically be thrown out. Gamezero05 21:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Again with the personal attacks. Great to see that the enthusiast community still knows how to sling a FUD bomb to derail and disrupt any forward momentum. Hasteur (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hasteur, there were absolutely no personal attacks there. I'm not sure you know what a personal attack is. I simply stated things that have happened and my opinion on it. You constantly playing the victim is getting quite old and tiring. Gamezero05 19:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, absolutely no personal attack present. Your attempt to "play the victim" citing nonexistent personal attacks will garner you no favor here. GameZero stated facts. Your cabal of MMA-deletionists never try to add sources or improve existing articles. You took one admin ruling from many months back, a ruling that vaguely implied some MMA articles could be consolidated, and then ran roughshod over years of work in the MMAProject using that one statement as justification for multiple AfDs. When other editors show up to protest you throw the wiki-jargon book at them, accusing any and every one opposed to deletion as a sockpuppet, meatpuppet, canvassed voter, or SPA. You simply couldn't accept the fact that your plan to reorganize and marginalize MMA knowledge on Wikipedia is very, very unpopular. No doubt you will now point out the nonexistent personal attacks in my post. Knock yourself out.AugustWest1980 (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Both your and Gamezero05's remarks prove my point. Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt, and premptive attacks on the editor and not demonstrating content reasoning. Hasteur (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Prove what point? I hate to keep this stupid squabble going, but what you are saying is just completely untrue. My paragraph that I wrote was highlighting a problem with nominating articles for deletion without even bothering to check for sources. How you took that as a "personal attack" is beyond me. And quite frankly, I'm getting tired of having to respond and defend myself against your pointless straw-man arguments. Gamezero05 21:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Aw... how cute, they learned a new keyword to disrupt debates. Tired of having to respond and defend yourself? Don't. If my postings are so out of line someone outside the enthusiast community will tell me to sit down. You commited an ad-hominem attack with It is absolutely ridiculous that users like Mtking and Hasteur constantly use WP policy to make their points, and when I make a very valid point that they are not even checking for possible notability before putting it up for deletion, they have the nerve to say it is only a guideline. Your continued insistance that this wasn't an attack and commiting yet annother attack on the person with You constantly playing the victim is getting quite old and tiring. again steps over the line. That you commit further attacks when you're being cautioned about personal attacks only demonstrates that you can't disassociate the user from the action. The fact that you claim I'm setting up straw man arguments, I point at the collection of UFC articles that are now on the AfD block that are in danger of deletion not because of any action that MtKing or myself took directly. So you know what, if I'm going to be tarred and feathered as a MMA deletionist, I might as well play the part. <sarcasam>Delete every single MMA article</sarcasam> Hasteur (talk) 01:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Ad-hominem attacks? I don't think you know what ad-hominem means. You seem to think personal attacks and ad-hominem attacks mean simply mentioning your name. Personal attacks would mean I attacked you personally in some way. An example would be if I called you a name. An ad-hominem attack would be if I used some irrelevant point to try to make an argument. An example of that would be if I said something like "John can't be good at basketball... he's a nerd". Being a nerd has no real connection to one's basketball playing ability. There are different kinds of ad-hominem attacks, but they all follow the same basic principle. And NOTHING I said was an ad-hominem attack. And NOTHING I said was a personal attack. I was simply pointing out FACTS that had happened, and used specific names to clarify exactly who I am talking about. If you'd like to see exactly where you said WP:BEFORE is only a guideline and not a requirement, it is right here: WP:Articles_for_deletion/UFC_21. Also, you accuses me of "personal attacks" yet you make smart remarks like "aw... how cute", and resort to calling me an "enthusiast" as if you are trying to discredit me as an editor because I actually like the subject I spend time editing. And you have the nerve to tell me that I'M out of line? Gamezero05 02:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The reason why UFC 21 got kept is simple, the MMA fans have created through various means including off-wiki canvassing and rallying calls such an atmosphere of total vitriol and disruption that no editor wants to go near it, you are guilty of it (and for the avoidance of any doubt yes I mean you Gamezero05), along with numerous socks of other indef'ed editors and SPA's the whole debate has been so poisoned to such an extent that any chance of a rational compromise went long ago. I can think of three or four good editors who have given up on MMA as a result, I hope that you feel mighty proud of yourselves sitting there in your Mum's basement. In fact it will make a good case study and essay on how as a single interest group can force it's agenda on the WP community. Also before you jump up and down claim this is an attack, no it is not it is explaining what has happened as I see it, so don't waste the electrons in replying if all you are going to do is talk about how much I have attacked you. Mtking ^(edits) 04:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

How am I causing disruption? Because you aren't getting your way? Because I'm standing up to you guys who want to delete everything? I can't believe you are trying to blame this on "us"... the people who actually care about MMA. YOU are one of the people responsible for all of this "vitriol". You caused an uproar when you decided to start merging entire years worth of articles to one page and delete numerous other outright. So let me get this straight. We are editing MMA articles on Wikipedia just fine, then one day you and others decide to go on an MMA crusade and start merging and deleting everything in sight, then we try our hardest to stop that from happening, and now you are blaming US for the disruption? It is really quite unbelievable. I don't know anything about off wiki-canvassing or sock puppets or SPA's, since I'm not involved with any of that myself, so I really have no idea what to say about that. I don't know if that is even true or not. Plus, I find it quite ironic that you claim I am one of the ones causing disruption and I am responsible for "vitriol", yet you say things like "I hope that you feel mighty proud of yourselves sitting there in your Mum's basement", and Hasteur gets smart with me, yet you guys claim I am the one slinging personal attacks. Gamezero05 05:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

You could not resist wasting the electrons could you, even after I told you not to; and it is not me making comments about basements it your colleagues, also don't bother wasting yet more time and effort by claiming you don't read the MMA forums as you have made enough comments to very clearly demonstrate you do. Mtking ^(edits) 06:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

AugustWest and Gamezero, you're approaching this discussion in the entirely the wrong way. Constructing arguments which make sense is not useful in a dispute predicated instead on leveraging inside processes. As an example of the former (ie arguments), it makes a lot of sense that subjects in close proximity in an encyclopedia should follow similar and consistent formatting, but arguing for this first pillar of wiki against blatant violation not only apparently fails POLICY but is considered a DISRUPTive nuisance. As an example of the latter (processes), defending hundred of pages against AfD's is wasteful and time-consuming whereas nominations are very cheap, and no amount of making sense will change this basic reality either. The only way these very disruptive and inconsistent changes to a very specific subset of pages can be reversed is to gain the support of some insiders with the political weight and know-how to tip the balance in the other direction. That's a very different kind of task to what you're twiddling away at here. 75.172.4.206 (talk) 06:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, this thread was started to gather consensus on what, if anything, we can do to reduce the drama level regarding MMA deletions. One simple way which would have a noticeable effect would be to indefinitely block editors whose contributions at this point are basically yelling about how The Deletionist Cabal Is Ruining Everything Because They Hate UFC And Love ATM. There are at least two prominent candidates on this thread. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

And I agree completely with that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The MMA debate actually raises several very good, very valid questions about sports notability, and these have yet to be answered. The problem lies at both extremes, those that want to keep everything, and those that want to delete everything, albeit with one side being somewhat more disruptive than the other. I gave up on trying to bring the two sides together once it became apparent that neither side was willing to compromise, even a little. Eventually, a settlement will be forced upon them all, which is usually the net result when two sides refuse to cooperate with each other: A solution that no one will like, but they will not like it equally. The sad thing is, a compromise wouldn't be that complicated if not for the bludgeoning. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

We have already compromised a lot. We agreed to the omnibus. We have been talking about splitting up the omnibus because it is too long. We are trying to work on this. All that we ask is that the numbered UFC pay-per-view events have their own pages. That is really all I am looking for. I am also wanting to improve the existing numbered pages. But I (and the rest of the MMA project) can't ever get any of this done when we are constantly trying to defend pages from deletion. Gamezero05 18:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not blaming you in particular Gamezero. You and I have bumped heads once or twice but I think we both respect each other and have generally treated each other fairly, even when we disagreed. I was trying to get the whole omnibus system redesigned, based on the input of everyone, when it became apparent that some were not willing to compromise. I don't have a preferred way, I just knew the first way was too rough to work. Everyone does try to paint the place like it is two camps, when the reality is there are two strong viewpoints, and half the people just lean one way or the other, and are not as extreme. But half the crowd ARE extreme in the "all" or "nothing" camp. The most vocal minorities are the ones being the boldest, which is why there is so much disruption. Consensus can't be reached when some are so reactionary. This is why I think eventually it will require an outside binding resolution to move forward. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

"Also, you accuse me of "personal attacks" yet you make smart remarks like "aw... how cute", and resort to calling me an "enthusiast" as if you are trying to discredit me as an editor because I actually like the subject I spend time editing. And you have the nerve to tell me that I'M out of line?" "When other editors show up to protest you throw the wiki-jargon book at them, accusing any and every one opposed to deletion as a sockpuppet, meatpuppet, canvassed voter, or SPA." I agree with Gamezero and AugustWest. Hasteur and Mtking love throwing potshots and condescending comments to MMA fans. But if anyone challenges them, they are instantly accused of disruption and ruining Wikipedia. Portillo (talk) 05:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Could that be because we've been personally attacked by SPAs, IP editors, externally canvassed users, and editors in goods standing (Like yourself) for so long that the only way to get through to you is to drop the mask of civility and start throwing elbows with the same sort of abusive language that gets levied against us? Want our behavior to improve? start by calling out editors who level abusive statements to us and we'll be more reasonable to work with. Don't care? We can ride the Drama Merry go Round until someone gets so fed up with the incessant drama from the project that even more painful sanctions will get applied and the suporter croud will lose more content than what we have been willing to compromise for already. Hasteur (talk) 12:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

"that even more painful sanctions will get applied and the suporter croud will lose more content than what we have been willing to compromise for already." I'm sure I'm not the only one fed up with these types of threats. Any doubt that there is an axe to grind is all but cleared up with comments like these, coupled with the corresponding behavior. BearMan998 (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, this is a true example of a personal attack and it's from none other than Hasteur himself. I have never personally attacked you so I would appreciate it if you can edit and interact in a civil manner. BearMan998 (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I might be short-sighted here, but I can't see anything in that link that looks like a personal attack. Can you clarify? Black Kite (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

See his edit summary of "You already voted, now scurry back to your den." I made a simple mistake in my edit and that was his response to it. BearMan998 (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I missed the edit-summary. Yeah, a bit snarky, not sure if it was attempting to be a joke based on your user name. Black Kite (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment all I know is, Hasteur and Mtking cannot use an excuse like "other people personally attacked us, so we're going to personally attack people here". Two wrongs don't make a right, and nobody has personally attacked you guys in this discussion. Gamezero05 16:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment for the MMA crowd: I see that UFC 94 is a Good Article. Quality work like that is your best weapon to disarm your opponents. While you seem to be doing a great job on the athlete bios, I would suggest you get together and collaborate on a few event articles to bring them up to higher standards. Given the coverage Canada's major media are giving it, UFC 149 should be a relatively easy candidate once the event happens. The first one in Toronto that set an attendance record received considerable coverage, iirc. Show off a few more examples like UFA 94, and the arguments against their existence will whither and die. Resolute 17:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree Resolute. If there are any good things to come out of this whole debacle is that it has brought attention to the MMA crowd that 1) Wikipedia needs help in editing the MMA articles and 2) MMA articles which are a valuable resource to the MMA community and the general public are being deleted. There have been some very good editors who contribute to these articles however with all the nominations for deletion, I see them using their resources instead to fight the nominations and getting sucked into endless and heated arguments. BearMan998 (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I recently made UFC 145 similar to UFC 94 in order to prevent it from getting deleted. And the article isn't even close to being finished. One problem is that the people who want to delete the articles (Mtking, Hasteur), don't make any effort to improve any of the articles. They just go around trying to get them deleted. Gamezero05 17:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Lets not kid ourselves here, the sources in UFC 145 that are from sources that WP would call reliable are routine primary news coverage or more about the fighters with a tangential link to the event. Lets take the cite from the impresive sounding International Business Times here as an example on closer invistigation you will acutaly see that it is from a user content blog. Where are the sources written after the event, with further analysis or discussion on the long term impact of this event? Mtking ^(edits) 23:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you happened to notice, the UFC 145 article is NOT finished. I never got around to finishing summarizing the results and also if you notice, I never got around to writing anything for the "subsequent events" section. If you are wanting sources for things AFTER the event, you are going to have to wait... because nobody has written that part yet. It isn't a finished article... remember, Wikipedia is a constant work in progress. Gamezero05 04:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

So you admit that currently the event does not have demonstrated enduring notability (as per WP:NOT) it should therefore be redirected to the omnibus article until such time as it does. Mtking ^(edits) 05:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• "when it became apparent that some were not willing to compromise... But half the crowd ARE extreme in the "all" or "nothing" camp.". In general I (and the wiki record) would agree with Dennis's characterization of what happened. Back when I was still involved with this, I distinctive recall proposals which retain 80% of the original omnibus reasoning (if not the entire design of copy/pasting dozens of pages into one), with enthusiastic support, and being ignored completely by the omnibus designers (unfortunately there's nothing to diff for silence). Those among the userbase who felt their reasonable attempts to compromise weren't being addressed wasn't a uncommon experience (there was no reply to this). From a cursory look at the discussion today, this lopsided behavior has only continued, with targeted archiving of critical comments. Speaking of which, it's worth noting that the proposal above was also unilaterally collapsed as TLDR by omnibus hardliners, and this seems commonplace. When that sort of unbalanced environment persists, the combined outcry is rather unsurprising, and whatever solution should address this extremism. Agent00f (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• So let's get this straight, you made a proposal which recived enthusiastic support from one editor that in essance wanted to amend WP's notability requirement to say that if the sum of the parts was notabile than the parts are also notable, and you are seriouly wondering why the attempt to change poilcy was not taken seriously and was ignored when it was such a transparent attempt at derailing the discussison and continue your filibustering. If you should be in any doubt about how transparent your filibustering is, have a read of your RFC/U here or here including such quotes as he [Agent00f] has gone out of his way to be intentionally obtuse, redundant and verbose for the purpose of diluting and distracting from the discussion or and it is clear from Agent's behavior here [the rfc] --the personal attacks, the battlefield mentality, the accusations of gangbanging, the filibustering, the right vs. wrong ideology, et cetera. Mind you you have achieved something, you have forced a number of editors in the MMA project who were willing to work within the existing WP policies to leave the project. Mtking ^(edits) 03:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe it was you, Mtking, and a few others who made people leave the project. The project was going just fine before you and some others went on a crusade. You and a few others who have Wikipedia "know-how" come in and completely change how MMA is presented on Wikipedia, and when 95% of the people involved with the MMA project oppose you, you blame THEM for "disruption". It would be like a small, well-trained army swooping through a village destroying everything in sight because they want the land, and when the villagers try to fight back the small, trained army blames the villagers for being so difficult. Gamezero05 04:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

So it's those established editors fault for wanting this project to be an encyclopedia and not a MMA fans results and gossip site, hm, maybe you should also read Agent00f's RFC/U as well.Mtking ^(edits) 06:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia will be no less of an encyclopedia with the inclusion of high-ranking MMA articles. And just because a few individual users have been disruptive doesn't mean the entire MMA-supporting side can be generalized as being disruptive. Some of us have valid, policy-based opinions, although many of them are repeatedly dismissed or overlooked with a high prejudice.

And without getting into a personal attack, I have to say I see a lot of irony in some of the claims being made. Both sides have plenty of guilt in the filibustering department, especially in the repeated echoing of "fails notability, fails notability!" when there has been plenty of consensus that it doesn't. Likewise, I find it quite humorous that the inclusionists who wish to maintain and preserve information are being considered disruptive, while the deletionist side that mangles useful articles and creates large amounts of drama and the resulting problems somehow claims that they are not disruptive.

Ultimately, I think a few editors on both sides really need to step back, and perhaps away from the issue altogether, simply because they are completely unwilling to compromise. That sort of adamant behavior is not beneficial towards reaching an agreement or consensus since they will never back down or admit fault. At this point, if anyone is simply unable to accept either the deletion of any MMA article or the existance of the top-tier, notable MMA articles, should really step away and take some time to cool down and return with more of an open mind. Otherwise, this argument will never die down. Zeekfox (talk) 07:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

This issue will never die down when the supporter community can externally canvas for new editors to come in and require established editors to have to prove the entire reason over again. Those of us who are left in the "enforcing WP policy" camp are the ones that refuse to take an exit from the debate because we know that any established editor who leaves the project emboldens the supporter community to continue their disruptive tactics. Hasteur (talk) 11:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you have evidence of external canvassing? Ypsi.peter (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment Good question. Hasteur, you continually accuse the inclusionist side of canvassing, sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry. Where is the proof?

Also, a reasonable compromise was suggested. All numbered UFC events get their own page, all lesser UFC events and all lesser organization events get omnibus pages. The deletionist side rejected it. The inclusionists have continually gave ground in this discussion, seems the deletionists simply will not budge thus implying an agenda of erasing MMA knowledge and history from Wikipedia. They have even rudely suggested that inclusionists leave Wikipedia altogether, implying we don't belong here, suggesting we start a different Wiki proving that they do not believe the subject matter belongs on WP. AugustWest1980 (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

RE to Ypsi.peter Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive233#Request for Sanctions against User:BigzMMA (Socking, Canvassing), Any of the multiple AfDS or disucssions that the hordes of non-wikipedians have been screaming for their want.(Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate Challenge MMA,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on Fuel TV: Sanchez vs. Ellenberger,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 151,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 149: Aldo vs. Koch (2nd nomination),WT:MMANOT,WT:MMA,Talk:2012 in UFC events)Hasteur (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The reason why we've suggested that the "inclusionists" found their own MMAPedia is because the articles that are being lobbied for are so far below the basic guideline that individual backyard events can get included. I think that some MMA articles do merit inclusion here (Like the Greasing contraversy given above). Given that all of the articles that have been challanged fall significantly below the level of inclusion, the Omnibus article is a significant step to reasonableness that the "deletionists" have put forward. Not every single MMA numbered event could ever be notable. The fact that we have to beat the point into the "inclusionists" with a spiked club only demonstrates the level of disruptive IDHT that the "inclusionists" are constantly practicing. Hasteur (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, you're misrepresenting the facts. First you say that the "inclusionists" are lobbying for such basic guidelines that backyard events could be included. Patently false and absurd. The "inclusionists" have stated many times that numbered UFC events are notable and deserve their own articles where other lessor orgs could have omnibuses. You mistakenly say "not every single MMA numbered event could ever be notable" is again false. Every Superbowl is notable. Every World Series is notable. Apparently every season of America's Top Model is notable. I just got through adding multiple sources to UFC 2, which someone POINTedly nominated AfD.

Movies, TV shows, reality television, usually the only references they have listed are sites like TV.com or IMDB.com, that makes them notable. Well every single numbered UFC has an entry on IMDB. Using the same judging criteria, wouldn't that make them notable? It's WP:COMMONSENSE, in 20 years no one will know or care who won Season 3 of Survivor or ANTM, but they will still be writing about and discussing UFC 1 and 2, just as people still discuss Superbowl 1.AugustWest1980 (talk) 19:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Forgive my obtuseness but I don't understand how those links provide evidence of external canvassing. Can you be more specific for me? Ypsi.peter (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

My friend, you're coming to this with a very stacked deck. Before you post further you may want to consider reading over the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia as your agenda and what you're aiming for is fairly obvious to me. Hasteur (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Your constant veiled threats to new users are getting old Hasteur. It is obvious his agenda, he wants to participate in the events surrounding the destruction of MMA on Wikipedia.AugustWest1980 (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

From another editor in another thread, but very relevant and so far unanswered:

In the end, this really has become just an editing war where a few editors are trying to march forward, waving the banner of policy where it doesn't apply. You want proof that this is mostly an attack? Because it's UFC articles being targeted. There are plenty of pages out there for lower tier events that even the most devoted MMA fan wouldn't recognize as notable, but instead of trying to delete/merge THOSE, the editors on the opposite side are going after the most notable MMA organizations out there.

Whether pages should be deleted or not, why AfD nominate every recent and soon-to-be UFC article, but yet, don't even bother with pages for DREAM, Titan FC, or Cage Rage? If it were just a matter of "enforcing policy", then the AfD nominations would be targeted towards articles that truly aren't notable...not the pages people actually use and care about. Instead, this is clearly being done with ill intent. AugustWest1980 (talk) 19:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Well it's become very obvious that there is an axe to grind here which is made obvious by the constant threats of deletion and the specific targeting of these articles as opposed to certain WWE and boxing articles. With that being said, can we really say that good faith is being exercised by the aforementioned threat issuers?BearMan998 (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

That would be because there's a history with the UFC articles, therefore they're more closely watched, and what is done with other things, the "what about X?" argument, is irrelevant. But let's not let that get in the way of a good conspiracy theory, shall we? Let's instead use megabytes of text to sling mud everywhere about the anti-UFC cabal instead of improving the articles and their sourcing so that there is no question of their notability and relevance.

With the sarcasm hat off: the best way to refute arguments that something isn't notable, is WP:RUNOFTHEMILL, or that it's part of an indiscriminate collection of information, is to improve the article with uncontroversially reliable sources that establish the event as unique, notable, and worthy of inclusion. Let the slings of arrows of outrageous fortune slide like water off a duck's back, and improve the article so that neutral users will !vote Keep. If, however, that can't be done, due to a lack of uncontroversially reliable sources to establish uniqueness, notability, and worthiness... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Ah, yes those would be my words that were quoted. And I would like to point out that the mention of lesser divisions not getting AfD's wasn't a "What about X?" argument to keep the UFC articles, but rather a point that the AfD's were not made with such a noble cause as the deletionists try to make it out to be. The AfD nominators aren't interested in removing MMA articles that fail notability, but instead go on a crusade to strike down articles that are well-sourced and cover a notable event.
• Also, recent articles have been getting improved. Yet, it seems the opposition to MMA continues to be relentless, dismissing every possible source as being either primary (referring to the MMA-specialized publications) or a newspaper (pretty much everything else that publishes news). By those standards, 98% of Wikipedia should be deleted, right? Zeekfox (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• The first is WP:PRIMARY. I believe the second argument is not "it's a newspaper" but "it's WP:ROUTINE". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• In answer to Ypsi.peter (yet another MMA SPA) go to any of the MMA forums (such as sherdog.net) and search for "wikipedia" and you find your evidence, along with countless attacks on editors here.
• In answer to AugustWest1980 and BearMan998, your attempts to goad others to nominate articles for deletion (such as WWF events) won't work with me, if you think that they should be deleted, you always have the option of nominating them yourself, however as you are aware pointy AfD nominations by MMA SPA's are normally closed in very short order. Mtking ^(edits) 23:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to goad you into anything so that's a poor presumption on your part. BearMan998 (talk) 02:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Try and goad you into nominating AfD? What an ignorant insinuation on your part. Trust me, I would be ecstatic if you never nominated another article for deletion ever again. I see you deftly jumped over the question posed by imagining insidious motives instead of answering.AugustWest1980 (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what agenda you think I have or what sinister motives are behind my comments, but I can assure they aren't true. I read wikipedia articles a lot, of all shapes and sizes, but I've never been interested in editing. My questions are honest and simple, and I'm not trying to trick you or troll you or anything like that, I'm just trying to understand how this fits into wikipedia as a whole. As somebody who never edits I've never paid attention to this whole arguing facet of wikipedia. Ypsi.peter (talk) 03:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The AfDs

Since nearly all of these hardly had any discussion on the actual notability of the subject (and since they were well overdue - clearly many admins are steering well clear of the subject, and I can hardly blame them), I have closed all of them (apart from a couple that were clear Keeps) as No Consensus. At least this time they weren't disrupted by SPAs. I would suggest these aren't nominated again until a clear consensus on the applicability of WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:ROUTINE and WP:SPORTSEVENT as they relate to MMA events is gained, with the input of a wide range of the community. As a side note, since it appears to be a problem related to a vague definition in WP:SPORTSEVENT, I went and looked at boxing, to see if there were articles on single world championship fights. The answer to that was "some of them", however I note that where they exist, they're usually very well sourced, and contain real-world background and coverage from many non-primary sources - see Wladimir Klitschko vs. David Haye, for example. If all UFC articles were up to this standard, there wouldn't be any argument about their notability. Black Kite (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

AFDing any of the UFC/MMA pages right now (short of CSD-qualified cases) is disruptive to the process; editors who are involved that are still nominating need to stop and/or been on a short block to chill for a while. There's a solution between "having no UFC event pages" and "having every UFC event with a page" that still needs to be figured out off AN/I, but those purposely disrupting the process do need admin action. If there has to be a formal proposal that no UFC/MMA related article should be AFD'd while this process is undergoing, then so be it. --MASEM (t) 14:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, the discussion has been going on for months, it has been virtually stalled for months, it has let to mulple RfC/Us, SPIs, more blocks than I can count, meatpuppeting on both sides, and I would bet 100x more text in comments than the whole of every MMA article combined. I don't think we can flatly say that any and all MMA AFDs are disruptive without looking at the case individually. New unsourced future event articles are created all the time, for instance. Mass AFDs, yes, I would agree that is less than optimal and likely being done to be disruptive, but would have to look at the circumstances. I support the close of No Consensus in this case, for instance. If the time I spend mediating there has taught me one thing, it is that this will not be solved without a binding resolution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

For every boxing article that is well sourced such as Wladimir Klitschko vs. David Haye there are UFC articles that are well sourced as well such as UFC 94. Similarly, there are as many boxing articles like Floyd Mayweather vs. Zab Judah or Andre Berto vs. Victor Ortiz which lack the non-primary sources and quality of Wladimir Klitschko vs. David Haye. I don't think the lack of non-primary sources should lead to automatic deletion as these were indeed championship fights which will leave a lasting legacy to the sport. Similarly, UFC championship fights leave a lasting legacy to the sport which is my main reason for supporting that they retain a standalone article. With that said, articles are always a work in progress and quality is always being built as seen by the improvement in some of the higher numbered UFC articles. Additionally, as previously stated, my stance is that only events with championship fights retain an individual article, the other events are not relevant enough in my opinion. BearMan998 (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's not argue the content/inclusion part here (this is ANI). I would extend any action that I suggest to AFD'ers of MMA to extend to established editors that are creating MMA match articles without impunity. As for the process taking too long, what's probably needed is to have non-involved admins set up a RFC process to resolve the issue. (This is skipping an Arbcom step that tends to end up back to this point such as with the Troubles or Mohammad images.) --MASEM (t) 03:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:PERSONAL

I am reporting a WP:PERSONAL attack on me by User:Soapfan2013 and 219.79.90.44 for creating personal attacks for the way I handle my talk pages. Yes, it may not unorthodox, but I will close a conversation if I feel it is not in an unhealthy discussion place, and I do not want to violate WP:PERSONAL, which Soapfan has on numerous occasions. And it's gone on long enough. I'm tired of being attacked by people on this site who do not know me or do not like me. And I want something done about it.

Refer to these edits: 01 02 03

I do not appreciate being called a baby by users for the way I use my talk page. How I edit and code my talk page, etc. is how I do it to avoid conflict and keep me somewhat WP:CIVIL, which these users are not months/weeks following the small conflict between members and it keeps me calm and helps me walk away from situations which would prove volatile. I agreed to work with Soapfan on furthering their work in editing soap opera articles following a WP:SOCK case, and that faltered due to us being unable to work together in situations, and since then, they seem to be badgering me around things, and I do not appreciate such. I've had several IPs attack me several weeks ago, and it's deterring my wanting to edit here at Wikipedia. I've progressed a lot of soap opera articles by bringing notability and WP:V to them. And situations like this are really hinging that. I realize my past my not have been the most grey, but within the past 4-6 months, I've really been working on staying out of conflict, yet it seems to want to attract to me, especially from said member. I try to remain civil headed and clearheaded, and we all get caught up in a moment, hence why we're always advised to walk away, which is what I always tend to do. But people don't want to let it die, and I'm tired of it.

I've told Soapfan to no longer post on my talk page, and they refuse to comply and at this point, it's distressing that they have such a fixation on me. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 05:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked several of PJ/Soapfan2013/User:Onelifefreak2007's socks in the past. I've given him another chance with this account, because he'd been quiet for a while and seemed to be handling a return to editing well when I finally figured out that it was him editing. Posting this on Musicfreak7676 was unacceptable and I'm waiting for a response from him and am very much considering blocking him. That being said Musicfreak7676 you are constantly in violation of WP:Civil. You shouldn't have to close or archive discussions to keep yourself civil, you should just be nice. It's not like you're editing in regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict here. It's soap operas. You get angry and threaten users with "being reported" whenever they make edits you disagree with. That you've found a sympathetic admin in Daniel Case is mind-boggling, because though you are often technically right your attitude is downright awful. AniMate 06:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, when I have people constantly down my back, like you, coming at me and making total judgement on me, my closing off arguments and discussions is how I handle it. It's how I resolve it and close it off and feel resolved, and keeps me from going back into the discussion. Yes, I may not have the best way of addressing things, I do not deny that, but I don't calling people babies, etc. And AniMate, I truly feel like you, as well, have a personal issue against me as you've made it clear you "watch" me. I feel as if you don't WP:Assume good faith around me. And AniMate, I'm a he, not a she. I'm not trying to create another conflict, I'm trying to end it. That's all I'm trying to do, so I can go on editing articles and making articles a better contribution to the site. I'm not doing to either to seem as superior to anyone, either. And I'm not saying that's what you're saying I may or may not be doing, I'm just doing this to stop this bull. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 06:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

My apologies about the gender confusion. I keep an eye on all of the soap opera articles and users. I've been active there and know the socks to look out for. Musicfreak, assume good faith is a two way street. You never seem to do so. Rather than leaving polite messages for those who make edits you disagree with, you almost always threaten to report them. That is not civil. That does not assume good faith. Rarely do threats of reports lead to cooperative editing. I watch you for the same reason I watch PJ, because you both have a history of treating other editors poorly. AniMate 07:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, blocking a shared IP for 24 hours with no warnings for calling someone a baby seems a bit harsh, but whatever. I totally agree with AniMate's WP:PETARDic assessment, especially the bit where he mentions sympathetic behaviour over a sustained period by an admin who should know better. There are specific rules on how and where to request blocks and protections, and for good reasons. Neither MusicFreak nor Daniel Case were following them. 219.78.114.94 (talk) 08:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• I've informed Daniel Case that this thread is also discussing him. May I remind people that if you criticise others here it is only polite to tell them. ϢereSpielChequers 09:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Heh. I would have, but his talk page is protected. Not a good start for a conversation, is it? 219.78.114.94 (talk) 09:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no problems with Daniel Case or his actions... I'm just rolling my eyes at the super friendly person he's taken under his wing. AniMate 10:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

For the record, no formal mentor/mentee relationship exists between us. A long time ago, Musicfreak made an AIV report to which I responded. S/He seems to have decided then that I could be trusted, which is fo course fine with me, and has continued to report further instances of vandalism to soap-opera articles to me for my impartial review. That's it. Daniel Case (talk) 22:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

When an editor asks another to stay away from their talkpage, that's usually considered appropriate - no matter what the reason is behind it - those who continue to post there after such a warning are usually guilty of some form of harassment (except admin actions, of course). If an editor chooses to close conversations on their talkpage rather than to be baited into arguments, that's also quite fine - commendable, actually. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Usually. Request is a more accurate description than warning. The close boxes are fine but not actually commendable -- archiving is preferred. Nobody Ent 10:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a fine block. And there really aren't specific rules on Wikipedia -- we even have a rule that says that. Nobody Ent 10:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, yeah, not rules, but you know exactly what I mean. There definitely exist more appropriate channels than prodding your buddy admin, as explained in the policy of this site (here and here). This has the obvious (to me) advantage that such requests are dealt with more impartiality and fairness, and therefore situations like this are more unlikely to develop. 219.78.114.94 (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I've only gone to Daniel because I've been told by other members to go to Daniel, especially when it concerns soap articles. And whether I archive or close off conversations, it's how I do it. I archive every 3-4 months to keep it in my organization. I'm just irked at the fact that I've asked for PJ aka Soapfan to not post on my talk page because it's clear we cannot co-exist and work together. Our personalities do not match together. Recently I have been taking things to the vandalism report section, I have. And I've been using the warning template. And AniMate, instead of rolling your eyes, you should have come to me and told me you didn't find it appropriate that I was going to him. Simple as that. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 16:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The way I see it is that you needed help understanding that your ways needed changing, too. And Daniel did not give you this help.

But that's OK, I think you eventually found it somewhere else and you are trying to better yourself. Cheers to that, and best wishes for the future. 219.79.73.157 (talk) 23:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay... well, I believe you're the IP that I originally reported hence you're obvious involvement. I didn't find anything anywhere, nor do I believe I needed help. This whole post wasn't about me learning anything, it was to stop the obvious harassment against me. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 00:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure mate, have it your way. But there must be a reason why you are getting so much shit, and i my view that is strongly related to how you treat other editors. 219.79.73.157 (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I frankly don't see the problem here. I thought the topic was simply that Musicfreak was attacked, not that his ethics were up for review. I have to say, early closure and archiving can be unorthodox and sometimes counterproductive, but that is purely on how he handles his talkpage, not why. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 01:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

So are there going to be consequences to either of the users, or was this just opened so people could discuss me? Because Soapfan has a clear history of insulting members and abusing WP:PERSONAL on his previous account. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 04:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Unequal treatment from an admin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello,

This is regarding recent exchange of messages on talk pages User_talk:Thisthat2011 (own), User_talk:Yogesh_Khandke, and User_talk:Boing!_said_Zebedee (admin). The issue also involves a user User:Sitush.

The admin had warned me here(User_talk:Thisthat2011#June_2012) of 'personal attacks on other people', 'constant snide attacks on User:Sitush', and then block here over a discussion here(User_talk:Yogesh_Khandke#For_admin_Dougweller.27s_attention).

On inquiring details on how he reached these conclusion to give warning, he has avoided presenting details and is accusing further 'so please stop trying to stir the shit on one side only'. It appears somehow to be personal attack sweetened with a 'please', a behavior himself warned me against.

He had done something similar earlier User_talk:Thisthat2011/Archive_1#March_2012 here too, which he immediately rectified himself.

So I would like to know why he is warning to myself, but has avoided warning himself and user:Sitush for exactly doing the same. The behavior is inconstant w.r.t. users.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 19:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I was not acting in an admin capacity in that exchange, and so there is no question of my having misused my admin tools. The issue here is not one my my taking sides - as I make clear, I am carefully avoiding taking sides in the dispute, which is between Sitush and Yogesh. But you have been making low-level snide attacks against Sitush ever since you have been here, in disputes that do not involve you. If you have a problem with his behaviour, make a report at to the appropriate venue - as Sitush says, put up or shut up. Now, what admin action do you want taken here? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

So he templated you, then had second thoughts so struck it instead of deleting it, expressed opinions about your actions. He didn't cover it up, he struck it, which I consider the honest way of correcting a mistake (or change of heart, or whatever), as he isn't trying to cover up the fact that he originally said it. He used the phrase so please stop trying to stir the shit on one side only, which clearly isn't a personal attack, even if it is more crudely worded than perhaps you or I would use. "Stirring the pot" is a common English expressions, used here frequently. It clearly isn't an admin action issue as no tools were used and no administrative sanctions were mentioned. It appears you never tried to bring up the issue on his talk page before coming here, and incidentally, you are supposed to do before coming here, per the top of this very page. It does look like you were stirring the pot on the talk page of Yogesh_Khandke, but I don't have the whole backstory, so maybe you had a good reason to say what you said, and/or maybe he had a good reason to say something about it, but no one did or said anything "action-worthy". I don't see any abuse here, just two editors that disagree. So, what exactly is your point, and why are we here at ANI? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a new essay should be written. Wikipedia: Stirring the pot. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 02:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

On my page there is a warning of a ban. Is the warning from an admin, an editor, an observer?

As also, I had asked the admin on my page reasons for his warning. He is still silent on these questions, inspite of messages on his talk page to answer, and still passing 'low-level snide remarks' such as 'But you have been making low-level snide attacks against Sitush ever since you have been here' - is this not a 'low level snide' accusation from an admin?

Is putting forth a question of violating AGF a low-level snide remark that calls for a warning of a ban? Is the user saying that if there is a dispute, no one else should comment?इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 06:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

What the user is saying is perfectly clear on your talk page - because I said it in plain English. Since you have been here, you have been stirring the shit against Sitush by constantly taking sides against him in disputes he has with other editors - typically you have been supporting other tendentious POV-pushing battlefield editors. Sitush has been putting in massive amounts of hard work to fix the appallingly bad articles created and edited by a number of Indian caste warriors and other nationalists whose only aim is to shower their own castes with praise and turn many articles into glorifying puffery. And he has been getting little but grief for it - running from outright egregious attacks, to your style of constant snide digs at him. You are part of the problem here with India-related articles, you are not part of the solution - if you wish to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, you should be helping the editors who are doing all the work of fixing things, not hindering and harassing them as you are constantly trying to do with Sitush. I'll repeat again, if you believe Sitush's behaviour is problematic, put up or shut up by raising a report at the appropriate venue instead of constantly nipping at his heels. And again, what admin action are you asking for here? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

PS: I should also note that the editors you support are frequently those who get blocks and bans for their own behaviour, as is the case this time.

PPS: Putting a standard templated warning on a user talk page is not an admin action - any editor can do so. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

You have not answered questions that I had put forth upon your warning. You have avoided answering it twice, repeating past accusations but not bothering to answer how a question of violating AGF automatically means constant snide remarks, and so on. If you want to warn, be ready to answer how an inquiry on violating AGF automatically means anything. Otherwise drop the bone for all its meaning, and let other admins comment.

I am not sure of the admin action, but the title says it all. It is unequal treatment from the admin that is a matter of concern. If you notice the talk page, Yogesh_Khandke has also requested you "to address the issues such as hounding and complete lack of civility and constant heckling without any provocation on the part of the concerned editor." Selective warning and actions and selective silence is not civil per me, especially on the part of someone who is admin.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 10:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I have answered your question by explaining that it is your general continued low-level sniping that is the problem, not one specific action - and I can't help it if you cannot understand that. Also, the dispute is between Sitush and Yogesh, not you, and I am being even-handed in that by recusing myself from acting on it because I do not believe I am sufficiently uninvolved with the two of them. Now, if you can not point to any abuse of admin tools on my part, and are not asking for any admin action, then I have better things to do with my time - bye. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee you cannot call it shit stirring, is it wrong to be part of a dispute. You mentioned on the ThisThat’s talk page Sitush and Yogesh are grown up enough and know each other well enough by now to conduct their own disputes and to seek neutral help with resolution if they need it - so please stop trying to stir the shit on one side only. Well if two users have some dispute and if they wanted to resolve it among themselves they would have discussed it somewhere else not on wikipedia, many times disputes are resolved by discussions which involve more than one editors(else no one would put pages on watch list). No one is having any doubts about Sitush’s hard work in cleaning up caste articles I have personally noticed Sitush putting great effort in cleaning a lot of articles. If you say that ThisThat should stop anti-Sitush bias I would request you to atop anti-thisthat bias and stop warning him for doing nothing.Do not call him a part of a problem just because he is bold enough to point out a problem/mistake P.S Not sure why you mentioned caste related articles here I don’t see thisthat editing many articles related to caste sarvajna (talk) 09:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

If they're "grown up enough" then they should just fricking do it, and stop the sniping or else a) someone else will bring it up, and/or b) someone else will stop it. Wikipedia is not the place for such childish bullshit, and Boing was absolutely right in notifying the editor that he saw as the prime instigator. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid you are wrong, I can say that Thisthat wanted to clear the dispute so he did a right thing. I am not sure whom are you referring as prime instigator I hope its not Thisthat as he entered the dipute very late and thus cannot be an Instigator. Wikipedia is not a place for childish bullshit of warning people just because they were part of a dispute and tried to help the someone whom they thing are on the right side sarvajna (talk) 10:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

It would be best if all participants in this discussion walk away without insisting on the last word.Nobody Ent 11:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Perth

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A recent WP:RM (initiated by myself) from Perth, Western Australia to Perth was closed by JHunterJ (talk · contribs) as "moved", and the page was moved. A short time later, Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk · contribs) reversed this closure [99] and moved the article back.[100]

See Talk:Perth, Western Australia#Requested_move for some subsequent discussion between JHunterJ and Deacon of Pndapetzim.

There are a few problems with this action by Deacon of Pndapetzim:

1. The usual procedure would be to take it to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review. Doing an instant reversal in this way is wheel-warrish. (Also, it is bad form to edit a archived move discussion with a prominent "Please do not modify" in red at the top)
2. Deacon of Pndapetzim has a userbox indicating membership in Wikipedia:WikiProject Medieval Scotland. Since Perth, Scotland was a former capital of medieval Scotland, and Perth, Scotland was the "rival" of Perth, Australia as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in the WP:RM discussion, this at least creates the outward appearance of possibly having a personal stake in the outcome, and for this reason alone it may have been an unwise action.
3. In his reversal comment, Deacon of Pndapetzim appears to question JHunterJ's integrity by stating "Previous close sounds too much like a support and too little like an impartial close."[101]

See also this note by JHunterJ regarding the formulation of his closure summary comments.

I would ask an uninvolved and impartial administrator to restore the original closure outcome of the WP:RM and move the page back to Perth, and then anyone who wishes may naturally start a review at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Did Deacon remove Perth without any explanation? That seems highly suspicious. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 00:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, now it seems Deacon did have an explanation. Deacon stated in this thread on JHunter's talk page that there was no consensus and the overturn was justified. Upon reviewing the discussion on the Perth talk page, it clearly shows that there was no consensus, with a hodgepodge of supports and opposes. I have to say, I think Deacon was justified in overturning the closure. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 01:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Deacon is definitely right. There was no preponderance of opinions either way, and when a discussion is split 50/50, you can't declare consensus one way or the other. Nyttend (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

And this isn't wheel warring, it was a single revert. It doesn't happen that often, but it is acceptable and it was explained. JHunterJ or others can take it to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review if they so choose, but nothing improper happened here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

D should have taken it to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review. As I've explained, WP:NOTVOTE, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, and WP:RMCI indicate a move -- the !votes that were based on Wikipedia guidelines and policies were a consensus for the move. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

That is one option, reverting is the other. You and I might prefer someone go to review rather than revert us on an RM or AFD or other discussion, but I don't see a policy against this type of reversion, so I conclude it is acceptable sometimes but subject to review like any other administrative action. The problem is, this is ANI, not review, and not the proper place to discuss whether or not the close is proper or not, or the revert is proper or not. If you think it was clearly abuse, sure, ANI is fine but I find it hard to believe that a single revert is abuse, and review is the much better, calmer place to review the situation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, hoping the drama would be minimal here. This was a case of a highly controversial discussion, clearly having reached no consensus, being closed in favour of one particular view and being reviewed afterwards. Moreover, one to which the closer expressed a preference in the close rather than, as he is supposed to, summarize discussion and carry out whatever its conclusion is. I think my closure should be relatively uncontroversial. No admin with any relevant experience could seriously claim that this discussion had consensus (see my comments on the page in question).

PS, there is no established procedure for reversing RM closes, but neither is RM a binding process that would necessitate one; it is perfectly normal for page moves to be reversed when they are made in this fashion. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I am an admin with impartiality and experience and the serious claim. You are an admin member of a Scotland project who disagrees with my closure. Stop insinuating that that could only possibly have occurred if I suffer from some admin character defect. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

This is certainly tough, as two Wikiprojects are contested. From an uninvolved view, I have to agree with Deacon. Closing a debate with no consensus and redirecting in one side's favor is clearly out of order. This seems to be very WP: BOOMERANGish. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 01:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

@J, I'm not really sure my academic interests should really be a topic of focus here, but I do not wish to imply any "character defect", and am sorry if it is taken in such a way. At issue here is not anyone's academic interest, but whether or not a particular discussion had consensus. The community would be best served, I think, if you focused on that. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

People should stop throwing this scottish thing around as the majority of opposers are actually australiains, many of whoom reside in Perth, Western Australia. The thing is this has been discussed for most the last 10 years and there has never been a clear consensus, to close either way on what isnt a clear consensus is just creating unnecessary drama any admin can see that the status quo works and has consensus and has had for a considerable time the "new" proposal hasnt shifted that consensus. Gnangarra 02:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

It was a bit "glass houses" for Deacon to question whether JHunterJ was being impartial. Even if you do argue that the reversal was procedurally correct, it really shouldn't have been Deacon who did it, because it could be inferred rightly or wrongly that his academic interests may make Perth, Scotland a primary topic for him within his own personal cognitive sphere. The optics of it are the issue. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 03:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree that D shouldnt have reversed the move, but its worng to say this is just a dispute based on racial lines because it aint when many Australians dont support the move, its more a matter of timing. That said the closure wasnt clear and wasnt reflective of the discussion as it should be discussed, but while others are running around making changes it creates a hostile discussion. The last comment by J on the matter indicates that he also question his decision. Gnangarra 03:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• One last time, Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review is the proper venue, NOT WP:ANI. This is beyond the scope here folks. It needs the slower, calmer venue of review, not the drama of ANI as this doesn't appear to be abuse, but instead a disagreement on a close, the reason Review exists. This should be closed and moved over there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. no one can say that that is the proper place, so please refrain from directing people to policy and processes that have not been accepted by the community. Gnangarra 02:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Judging by the talk page, it appears they are ready enough to go. ANI isn't the right place regardless, so if you have a better venue, please suggest it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
      • there is no discussion indicating that unapproved Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review is being used, please stop misinforming everyone Gnangarra 03:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
        • That is, in fact, the proper place for that discussion. And if it isn't, I believe WP:DRN is. Is there any reason this shouldn't be closed?. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• fruitful and cordial discussion is occuring at User_talk:JHunterJ#Perth please close this and raise concerns there so that everyone is on the same page Gnangarra 03:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • That works too. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Please keep or raise this discussion somewhere other than my talk page as needed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comments:

1. I do not agree with those who claim that the proper forum is Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review. As pointed out above, it is not adopted as a policy or a guideline. In my opinion (expressed early at the talkpage), the page is nowhere near ready for adoption. In particular, it was diverted at the outset by an editor with an axe to grind concerning non-admin closures. The provisions for such closures remain vague on the page, but it has has been manipulated toward normalising a position that has not been subjected to wide or searching scrutiny.
2. [Disclosure: Though an Australian, I had nothing to do with the Perth RM and have formed no strong opinion on the matter; but I have had several run-ins with JHunterJ, often on the very issues that I am about to address here.] JHunterJ has frequently closed RMs without consideration of detailed and clearly articulated arguments, and sometimes cited evidence that has been comprehensively dismissed by counter-evidence and cogent arguments. He has edited relevant policy, naming conventions, or guidelines (sometimes without any discussion toward consensus, or apparent assessment of existing consensus), and then applied those provisions in deciding RMs, sometimes counter to the weight of numbers and the weight of argument in the associated RM discussion.
3. I agree with the assessment by Deacon of Pndapetzim, who I believe acted with complete propriety in this case. He did not begin a process of wheel warring. If anyone did, it was Kwami who reverted a perfectly well-argued administrative action of review. But I do not censure Kwami, who appears to have acted as he saw best and with some circumspection.
4. I hope that JHunterJ will rethink his attitude and his actions, and find something more constructive to do than push what is obviously a particular and partisan view of priorities among vigorously contested provisions at WP:AT, WP:DAB, and related pages. Especially, he should not act so that the energy, time, and talents of knowledgeable editors participating at RM discussions is squandered. For my part, I have stopped participating because of his presence. Life is too short.

Noetica^Tea? 03:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RPP/AFD backlog

Just FYI... There's a long backlog at WP:RPP. A couple of items have been waiting for attention for almost two days. Zagalejo^^^ 00:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• AFD as well ... I've knocked off most of the backlog, but there are still 20-odd outstanding. Black Kite (talk) 02:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Still over 20 requests left to process if anyone wants to get them out of the way. tutterMouse (talk) 15:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I have worked my mouse to the bare silicon in closing AFDs (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Great but we've still got a backlog close to 30 over at RFPP, nobody's put a dent in it since this was posted and have a good few which are three days old which just seems... negligent. Get to it kiddos, RFPP requests are people too. tutterMouse (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Crystal Cathedral article renaming problem

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Without any discussion an editor has improperly renamed the Crystal Cathedral article to Christ Cathedral on the basis that the Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange has recently announced that "Christ Cathedral" is to be the building's name when it becomes the diocese's new cathedral. Although the building is now legally owned the RC diocese, under the terms of the sale it is still currently functioning as the "Crystal Cathedral" and will continue to do so until Crystal Cathedral Ministries ceases to use the building, which is not expected until the middle of 2013 at the earliest. I have tried reverting the name change but for some reason this didn't have any effect. I will appreciate it if an administrator, or any editor who knows how to do so, will revert the name change. I apologise if this is the wrong place to request this. Thanks. Afterwriting (talk) 11:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Then just move it back and invite ktr101 to discuss the move on the talk page. It only becomes an issue if he moves it again without consensus. and yes I did check the redirect to make sure he didn't pull a dolovis by editing it so only admins could move it back. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ron. As mentioned above, I already tried to "move it back" by reverting to a previous version but - although all the article's text was reverted - the name change wasn't. I tried several ways to do this without success. Can you tell me what the best way of reverting a name change is? Another editor has already reverted it for me. Afterwriting (talk) 12:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with Ron, this seems consistent with WP:BRD. Also, I notified Ktr101 that you brought the issue up here. Even though you didn't mention him by name, this is obviously referring to him since he made the move, so in the future, be sure to use the template at the top of this page and notify any party who is the focus of an ANI, please. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Dennis. Your advice on the notification of other editors is noted and appreciated. I had already considered doing this but didn't think it was so much an "incident" with another editor as a straightforward article problem that only needed changing without too much fuss and I didn't know where else to ask since I was unable to do it myself for some reason. But I will know better if there is a next time. Cheers, Afterwriting (talk) 12:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've just moved back the "Christ Cathedral organ" article to Crystal Cathedral organ. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

212.118.232.164 / User:HunterSilver

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi. I think banned User:HunterSilver returned again, with his attempts to push his unconstructive edits at List of Prime Ministers of Nepal, now with this IP address: 212.118.232.164. Just to let you know, User:HunterSilver is a sockpuppet of User:HasperHunter, who was banned indefinitely on April 20, 2012 for abusing multiple accounts. All of them are, in turn, sockpuppets of User:DBSSURFER (A few days ago, I opened a SPI, which can be found here). I'm really becoming tired of this, and I hope someone can solve this issue for good. --Sundostund (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• IP blocked, article semi-protected for a month. Let us know if he comes back on other articles. Black Kite (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

disruptive editor with unsustainable PoV

Hi,

I have been doing battle since 16 May (It all started here) with Stodieck (Talk), who has a technical PoV about aircraft that he is trying to stitch into several articles, including Canard (aeronautics), Stabilizer (aircraft) and Wing configuration. He is abusive, does not listen to reason or accept the majority consensus of other editors. He has most recently taken to misinterpreting sources, which has started to confuse other editors. The main evidence of this may be found on Talk:Stabilizer (aircraft): see my posts from 5 June downwards for diffs and other links. I notice that this user has been censured before on their talk page. Please help, I am at the end of my tether. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The Zeitgeist Movement (continued)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Previous discussion at ANI

The Zeitgeist Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Discussion at WP:DRN

Reinventor098 (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

After the previous discussion, I set myself up as a quasi-mediator in the ongoing content dispute about the article. I may live to regret that, but, nonetheless, a fair amount of constructive dialog has taken place, both on the article Talk page and at DRN. When, in my view, editors have regressed into name-calling, I have called them on it in an effort to refocus the conversation. Unfortunately, Reinventor, a WP:SPA, has not contributed constructively to these conversations. Instead, he has come back from a block for edit-warring on the article and recommenced his behavior. See here. In addition, he incorrectly labels other editors' actions as vandalism and makes oddly veiled comments at the article Talk page in a section he labeled vandalism ([102]), e.g., "It is a truly sad to see the level of dishonestly here and disheartening to see how malicious many of your controlling parties really are." I think "your" means Wikipedian editors who add material he doesn't like but it's not clear.

I suggest a block is warranted, and significantly longer than the previous 24-hour block.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked 96 hours. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk page deleted

User:M0rphzone is deleting talk page discussions, and then reverting attempts to restore the thread back to its original state. There is nothing particularly inappropriate in the deleted content. I've tried to reason with him/her, as did another user PBJT in this post, but the response has been prickly ("mind your own business.. go focus on other topics.. your ego is so big .."). I even tried a compromise by just linking to the deleted content, but that was reverted by M0rphzone also. Green Cardamom (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

You did not notify me correctly on my talk page and you did not discuss about the issue on my talk page. I don't understand why you are making such a big deal out of this, and trying to get help for it. It looks like you are deliberately attempting to harass me. I already tried to resolve the issue and didn't intend for the discussion to go in that direction, but you continued to harass me about my actions. And not only are you harassing me about this, but also canvassing on other user's talk pages. I've already talked to an admin about this, so this issue should be resolved. - M0rphzone (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

You are not allowed to remove your comments on talk pages, especially after other people have replied to them. You can strike the comments, like this, but outright removal isn't something you can do. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:REFACTOR says users can delete comments that are inappropriate or useless. Nothing says users can't delete their own comments. But fine, I am restoring them and striking the comments people think are attacks. Conflict is resolved. I don't give a fuck now. - M0rphzone (talk) 22:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. FWIW, WP:REDACT discourages outright deletion of remarks after others have responded to them. It suggests striking them, or at least marking it as having been redacted by the commentor. LadyofShalott 23:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Archived -- yet still OPEN -- ANI item

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could an admin please review and close THIS "ancient" request (Administrator's Archive #231, item #8)? The incident is rather short and, imo, rather straight-forward as well.

The incient was initiated over 4 months ago, and has not seen any activity in 3 months, yet there it saw no closure.

Subsequently the incident went into Archive mode, together with a few others (on or around 9 February 2012????). However, the matter is still open. I am now wandering if closing admins regularly look at Archived ANI items with the same frecuency as they do current ANI items...

I am requesting that an admin please review and close the INCIDENT. Thanks.

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

• I've taken the liberty of correcting your links. That probably shouldn't have been archvied, but there was no consensus to unblock (given the situation two !votes was insufficient for action), and at this point the block is about to expire anyway... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

In general, no, we don't look back at archives unless looking for something specific. If they did get archived (and left for months!) then it was either acted upon or had no consensus for action. LadyofShalott 23:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

If something goes into the archives that's generally a polite no. Nobody Ent 01:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Avaya1 and Victor Ostrovsky material

User:Avaya1 is unilaterally removing material related to Victor Ostrovsky from Mossad ([103][104][105]), Sayan (Mossad) (replaced with redirect [106][107]) and Katsa, which as been in the articles for quite some time, on the grounds that it is from a primary source. I have repeatedly asked him ([108][109]) to engage in discussion on the relevant talk pages and reach consensus, or to take the issue to WP:RSN. I'm not clear what category of misbehavior this falls in if any. I am asking only that he not blank articles with a redirect without a talk page discussion of the reliability and appropriateness of the source, or whether the Sayan (Mossad) article should exist at all. I do not wish to engage in back and forth editing over this on the premise that he is refusing to utilize the talk page to reach consensus. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 21:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

It's true that we could content fork separate articles for the things that Ostrovsky reports/claims, if that made to easier to organise Ostrovsy's content. However, the Ostrovsky article is extremely short and there's plenty of room to put it there. Secondly, Ostrovsky's reports are only based on one source - himself. Giving them separate articles is already POV content forking and against WP:Undue and Wikipedia:Fringe theories, since it implies that there is more than one source for them. Ostrovsky's book is written and actually marketed like a spy-novel, and reliable secondary sources (such as Benny Morris) have described him as a novelist (albeit one who had a career - at least as a trainee - in the Mossad). This is the content forking policy we follow on every other Wikipedia article of this nature.

As for writing whole sections on the main Mossad article, based entirely on Ostrovsky's book, this clearly is not WP:RS. Avaya1 (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

You may be absolutely right. I am not familiar with this material well enough, or the objections to it, although I did create the Sayan (Mossad) article which has not been challenged in any way yet. Similarly the material in the Mossad article has been there for some time and has withstood the scrutiny of a number of editors. I feel obligated to protect the material until there is at least a discussion with any other editors interested in the topic. The importance of WP:CONSENSUS seems paramount, although I do understand your point of view on this. Rather than discuss the topic here, that's all I will have to say about it unless you should choose to take it to the talk pages. I won't revert your edits on this anymore. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 21:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for seeing both points of view. Feel free to add the content you wrote to the main Ostrovsky article, there's plenty of space. Avaya1 (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Perceived threat to bomb Wikipedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I don't take these things seriously but this perceived threat of violence is probably against a few Wikipedia policies. Can we at least block the talk page access?--JOJ ^Hutton 23:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• another threat a few minutes ago. This one even more descriptive.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• I've upped his indef block to include talk page and email access. I think that should do it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Threat to bomb Wikipedia? Come on!

I can't read the dangerous and frightening threats mentioned above, since they've been oversighted (probably just as well, or they might give me nightmares). Seriously, threats to bomb Wikipedia? What's next, Bishzilla gets indefblocked for threatening to burn little users to crisps? Bishonen | talk 23:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC).

Somebody set us up the bomb! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Not oversighted; they were simply deleted. If I understand rightly, talk page access was not revoked because of the threats themselves, but because threats were the only thing coming — talk pages are enabled for blocked users largely to facilitate unblocking and to permit other constructive discussion with blocked users, and when blocked users do nothing with their talk pages except making empty threats and frivolous unblock requests, they're abusing that access and should have access revoked so that they don't waste our time. Nyttend (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MMA, part 1287

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See also Wikipedia:ANI#MMA_AfD.27s above. I have just closed another disruptive AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 in UFC events (3rd nomination). I have also noted at least one WP:POINT nominations for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/America's Next Top Model, Cycle 19) of articles edited by the few editors who are trying to uphold Wikipedia policy in the MMA area. I'd would suggest that after such a persistent campaign of WP:IDHT by a number of SPAs to turn the encyclopedia into an MMA results service it is probably time to say "enough". Black Kite (talk) 06:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

As an editor who has passively observed the MMA disputes that flare up on the boards every other day (it seems), I'm also of the mind that some unified solution should be adopted—it really has been quite "enough" at this point. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

As only tangently involved (MMA editors trying to change policy/guidelines to make such articles acceptable to which I've commented on), yes, this is far past the point of disruption. That said, the MMA ppl have brought up a good point that if the various individual event articles aren't considered notable, then why do we have articles like 2008 Food City 500, 2011 World Series of Poker results (note, 2011 World Series of Poker exists but is ok), and similar? There is an inconsistency here, and it might step from the larger idea that the various sports arena itself is a walled garden - by no means as great a degree as the MMA - but clearly with a larger allowance for topics and the like. At this point there needs to be a course of action that pulls any decision away from those involved with MMA or at least the troublemakers making such pointy AFD noms, and get to a resolve quickly, but making sure that solution applies uniformly to other sports-based articles. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing that we have articles like 2008 Food City 500 because no-one's got round to deleting or merging them yet. Yes, the solution should apply to all sports, but with well over 3 million articles stuff like that is always going to sneak through; it doesn't mean we should let it go though. Black Kite (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'm fully aware that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a bad argument, except that I recall seeing editors from the various sports (nonMMA) suggest the NASCAR articles are just fine but the MMA ones are a problem. This mirrors a similar discussion about the denial to include eSports (professional video game competitions) within NSPORT because "its not a sport". I do applaud most of the editors that are knee deep in sports, self-aware that sports coverage far outweighs most other contemporary topics and thus having restraint to what is summarized on WP, but there remains some aspects here of walled gardens that we can't sweep away by just closing down the MMA stuff, fairly. --MASEM (t) 23:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a very subtle difference though, one that came out of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 Estoril Open in that an annually repeated sports event is a little different (I am not saying I necessarily agree with that). Mtking ^(edits) 00:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

What's enormously unfortunate about this situation is it's somehow identified as an "MMA" issue when the exact same sets of pages exist all across the site and tend to be the rule for formatting rather than exception. The main difference here is that for various reasons the AfDs on this particular subject have been unusually successful. Simply contrast this with worse entries such as that, or that, or that, or that (the list is trivial to enumerate). When users who feel their area of interest is being singled out see their concerns dismissed by wiki-insiders, it creates a great deal of frustration with the process and thus the highly visible drama. Should the same exceptional deletions happen on any other part of wiki with a significant userbase, the consequences would hardly differ. The challenge to solving such a systemic dilemma is to studying how the system works rather than respond with the same natural instincts which is the hallmark of institutional failure. Agent00f (talk) 19:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• There are some things that will always be the case in Wikipedia or in any similar project without centralized control and therefore without fixed enforceable rules:

1. within a field, the results at AfD will be inconsistent
2. between fields, the accepted emphasis will be inconsistent
3. everyone will think their own interests are being unfairly neglected

I accept this will happen even the areas of most concern to me, and though I continue to push gently for greater coverage of them, I will not forfeit whatever sympathy there is for my minority interests by making a nuisance of myself. DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

My question, how come we have to continually deal with these many AfDs on MMA articles, more often than not with either a "keep" or "no consensus"(no consensus when there are 4-5 votes for deletion and dozens to keep, yet those all are discounted for one reason or another), yet whenever a much less notable event, like say for instance a soon to be cancelled show about modelling that has no lasting significance gets nominated for deletion, the result is always a "Speedy Keep" and the nominator gets scolded? After so many failed deletion attempts by the 1 main MMA deletionist here, shouldn't they too be scolded for continually nominating articles?AugustWest1980 (talk) 14:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

If there's significant element of randomness on wiki by design, then the implication is userbase interests here were specifically unlucky. With this understanding the org shouldn't be unduly alarmed that intrinsic variation produces outliers. IOW, when the stars align, page sets get wrecked and those who use them become displeased proportional to the wreckage. The connection between these last two is basic human psychology which is difficult to trivially amend. Agent00f (talk) 09:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

"I'd would suggest that after such a persistent campaign of WP:IDHT by a number of SPAs to turn the encyclopedia into an MMA results service it is probably time to say enough." What method would you recommend for getting rid of MMA fans? Portillo (talk) 03:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• For those who cannot edit without being disruptive or incivil, then blocks and/or topic bans are clearly indicated; that's not even controversial. That doesn't just apply to MMA fans, but to any editor of Wikipedia. I merely bring the issue to ANI so that more eyes may be available. Black Kite (talk) 11:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Do you think there's a broad enough consensus about deleting the articles at hand that it could be made a CSD category? It's a brutal but effective approach.—Kww(talk) 11:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• No, I don't believe so. Whilst some are clearly non-notable, others are on the fringes. Even the ones that are obviously non-notable have some sources, even if it's clear that they fail WP:NOT and WP:SPORTSEVENT. I think the main issue here isn't the articles (they can be dealt with in time) but the disruption that is spreading to other areas. Black Kite (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, and the AfDs end up like this - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 145. I doubt if that's going to be closed as anything else but Keep, but that is effectively saying that "any sporting event that is mentioned in the newspapers is notable". Without going too much towards WP:WAX, that means you could effectively make a case for (as an example) all 1,760 professional soccer games that happen in England every year. Black Kite (talk) 11:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed respective projects and fan bases are turning the Encyclopaedia into a sports newspaper. Mtking ^(edits) 20:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
• How is that any different from turning the Encyclopedia into a fan site for fashion television shows that have absolutely no lasting notability?AugustWest1980 (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• Is Wikipedia running out of server space to the point where things that meet the WP:GNG aren't acceptable? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There is a reason that the sports notability guidelines don't consider regular games as part of a professional league series as notable just because they were played and reported on, and instead provide seasonal summaries. This is the solution that pro-MMA editors have been suggested to head towards but they fight to include every possible detail against global consensus for this type of information. --MASEM (t) 02:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• What Masem said. Your average NFL or Premiership game, NASCAR race, major American college football or basketball match no doubt nukes your average UFC event for GNG-applicable coverage, and I'm sure that given the green light, there are any number of Manchester United or University of Nebraska supporters who would be positively eager to write articles on them all. If "routine sports coverage" is a valid excuse to shoot down an independent article for the next Celtics-Heat playoff match, it sure is heck a valid one to debar your average MMA event. Ravenswing 05:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• and another one kept that is just like all the rest Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 21, it would appear that the MMA fan base has worn the other editors down ....... Mtking ^(edits) 10:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
• Or perhaps the other editors and moderators are simply tired of your crusade against MMA articles, realize the truth that these events are truly notable(we're still talking about them after a decade has passed), and that deleting them would weaken Wikipedia as a source of knowledge. I wonder how many people will be talking about the results of ANTM #19 in over a decade, yet you consider them to have lasting notability? Such bias proves you simply have an agenda to scrub WP of MMA articles.AugustWest1980 (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

<outdent> I'm not sure if this belongs here, but there is another MMA discussion going on over at Talk:List of professional sports leagues regarding whether they qualify as a league or not, which has been prompted most likely by the same circumstances regarding all the MMA AFDs. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 02:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

What's quite interesting here is that an event card as set of ~10 distinct and separate contests of 15-25min regulation time was mentioned numerous times in the past, yet critics continue to IDHT this basic reality. Each event page is already a collection of individual "games", and direct comparison of notability to X vs Y competitions would be a separate entry for each contest (ie 10 pages for each card). Agent00f (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I will observer that a solution was previously on the table (several times in fact) regarding how to move forward without having to invoke AN/I or AN every single time however the filibustering, polite disruption, point-making, IDHT, and outright obtuseness has been a (perceived) hallmark of the enthusiast community. A previous discussion to endorse general sanctions across the MMA article (and project spaces) had atrophied due to lack of commitment. It is my understanding that the Administrator Corps does not feel that the toolset they have does not endorse actions with respect to these users, therefore there are 2 solutions. First is to open a new discussion on AN regarding authorization of General Sanctions across the MMA article and project spaces. The second is to open an Arbcom case and get a set of discretionary sanctions applied to the MMA article and project spaces. As I'm immensely involved (and any proposal by me would be accused of being part of the cabal to destroy MMA on Wikipedia) I am not an appropriate user to move forward with either proposal. Hasteur (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

What? You pretend to speak for the entirety of the Wikicommunity yet in reality it's you, MtKing, Ravenswing, etc. The exact same editors take part in these frivolous AfDs, the core group of 4-5 deletionists and the hordes of angry MMA fans who tire of this coordinated plan to ruin MMA on Wikipedia. Perhaps the Wikicommunity and administrators in particular don't agree with your suggestion of sanctions on MMA articles, hence none being applied.AugustWest1980 (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Please strike your personal attack above. In no way was your response appropriate to my informing people of two options that have been on the table before. Your commentary here demonstrates the intrinsic flaw in the enthusiast's viewpoint. We are not out to ruin MMA on Wikipedia. We simply want the "walled garden" mentality to cease and for the articles to follow the same guidelines that other projects are required to follow. Are there counter examples where there are worse article? Entirely possible, but for the time being, the eye of scrutiny is on MMA articles. Is it possible that other sports will be touched by this plan to break down the walls and follow the guidelines? Absolutely yes. So to summarize, your premise is faulty and a personal attack on those who are attempting to uphold the policies. Hasteur (talk) 15:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not. My post above is absent of any personal attack. Your argument is flawed as well. You say other projects are required to follow these same guidelines? No they're not. Wikipedia is full of fancruft(America's Next Top Model) that has absolutely no degree of lasting notability. The eye of scrutiny on MMA articles is not Wikipedia as a whole, rather it is the agenda of a few editors who can be counted on one, perhaps two, hands. If you truly wanted to improve the articles to adhere to Wiki standards, improve them! Instead it's one constant AfD after another. When those AfDs don't turn out the way MMA-deletionists intended, they simply nominate them again at a later date, with no attempt at improving them in the meantime.AugustWest1980 (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

*Edit to add, show me one AfD for a UFC ppv recently not started by the MtKing, Hasteur, Ravenswing, TreyGeek, NewConnorMan, or the new POINTy troll Portillo. Just one. Most have been MtKing's doing. Not only does he brag about it, he also openly antagonizes MMA supporters without repercussion, blaming us when his AfDs are shut down without a 'delete' verdict. Sorry, but it is beyond obvious that you guys are not trying to make Wikipedia a better place. Truly, we're supposed to assume good faith, but your collective ruined any hope of that long ago with your antics and irritating smarminess.AugustWest1980 (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I've been reading this debate for awhile now, and I really don't have a horse in this race, but I have a question with regards to notability and the like. First, yes I know other things are on Wikipedia, but what is the difference between the UFC PPVs and the regular WWE and TNA PPVs that have articles here? Are the wrestling PPVs consider inheritable notable? If so, what coverage/guidelines do they get their notability from? Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe WWE is deemed notable per WP: Fabulous Costumes. JoelWhy? talk 14:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

No! Bad JoelWhy! We explicitly discourage fabulous costumes here! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

In response to Wildthing61476, their PPVs typically receive coverage from mainstream media sources such as The Sun and The Star (British national newspapers), Québecor Média (Canoe.ca) and the Miami Herald; not to mention extensive coverage from wrestling-oriented reliable sources such as the Wrestling Observer. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Just as UFC PPV events receive coverage from mainstream media sources such as Yahoo!, the LA Times, the Las Vegas Sun, as well as national newspapers like USA Today. Not to mention the extensive coverage in foreign countries like Brazil, Mexico, the UK, and Japan. Also the multitude of MMA-oriented websites such as Sherdog or BloodyElbow. Oh yeah, and other mainstream sporting media such as ESPN, Sports Illustrated, FoxSports, etc.AugustWest1980 (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I can confirm that Brazil's two main national newspapers, O Estado de S. Paulo and Folha de S.Paulo, regularly cover UFC events, as shown here and here. Evenfiel (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm forced to ask the question, then - if MMA Event articles are well sourced and competently written, what harm do they do to the project? If it's a reputation thing, I've got a list of articles more damaging to Wikipedia's reputation than these. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that coverage in the Sun and the Star, while indicative of some cultural relevance, is not coverage in something that generally meets WP:RS. Also the Sun is owned by a major player in the PPV scene. Rich Farmbrough, 16:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC).

Regardless of Murdoch's many fingers in many pies, coverage by multiple national media sources (not just The Sun) is generally a reasonable claim to notability for article subjects. In response to AugustWest1980, I think your point is fair - if an event had such extensive coverage then I would tend to consider it notable. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - AfD regular, sports fan, no dog in the MMA fight... I don't think the UFC pages are being deleted when challenged; certainly not lately. If there is a caucus attempting to delete them, they will become frustrated and shut down the disruptive mass attacks if more common sense (policy: IAR) and a lower level of mechanical adherence to the mantra of "three sources or bust" (guideline: GNG) is followed by closing administrators. High number events have adequate sourcing and, of course, the answer to preserving the low numbered events over the long haul is to find adequate sourcing for them as well. But I don't think this is any sort of crisis at AfD other than the minor annoyance of excessive cut-and-pasted challenges with no effort to follow WP:BEFORE. This, too, will pass. Carrite (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• That is an excellent point. I believe the only UFC events that have been deleted were ones that went unchallenged. Anytime there is vocal opposition to it the closing admin rules it either "Keep" or "no consensus". Now that these AfDs are being heavily challenged seems those who nominate and support deletion get angry and accuse the "MMA community" of disrupting the process. Ha! AugustWest1980 (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - One thing that really makes me mad is that the people putting UFC article up for deletion do not even check to see if there are good sources out there. They don't follow WP:BEFORE at all. They make no attempt to IMPROVE the article or check to see if it CAN be improved before they nominate it for deletion. Then, when I bring this point up in the afd debate, users like Hasteur have the nerve to tell me that WP:BEFORE isn't a requirement... only a guideline. It is absolutely ridiculous that users like Mtking and Hasteur constantly use WP policy to make their points, and when I make a very valid point that they are not even checking for possible notability before putting it up for deletion, they have the nerve to say it is only a guideline. Not-to-mention, when I'd search for sources myself, I can find sources from news agencies all over the world. LA Times, USA Today, Brazilian, Japanese, and European publications, etc. I even found sources in books and magazines using a google book search. It is ridiculous that articles get deleted if they are unopposed. So I have to run around defending all of the UFC articles because Mtking puts a bunch of them up for deletion at one time. I think if no effort is made to improve an article by finding sources BEFORE they are put up for deletion, then that nomination should automatically be thrown out. Gamezero05 21:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Again with the personal attacks. Great to see that the enthusiast community still knows how to sling a FUD bomb to derail and disrupt any forward momentum. Hasteur (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hasteur, there were absolutely no personal attacks there. I'm not sure you know what a personal attack is. I simply stated things that have happened and my opinion on it. You constantly playing the victim is getting quite old and tiring. Gamezero05 19:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, absolutely no personal attack present. Your attempt to "play the victim" citing nonexistent personal attacks will garner you no favor here. GameZero stated facts. Your cabal of MMA-deletionists never try to add sources or improve existing articles. You took one admin ruling from many months back, a ruling that vaguely implied some MMA articles could be consolidated, and then ran roughshod over years of work in the MMAProject using that one statement as justification for multiple AfDs. When other editors show up to protest you throw the wiki-jargon book at them, accusing any and every one opposed to deletion as a sockpuppet, meatpuppet, canvassed voter, or SPA. You simply couldn't accept the fact that your plan to reorganize and marginalize MMA knowledge on Wikipedia is very, very unpopular. No doubt you will now point out the nonexistent personal attacks in my post. Knock yourself out.AugustWest1980 (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Both your and Gamezero05's remarks prove my point. Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt, and premptive attacks on the editor and not demonstrating content reasoning. Hasteur (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Prove what point? I hate to keep this stupid squabble going, but what you are saying is just completely untrue. My paragraph that I wrote was highlighting a problem with nominating articles for deletion without even bothering to check for sources. How you took that as a "personal attack" is beyond me. And quite frankly, I'm getting tired of having to respond and defend myself against your pointless straw-man arguments. Gamezero05 21:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Aw... how cute, they learned a new keyword to disrupt debates. Tired of having to respond and defend yourself? Don't. If my postings are so out of line someone outside the enthusiast community will tell me to sit down. You commited an ad-hominem attack with It is absolutely ridiculous that users like Mtking and Hasteur constantly use WP policy to make their points, and when I make a very valid point that they are not even checking for possible notability before putting it up for deletion, they have the nerve to say it is only a guideline. Your continued insistance that this wasn't an attack and commiting yet annother attack on the person with You constantly playing the victim is getting quite old and tiring. again steps over the line. That you commit further attacks when you're being cautioned about personal attacks only demonstrates that you can't disassociate the user from the action. The fact that you claim I'm setting up straw man arguments, I point at the collection of UFC articles that are now on the AfD block that are in danger of deletion not because of any action that MtKing or myself took directly. So you know what, if I'm going to be tarred and feathered as a MMA deletionist, I might as well play the part. <sarcasam>Delete every single MMA article</sarcasam> Hasteur (talk) 01:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Ad-hominem attacks? I don't think you know what ad-hominem means. You seem to think personal attacks and ad-hominem attacks mean simply mentioning your name. Personal attacks would mean I attacked you personally in some way. An example would be if I called you a name. An ad-hominem attack would be if I used some irrelevant point to try to make an argument. An example of that would be if I said something like "John can't be good at basketball... he's a nerd". Being a nerd has no real connection to one's basketball playing ability. There are different kinds of ad-hominem attacks, but they all follow the same basic principle. And NOTHING I said was an ad-hominem attack. And NOTHING I said was a personal attack. I was simply pointing out FACTS that had happened, and used specific names to clarify exactly who I am talking about. If you'd like to see exactly where you said WP:BEFORE is only a guideline and not a requirement, it is right here: WP:Articles_for_deletion/UFC_21. Also, you accuses me of "personal attacks" yet you make smart remarks like "aw... how cute", and resort to calling me an "enthusiast" as if you are trying to discredit me as an editor because I actually like the subject I spend time editing. And you have the nerve to tell me that I'M out of line? Gamezero05 02:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The reason why UFC 21 got kept is simple, the MMA fans have created through various means including off-wiki canvassing and rallying calls such an atmosphere of total vitriol and disruption that no editor wants to go near it, you are guilty of it (and for the avoidance of any doubt yes I mean you Gamezero05), along with numerous socks of other indef'ed editors and SPA's the whole debate has been so poisoned to such an extent that any chance of a rational compromise went long ago. I can think of three or four good editors who have given up on MMA as a result, I hope that you feel mighty proud of yourselves sitting there in your Mum's basement. In fact it will make a good case study and essay on how as a single interest group can force it's agenda on the WP community. Also before you jump up and down claim this is an attack, no it is not it is explaining what has happened as I see it, so don't waste the electrons in replying if all you are going to do is talk about how much I have attacked you. Mtking ^(edits) 04:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

How am I causing disruption? Because you aren't getting your way? Because I'm standing up to you guys who want to delete everything? I can't believe you are trying to blame this on "us"... the people who actually care about MMA. YOU are one of the people responsible for all of this "vitriol". You caused an uproar when you decided to start merging entire years worth of articles to one page and delete numerous other outright. So let me get this straight. We are editing MMA articles on Wikipedia just fine, then one day you and others decide to go on an MMA crusade and start merging and deleting everything in sight, then we try our hardest to stop that from happening, and now you are blaming US for the disruption? It is really quite unbelievable. I don't know anything about off wiki-canvassing or sock puppets or SPA's, since I'm not involved with any of that myself, so I really have no idea what to say about that. I don't know if that is even true or not. Plus, I find it quite ironic that you claim I am one of the ones causing disruption and I am responsible for "vitriol", yet you say things like "I hope that you feel mighty proud of yourselves sitting there in your Mum's basement", and Hasteur gets smart with me, yet you guys claim I am the one slinging personal attacks. Gamezero05 05:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

You could not resist wasting the electrons could you, even after I told you not to; and it is not me making comments about basements it your colleagues, also don't bother wasting yet more time and effort by claiming you don't read the MMA forums as you have made enough comments to very clearly demonstrate you do. Mtking ^(edits) 06:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

AugustWest and Gamezero, you're approaching this discussion in the entirely the wrong way. Constructing arguments which make sense is not useful in a dispute predicated instead on leveraging inside processes. As an example of the former (ie arguments), it makes a lot of sense that subjects in close proximity in an encyclopedia should follow similar and consistent formatting, but arguing for this first pillar of wiki against blatant violation not only apparently fails POLICY but is considered a DISRUPTive nuisance. As an example of the latter (processes), defending hundred of pages against AfD's is wasteful and time-consuming whereas nominations are very cheap, and no amount of making sense will change this basic reality either. The only way these very disruptive and inconsistent changes to a very specific subset of pages can be reversed is to gain the support of some insiders with the political weight and know-how to tip the balance in the other direction. That's a very different kind of task to what you're twiddling away at here. 75.172.4.206 (talk) 06:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, this thread was started to gather consensus on what, if anything, we can do to reduce the drama level regarding MMA deletions. One simple way which would have a noticeable effect would be to indefinitely block editors whose contributions at this point are basically yelling about how The Deletionist Cabal Is Ruining Everything Because They Hate UFC And Love ATM. There are at least two prominent candidates on this thread. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

And I agree completely with that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The MMA debate actually raises several very good, very valid questions about sports notability, and these have yet to be answered. The problem lies at both extremes, those that want to keep everything, and those that want to delete everything, albeit with one side being somewhat more disruptive than the other. I gave up on trying to bring the two sides together once it became apparent that neither side was willing to compromise, even a little. Eventually, a settlement will be forced upon them all, which is usually the net result when two sides refuse to cooperate with each other: A solution that no one will like, but they will not like it equally. The sad thing is, a compromise wouldn't be that complicated if not for the bludgeoning. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

We have already compromised a lot. We agreed to the omnibus. We have been talking about splitting up the omnibus because it is too long. We are trying to work on this. All that we ask is that the numbered UFC pay-per-view events have their own pages. That is really all I am looking for. I am also wanting to improve the existing numbered pages. But I (and the rest of the MMA project) can't ever get any of this done when we are constantly trying to defend pages from deletion. Gamezero05 18:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not blaming you in particular Gamezero. You and I have bumped heads once or twice but I think we both respect each other and have generally treated each other fairly, even when we disagreed. I was trying to get the whole omnibus system redesigned, based on the input of everyone, when it became apparent that some were not willing to compromise. I don't have a preferred way, I just knew the first way was too rough to work. Everyone does try to paint the place like it is two camps, when the reality is there are two strong viewpoints, and half the people just lean one way or the other, and are not as extreme. But half the crowd ARE extreme in the "all" or "nothing" camp. The most vocal minorities are the ones being the boldest, which is why there is so much disruption. Consensus can't be reached when some are so reactionary. This is why I think eventually it will require an outside binding resolution to move forward. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

"Also, you accuse me of "personal attacks" yet you make smart remarks like "aw... how cute", and resort to calling me an "enthusiast" as if you are trying to discredit me as an editor because I actually like the subject I spend time editing. And you have the nerve to tell me that I'M out of line?" "When other editors show up to protest you throw the wiki-jargon book at them, accusing any and every one opposed to deletion as a sockpuppet, meatpuppet, canvassed voter, or SPA." I agree with Gamezero and AugustWest. Hasteur and Mtking love throwing potshots and condescending comments to MMA fans. But if anyone challenges them, they are instantly accused of disruption and ruining Wikipedia. Portillo (talk) 05:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Could that be because we've been personally attacked by SPAs, IP editors, externally canvassed users, and editors in goods standing (Like yourself) for so long that the only way to get through to you is to drop the mask of civility and start throwing elbows with the same sort of abusive language that gets levied against us? Want our behavior to improve? start by calling out editors who level abusive statements to us and we'll be more reasonable to work with. Don't care? We can ride the Drama Merry go Round until someone gets so fed up with the incessant drama from the project that even more painful sanctions will get applied and the suporter croud will lose more content than what we have been willing to compromise for already. Hasteur (talk) 12:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

"that even more painful sanctions will get applied and the suporter croud will lose more content than what we have been willing to compromise for already." I'm sure I'm not the only one fed up with these types of threats. Any doubt that there is an axe to grind is all but cleared up with comments like these, coupled with the corresponding behavior. BearMan998 (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, this is a true example of a personal attack and it's from none other than Hasteur himself. I have never personally attacked you so I would appreciate it if you can edit and interact in a civil manner. BearMan998 (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I might be short-sighted here, but I can't see anything in that link that looks like a personal attack. Can you clarify? Black Kite (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

See his edit summary of "You already voted, now scurry back to your den." I made a simple mistake in my edit and that was his response to it. BearMan998 (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I missed the edit-summary. Yeah, a bit snarky, not sure if it was attempting to be a joke based on your user name. Black Kite (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment all I know is, Hasteur and Mtking cannot use an excuse like "other people personally attacked us, so we're going to personally attack people here". Two wrongs don't make a right, and nobody has personally attacked you guys in this discussion. Gamezero05 16:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment for the MMA crowd: I see that UFC 94 is a Good Article. Quality work like that is your best weapon to disarm your opponents. While you seem to be doing a great job on the athlete bios, I would suggest you get together and collaborate on a few event articles to bring them up to higher standards. Given the coverage Canada's major media are giving it, UFC 149 should be a relatively easy candidate once the event happens. The first one in Toronto that set an attendance record received considerable coverage, iirc. Show off a few more examples like UFA 94, and the arguments against their existence will whither and die. Resolute 17:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree Resolute. If there are any good things to come out of this whole debacle is that it has brought attention to the MMA crowd that 1) Wikipedia needs help in editing the MMA articles and 2) MMA articles which are a valuable resource to the MMA community and the general public are being deleted. There have been some very good editors who contribute to these articles however with all the nominations for deletion, I see them using their resources instead to fight the nominations and getting sucked into endless and heated arguments. BearMan998 (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I recently made UFC 145 similar to UFC 94 in order to prevent it from getting deleted. And the article isn't even close to being finished. One problem is that the people who want to delete the articles (Mtking, Hasteur), don't make any effort to improve any of the articles. They just go around trying to get them deleted. Gamezero05 17:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Lets not kid ourselves here, the sources in UFC 145 that are from sources that WP would call reliable are routine primary news coverage or more about the fighters with a tangential link to the event. Lets take the cite from the impresive sounding International Business Times here as an example on closer invistigation you will acutaly see that it is from a user content blog. Where are the sources written after the event, with further analysis or discussion on the long term impact of this event? Mtking ^(edits) 23:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you happened to notice, the UFC 145 article is NOT finished. I never got around to finishing summarizing the results and also if you notice, I never got around to writing anything for the "subsequent events" section. If you are wanting sources for things AFTER the event, you are going to have to wait... because nobody has written that part yet. It isn't a finished article... remember, Wikipedia is a constant work in progress. Gamezero05 04:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

So you admit that currently the event does not have demonstrated enduring notability (as per WP:NOT) it should therefore be redirected to the omnibus article until such time as it does. Mtking ^(edits) 05:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• "when it became apparent that some were not willing to compromise... But half the crowd ARE extreme in the "all" or "nothing" camp.". In general I (and the wiki record) would agree with Dennis's characterization of what happened. Back when I was still involved with this, I distinctive recall proposals which retain 80% of the original omnibus reasoning (if not the entire design of copy/pasting dozens of pages into one), with enthusiastic support, and being ignored completely by the omnibus designers (unfortunately there's nothing to diff for silence). Those among the userbase who felt their reasonable attempts to compromise weren't being addressed wasn't a uncommon experience (there was no reply to this). From a cursory look at the discussion today, this lopsided behavior has only continued, with targeted archiving of critical comments. Speaking of which, it's worth noting that the proposal above was also unilaterally collapsed as TLDR by omnibus hardliners, and this seems commonplace. When that sort of unbalanced environment persists, the combined outcry is rather unsurprising, and whatever solution should address this extremism. Agent00f (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• So let's get this straight, you made a proposal which recived enthusiastic support from one editor that in essance wanted to amend WP's notability requirement to say that if the sum of the parts was notabile than the parts are also notable, and you are seriouly wondering why the attempt to change poilcy was not taken seriously and was ignored when it was such a transparent attempt at derailing the discussison and continue your filibustering. If you should be in any doubt about how transparent your filibustering is, have a read of your RFC/U here or here including such quotes as he [Agent00f] has gone out of his way to be intentionally obtuse, redundant and verbose for the purpose of diluting and distracting from the discussion or and it is clear from Agent's behavior here [the rfc] --the personal attacks, the battlefield mentality, the accusations of gangbanging, the filibustering, the right vs. wrong ideology, et cetera. Mind you you have achieved something, you have forced a number of editors in the MMA project who were willing to work within the existing WP policies to leave the project. Mtking ^(edits) 03:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe it was you, Mtking, and a few others who made people leave the project. The project was going just fine before you and some others went on a crusade. You and a few others who have Wikipedia "know-how" come in and completely change how MMA is presented on Wikipedia, and when 95% of the people involved with the MMA project oppose you, you blame THEM for "disruption". It would be like a small, well-trained army swooping through a village destroying everything in sight because they want the land, and when the villagers try to fight back the small, trained army blames the villagers for being so difficult. Gamezero05 04:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

So it's those established editors fault for wanting this project to be an encyclopedia and not a MMA fans results and gossip site, hm, maybe you should also read Agent00f's RFC/U as well.Mtking ^(edits) 06:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia will be no less of an encyclopedia with the inclusion of high-ranking MMA articles. And just because a few individual users have been disruptive doesn't mean the entire MMA-supporting side can be generalized as being disruptive. Some of us have valid, policy-based opinions, although many of them are repeatedly dismissed or overlooked with a high prejudice.

And without getting into a personal attack, I have to say I see a lot of irony in some of the claims being made. Both sides have plenty of guilt in the filibustering department, especially in the repeated echoing of "fails notability, fails notability!" when there has been plenty of consensus that it doesn't. Likewise, I find it quite humorous that the inclusionists who wish to maintain and preserve information are being considered disruptive, while the deletionist side that mangles useful articles and creates large amounts of drama and the resulting problems somehow claims that they are not disruptive.

Ultimately, I think a few editors on both sides really need to step back, and perhaps away from the issue altogether, simply because they are completely unwilling to compromise. That sort of adamant behavior is not beneficial towards reaching an agreement or consensus since they will never back down or admit fault. At this point, if anyone is simply unable to accept either the deletion of any MMA article or the existance of the top-tier, notable MMA articles, should really step away and take some time to cool down and return with more of an open mind. Otherwise, this argument will never die down. Zeekfox (talk) 07:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

This issue will never die down when the supporter community can externally canvas for new editors to come in and require established editors to have to prove the entire reason over again. Those of us who are left in the "enforcing WP policy" camp are the ones that refuse to take an exit from the debate because we know that any established editor who leaves the project emboldens the supporter community to continue their disruptive tactics. Hasteur (talk) 11:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you have evidence of external canvassing? Ypsi.peter (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment Good question. Hasteur, you continually accuse the inclusionist side of canvassing, sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry. Where is the proof?

Also, a reasonable compromise was suggested. All numbered UFC events get their own page, all lesser UFC events and all lesser organization events get omnibus pages. The deletionist side rejected it. The inclusionists have continually gave ground in this discussion, seems the deletionists simply will not budge thus implying an agenda of erasing MMA knowledge and history from Wikipedia. They have even rudely suggested that inclusionists leave Wikipedia altogether, implying we don't belong here, suggesting we start a different Wiki proving that they do not believe the subject matter belongs on WP. AugustWest1980 (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

RE to Ypsi.peter Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive233#Request for Sanctions against User:BigzMMA (Socking, Canvassing), Any of the multiple AfDS or disucssions that the hordes of non-wikipedians have been screaming for their want.(Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate Challenge MMA,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on Fuel TV: Sanchez vs. Ellenberger,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 151,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 149: Aldo vs. Koch (2nd nomination),WT:MMANOT,WT:MMA,Talk:2012 in UFC events)Hasteur (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The reason why we've suggested that the "inclusionists" found their own MMAPedia is because the articles that are being lobbied for are so far below the basic guideline that individual backyard events can get included. I think that some MMA articles do merit inclusion here (Like the Greasing contraversy given above). Given that all of the articles that have been challanged fall significantly below the level of inclusion, the Omnibus article is a significant step to reasonableness that the "deletionists" have put forward. Not every single MMA numbered event could ever be notable. The fact that we have to beat the point into the "inclusionists" with a spiked club only demonstrates the level of disruptive IDHT that the "inclusionists" are constantly practicing. Hasteur (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, you're misrepresenting the facts. First you say that the "inclusionists" are lobbying for such basic guidelines that backyard events could be included. Patently false and absurd. The "inclusionists" have stated many times that numbered UFC events are notable and deserve their own articles where other lessor orgs could have omnibuses. You mistakenly say "not every single MMA numbered event could ever be notable" is again false. Every Superbowl is notable. Every World Series is notable. Apparently every season of America's Top Model is notable. I just got through adding multiple sources to UFC 2, which someone POINTedly nominated AfD.

Movies, TV shows, reality television, usually the only references they have listed are sites like TV.com or IMDB.com, that makes them notable. Well every single numbered UFC has an entry on IMDB. Using the same judging criteria, wouldn't that make them notable? It's WP:COMMONSENSE, in 20 years no one will know or care who won Season 3 of Survivor or ANTM, but they will still be writing about and discussing UFC 1 and 2, just as people still discuss Superbowl 1.AugustWest1980 (talk) 19:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Forgive my obtuseness but I don't understand how those links provide evidence of external canvassing. Can you be more specific for me? Ypsi.peter (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

My friend, you're coming to this with a very stacked deck. Before you post further you may want to consider reading over the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia as your agenda and what you're aiming for is fairly obvious to me. Hasteur (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Your constant veiled threats to new users are getting old Hasteur. It is obvious his agenda, he wants to participate in the events surrounding the destruction of MMA on Wikipedia.AugustWest1980 (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

From another editor in another thread, but very relevant and so far unanswered:

In the end, this really has become just an editing war where a few editors are trying to march forward, waving the banner of policy where it doesn't apply. You want proof that this is mostly an attack? Because it's UFC articles being targeted. There are plenty of pages out there for lower tier events that even the most devoted MMA fan wouldn't recognize as notable, but instead of trying to delete/merge THOSE, the editors on the opposite side are going after the most notable MMA organizations out there.

Whether pages should be deleted or not, why AfD nominate every recent and soon-to-be UFC article, but yet, don't even bother with pages for DREAM, Titan FC, or Cage Rage? If it were just a matter of "enforcing policy", then the AfD nominations would be targeted towards articles that truly aren't notable...not the pages people actually use and care about. Instead, this is clearly being done with ill intent. AugustWest1980 (talk) 19:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Well it's become very obvious that there is an axe to grind here which is made obvious by the constant threats of deletion and the specific targeting of these articles as opposed to certain WWE and boxing articles. With that being said, can we really say that good faith is being exercised by the aforementioned threat issuers?BearMan998 (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

That would be because there's a history with the UFC articles, therefore they're more closely watched, and what is done with other things, the "what about X?" argument, is irrelevant. But let's not let that get in the way of a good conspiracy theory, shall we? Let's instead use megabytes of text to sling mud everywhere about the anti-UFC cabal instead of improving the articles and their sourcing so that there is no question of their notability and relevance.

With the sarcasm hat off: the best way to refute arguments that something isn't notable, is WP:RUNOFTHEMILL, or that it's part of an indiscriminate collection of information, is to improve the article with uncontroversially reliable sources that establish the event as unique, notable, and worthy of inclusion. Let the slings of arrows of outrageous fortune slide like water off a duck's back, and improve the article so that neutral users will !vote Keep. If, however, that can't be done, due to a lack of uncontroversially reliable sources to establish uniqueness, notability, and worthiness... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Ah, yes those would be my words that were quoted. And I would like to point out that the mention of lesser divisions not getting AfD's wasn't a "What about X?" argument to keep the UFC articles, but rather a point that the AfD's were not made with such a noble cause as the deletionists try to make it out to be. The AfD nominators aren't interested in removing MMA articles that fail notability, but instead go on a crusade to strike down articles that are well-sourced and cover a notable event.
• Also, recent articles have been getting improved. Yet, it seems the opposition to MMA continues to be relentless, dismissing every possible source as being either primary (referring to the MMA-specialized publications) or a newspaper (pretty much everything else that publishes news). By those standards, 98% of Wikipedia should be deleted, right? Zeekfox (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• The first is WP:PRIMARY. I believe the second argument is not "it's a newspaper" but "it's WP:ROUTINE". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• In answer to Ypsi.peter (yet another MMA SPA) go to any of the MMA forums (such as sherdog.net) and search for "wikipedia" and you find your evidence, along with countless attacks on editors here.
• In answer to AugustWest1980 and BearMan998, your attempts to goad others to nominate articles for deletion (such as WWF events) won't work with me, if you think that they should be deleted, you always have the option of nominating them yourself, however as you are aware pointy AfD nominations by MMA SPA's are normally closed in very short order. Mtking ^(edits) 23:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to goad you into anything so that's a poor presumption on your part. BearMan998 (talk) 02:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Try and goad you into nominating AfD? What an ignorant insinuation on your part. Trust me, I would be ecstatic if you never nominated another article for deletion ever again. I see you deftly jumped over the question posed by imagining insidious motives instead of answering.AugustWest1980 (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what agenda you think I have or what sinister motives are behind my comments, but I can assure they aren't true. I read wikipedia articles a lot, of all shapes and sizes, but I've never been interested in editing. My questions are honest and simple, and I'm not trying to trick you or troll you or anything like that, I'm just trying to understand how this fits into wikipedia as a whole. As somebody who never edits I've never paid attention to this whole arguing facet of wikipedia. Ypsi.peter (talk) 03:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The AfDs

Since nearly all of these hardly had any discussion on the actual notability of the subject (and since they were well overdue - clearly many admins are steering well clear of the subject, and I can hardly blame them), I have closed all of them (apart from a couple that were clear Keeps) as No Consensus. At least this time they weren't disrupted by SPAs. I would suggest these aren't nominated again until a clear consensus on the applicability of WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:ROUTINE and WP:SPORTSEVENT as they relate to MMA events is gained, with the input of a wide range of the community. As a side note, since it appears to be a problem related to a vague definition in WP:SPORTSEVENT, I went and looked at boxing, to see if there were articles on single world championship fights. The answer to that was "some of them", however I note that where they exist, they're usually very well sourced, and contain real-world background and coverage from many non-primary sources - see Wladimir Klitschko vs. David Haye, for example. If all UFC articles were up to this standard, there wouldn't be any argument about their notability. Black Kite (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

AFDing any of the UFC/MMA pages right now (short of CSD-qualified cases) is disruptive to the process; editors who are involved that are still nominating need to stop and/or been on a short block to chill for a while. There's a solution between "having no UFC event pages" and "having every UFC event with a page" that still needs to be figured out off AN/I, but those purposely disrupting the process do need admin action. If there has to be a formal proposal that no UFC/MMA related article should be AFD'd while this process is undergoing, then so be it. --MASEM (t) 14:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, the discussion has been going on for months, it has been virtually stalled for months, it has let to mulple RfC/Us, SPIs, more blocks than I can count, meatpuppeting on both sides, and I would bet 100x more text in comments than the whole of every MMA article combined. I don't think we can flatly say that any and all MMA AFDs are disruptive without looking at the case individually. New unsourced future event articles are created all the time, for instance. Mass AFDs, yes, I would agree that is less than optimal and likely being done to be disruptive, but would have to look at the circumstances. I support the close of No Consensus in this case, for instance. If the time I spend mediating there has taught me one thing, it is that this will not be solved without a binding resolution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

For every boxing article that is well sourced such as Wladimir Klitschko vs. David Haye there are UFC articles that are well sourced as well such as UFC 94. Similarly, there are as many boxing articles like Floyd Mayweather vs. Zab Judah or Andre Berto vs. Victor Ortiz which lack the non-primary sources and quality of Wladimir Klitschko vs. David Haye. I don't think the lack of non-primary sources should lead to automatic deletion as these were indeed championship fights which will leave a lasting legacy to the sport. Similarly, UFC championship fights leave a lasting legacy to the sport which is my main reason for supporting that they retain a standalone article. With that said, articles are always a work in progress and quality is always being built as seen by the improvement in some of the higher numbered UFC articles. Additionally, as previously stated, my stance is that only events with championship fights retain an individual article, the other events are not relevant enough in my opinion. BearMan998 (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's not argue the content/inclusion part here (this is ANI). I would extend any action that I suggest to AFD'ers of MMA to extend to established editors that are creating MMA match articles without impunity. As for the process taking too long, what's probably needed is to have non-involved admins set up a RFC process to resolve the issue. (This is skipping an Arbcom step that tends to end up back to this point such as with the Troubles or Mohammad images.) --MASEM (t) 03:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:PERSONAL

I am reporting a WP:PERSONAL attack on me by User:Soapfan2013 and 219.79.90.44 for creating personal attacks for the way I handle my talk pages. Yes, it may not unorthodox, but I will close a conversation if I feel it is not in an unhealthy discussion place, and I do not want to violate WP:PERSONAL, which Soapfan has on numerous occasions. And it's gone on long enough. I'm tired of being attacked by people on this site who do not know me or do not like me. And I want something done about it.

Refer to these edits: 01 02 03

I do not appreciate being called a baby by users for the way I use my talk page. How I edit and code my talk page, etc. is how I do it to avoid conflict and keep me somewhat WP:CIVIL, which these users are not months/weeks following the small conflict between members and it keeps me calm and helps me walk away from situations which would prove volatile. I agreed to work with Soapfan on furthering their work in editing soap opera articles following a WP:SOCK case, and that faltered due to us being unable to work together in situations, and since then, they seem to be badgering me around things, and I do not appreciate such. I've had several IPs attack me several weeks ago, and it's deterring my wanting to edit here at Wikipedia. I've progressed a lot of soap opera articles by bringing notability and WP:V to them. And situations like this are really hinging that. I realize my past my not have been the most grey, but within the past 4-6 months, I've really been working on staying out of conflict, yet it seems to want to attract to me, especially from said member. I try to remain civil headed and clearheaded, and we all get caught up in a moment, hence why we're always advised to walk away, which is what I always tend to do. But people don't want to let it die, and I'm tired of it.

I've told Soapfan to no longer post on my talk page, and they refuse to comply and at this point, it's distressing that they have such a fixation on me. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 05:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked several of PJ/Soapfan2013/User:Onelifefreak2007's socks in the past. I've given him another chance with this account, because he'd been quiet for a while and seemed to be handling a return to editing well when I finally figured out that it was him editing. Posting this on Musicfreak7676 was unacceptable and I'm waiting for a response from him and am very much considering blocking him. That being said Musicfreak7676 you are constantly in violation of WP:Civil. You shouldn't have to close or archive discussions to keep yourself civil, you should just be nice. It's not like you're editing in regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict here. It's soap operas. You get angry and threaten users with "being reported" whenever they make edits you disagree with. That you've found a sympathetic admin in Daniel Case is mind-boggling, because though you are often technically right your attitude is downright awful. AniMate 06:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, when I have people constantly down my back, like you, coming at me and making total judgement on me, my closing off arguments and discussions is how I handle it. It's how I resolve it and close it off and feel resolved, and keeps me from going back into the discussion. Yes, I may not have the best way of addressing things, I do not deny that, but I don't calling people babies, etc. And AniMate, I truly feel like you, as well, have a personal issue against me as you've made it clear you "watch" me. I feel as if you don't WP:Assume good faith around me. And AniMate, I'm a he, not a she. I'm not trying to create another conflict, I'm trying to end it. That's all I'm trying to do, so I can go on editing articles and making articles a better contribution to the site. I'm not doing to either to seem as superior to anyone, either. And I'm not saying that's what you're saying I may or may not be doing, I'm just doing this to stop this bull. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 06:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

My apologies about the gender confusion. I keep an eye on all of the soap opera articles and users. I've been active there and know the socks to look out for. Musicfreak, assume good faith is a two way street. You never seem to do so. Rather than leaving polite messages for those who make edits you disagree with, you almost always threaten to report them. That is not civil. That does not assume good faith. Rarely do threats of reports lead to cooperative editing. I watch you for the same reason I watch PJ, because you both have a history of treating other editors poorly. AniMate 07:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, blocking a shared IP for 24 hours with no warnings for calling someone a baby seems a bit harsh, but whatever. I totally agree with AniMate's WP:PETARDic assessment, especially the bit where he mentions sympathetic behaviour over a sustained period by an admin who should know better. There are specific rules on how and where to request blocks and protections, and for good reasons. Neither MusicFreak nor Daniel Case were following them. 219.78.114.94 (talk) 08:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• I've informed Daniel Case that this thread is also discussing him. May I remind people that if you criticise others here it is only polite to tell them. ϢereSpielChequers 09:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Heh. I would have, but his talk page is protected. Not a good start for a conversation, is it? 219.78.114.94 (talk) 09:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no problems with Daniel Case or his actions... I'm just rolling my eyes at the super friendly person he's taken under his wing. AniMate 10:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

For the record, no formal mentor/mentee relationship exists between us. A long time ago, Musicfreak made an AIV report to which I responded. S/He seems to have decided then that I could be trusted, which is fo course fine with me, and has continued to report further instances of vandalism to soap-opera articles to me for my impartial review. That's it. Daniel Case (talk) 22:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

When an editor asks another to stay away from their talkpage, that's usually considered appropriate - no matter what the reason is behind it - those who continue to post there after such a warning are usually guilty of some form of harassment (except admin actions, of course). If an editor chooses to close conversations on their talkpage rather than to be baited into arguments, that's also quite fine - commendable, actually. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Usually. Request is a more accurate description than warning. The close boxes are fine but not actually commendable -- archiving is preferred. Nobody Ent 10:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a fine block. And there really aren't specific rules on Wikipedia -- we even have a rule that says that. Nobody Ent 10:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, yeah, not rules, but you know exactly what I mean. There definitely exist more appropriate channels than prodding your buddy admin, as explained in the policy of this site (here and here). This has the obvious (to me) advantage that such requests are dealt with more impartiality and fairness, and therefore situations like this are more unlikely to develop. 219.78.114.94 (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I've only gone to Daniel because I've been told by other members to go to Daniel, especially when it concerns soap articles. And whether I archive or close off conversations, it's how I do it. I archive every 3-4 months to keep it in my organization. I'm just irked at the fact that I've asked for PJ aka Soapfan to not post on my talk page because it's clear we cannot co-exist and work together. Our personalities do not match together. Recently I have been taking things to the vandalism report section, I have. And I've been using the warning template. And AniMate, instead of rolling your eyes, you should have come to me and told me you didn't find it appropriate that I was going to him. Simple as that. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 16:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The way I see it is that you needed help understanding that your ways needed changing, too. And Daniel did not give you this help.

But that's OK, I think you eventually found it somewhere else and you are trying to better yourself. Cheers to that, and best wishes for the future. 219.79.73.157 (talk) 23:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay... well, I believe you're the IP that I originally reported hence you're obvious involvement. I didn't find anything anywhere, nor do I believe I needed help. This whole post wasn't about me learning anything, it was to stop the obvious harassment against me. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 00:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure mate, have it your way. But there must be a reason why you are getting so much shit, and i my view that is strongly related to how you treat other editors. 219.79.73.157 (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I frankly don't see the problem here. I thought the topic was simply that Musicfreak was attacked, not that his ethics were up for review. I have to say, early closure and archiving can be unorthodox and sometimes counterproductive, but that is purely on how he handles his talkpage, not why. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 01:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

So are there going to be consequences to either of the users, or was this just opened so people could discuss me? Because Soapfan has a clear history of insulting members and abusing WP:PERSONAL on his previous account. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 04:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Unequal treatment from an admin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello,

This is regarding recent exchange of messages on talk pages User_talk:Thisthat2011 (own), User_talk:Yogesh_Khandke, and User_talk:Boing!_said_Zebedee (admin). The issue also involves a user User:Sitush.

The admin had warned me here(User_talk:Thisthat2011#June_2012) of 'personal attacks on other people', 'constant snide attacks on User:Sitush', and then block here over a discussion here(User_talk:Yogesh_Khandke#For_admin_Dougweller.27s_attention).

On inquiring details on how he reached these conclusion to give warning, he has avoided presenting details and is accusing further 'so please stop trying to stir the shit on one side only'. It appears somehow to be personal attack sweetened with a 'please', a behavior himself warned me against.

He had done something similar earlier User_talk:Thisthat2011/Archive_1#March_2012 here too, which he immediately rectified himself.

So I would like to know why he is warning to myself, but has avoided warning himself and user:Sitush for exactly doing the same. The behavior is inconstant w.r.t. users.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 19:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I was not acting in an admin capacity in that exchange, and so there is no question of my having misused my admin tools. The issue here is not one my my taking sides - as I make clear, I am carefully avoiding taking sides in the dispute, which is between Sitush and Yogesh. But you have been making low-level snide attacks against Sitush ever since you have been here, in disputes that do not involve you. If you have a problem with his behaviour, make a report at to the appropriate venue - as Sitush says, put up or shut up. Now, what admin action do you want taken here? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

So he templated you, then had second thoughts so struck it instead of deleting it, expressed opinions about your actions. He didn't cover it up, he struck it, which I consider the honest way of correcting a mistake (or change of heart, or whatever), as he isn't trying to cover up the fact that he originally said it. He used the phrase so please stop trying to stir the shit on one side only, which clearly isn't a personal attack, even if it is more crudely worded than perhaps you or I would use. "Stirring the pot" is a common English expressions, used here frequently. It clearly isn't an admin action issue as no tools were used and no administrative sanctions were mentioned. It appears you never tried to bring up the issue on his talk page before coming here, and incidentally, you are supposed to do before coming here, per the top of this very page. It does look like you were stirring the pot on the talk page of Yogesh_Khandke, but I don't have the whole backstory, so maybe you had a good reason to say what you said, and/or maybe he had a good reason to say something about it, but no one did or said anything "action-worthy". I don't see any abuse here, just two editors that disagree. So, what exactly is your point, and why are we here at ANI? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a new essay should be written. Wikipedia: Stirring the pot. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 02:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

On my page there is a warning of a ban. Is the warning from an admin, an editor, an observer?

As also, I had asked the admin on my page reasons for his warning. He is still silent on these questions, inspite of messages on his talk page to answer, and still passing 'low-level snide remarks' such as 'But you have been making low-level snide attacks against Sitush ever since you have been here' - is this not a 'low level snide' accusation from an admin?

Is putting forth a question of violating AGF a low-level snide remark that calls for a warning of a ban? Is the user saying that if there is a dispute, no one else should comment?इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 06:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

What the user is saying is perfectly clear on your talk page - because I said it in plain English. Since you have been here, you have been stirring the shit against Sitush by constantly taking sides against him in disputes he has with other editors - typically you have been supporting other tendentious POV-pushing battlefield editors. Sitush has been putting in massive amounts of hard work to fix the appallingly bad articles created and edited by a number of Indian caste warriors and other nationalists whose only aim is to shower their own castes with praise and turn many articles into glorifying puffery. And he has been getting little but grief for it - running from outright egregious attacks, to your style of constant snide digs at him. You are part of the problem here with India-related articles, you are not part of the solution - if you wish to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, you should be helping the editors who are doing all the work of fixing things, not hindering and harassing them as you are constantly trying to do with Sitush. I'll repeat again, if you believe Sitush's behaviour is problematic, put up or shut up by raising a report at the appropriate venue instead of constantly nipping at his heels. And again, what admin action are you asking for here? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

PS: I should also note that the editors you support are frequently those who get blocks and bans for their own behaviour, as is the case this time.

PPS: Putting a standard templated warning on a user talk page is not an admin action - any editor can do so. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

You have not answered questions that I had put forth upon your warning. You have avoided answering it twice, repeating past accusations but not bothering to answer how a question of violating AGF automatically means constant snide remarks, and so on. If you want to warn, be ready to answer how an inquiry on violating AGF automatically means anything. Otherwise drop the bone for all its meaning, and let other admins comment.

I am not sure of the admin action, but the title says it all. It is unequal treatment from the admin that is a matter of concern. If you notice the talk page, Yogesh_Khandke has also requested you "to address the issues such as hounding and complete lack of civility and constant heckling without any provocation on the part of the concerned editor." Selective warning and actions and selective silence is not civil per me, especially on the part of someone who is admin.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 10:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I have answered your question by explaining that it is your general continued low-level sniping that is the problem, not one specific action - and I can't help it if you cannot understand that. Also, the dispute is between Sitush and Yogesh, not you, and I am being even-handed in that by recusing myself from acting on it because I do not believe I am sufficiently uninvolved with the two of them. Now, if you can not point to any abuse of admin tools on my part, and are not asking for any admin action, then I have better things to do with my time - bye. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee you cannot call it shit stirring, is it wrong to be part of a dispute. You mentioned on the ThisThat’s talk page Sitush and Yogesh are grown up enough and know each other well enough by now to conduct their own disputes and to seek neutral help with resolution if they need it - so please stop trying to stir the shit on one side only. Well if two users have some dispute and if they wanted to resolve it among themselves they would have discussed it somewhere else not on wikipedia, many times disputes are resolved by discussions which involve more than one editors(else no one would put pages on watch list). No one is having any doubts about Sitush’s hard work in cleaning up caste articles I have personally noticed Sitush putting great effort in cleaning a lot of articles. If you say that ThisThat should stop anti-Sitush bias I would request you to atop anti-thisthat bias and stop warning him for doing nothing.Do not call him a part of a problem just because he is bold enough to point out a problem/mistake P.S Not sure why you mentioned caste related articles here I don’t see thisthat editing many articles related to caste sarvajna (talk) 09:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

If they're "grown up enough" then they should just fricking do it, and stop the sniping or else a) someone else will bring it up, and/or b) someone else will stop it. Wikipedia is not the place for such childish bullshit, and Boing was absolutely right in notifying the editor that he saw as the prime instigator. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid you are wrong, I can say that Thisthat wanted to clear the dispute so he did a right thing. I am not sure whom are you referring as prime instigator I hope its not Thisthat as he entered the dipute very late and thus cannot be an Instigator. Wikipedia is not a place for childish bullshit of warning people just because they were part of a dispute and tried to help the someone whom they thing are on the right side sarvajna (talk) 10:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

It would be best if all participants in this discussion walk away without insisting on the last word.Nobody Ent 11:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Perth

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A recent WP:RM (initiated by myself) from Perth, Western Australia to Perth was closed by JHunterJ (talk · contribs) as "moved", and the page was moved. A short time later, Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk · contribs) reversed this closure [110] and moved the article back.[111]

See Talk:Perth, Western Australia#Requested_move for some subsequent discussion between JHunterJ and Deacon of Pndapetzim.

There are a few problems with this action by Deacon of Pndapetzim:

1. The usual procedure would be to take it to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review. Doing an instant reversal in this way is wheel-warrish. (Also, it is bad form to edit a archived move discussion with a prominent "Please do not modify" in red at the top)
2. Deacon of Pndapetzim has a userbox indicating membership in Wikipedia:WikiProject Medieval Scotland. Since Perth, Scotland was a former capital of medieval Scotland, and Perth, Scotland was the "rival" of Perth, Australia as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in the WP:RM discussion, this at least creates the outward appearance of possibly having a personal stake in the outcome, and for this reason alone it may have been an unwise action.
3. In his reversal comment, Deacon of Pndapetzim appears to question JHunterJ's integrity by stating "Previous close sounds too much like a support and too little like an impartial close."[112]

See also this note by JHunterJ regarding the formulation of his closure summary comments.

I would ask an uninvolved and impartial administrator to restore the original closure outcome of the WP:RM and move the page back to Perth, and then anyone who wishes may naturally start a review at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Did Deacon remove Perth without any explanation? That seems highly suspicious. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 00:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, now it seems Deacon did have an explanation. Deacon stated in this thread on JHunter's talk page that there was no consensus and the overturn was justified. Upon reviewing the discussion on the Perth talk page, it clearly shows that there was no consensus, with a hodgepodge of supports and opposes. I have to say, I think Deacon was justified in overturning the closure. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 01:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Deacon is definitely right. There was no preponderance of opinions either way, and when a discussion is split 50/50, you can't declare consensus one way or the other. Nyttend (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

And this isn't wheel warring, it was a single revert. It doesn't happen that often, but it is acceptable and it was explained. JHunterJ or others can take it to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review if they so choose, but nothing improper happened here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

D should have taken it to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review. As I've explained, WP:NOTVOTE, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, and WP:RMCI indicate a move -- the !votes that were based on Wikipedia guidelines and policies were a consensus for the move. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

That is one option, reverting is the other. You and I might prefer someone go to review rather than revert us on an RM or AFD or other discussion, but I don't see a policy against this type of reversion, so I conclude it is acceptable sometimes but subject to review like any other administrative action. The problem is, this is ANI, not review, and not the proper place to discuss whether or not the close is proper or not, or the revert is proper or not. If you think it was clearly abuse, sure, ANI is fine but I find it hard to believe that a single revert is abuse, and review is the much better, calmer place to review the situation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, hoping the drama would be minimal here. This was a case of a highly controversial discussion, clearly having reached no consensus, being closed in favour of one particular view and being reviewed afterwards. Moreover, one to which the closer expressed a preference in the close rather than, as he is supposed to, summarize discussion and carry out whatever its conclusion is. I think my closure should be relatively uncontroversial. No admin with any relevant experience could seriously claim that this discussion had consensus (see my comments on the page in question).

PS, there is no established procedure for reversing RM closes, but neither is RM a binding process that would necessitate one; it is perfectly normal for page moves to be reversed when they are made in this fashion. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I am an admin with impartiality and experience and the serious claim. You are an admin member of a Scotland project who disagrees with my closure. Stop insinuating that that could only possibly have occurred if I suffer from some admin character defect. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

This is certainly tough, as two Wikiprojects are contested. From an uninvolved view, I have to agree with Deacon. Closing a debate with no consensus and redirecting in one side's favor is clearly out of order. This seems to be very WP: BOOMERANGish. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 01:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

@J, I'm not really sure my academic interests should really be a topic of focus here, but I do not wish to imply any "character defect", and am sorry if it is taken in such a way. At issue here is not anyone's academic interest, but whether or not a particular discussion had consensus. The community would be best served, I think, if you focused on that. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

People should stop throwing this scottish thing around as the majority of opposers are actually australiains, many of whoom reside in Perth, Western Australia. The thing is this has been discussed for most the last 10 years and there has never been a clear consensus, to close either way on what isnt a clear consensus is just creating unnecessary drama any admin can see that the status quo works and has consensus and has had for a considerable time the "new" proposal hasnt shifted that consensus. Gnangarra 02:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

It was a bit "glass houses" for Deacon to question whether JHunterJ was being impartial. Even if you do argue that the reversal was procedurally correct, it really shouldn't have been Deacon who did it, because it could be inferred rightly or wrongly that his academic interests may make Perth, Scotland a primary topic for him within his own personal cognitive sphere. The optics of it are the issue. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 03:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree that D shouldnt have reversed the move, but its worng to say this is just a dispute based on racial lines because it aint when many Australians dont support the move, its more a matter of timing. That said the closure wasnt clear and wasnt reflective of the discussion as it should be discussed, but while others are running around making changes it creates a hostile discussion. The last comment by J on the matter indicates that he also question his decision. Gnangarra 03:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• One last time, Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review is the proper venue, NOT WP:ANI. This is beyond the scope here folks. It needs the slower, calmer venue of review, not the drama of ANI as this doesn't appear to be abuse, but instead a disagreement on a close, the reason Review exists. This should be closed and moved over there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. no one can say that that is the proper place, so please refrain from directing people to policy and processes that have not been accepted by the community. Gnangarra 02:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Judging by the talk page, it appears they are ready enough to go. ANI isn't the right place regardless, so if you have a better venue, please suggest it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
      • there is no discussion indicating that unapproved Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review is being used, please stop misinforming everyone Gnangarra 03:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
        • That is, in fact, the proper place for that discussion. And if it isn't, I believe WP:DRN is. Is there any reason this shouldn't be closed?. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• fruitful and cordial discussion is occuring at User_talk:JHunterJ#Perth please close this and raise concerns there so that everyone is on the same page Gnangarra 03:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • That works too. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Please keep or raise this discussion somewhere other than my talk page as needed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comments:

1. I do not agree with those who claim that the proper forum is Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review. As pointed out above, it is not adopted as a policy or a guideline. In my opinion (expressed early at the talkpage), the page is nowhere near ready for adoption. In particular, it was diverted at the outset by an editor with an axe to grind concerning non-admin closures. The provisions for such closures remain vague on the page, but it has has been manipulated toward normalising a position that has not been subjected to wide or searching scrutiny.
2. [Disclosure: Though an Australian, I had nothing to do with the Perth RM and have formed no strong opinion on the matter; but I have had several run-ins with JHunterJ, often on the very issues that I am about to address here.] JHunterJ has frequently closed RMs without consideration of detailed and clearly articulated arguments, and sometimes cited evidence that has been comprehensively dismissed by counter-evidence and cogent arguments. He has edited relevant policy, naming conventions, or guidelines (sometimes without any discussion toward consensus, or apparent assessment of existing consensus), and then applied those provisions in deciding RMs, sometimes counter to the weight of numbers and the weight of argument in the associated RM discussion.
3. I agree with the assessment by Deacon of Pndapetzim, who I believe acted with complete propriety in this case. He did not begin a process of wheel warring. If anyone did, it was Kwami who reverted a perfectly well-argued administrative action of review. But I do not censure Kwami, who appears to have acted as he saw best and with some circumspection.
4. I hope that JHunterJ will rethink his attitude and his actions, and find something more constructive to do than push what is obviously a particular and partisan view of priorities among vigorously contested provisions at WP:AT, WP:DAB, and related pages. Especially, he should not act so that the energy, time, and talents of knowledgeable editors participating at RM discussions is squandered. For my part, I have stopped participating because of his presence. Life is too short.

Noetica^Tea? 03:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RPP/AFD backlog

Just FYI... There's a long backlog at WP:RPP. A couple of items have been waiting for attention for almost two days. Zagalejo^^^ 00:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• AFD as well ... I've knocked off most of the backlog, but there are still 20-odd outstanding. Black Kite (talk) 02:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Still over 20 requests left to process if anyone wants to get them out of the way. tutterMouse (talk) 15:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I have worked my mouse to the bare silicon in closing AFDs (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Great but we've still got a backlog close to 30 over at RFPP, nobody's put a dent in it since this was posted and have a good few which are three days old which just seems... negligent. Get to it kiddos, RFPP requests are people too. tutterMouse (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Fang Zhouzi

Fang Zhouzi seems to be subject of an edit war and attack by people trying to damage his reputation. Allegations of voyeurism, sexual assault, and plagiarism being added. References are in Chinese and difficult to understand. I have not left any notices of this posting to any editors as I am not sure who should be notified. This article likely needs an expert. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 09:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

This appeal falsely claims that some people intend to smear Fang Zhouzi. Fang's voyeurism allegations come from a professor at Guizhou Normal University and are reported in official news media including Qianzhong Morning newspaper. The wiki addition simply reflects those allegations and their official news report. Some close allies of Fang Zhouzi intend to suppress freedom of speech. An expert wiki editor should be involved before the addition is deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuoyeben (talk • contribs) 16:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, this being the English Wikipedia, only a small subset of our editors can read the references to verify the assertions. Is there a particular reason this was posted here and not the noticeboard for biographies of living people? —C.Fred (talk) 17:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Ignorance. Should it be moved? Jim1138 (talk) 02:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Ask Chinese Wikipedia for help? 218.22.21.3 (talk) 12:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Crystal Cathedral article renaming problem

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Without any discussion an editor has improperly renamed the Crystal Cathedral article to Christ Cathedral on the basis that the Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange has recently announced that "Christ Cathedral" is to be the building's name when it becomes the diocese's new cathedral. Although the building is now legally owned the RC diocese, under the terms of the sale it is still currently functioning as the "Crystal Cathedral" and will continue to do so until Crystal Cathedral Ministries ceases to use the building, which is not expected until the middle of 2013 at the earliest. I have tried reverting the name change but for some reason this didn't have any effect. I will appreciate it if an administrator, or any editor who knows how to do so, will revert the name change. I apologise if this is the wrong place to request this. Thanks. Afterwriting (talk) 11:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Then just move it back and invite ktr101 to discuss the move on the talk page. It only becomes an issue if he moves it again without consensus. and yes I did check the redirect to make sure he didn't pull a dolovis by editing it so only admins could move it back. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ron. As mentioned above, I already tried to "move it back" by reverting to a previous version but - although all the article's text was reverted - the name change wasn't. I tried several ways to do this without success. Can you tell me what the best way of reverting a name change is? Another editor has already reverted it for me. Afterwriting (talk) 12:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with Ron, this seems consistent with WP:BRD. Also, I notified Ktr101 that you brought the issue up here. Even though you didn't mention him by name, this is obviously referring to him since he made the move, so in the future, be sure to use the template at the top of this page and notify any party who is the focus of an ANI, please. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Dennis. Your advice on the notification of other editors is noted and appreciated. I had already considered doing this but didn't think it was so much an "incident" with another editor as a straightforward article problem that only needed changing without too much fuss and I didn't know where else to ask since I was unable to do it myself for some reason. But I will know better if there is a next time. Cheers, Afterwriting (talk) 12:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've just moved back the "Christ Cathedral organ" article to Crystal Cathedral organ. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

212.118.232.164 / User:HunterSilver

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi. I think banned User:HunterSilver returned again, with his attempts to push his unconstructive edits at List of Prime Ministers of Nepal, now with this IP address: 212.118.232.164. Just to let you know, User:HunterSilver is a sockpuppet of User:HasperHunter, who was banned indefinitely on April 20, 2012 for abusing multiple accounts. All of them are, in turn, sockpuppets of User:DBSSURFER (A few days ago, I opened a SPI, which can be found here). I'm really becoming tired of this, and I hope someone can solve this issue for good. --Sundostund (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• IP blocked, article semi-protected for a month. Let us know if he comes back on other articles. Black Kite (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

disruptive editor with unsustainable PoV

Hi,

I have been doing battle since 16 May (It all started here) with Stodieck (Talk), who has a technical PoV about aircraft that he is trying to stitch into several articles, including Canard (aeronautics), Stabilizer (aircraft) and Wing configuration. He is abusive, does not listen to reason or accept the majority consensus of other editors. He has most recently taken to misinterpreting sources, which has started to confuse other editors. The main evidence of this may be found on Talk:Stabilizer (aircraft): see my posts from 5 June downwards for diffs and other links. I notice that this user has been censured before on their talk page. Please help, I am at the end of my tether. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The Zeitgeist Movement (continued)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Previous discussion at ANI

The Zeitgeist Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Discussion at WP:DRN

Reinventor098 (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

After the previous discussion, I set myself up as a quasi-mediator in the ongoing content dispute about the article. I may live to regret that, but, nonetheless, a fair amount of constructive dialog has taken place, both on the article Talk page and at DRN. When, in my view, editors have regressed into name-calling, I have called them on it in an effort to refocus the conversation. Unfortunately, Reinventor, a WP:SPA, has not contributed constructively to these conversations. Instead, he has come back from a block for edit-warring on the article and recommenced his behavior. See here. In addition, he incorrectly labels other editors' actions as vandalism and makes oddly veiled comments at the article Talk page in a section he labeled vandalism ([113]), e.g., "It is a truly sad to see the level of dishonestly here and disheartening to see how malicious many of your controlling parties really are." I think "your" means Wikipedian editors who add material he doesn't like but it's not clear.

I suggest a block is warranted, and significantly longer than the previous 24-hour block.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked 96 hours. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk page deleted

User:M0rphzone is deleting talk page discussions, and then reverting attempts to restore the thread back to its original state. There is nothing particularly inappropriate in the deleted content. I've tried to reason with him/her, as did another user PBJT in this post, but the response has been prickly ("mind your own business.. go focus on other topics.. your ego is so big .."). I even tried a compromise by just linking to the deleted content, but that was reverted by M0rphzone also. Green Cardamom (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

You did not notify me correctly on my talk page and you did not discuss about the issue on my talk page. I don't understand why you are making such a big deal out of this, and trying to get help for it. It looks like you are deliberately attempting to harass me. I already tried to resolve the issue and didn't intend for the discussion to go in that direction, but you continued to harass me about my actions. And not only are you harassing me about this, but also canvassing on other user's talk pages. I've already talked to an admin about this, so this issue should be resolved. - M0rphzone (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

You are not allowed to remove your comments on talk pages, especially after other people have replied to them. You can strike the comments, like this, but outright removal isn't something you can do. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:REFACTOR says users can delete comments that are inappropriate or useless. Nothing says users can't delete their own comments. But fine, I am restoring them and striking the comments people think are attacks. Conflict is resolved. I don't give a fuck now. - M0rphzone (talk) 22:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. FWIW, WP:REDACT discourages outright deletion of remarks after others have responded to them. It suggests striking them, or at least marking it as having been redacted by the commentor. LadyofShalott 23:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Archived -- yet still OPEN -- ANI item

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could an admin please review and close THIS "ancient" request (Administrator's Archive #231, item #8)? The incident is rather short and, imo, rather straight-forward as well.

The incient was initiated over 4 months ago, and has not seen any activity in 3 months, yet there it saw no closure.

Subsequently the incident went into Archive mode, together with a few others (on or around 9 February 2012????). However, the matter is still open. I am now wandering if closing admins regularly look at Archived ANI items with the same frecuency as they do current ANI items...

I am requesting that an admin please review and close the INCIDENT. Thanks.

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

• I've taken the liberty of correcting your links. That probably shouldn't have been archvied, but there was no consensus to unblock (given the situation two !votes was insufficient for action), and at this point the block is about to expire anyway... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

In general, no, we don't look back at archives unless looking for something specific. If they did get archived (and left for months!) then it was either acted upon or had no consensus for action. LadyofShalott 23:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

If something goes into the archives that's generally a polite no. Nobody Ent 01:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Avaya1 and Victor Ostrovsky material

User:Avaya1 is unilaterally removing material related to Victor Ostrovsky from Mossad ([114][115][116]), Sayan (Mossad) (replaced with redirect [117][118]) and Katsa, which as been in the articles for quite some time, on the grounds that it is from a primary source. I have repeatedly asked him ([119][120]) to engage in discussion on the relevant talk pages and reach consensus, or to take the issue to WP:RSN. I'm not clear what category of misbehavior this falls in if any. I am asking only that he not blank articles with a redirect without a talk page discussion of the reliability and appropriateness of the source, or whether the Sayan (Mossad) article should exist at all. I do not wish to engage in back and forth editing over this on the premise that he is refusing to utilize the talk page to reach consensus. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 21:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

It's true that we could content fork separate articles for the things that Ostrovsky reports/claims, if that made to easier to organise Ostrovsy's content. However, the Ostrovsky article is extremely short and there's plenty of room to put it there. Secondly, Ostrovsky's reports are only based on one source - himself. Giving them separate articles is already POV content forking and against WP:Undue and Wikipedia:Fringe theories, since it implies that there is more than one source for them. Ostrovsky's book is written and actually marketed like a spy-novel, and reliable secondary sources (such as Benny Morris) have described him as a novelist (albeit one who had a career - at least as a trainee - in the Mossad). This is the content forking policy we follow on every other Wikipedia article of this nature.

As for writing whole sections on the main Mossad article, based entirely on Ostrovsky's book, this clearly is not WP:RS. Avaya1 (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

You may be absolutely right. I am not familiar with this material well enough, or the objections to it, although I did create the Sayan (Mossad) article which has not been challenged in any way yet. Similarly the material in the Mossad article has been there for some time and has withstood the scrutiny of a number of editors. I feel obligated to protect the material until there is at least a discussion with any other editors interested in the topic. The importance of WP:CONSENSUS seems paramount, although I do understand your point of view on this. Rather than discuss the topic here, that's all I will have to say about it unless you should choose to take it to the talk pages. I won't revert your edits on this anymore. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 21:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for seeing both points of view. Feel free to add the content you wrote to the main Ostrovsky article, there's plenty of space. Avaya1 (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Perceived threat to bomb Wikipedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I don't take these things seriously but this perceived threat of violence is probably against a few Wikipedia policies. Can we at least block the talk page access?--JOJ ^Hutton 23:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• another threat a few minutes ago. This one even more descriptive.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• I've upped his indef block to include talk page and email access. I think that should do it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Threat to bomb Wikipedia? Come on!

I can't read the dangerous and frightening threats mentioned above, since they've been oversighted (probably just as well, or they might give me nightmares). Seriously, threats to bomb Wikipedia? What's next, Bishzilla gets indefblocked for threatening to burn little users to crisps? Bishonen | talk 23:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC).

Somebody set us up the bomb! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Not oversighted; they were simply deleted. If I understand rightly, talk page access was not revoked because of the threats themselves, but because threats were the only thing coming — talk pages are enabled for blocked users largely to facilitate unblocking and to permit other constructive discussion with blocked users, and when blocked users do nothing with their talk pages except making empty threats and frivolous unblock requests, they're abusing that access and should have access revoked so that they don't waste our time. Nyttend (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Outing and Threats at Talk:Hogganvik runestone

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Someone take a look please?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

IP has now made another threat, blanked the Talk page, and blanked the warnings on his own Talk page. Meters (talk) 05:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Outing revdel'd and RFO'd. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Android version history and User:User931

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

He refused at first to contribute to a discussion on his repeated reverts and tagging of a section in this article with the WP:CRYSTAL policy but without explaining it. Even after i bought it up he continues to do it and remove large sections, basically edit warring with me. I started placing edit warring tags on his talk page, which he ignored and sought the advice of my mentor User:Worm That Turned. User931 finally started conversing on the article talk page but this turned out to be just immature insults and when i bought this up he went back to edit warring and removal of questioned content. I started an RFC, which he will only contribute to while using personal attacks and arguing instead of proposing changes and continues to delete content and undo, my undos so we can discuss it on the talk page. I have warned on numerous occasions and am needing Administrator advice now as i believe i am at the end of my tether, he is immature and that i am generally seeing him exppress ownership of the article even with extra eyes trying to discuss changes before they are made on the talk page. Sorry about the rant there and thanks Jenova20 21:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Without comment to the content dispute, you shouldn't be using rollback in a content dispute. - SudoGhost 21:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely, i was told not to by my mentor as i saw the previous warring as vandalism since he wouldn't discuss it. This time i acted on the same thing and can see that i shouldn't have. He has since worked around it by readding the content and so i could not undo my use of the rollback. I apologise again. Thanks Jenova20 21:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

And i added a tag for this discussion here on User931's talk page but he removed it so i assume he will not contribute to this. Scratch that, he's removing all criticism on his talk page and all warnings he has received from others. [121]. Thanks Jenova20 21:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

He's now putting the page back how it was before he removed everything fromt he section under discussion. [122]

I hope you can see from this how active he is and how he is and how as soon as administrators are involved he cleans up his act. Thanks Jenova20 21:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed this from the archive as the issue is unresolved. Thanks Jenova20 22:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

When something gets archived, it means it's not going to be acted upon. You have an RFC in process. On the article, you have not followed all of WP:DR as of yet. While those are still in process, what do you anticipate us to do in the meantime? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I was going by the guide at the top of this page. "Threads will be archived automatically after 24 hours of inactivity. If you see a thread that should not be archived yet, please add a comment requesting more discussion, or if it is already archived, remove it from the archive and restore it to this page, preferably with a comment."

Thanks Jenova20 11:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

But it deserved to be archived. Indeed, you never even responded to my question above to even show why it should remain open (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how to respond to that. I requested a third opinion on this a while ago and was told this is the wrong situation and to open an RFC. I have opened an RFC and got no response at that time so took it to the Administrator noticeboard as the issue being addressed is the wording of the paragraph and not the actions of User931. So even though the RFC is doing good it doesn't address the issues i have had with User931. Thanks Jenova20 13:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

You have the option of a RFC/U. But to be honest if the only problems are in that article and they stopped after the RFC for the article it's not likely to be a good idea. If they haven't stopped, then I presume other participants in the RFC will have commented here if they felt the behaviour required administrative action. Nil Einne (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The problems are more the user than the article. We are having a productive conversation now on the page about the improvement of the article but User931 is a problem in this and other articles, as can be seen from his talk page messages that he removes.

He is gaining criticism for refusal to work with people and edit warring but just removing the messages and when i did finally get messages from him they were petty personal attacks. So i want to push this. I realise i'm far from perfect and my own record is far from clean as i have made my own mistakes but his conduct is unproductive and unacceptable. Thank you Jenova20 14:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MMA, part 1287

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See also Wikipedia:ANI#MMA_AfD.27s above. I have just closed another disruptive AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 in UFC events (3rd nomination). I have also noted at least one WP:POINT nominations for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/America's Next Top Model, Cycle 19) of articles edited by the few editors who are trying to uphold Wikipedia policy in the MMA area. I'd would suggest that after such a persistent campaign of WP:IDHT by a number of SPAs to turn the encyclopedia into an MMA results service it is probably time to say "enough". Black Kite (talk) 06:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

As an editor who has passively observed the MMA disputes that flare up on the boards every other day (it seems), I'm also of the mind that some unified solution should be adopted—it really has been quite "enough" at this point. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

As only tangently involved (MMA editors trying to change policy/guidelines to make such articles acceptable to which I've commented on), yes, this is far past the point of disruption. That said, the MMA ppl have brought up a good point that if the various individual event articles aren't considered notable, then why do we have articles like 2008 Food City 500, 2011 World Series of Poker results (note, 2011 World Series of Poker exists but is ok), and similar? There is an inconsistency here, and it might step from the larger idea that the various sports arena itself is a walled garden - by no means as great a degree as the MMA - but clearly with a larger allowance for topics and the like. At this point there needs to be a course of action that pulls any decision away from those involved with MMA or at least the troublemakers making such pointy AFD noms, and get to a resolve quickly, but making sure that solution applies uniformly to other sports-based articles. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing that we have articles like 2008 Food City 500 because no-one's got round to deleting or merging them yet. Yes, the solution should apply to all sports, but with well over 3 million articles stuff like that is always going to sneak through; it doesn't mean we should let it go though. Black Kite (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'm fully aware that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a bad argument, except that I recall seeing editors from the various sports (nonMMA) suggest the NASCAR articles are just fine but the MMA ones are a problem. This mirrors a similar discussion about the denial to include eSports (professional video game competitions) within NSPORT because "its not a sport". I do applaud most of the editors that are knee deep in sports, self-aware that sports coverage far outweighs most other contemporary topics and thus having restraint to what is summarized on WP, but there remains some aspects here of walled gardens that we can't sweep away by just closing down the MMA stuff, fairly. --MASEM (t) 23:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a very subtle difference though, one that came out of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 Estoril Open in that an annually repeated sports event is a little different (I am not saying I necessarily agree with that). Mtking ^(edits) 00:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

What's enormously unfortunate about this situation is it's somehow identified as an "MMA" issue when the exact same sets of pages exist all across the site and tend to be the rule for formatting rather than exception. The main difference here is that for various reasons the AfDs on this particular subject have been unusually successful. Simply contrast this with worse entries such as that, or that, or that, or that (the list is trivial to enumerate). When users who feel their area of interest is being singled out see their concerns dismissed by wiki-insiders, it creates a great deal of frustration with the process and thus the highly visible drama. Should the same exceptional deletions happen on any other part of wiki with a significant userbase, the consequences would hardly differ. The challenge to solving such a systemic dilemma is to studying how the system works rather than respond with the same natural instincts which is the hallmark of institutional failure. Agent00f (talk) 19:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• There are some things that will always be the case in Wikipedia or in any similar project without centralized control and therefore without fixed enforceable rules:

1. within a field, the results at AfD will be inconsistent
2. between fields, the accepted emphasis will be inconsistent
3. everyone will think their own interests are being unfairly neglected

I accept this will happen even the areas of most concern to me, and though I continue to push gently for greater coverage of them, I will not forfeit whatever sympathy there is for my minority interests by making a nuisance of myself. DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

My question, how come we have to continually deal with these many AfDs on MMA articles, more often than not with either a "keep" or "no consensus"(no consensus when there are 4-5 votes for deletion and dozens to keep, yet those all are discounted for one reason or another), yet whenever a much less notable event, like say for instance a soon to be cancelled show about modelling that has no lasting significance gets nominated for deletion, the result is always a "Speedy Keep" and the nominator gets scolded? After so many failed deletion attempts by the 1 main MMA deletionist here, shouldn't they too be scolded for continually nominating articles?AugustWest1980 (talk) 14:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

If there's significant element of randomness on wiki by design, then the implication is userbase interests here were specifically unlucky. With this understanding the org shouldn't be unduly alarmed that intrinsic variation produces outliers. IOW, when the stars align, page sets get wrecked and those who use them become displeased proportional to the wreckage. The connection between these last two is basic human psychology which is difficult to trivially amend. Agent00f (talk) 09:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

"I'd would suggest that after such a persistent campaign of WP:IDHT by a number of SPAs to turn the encyclopedia into an MMA results service it is probably time to say enough." What method would you recommend for getting rid of MMA fans? Portillo (talk) 03:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• For those who cannot edit without being disruptive or incivil, then blocks and/or topic bans are clearly indicated; that's not even controversial. That doesn't just apply to MMA fans, but to any editor of Wikipedia. I merely bring the issue to ANI so that more eyes may be available. Black Kite (talk) 11:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Do you think there's a broad enough consensus about deleting the articles at hand that it could be made a CSD category? It's a brutal but effective approach.—Kww(talk) 11:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• No, I don't believe so. Whilst some are clearly non-notable, others are on the fringes. Even the ones that are obviously non-notable have some sources, even if it's clear that they fail WP:NOT and WP:SPORTSEVENT. I think the main issue here isn't the articles (they can be dealt with in time) but the disruption that is spreading to other areas. Black Kite (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, and the AfDs end up like this - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 145. I doubt if that's going to be closed as anything else but Keep, but that is effectively saying that "any sporting event that is mentioned in the newspapers is notable". Without going too much towards WP:WAX, that means you could effectively make a case for (as an example) all 1,760 professional soccer games that happen in England every year. Black Kite (talk) 11:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed respective projects and fan bases are turning the Encyclopaedia into a sports newspaper. Mtking ^(edits) 20:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
• How is that any different from turning the Encyclopedia into a fan site for fashion television shows that have absolutely no lasting notability?AugustWest1980 (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• Is Wikipedia running out of server space to the point where things that meet the WP:GNG aren't acceptable? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There is a reason that the sports notability guidelines don't consider regular games as part of a professional league series as notable just because they were played and reported on, and instead provide seasonal summaries. This is the solution that pro-MMA editors have been suggested to head towards but they fight to include every possible detail against global consensus for this type of information. --MASEM (t) 02:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• What Masem said. Your average NFL or Premiership game, NASCAR race, major American college football or basketball match no doubt nukes your average UFC event for GNG-applicable coverage, and I'm sure that given the green light, there are any number of Manchester United or University of Nebraska supporters who would be positively eager to write articles on them all. If "routine sports coverage" is a valid excuse to shoot down an independent article for the next Celtics-Heat playoff match, it sure is heck a valid one to debar your average MMA event. Ravenswing 05:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• and another one kept that is just like all the rest Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 21, it would appear that the MMA fan base has worn the other editors down ....... Mtking ^(edits) 10:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
• Or perhaps the other editors and moderators are simply tired of your crusade against MMA articles, realize the truth that these events are truly notable(we're still talking about them after a decade has passed), and that deleting them would weaken Wikipedia as a source of knowledge. I wonder how many people will be talking about the results of ANTM #19 in over a decade, yet you consider them to have lasting notability? Such bias proves you simply have an agenda to scrub WP of MMA articles.AugustWest1980 (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

<outdent> I'm not sure if this belongs here, but there is another MMA discussion going on over at Talk:List of professional sports leagues regarding whether they qualify as a league or not, which has been prompted most likely by the same circumstances regarding all the MMA AFDs. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 02:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

What's quite interesting here is that an event card as set of ~10 distinct and separate contests of 15-25min regulation time was mentioned numerous times in the past, yet critics continue to IDHT this basic reality. Each event page is already a collection of individual "games", and direct comparison of notability to X vs Y competitions would be a separate entry for each contest (ie 10 pages for each card). Agent00f (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I will observer that a solution was previously on the table (several times in fact) regarding how to move forward without having to invoke AN/I or AN every single time however the filibustering, polite disruption, point-making, IDHT, and outright obtuseness has been a (perceived) hallmark of the enthusiast community. A previous discussion to endorse general sanctions across the MMA article (and project spaces) had atrophied due to lack of commitment. It is my understanding that the Administrator Corps does not feel that the toolset they have does not endorse actions with respect to these users, therefore there are 2 solutions. First is to open a new discussion on AN regarding authorization of General Sanctions across the MMA article and project spaces. The second is to open an Arbcom case and get a set of discretionary sanctions applied to the MMA article and project spaces. As I'm immensely involved (and any proposal by me would be accused of being part of the cabal to destroy MMA on Wikipedia) I am not an appropriate user to move forward with either proposal. Hasteur (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

What? You pretend to speak for the entirety of the Wikicommunity yet in reality it's you, MtKing, Ravenswing, etc. The exact same editors take part in these frivolous AfDs, the core group of 4-5 deletionists and the hordes of angry MMA fans who tire of this coordinated plan to ruin MMA on Wikipedia. Perhaps the Wikicommunity and administrators in particular don't agree with your suggestion of sanctions on MMA articles, hence none being applied.AugustWest1980 (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Please strike your personal attack above. In no way was your response appropriate to my informing people of two options that have been on the table before. Your commentary here demonstrates the intrinsic flaw in the enthusiast's viewpoint. We are not out to ruin MMA on Wikipedia. We simply want the "walled garden" mentality to cease and for the articles to follow the same guidelines that other projects are required to follow. Are there counter examples where there are worse article? Entirely possible, but for the time being, the eye of scrutiny is on MMA articles. Is it possible that other sports will be touched by this plan to break down the walls and follow the guidelines? Absolutely yes. So to summarize, your premise is faulty and a personal attack on those who are attempting to uphold the policies. Hasteur (talk) 15:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not. My post above is absent of any personal attack. Your argument is flawed as well. You say other projects are required to follow these same guidelines? No they're not. Wikipedia is full of fancruft(America's Next Top Model) that has absolutely no degree of lasting notability. The eye of scrutiny on MMA articles is not Wikipedia as a whole, rather it is the agenda of a few editors who can be counted on one, perhaps two, hands. If you truly wanted to improve the articles to adhere to Wiki standards, improve them! Instead it's one constant AfD after another. When those AfDs don't turn out the way MMA-deletionists intended, they simply nominate them again at a later date, with no attempt at improving them in the meantime.AugustWest1980 (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

*Edit to add, show me one AfD for a UFC ppv recently not started by the MtKing, Hasteur, Ravenswing, TreyGeek, NewConnorMan, or the new POINTy troll Portillo. Just one. Most have been MtKing's doing. Not only does he brag about it, he also openly antagonizes MMA supporters without repercussion, blaming us when his AfDs are shut down without a 'delete' verdict. Sorry, but it is beyond obvious that you guys are not trying to make Wikipedia a better place. Truly, we're supposed to assume good faith, but your collective ruined any hope of that long ago with your antics and irritating smarminess.AugustWest1980 (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I've been reading this debate for awhile now, and I really don't have a horse in this race, but I have a question with regards to notability and the like. First, yes I know other things are on Wikipedia, but what is the difference between the UFC PPVs and the regular WWE and TNA PPVs that have articles here? Are the wrestling PPVs consider inheritable notable? If so, what coverage/guidelines do they get their notability from? Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe WWE is deemed notable per WP: Fabulous Costumes. JoelWhy? talk 14:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

No! Bad JoelWhy! We explicitly discourage fabulous costumes here! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

In response to Wildthing61476, their PPVs typically receive coverage from mainstream media sources such as The Sun and The Star (British national newspapers), Québecor Média (Canoe.ca) and the Miami Herald; not to mention extensive coverage from wrestling-oriented reliable sources such as the Wrestling Observer. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Just as UFC PPV events receive coverage from mainstream media sources such as Yahoo!, the LA Times, the Las Vegas Sun, as well as national newspapers like USA Today. Not to mention the extensive coverage in foreign countries like Brazil, Mexico, the UK, and Japan. Also the multitude of MMA-oriented websites such as Sherdog or BloodyElbow. Oh yeah, and other mainstream sporting media such as ESPN, Sports Illustrated, FoxSports, etc.AugustWest1980 (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I can confirm that Brazil's two main national newspapers, O Estado de S. Paulo and Folha de S.Paulo, regularly cover UFC events, as shown here and here. Evenfiel (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm forced to ask the question, then - if MMA Event articles are well sourced and competently written, what harm do they do to the project? If it's a reputation thing, I've got a list of articles more damaging to Wikipedia's reputation than these. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that coverage in the Sun and the Star, while indicative of some cultural relevance, is not coverage in something that generally meets WP:RS. Also the Sun is owned by a major player in the PPV scene. Rich Farmbrough, 16:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC).

Regardless of Murdoch's many fingers in many pies, coverage by multiple national media sources (not just The Sun) is generally a reasonable claim to notability for article subjects. In response to AugustWest1980, I think your point is fair - if an event had such extensive coverage then I would tend to consider it notable. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - AfD regular, sports fan, no dog in the MMA fight... I don't think the UFC pages are being deleted when challenged; certainly not lately. If there is a caucus attempting to delete them, they will become frustrated and shut down the disruptive mass attacks if more common sense (policy: IAR) and a lower level of mechanical adherence to the mantra of "three sources or bust" (guideline: GNG) is followed by closing administrators. High number events have adequate sourcing and, of course, the answer to preserving the low numbered events over the long haul is to find adequate sourcing for them as well. But I don't think this is any sort of crisis at AfD other than the minor annoyance of excessive cut-and-pasted challenges with no effort to follow WP:BEFORE. This, too, will pass. Carrite (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• That is an excellent point. I believe the only UFC events that have been deleted were ones that went unchallenged. Anytime there is vocal opposition to it the closing admin rules it either "Keep" or "no consensus". Now that these AfDs are being heavily challenged seems those who nominate and support deletion get angry and accuse the "MMA community" of disrupting the process. Ha! AugustWest1980 (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - One thing that really makes me mad is that the people putting UFC article up for deletion do not even check to see if there are good sources out there. They don't follow WP:BEFORE at all. They make no attempt to IMPROVE the article or check to see if it CAN be improved before they nominate it for deletion. Then, when I bring this point up in the afd debate, users like Hasteur have the nerve to tell me that WP:BEFORE isn't a requirement... only a guideline. It is absolutely ridiculous that users like Mtking and Hasteur constantly use WP policy to make their points, and when I make a very valid point that they are not even checking for possible notability before putting it up for deletion, they have the nerve to say it is only a guideline. Not-to-mention, when I'd search for sources myself, I can find sources from news agencies all over the world. LA Times, USA Today, Brazilian, Japanese, and European publications, etc. I even found sources in books and magazines using a google book search. It is ridiculous that articles get deleted if they are unopposed. So I have to run around defending all of the UFC articles because Mtking puts a bunch of them up for deletion at one time. I think if no effort is made to improve an article by finding sources BEFORE they are put up for deletion, then that nomination should automatically be thrown out. Gamezero05 21:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Again with the personal attacks. Great to see that the enthusiast community still knows how to sling a FUD bomb to derail and disrupt any forward momentum. Hasteur (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hasteur, there were absolutely no personal attacks there. I'm not sure you know what a personal attack is. I simply stated things that have happened and my opinion on it. You constantly playing the victim is getting quite old and tiring. Gamezero05 19:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, absolutely no personal attack present. Your attempt to "play the victim" citing nonexistent personal attacks will garner you no favor here. GameZero stated facts. Your cabal of MMA-deletionists never try to add sources or improve existing articles. You took one admin ruling from many months back, a ruling that vaguely implied some MMA articles could be consolidated, and then ran roughshod over years of work in the MMAProject using that one statement as justification for multiple AfDs. When other editors show up to protest you throw the wiki-jargon book at them, accusing any and every one opposed to deletion as a sockpuppet, meatpuppet, canvassed voter, or SPA. You simply couldn't accept the fact that your plan to reorganize and marginalize MMA knowledge on Wikipedia is very, very unpopular. No doubt you will now point out the nonexistent personal attacks in my post. Knock yourself out.AugustWest1980 (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Both your and Gamezero05's remarks prove my point. Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt, and premptive attacks on the editor and not demonstrating content reasoning. Hasteur (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Prove what point? I hate to keep this stupid squabble going, but what you are saying is just completely untrue. My paragraph that I wrote was highlighting a problem with nominating articles for deletion without even bothering to check for sources. How you took that as a "personal attack" is beyond me. And quite frankly, I'm getting tired of having to respond and defend myself against your pointless straw-man arguments. Gamezero05 21:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Aw... how cute, they learned a new keyword to disrupt debates. Tired of having to respond and defend yourself? Don't. If my postings are so out of line someone outside the enthusiast community will tell me to sit down. You commited an ad-hominem attack with It is absolutely ridiculous that users like Mtking and Hasteur constantly use WP policy to make their points, and when I make a very valid point that they are not even checking for possible notability before putting it up for deletion, they have the nerve to say it is only a guideline. Your continued insistance that this wasn't an attack and commiting yet annother attack on the person with You constantly playing the victim is getting quite old and tiring. again steps over the line. That you commit further attacks when you're being cautioned about personal attacks only demonstrates that you can't disassociate the user from the action. The fact that you claim I'm setting up straw man arguments, I point at the collection of UFC articles that are now on the AfD block that are in danger of deletion not because of any action that MtKing or myself took directly. So you know what, if I'm going to be tarred and feathered as a MMA deletionist, I might as well play the part. <sarcasam>Delete every single MMA article</sarcasam> Hasteur (talk) 01:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Ad-hominem attacks? I don't think you know what ad-hominem means. You seem to think personal attacks and ad-hominem attacks mean simply mentioning your name. Personal attacks would mean I attacked you personally in some way. An example would be if I called you a name. An ad-hominem attack would be if I used some irrelevant point to try to make an argument. An example of that would be if I said something like "John can't be good at basketball... he's a nerd". Being a nerd has no real connection to one's basketball playing ability. There are different kinds of ad-hominem attacks, but they all follow the same basic principle. And NOTHING I said was an ad-hominem attack. And NOTHING I said was a personal attack. I was simply pointing out FACTS that had happened, and used specific names to clarify exactly who I am talking about. If you'd like to see exactly where you said WP:BEFORE is only a guideline and not a requirement, it is right here: WP:Articles_for_deletion/UFC_21. Also, you accuses me of "personal attacks" yet you make smart remarks like "aw... how cute", and resort to calling me an "enthusiast" as if you are trying to discredit me as an editor because I actually like the subject I spend time editing. And you have the nerve to tell me that I'M out of line? Gamezero05 02:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The reason why UFC 21 got kept is simple, the MMA fans have created through various means including off-wiki canvassing and rallying calls such an atmosphere of total vitriol and disruption that no editor wants to go near it, you are guilty of it (and for the avoidance of any doubt yes I mean you Gamezero05), along with numerous socks of other indef'ed editors and SPA's the whole debate has been so poisoned to such an extent that any chance of a rational compromise went long ago. I can think of three or four good editors who have given up on MMA as a result, I hope that you feel mighty proud of yourselves sitting there in your Mum's basement. In fact it will make a good case study and essay on how as a single interest group can force it's agenda on the WP community. Also before you jump up and down claim this is an attack, no it is not it is explaining what has happened as I see it, so don't waste the electrons in replying if all you are going to do is talk about how much I have attacked you. Mtking ^(edits) 04:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

How am I causing disruption? Because you aren't getting your way? Because I'm standing up to you guys who want to delete everything? I can't believe you are trying to blame this on "us"... the people who actually care about MMA. YOU are one of the people responsible for all of this "vitriol". You caused an uproar when you decided to start merging entire years worth of articles to one page and delete numerous other outright. So let me get this straight. We are editing MMA articles on Wikipedia just fine, then one day you and others decide to go on an MMA crusade and start merging and deleting everything in sight, then we try our hardest to stop that from happening, and now you are blaming US for the disruption? It is really quite unbelievable. I don't know anything about off wiki-canvassing or sock puppets or SPA's, since I'm not involved with any of that myself, so I really have no idea what to say about that. I don't know if that is even true or not. Plus, I find it quite ironic that you claim I am one of the ones causing disruption and I am responsible for "vitriol", yet you say things like "I hope that you feel mighty proud of yourselves sitting there in your Mum's basement", and Hasteur gets smart with me, yet you guys claim I am the one slinging personal attacks. Gamezero05 05:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

You could not resist wasting the electrons could you, even after I told you not to; and it is not me making comments about basements it your colleagues, also don't bother wasting yet more time and effort by claiming you don't read the MMA forums as you have made enough comments to very clearly demonstrate you do. Mtking ^(edits) 06:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

AugustWest and Gamezero, you're approaching this discussion in the entirely the wrong way. Constructing arguments which make sense is not useful in a dispute predicated instead on leveraging inside processes. As an example of the former (ie arguments), it makes a lot of sense that subjects in close proximity in an encyclopedia should follow similar and consistent formatting, but arguing for this first pillar of wiki against blatant violation not only apparently fails POLICY but is considered a DISRUPTive nuisance. As an example of the latter (processes), defending hundred of pages against AfD's is wasteful and time-consuming whereas nominations are very cheap, and no amount of making sense will change this basic reality either. The only way these very disruptive and inconsistent changes to a very specific subset of pages can be reversed is to gain the support of some insiders with the political weight and know-how to tip the balance in the other direction. That's a very different kind of task to what you're twiddling away at here. 75.172.4.206 (talk) 06:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, this thread was started to gather consensus on what, if anything, we can do to reduce the drama level regarding MMA deletions. One simple way which would have a noticeable effect would be to indefinitely block editors whose contributions at this point are basically yelling about how The Deletionist Cabal Is Ruining Everything Because They Hate UFC And Love ATM. There are at least two prominent candidates on this thread. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

And I agree completely with that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The MMA debate actually raises several very good, very valid questions about sports notability, and these have yet to be answered. The problem lies at both extremes, those that want to keep everything, and those that want to delete everything, albeit with one side being somewhat more disruptive than the other. I gave up on trying to bring the two sides together once it became apparent that neither side was willing to compromise, even a little. Eventually, a settlement will be forced upon them all, which is usually the net result when two sides refuse to cooperate with each other: A solution that no one will like, but they will not like it equally. The sad thing is, a compromise wouldn't be that complicated if not for the bludgeoning. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

We have already compromised a lot. We agreed to the omnibus. We have been talking about splitting up the omnibus because it is too long. We are trying to work on this. All that we ask is that the numbered UFC pay-per-view events have their own pages. That is really all I am looking for. I am also wanting to improve the existing numbered pages. But I (and the rest of the MMA project) can't ever get any of this done when we are constantly trying to defend pages from deletion. Gamezero05 18:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not blaming you in particular Gamezero. You and I have bumped heads once or twice but I think we both respect each other and have generally treated each other fairly, even when we disagreed. I was trying to get the whole omnibus system redesigned, based on the input of everyone, when it became apparent that some were not willing to compromise. I don't have a preferred way, I just knew the first way was too rough to work. Everyone does try to paint the place like it is two camps, when the reality is there are two strong viewpoints, and half the people just lean one way or the other, and are not as extreme. But half the crowd ARE extreme in the "all" or "nothing" camp. The most vocal minorities are the ones being the boldest, which is why there is so much disruption. Consensus can't be reached when some are so reactionary. This is why I think eventually it will require an outside binding resolution to move forward. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

"Also, you accuse me of "personal attacks" yet you make smart remarks like "aw... how cute", and resort to calling me an "enthusiast" as if you are trying to discredit me as an editor because I actually like the subject I spend time editing. And you have the nerve to tell me that I'M out of line?" "When other editors show up to protest you throw the wiki-jargon book at them, accusing any and every one opposed to deletion as a sockpuppet, meatpuppet, canvassed voter, or SPA." I agree with Gamezero and AugustWest. Hasteur and Mtking love throwing potshots and condescending comments to MMA fans. But if anyone challenges them, they are instantly accused of disruption and ruining Wikipedia. Portillo (talk) 05:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Could that be because we've been personally attacked by SPAs, IP editors, externally canvassed users, and editors in goods standing (Like yourself) for so long that the only way to get through to you is to drop the mask of civility and start throwing elbows with the same sort of abusive language that gets levied against us? Want our behavior to improve? start by calling out editors who level abusive statements to us and we'll be more reasonable to work with. Don't care? We can ride the Drama Merry go Round until someone gets so fed up with the incessant drama from the project that even more painful sanctions will get applied and the suporter croud will lose more content than what we have been willing to compromise for already. Hasteur (talk) 12:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

"that even more painful sanctions will get applied and the suporter croud will lose more content than what we have been willing to compromise for already." I'm sure I'm not the only one fed up with these types of threats. Any doubt that there is an axe to grind is all but cleared up with comments like these, coupled with the corresponding behavior. BearMan998 (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, this is a true example of a personal attack and it's from none other than Hasteur himself. I have never personally attacked you so I would appreciate it if you can edit and interact in a civil manner. BearMan998 (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I might be short-sighted here, but I can't see anything in that link that looks like a personal attack. Can you clarify? Black Kite (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

See his edit summary of "You already voted, now scurry back to your den." I made a simple mistake in my edit and that was his response to it. BearMan998 (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I missed the edit-summary. Yeah, a bit snarky, not sure if it was attempting to be a joke based on your user name. Black Kite (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment all I know is, Hasteur and Mtking cannot use an excuse like "other people personally attacked us, so we're going to personally attack people here". Two wrongs don't make a right, and nobody has personally attacked you guys in this discussion. Gamezero05 16:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment for the MMA crowd: I see that UFC 94 is a Good Article. Quality work like that is your best weapon to disarm your opponents. While you seem to be doing a great job on the athlete bios, I would suggest you get together and collaborate on a few event articles to bring them up to higher standards. Given the coverage Canada's major media are giving it, UFC 149 should be a relatively easy candidate once the event happens. The first one in Toronto that set an attendance record received considerable coverage, iirc. Show off a few more examples like UFA 94, and the arguments against their existence will whither and die. Resolute 17:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree Resolute. If there are any good things to come out of this whole debacle is that it has brought attention to the MMA crowd that 1) Wikipedia needs help in editing the MMA articles and 2) MMA articles which are a valuable resource to the MMA community and the general public are being deleted. There have been some very good editors who contribute to these articles however with all the nominations for deletion, I see them using their resources instead to fight the nominations and getting sucked into endless and heated arguments. BearMan998 (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I recently made UFC 145 similar to UFC 94 in order to prevent it from getting deleted. And the article isn't even close to being finished. One problem is that the people who want to delete the articles (Mtking, Hasteur), don't make any effort to improve any of the articles. They just go around trying to get them deleted. Gamezero05 17:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Lets not kid ourselves here, the sources in UFC 145 that are from sources that WP would call reliable are routine primary news coverage or more about the fighters with a tangential link to the event. Lets take the cite from the impresive sounding International Business Times here as an example on closer invistigation you will acutaly see that it is from a user content blog. Where are the sources written after the event, with further analysis or discussion on the long term impact of this event? Mtking ^(edits) 23:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you happened to notice, the UFC 145 article is NOT finished. I never got around to finishing summarizing the results and also if you notice, I never got around to writing anything for the "subsequent events" section. If you are wanting sources for things AFTER the event, you are going to have to wait... because nobody has written that part yet. It isn't a finished article... remember, Wikipedia is a constant work in progress. Gamezero05 04:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

So you admit that currently the event does not have demonstrated enduring notability (as per WP:NOT) it should therefore be redirected to the omnibus article until such time as it does. Mtking ^(edits) 05:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• "when it became apparent that some were not willing to compromise... But half the crowd ARE extreme in the "all" or "nothing" camp.". In general I (and the wiki record) would agree with Dennis's characterization of what happened. Back when I was still involved with this, I distinctive recall proposals which retain 80% of the original omnibus reasoning (if not the entire design of copy/pasting dozens of pages into one), with enthusiastic support, and being ignored completely by the omnibus designers (unfortunately there's nothing to diff for silence). Those among the userbase who felt their reasonable attempts to compromise weren't being addressed wasn't a uncommon experience (there was no reply to this). From a cursory look at the discussion today, this lopsided behavior has only continued, with targeted archiving of critical comments. Speaking of which, it's worth noting that the proposal above was also unilaterally collapsed as TLDR by omnibus hardliners, and this seems commonplace. When that sort of unbalanced environment persists, the combined outcry is rather unsurprising, and whatever solution should address this extremism. Agent00f (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• So let's get this straight, you made a proposal which recived enthusiastic support from one editor that in essance wanted to amend WP's notability requirement to say that if the sum of the parts was notabile than the parts are also notable, and you are seriouly wondering why the attempt to change poilcy was not taken seriously and was ignored when it was such a transparent attempt at derailing the discussison and continue your filibustering. If you should be in any doubt about how transparent your filibustering is, have a read of your RFC/U here or here including such quotes as he [Agent00f] has gone out of his way to be intentionally obtuse, redundant and verbose for the purpose of diluting and distracting from the discussion or and it is clear from Agent's behavior here [the rfc] --the personal attacks, the battlefield mentality, the accusations of gangbanging, the filibustering, the right vs. wrong ideology, et cetera. Mind you you have achieved something, you have forced a number of editors in the MMA project who were willing to work within the existing WP policies to leave the project. Mtking ^(edits) 03:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe it was you, Mtking, and a few others who made people leave the project. The project was going just fine before you and some others went on a crusade. You and a few others who have Wikipedia "know-how" come in and completely change how MMA is presented on Wikipedia, and when 95% of the people involved with the MMA project oppose you, you blame THEM for "disruption". It would be like a small, well-trained army swooping through a village destroying everything in sight because they want the land, and when the villagers try to fight back the small, trained army blames the villagers for being so difficult. Gamezero05 04:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

So it's those established editors fault for wanting this project to be an encyclopedia and not a MMA fans results and gossip site, hm, maybe you should also read Agent00f's RFC/U as well.Mtking ^(edits) 06:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia will be no less of an encyclopedia with the inclusion of high-ranking MMA articles. And just because a few individual users have been disruptive doesn't mean the entire MMA-supporting side can be generalized as being disruptive. Some of us have valid, policy-based opinions, although many of them are repeatedly dismissed or overlooked with a high prejudice.

And without getting into a personal attack, I have to say I see a lot of irony in some of the claims being made. Both sides have plenty of guilt in the filibustering department, especially in the repeated echoing of "fails notability, fails notability!" when there has been plenty of consensus that it doesn't. Likewise, I find it quite humorous that the inclusionists who wish to maintain and preserve information are being considered disruptive, while the deletionist side that mangles useful articles and creates large amounts of drama and the resulting problems somehow claims that they are not disruptive.

Ultimately, I think a few editors on both sides really need to step back, and perhaps away from the issue altogether, simply because they are completely unwilling to compromise. That sort of adamant behavior is not beneficial towards reaching an agreement or consensus since they will never back down or admit fault. At this point, if anyone is simply unable to accept either the deletion of any MMA article or the existance of the top-tier, notable MMA articles, should really step away and take some time to cool down and return with more of an open mind. Otherwise, this argument will never die down. Zeekfox (talk) 07:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

This issue will never die down when the supporter community can externally canvas for new editors to come in and require established editors to have to prove the entire reason over again. Those of us who are left in the "enforcing WP policy" camp are the ones that refuse to take an exit from the debate because we know that any established editor who leaves the project emboldens the supporter community to continue their disruptive tactics. Hasteur (talk) 11:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you have evidence of external canvassing? Ypsi.peter (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment Good question. Hasteur, you continually accuse the inclusionist side of canvassing, sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry. Where is the proof?

Also, a reasonable compromise was suggested. All numbered UFC events get their own page, all lesser UFC events and all lesser organization events get omnibus pages. The deletionist side rejected it. The inclusionists have continually gave ground in this discussion, seems the deletionists simply will not budge thus implying an agenda of erasing MMA knowledge and history from Wikipedia. They have even rudely suggested that inclusionists leave Wikipedia altogether, implying we don't belong here, suggesting we start a different Wiki proving that they do not believe the subject matter belongs on WP. AugustWest1980 (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

RE to Ypsi.peter Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive233#Request for Sanctions against User:BigzMMA (Socking, Canvassing), Any of the multiple AfDS or disucssions that the hordes of non-wikipedians have been screaming for their want.(Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate Challenge MMA,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on Fuel TV: Sanchez vs. Ellenberger,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 151,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 149: Aldo vs. Koch (2nd nomination),WT:MMANOT,WT:MMA,Talk:2012 in UFC events)Hasteur (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The reason why we've suggested that the "inclusionists" found their own MMAPedia is because the articles that are being lobbied for are so far below the basic guideline that individual backyard events can get included. I think that some MMA articles do merit inclusion here (Like the Greasing contraversy given above). Given that all of the articles that have been challanged fall significantly below the level of inclusion, the Omnibus article is a significant step to reasonableness that the "deletionists" have put forward. Not every single MMA numbered event could ever be notable. The fact that we have to beat the point into the "inclusionists" with a spiked club only demonstrates the level of disruptive IDHT that the "inclusionists" are constantly practicing. Hasteur (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, you're misrepresenting the facts. First you say that the "inclusionists" are lobbying for such basic guidelines that backyard events could be included. Patently false and absurd. The "inclusionists" have stated many times that numbered UFC events are notable and deserve their own articles where other lessor orgs could have omnibuses. You mistakenly say "not every single MMA numbered event could ever be notable" is again false. Every Superbowl is notable. Every World Series is notable. Apparently every season of America's Top Model is notable. I just got through adding multiple sources to UFC 2, which someone POINTedly nominated AfD.

Movies, TV shows, reality television, usually the only references they have listed are sites like TV.com or IMDB.com, that makes them notable. Well every single numbered UFC has an entry on IMDB. Using the same judging criteria, wouldn't that make them notable? It's WP:COMMONSENSE, in 20 years no one will know or care who won Season 3 of Survivor or ANTM, but they will still be writing about and discussing UFC 1 and 2, just as people still discuss Superbowl 1.AugustWest1980 (talk) 19:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Forgive my obtuseness but I don't understand how those links provide evidence of external canvassing. Can you be more specific for me? Ypsi.peter (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

My friend, you're coming to this with a very stacked deck. Before you post further you may want to consider reading over the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia as your agenda and what you're aiming for is fairly obvious to me. Hasteur (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Your constant veiled threats to new users are getting old Hasteur. It is obvious his agenda, he wants to participate in the events surrounding the destruction of MMA on Wikipedia.AugustWest1980 (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

From another editor in another thread, but very relevant and so far unanswered:

In the end, this really has become just an editing war where a few editors are trying to march forward, waving the banner of policy where it doesn't apply. You want proof that this is mostly an attack? Because it's UFC articles being targeted. There are plenty of pages out there for lower tier events that even the most devoted MMA fan wouldn't recognize as notable, but instead of trying to delete/merge THOSE, the editors on the opposite side are going after the most notable MMA organizations out there.

Whether pages should be deleted or not, why AfD nominate every recent and soon-to-be UFC article, but yet, don't even bother with pages for DREAM, Titan FC, or Cage Rage? If it were just a matter of "enforcing policy", then the AfD nominations would be targeted towards articles that truly aren't notable...not the pages people actually use and care about. Instead, this is clearly being done with ill intent. AugustWest1980 (talk) 19:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Well it's become very obvious that there is an axe to grind here which is made obvious by the constant threats of deletion and the specific targeting of these articles as opposed to certain WWE and boxing articles. With that being said, can we really say that good faith is being exercised by the aforementioned threat issuers?BearMan998 (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

That would be because there's a history with the UFC articles, therefore they're more closely watched, and what is done with other things, the "what about X?" argument, is irrelevant. But let's not let that get in the way of a good conspiracy theory, shall we? Let's instead use megabytes of text to sling mud everywhere about the anti-UFC cabal instead of improving the articles and their sourcing so that there is no question of their notability and relevance.

With the sarcasm hat off: the best way to refute arguments that something isn't notable, is WP:RUNOFTHEMILL, or that it's part of an indiscriminate collection of information, is to improve the article with uncontroversially reliable sources that establish the event as unique, notable, and worthy of inclusion. Let the slings of arrows of outrageous fortune slide like water off a duck's back, and improve the article so that neutral users will !vote Keep. If, however, that can't be done, due to a lack of uncontroversially reliable sources to establish uniqueness, notability, and worthiness... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Ah, yes those would be my words that were quoted. And I would like to point out that the mention of lesser divisions not getting AfD's wasn't a "What about X?" argument to keep the UFC articles, but rather a point that the AfD's were not made with such a noble cause as the deletionists try to make it out to be. The AfD nominators aren't interested in removing MMA articles that fail notability, but instead go on a crusade to strike down articles that are well-sourced and cover a notable event.
• Also, recent articles have been getting improved. Yet, it seems the opposition to MMA continues to be relentless, dismissing every possible source as being either primary (referring to the MMA-specialized publications) or a newspaper (pretty much everything else that publishes news). By those standards, 98% of Wikipedia should be deleted, right? Zeekfox (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• The first is WP:PRIMARY. I believe the second argument is not "it's a newspaper" but "it's WP:ROUTINE". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• In answer to Ypsi.peter (yet another MMA SPA) go to any of the MMA forums (such as sherdog.net) and search for "wikipedia" and you find your evidence, along with countless attacks on editors here.
• In answer to AugustWest1980 and BearMan998, your attempts to goad others to nominate articles for deletion (such as WWF events) won't work with me, if you think that they should be deleted, you always have the option of nominating them yourself, however as you are aware pointy AfD nominations by MMA SPA's are normally closed in very short order. Mtking ^(edits) 23:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to goad you into anything so that's a poor presumption on your part. BearMan998 (talk) 02:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Try and goad you into nominating AfD? What an ignorant insinuation on your part. Trust me, I would be ecstatic if you never nominated another article for deletion ever again. I see you deftly jumped over the question posed by imagining insidious motives instead of answering.AugustWest1980 (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what agenda you think I have or what sinister motives are behind my comments, but I can assure they aren't true. I read wikipedia articles a lot, of all shapes and sizes, but I've never been interested in editing. My questions are honest and simple, and I'm not trying to trick you or troll you or anything like that, I'm just trying to understand how this fits into wikipedia as a whole. As somebody who never edits I've never paid attention to this whole arguing facet of wikipedia. Ypsi.peter (talk) 03:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The AfDs

Since nearly all of these hardly had any discussion on the actual notability of the subject (and since they were well overdue - clearly many admins are steering well clear of the subject, and I can hardly blame them), I have closed all of them (apart from a couple that were clear Keeps) as No Consensus. At least this time they weren't disrupted by SPAs. I would suggest these aren't nominated again until a clear consensus on the applicability of WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:ROUTINE and WP:SPORTSEVENT as they relate to MMA events is gained, with the input of a wide range of the community. As a side note, since it appears to be a problem related to a vague definition in WP:SPORTSEVENT, I went and looked at boxing, to see if there were articles on single world championship fights. The answer to that was "some of them", however I note that where they exist, they're usually very well sourced, and contain real-world background and coverage from many non-primary sources - see Wladimir Klitschko vs. David Haye, for example. If all UFC articles were up to this standard, there wouldn't be any argument about their notability. Black Kite (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

AFDing any of the UFC/MMA pages right now (short of CSD-qualified cases) is disruptive to the process; editors who are involved that are still nominating need to stop and/or been on a short block to chill for a while. There's a solution between "having no UFC event pages" and "having every UFC event with a page" that still needs to be figured out off AN/I, but those purposely disrupting the process do need admin action. If there has to be a formal proposal that no UFC/MMA related article should be AFD'd while this process is undergoing, then so be it. --MASEM (t) 14:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, the discussion has been going on for months, it has been virtually stalled for months, it has let to mulple RfC/Us, SPIs, more blocks than I can count, meatpuppeting on both sides, and I would bet 100x more text in comments than the whole of every MMA article combined. I don't think we can flatly say that any and all MMA AFDs are disruptive without looking at the case individually. New unsourced future event articles are created all the time, for instance. Mass AFDs, yes, I would agree that is less than optimal and likely being done to be disruptive, but would have to look at the circumstances. I support the close of No Consensus in this case, for instance. If the time I spend mediating there has taught me one thing, it is that this will not be solved without a binding resolution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

For every boxing article that is well sourced such as Wladimir Klitschko vs. David Haye there are UFC articles that are well sourced as well such as UFC 94. Similarly, there are as many boxing articles like Floyd Mayweather vs. Zab Judah or Andre Berto vs. Victor Ortiz which lack the non-primary sources and quality of Wladimir Klitschko vs. David Haye. I don't think the lack of non-primary sources should lead to automatic deletion as these were indeed championship fights which will leave a lasting legacy to the sport. Similarly, UFC championship fights leave a lasting legacy to the sport which is my main reason for supporting that they retain a standalone article. With that said, articles are always a work in progress and quality is always being built as seen by the improvement in some of the higher numbered UFC articles. Additionally, as previously stated, my stance is that only events with championship fights retain an individual article, the other events are not relevant enough in my opinion. BearMan998 (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's not argue the content/inclusion part here (this is ANI). I would extend any action that I suggest to AFD'ers of MMA to extend to established editors that are creating MMA match articles without impunity. As for the process taking too long, what's probably needed is to have non-involved admins set up a RFC process to resolve the issue. (This is skipping an Arbcom step that tends to end up back to this point such as with the Troubles or Mohammad images.) --MASEM (t) 03:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unequal treatment from an admin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello,

This is regarding recent exchange of messages on talk pages User_talk:Thisthat2011 (own), User_talk:Yogesh_Khandke, and User_talk:Boing!_said_Zebedee (admin). The issue also involves a user User:Sitush.

The admin had warned me here(User_talk:Thisthat2011#June_2012) of 'personal attacks on other people', 'constant snide attacks on User:Sitush', and then block here over a discussion here(User_talk:Yogesh_Khandke#For_admin_Dougweller.27s_attention).

On inquiring details on how he reached these conclusion to give warning, he has avoided presenting details and is accusing further 'so please stop trying to stir the shit on one side only'. It appears somehow to be personal attack sweetened with a 'please', a behavior himself warned me against.

He had done something similar earlier User_talk:Thisthat2011/Archive_1#March_2012 here too, which he immediately rectified himself.

So I would like to know why he is warning to myself, but has avoided warning himself and user:Sitush for exactly doing the same. The behavior is inconstant w.r.t. users.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 19:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I was not acting in an admin capacity in that exchange, and so there is no question of my having misused my admin tools. The issue here is not one my my taking sides - as I make clear, I am carefully avoiding taking sides in the dispute, which is between Sitush and Yogesh. But you have been making low-level snide attacks against Sitush ever since you have been here, in disputes that do not involve you. If you have a problem with his behaviour, make a report at to the appropriate venue - as Sitush says, put up or shut up. Now, what admin action do you want taken here? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

So he templated you, then had second thoughts so struck it instead of deleting it, expressed opinions about your actions. He didn't cover it up, he struck it, which I consider the honest way of correcting a mistake (or change of heart, or whatever), as he isn't trying to cover up the fact that he originally said it. He used the phrase so please stop trying to stir the shit on one side only, which clearly isn't a personal attack, even if it is more crudely worded than perhaps you or I would use. "Stirring the pot" is a common English expressions, used here frequently. It clearly isn't an admin action issue as no tools were used and no administrative sanctions were mentioned. It appears you never tried to bring up the issue on his talk page before coming here, and incidentally, you are supposed to do before coming here, per the top of this very page. It does look like you were stirring the pot on the talk page of Yogesh_Khandke, but I don't have the whole backstory, so maybe you had a good reason to say what you said, and/or maybe he had a good reason to say something about it, but no one did or said anything "action-worthy". I don't see any abuse here, just two editors that disagree. So, what exactly is your point, and why are we here at ANI? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a new essay should be written. Wikipedia: Stirring the pot. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 02:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

On my page there is a warning of a ban. Is the warning from an admin, an editor, an observer?

As also, I had asked the admin on my page reasons for his warning. He is still silent on these questions, inspite of messages on his talk page to answer, and still passing 'low-level snide remarks' such as 'But you have been making low-level snide attacks against Sitush ever since you have been here' - is this not a 'low level snide' accusation from an admin?

Is putting forth a question of violating AGF a low-level snide remark that calls for a warning of a ban? Is the user saying that if there is a dispute, no one else should comment?इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 06:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

What the user is saying is perfectly clear on your talk page - because I said it in plain English. Since you have been here, you have been stirring the shit against Sitush by constantly taking sides against him in disputes he has with other editors - typically you have been supporting other tendentious POV-pushing battlefield editors. Sitush has been putting in massive amounts of hard work to fix the appallingly bad articles created and edited by a number of Indian caste warriors and other nationalists whose only aim is to shower their own castes with praise and turn many articles into glorifying puffery. And he has been getting little but grief for it - running from outright egregious attacks, to your style of constant snide digs at him. You are part of the problem here with India-related articles, you are not part of the solution - if you wish to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, you should be helping the editors who are doing all the work of fixing things, not hindering and harassing them as you are constantly trying to do with Sitush. I'll repeat again, if you believe Sitush's behaviour is problematic, put up or shut up by raising a report at the appropriate venue instead of constantly nipping at his heels. And again, what admin action are you asking for here? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

PS: I should also note that the editors you support are frequently those who get blocks and bans for their own behaviour, as is the case this time.

PPS: Putting a standard templated warning on a user talk page is not an admin action - any editor can do so. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

You have not answered questions that I had put forth upon your warning. You have avoided answering it twice, repeating past accusations but not bothering to answer how a question of violating AGF automatically means constant snide remarks, and so on. If you want to warn, be ready to answer how an inquiry on violating AGF automatically means anything. Otherwise drop the bone for all its meaning, and let other admins comment.

I am not sure of the admin action, but the title says it all. It is unequal treatment from the admin that is a matter of concern. If you notice the talk page, Yogesh_Khandke has also requested you "to address the issues such as hounding and complete lack of civility and constant heckling without any provocation on the part of the concerned editor." Selective warning and actions and selective silence is not civil per me, especially on the part of someone who is admin.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 10:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I have answered your question by explaining that it is your general continued low-level sniping that is the problem, not one specific action - and I can't help it if you cannot understand that. Also, the dispute is between Sitush and Yogesh, not you, and I am being even-handed in that by recusing myself from acting on it because I do not believe I am sufficiently uninvolved with the two of them. Now, if you can not point to any abuse of admin tools on my part, and are not asking for any admin action, then I have better things to do with my time - bye. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee you cannot call it shit stirring, is it wrong to be part of a dispute. You mentioned on the ThisThat’s talk page Sitush and Yogesh are grown up enough and know each other well enough by now to conduct their own disputes and to seek neutral help with resolution if they need it - so please stop trying to stir the shit on one side only. Well if two users have some dispute and if they wanted to resolve it among themselves they would have discussed it somewhere else not on wikipedia, many times disputes are resolved by discussions which involve more than one editors(else no one would put pages on watch list). No one is having any doubts about Sitush’s hard work in cleaning up caste articles I have personally noticed Sitush putting great effort in cleaning a lot of articles. If you say that ThisThat should stop anti-Sitush bias I would request you to atop anti-thisthat bias and stop warning him for doing nothing.Do not call him a part of a problem just because he is bold enough to point out a problem/mistake P.S Not sure why you mentioned caste related articles here I don’t see thisthat editing many articles related to caste sarvajna (talk) 09:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

If they're "grown up enough" then they should just fricking do it, and stop the sniping or else a) someone else will bring it up, and/or b) someone else will stop it. Wikipedia is not the place for such childish bullshit, and Boing was absolutely right in notifying the editor that he saw as the prime instigator. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid you are wrong, I can say that Thisthat wanted to clear the dispute so he did a right thing. I am not sure whom are you referring as prime instigator I hope its not Thisthat as he entered the dipute very late and thus cannot be an Instigator. Wikipedia is not a place for childish bullshit of warning people just because they were part of a dispute and tried to help the someone whom they thing are on the right side sarvajna (talk) 10:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

It would be best if all participants in this discussion walk away without insisting on the last word.Nobody Ent 11:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Perth

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A recent WP:RM (initiated by myself) from Perth, Western Australia to Perth was closed by JHunterJ (talk · contribs) as "moved", and the page was moved. A short time later, Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk · contribs) reversed this closure [123] and moved the article back.[124]

See Talk:Perth, Western Australia#Requested_move for some subsequent discussion between JHunterJ and Deacon of Pndapetzim.

There are a few problems with this action by Deacon of Pndapetzim:

1. The usual procedure would be to take it to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review. Doing an instant reversal in this way is wheel-warrish. (Also, it is bad form to edit a archived move discussion with a prominent "Please do not modify" in red at the top)
2. Deacon of Pndapetzim has a userbox indicating membership in Wikipedia:WikiProject Medieval Scotland. Since Perth, Scotland was a former capital of medieval Scotland, and Perth, Scotland was the "rival" of Perth, Australia as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in the WP:RM discussion, this at least creates the outward appearance of possibly having a personal stake in the outcome, and for this reason alone it may have been an unwise action.
3. In his reversal comment, Deacon of Pndapetzim appears to question JHunterJ's integrity by stating "Previous close sounds too much like a support and too little like an impartial close."[125]

See also this note by JHunterJ regarding the formulation of his closure summary comments.

I would ask an uninvolved and impartial administrator to restore the original closure outcome of the WP:RM and move the page back to Perth, and then anyone who wishes may naturally start a review at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Did Deacon remove Perth without any explanation? That seems highly suspicious. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 00:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, now it seems Deacon did have an explanation. Deacon stated in this thread on JHunter's talk page that there was no consensus and the overturn was justified. Upon reviewing the discussion on the Perth talk page, it clearly shows that there was no consensus, with a hodgepodge of supports and opposes. I have to say, I think Deacon was justified in overturning the closure. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 01:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Deacon is definitely right. There was no preponderance of opinions either way, and when a discussion is split 50/50, you can't declare consensus one way or the other. Nyttend (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

And this isn't wheel warring, it was a single revert. It doesn't happen that often, but it is acceptable and it was explained. JHunterJ or others can take it to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review if they so choose, but nothing improper happened here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

D should have taken it to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review. As I've explained, WP:NOTVOTE, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, and WP:RMCI indicate a move -- the !votes that were based on Wikipedia guidelines and policies were a consensus for the move. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

That is one option, reverting is the other. You and I might prefer someone go to review rather than revert us on an RM or AFD or other discussion, but I don't see a policy against this type of reversion, so I conclude it is acceptable sometimes but subject to review like any other administrative action. The problem is, this is ANI, not review, and not the proper place to discuss whether or not the close is proper or not, or the revert is proper or not. If you think it was clearly abuse, sure, ANI is fine but I find it hard to believe that a single revert is abuse, and review is the much better, calmer place to review the situation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, hoping the drama would be minimal here. This was a case of a highly controversial discussion, clearly having reached no consensus, being closed in favour of one particular view and being reviewed afterwards. Moreover, one to which the closer expressed a preference in the close rather than, as he is supposed to, summarize discussion and carry out whatever its conclusion is. I think my closure should be relatively uncontroversial. No admin with any relevant experience could seriously claim that this discussion had consensus (see my comments on the page in question).

PS, there is no established procedure for reversing RM closes, but neither is RM a binding process that would necessitate one; it is perfectly normal for page moves to be reversed when they are made in this fashion. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I am an admin with impartiality and experience and the serious claim. You are an admin member of a Scotland project who disagrees with my closure. Stop insinuating that that could only possibly have occurred if I suffer from some admin character defect. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

This is certainly tough, as two Wikiprojects are contested. From an uninvolved view, I have to agree with Deacon. Closing a debate with no consensus and redirecting in one side's favor is clearly out of order. This seems to be very WP: BOOMERANGish. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 01:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

@J, I'm not really sure my academic interests should really be a topic of focus here, but I do not wish to imply any "character defect", and am sorry if it is taken in such a way. At issue here is not anyone's academic interest, but whether or not a particular discussion had consensus. The community would be best served, I think, if you focused on that. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

People should stop throwing this scottish thing around as the majority of opposers are actually australiains, many of whoom reside in Perth, Western Australia. The thing is this has been discussed for most the last 10 years and there has never been a clear consensus, to close either way on what isnt a clear consensus is just creating unnecessary drama any admin can see that the status quo works and has consensus and has had for a considerable time the "new" proposal hasnt shifted that consensus. Gnangarra 02:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

It was a bit "glass houses" for Deacon to question whether JHunterJ was being impartial. Even if you do argue that the reversal was procedurally correct, it really shouldn't have been Deacon who did it, because it could be inferred rightly or wrongly that his academic interests may make Perth, Scotland a primary topic for him within his own personal cognitive sphere. The optics of it are the issue. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 03:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree that D shouldnt have reversed the move, but its worng to say this is just a dispute based on racial lines because it aint when many Australians dont support the move, its more a matter of timing. That said the closure wasnt clear and wasnt reflective of the discussion as it should be discussed, but while others are running around making changes it creates a hostile discussion. The last comment by J on the matter indicates that he also question his decision. Gnangarra 03:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• One last time, Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review is the proper venue, NOT WP:ANI. This is beyond the scope here folks. It needs the slower, calmer venue of review, not the drama of ANI as this doesn't appear to be abuse, but instead a disagreement on a close, the reason Review exists. This should be closed and moved over there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. no one can say that that is the proper place, so please refrain from directing people to policy and processes that have not been accepted by the community. Gnangarra 02:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Judging by the talk page, it appears they are ready enough to go. ANI isn't the right place regardless, so if you have a better venue, please suggest it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
      • there is no discussion indicating that unapproved Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review is being used, please stop misinforming everyone Gnangarra 03:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
        • That is, in fact, the proper place for that discussion. And if it isn't, I believe WP:DRN is. Is there any reason this shouldn't be closed?. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• fruitful and cordial discussion is occuring at User_talk:JHunterJ#Perth please close this and raise concerns there so that everyone is on the same page Gnangarra 03:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • That works too. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Please keep or raise this discussion somewhere other than my talk page as needed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comments:

1. I do not agree with those who claim that the proper forum is Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review. As pointed out above, it is not adopted as a policy or a guideline. In my opinion (expressed early at the talkpage), the page is nowhere near ready for adoption. In particular, it was diverted at the outset by an editor with an axe to grind concerning non-admin closures. The provisions for such closures remain vague on the page, but it has has been manipulated toward normalising a position that has not been subjected to wide or searching scrutiny.
2. [Disclosure: Though an Australian, I had nothing to do with the Perth RM and have formed no strong opinion on the matter; but I have had several run-ins with JHunterJ, often on the very issues that I am about to address here.] JHunterJ has frequently closed RMs without consideration of detailed and clearly articulated arguments, and sometimes cited evidence that has been comprehensively dismissed by counter-evidence and cogent arguments. He has edited relevant policy, naming conventions, or guidelines (sometimes without any discussion toward consensus, or apparent assessment of existing consensus), and then applied those provisions in deciding RMs, sometimes counter to the weight of numbers and the weight of argument in the associated RM discussion.
3. I agree with the assessment by Deacon of Pndapetzim, who I believe acted with complete propriety in this case. He did not begin a process of wheel warring. If anyone did, it was Kwami who reverted a perfectly well-argued administrative action of review. But I do not censure Kwami, who appears to have acted as he saw best and with some circumspection.
4. I hope that JHunterJ will rethink his attitude and his actions, and find something more constructive to do than push what is obviously a particular and partisan view of priorities among vigorously contested provisions at WP:AT, WP:DAB, and related pages. Especially, he should not act so that the energy, time, and talents of knowledgeable editors participating at RM discussions is squandered. For my part, I have stopped participating because of his presence. Life is too short.

Noetica^Tea? 03:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RPP/AFD backlog

Just FYI... There's a long backlog at WP:RPP. A couple of items have been waiting for attention for almost two days. Zagalejo^^^ 00:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• AFD as well ... I've knocked off most of the backlog, but there are still 20-odd outstanding. Black Kite (talk) 02:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Still over 20 requests left to process if anyone wants to get them out of the way. tutterMouse (talk) 15:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I have worked my mouse to the bare silicon in closing AFDs (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Great but we've still got a backlog close to 30 over at RFPP, nobody's put a dent in it since this was posted and have a good few which are three days old which just seems... negligent. Get to it kiddos, RFPP requests are people too. tutterMouse (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Phony use of a citation by a longtime administrator

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have organized this report into four sections: SUMMARY, REASONS, DOCUMENTATION, and APPENDIX.

SUMMARY. A longtime administrator User:Kwamikagami (or "Kwami", as he often signs himself) made an insertion that he supported with a phony citation. Here it is:[126]
before: Kerala is often referred to as Keralam by the native Malayalis.[then a footnote citing a book by "Oliver Freiberger"]
after: Kerala is pronounced Kēraḷaṁ [kɛ̀rɑ́lə] (listen) by the native Malayalis.[then the same footnote]

Any reader would interpret the new sentence as saying that the inserted phonetic transcription is being sourced to the footnoted book. But the book does not contain any such material. (Moreover, the transcription is rife with inaccuracies both notational and factual (although one of Kwami's specialties at Wikipedia is IPA transcription) and it had never been sourced in all the years that it (or variants) had been appearing in the article.) * * * End of Summary * * *

REASONS FOR lodging this incident report. One month after he made the insertion in question, I reverted it, unaware of who had made it. Within one day, after discussion on the Talk page, Kwami (although not other editors) accepted my changes. But at that point I still didn't realize the old insertion had improprieties because I hadn't done deep investigation into its supporting footnote and into the article history. (All I had done was replace the old source.) Eventually two things happened. It slowly dawned on me that the flaws in the insertion could not be explained by mere inattention, and then this week, Kwami weighed in on a current complaint to AN/I about my own citation practice in a different article. All this plus Kwami's strong bias against me (next paragraph), and because as an admin he should operate at higher standards, are the reasons while I now feel it urgent to make this complaint.

The same administrator has denounced me aggressively twice in recent months. Just last month, he participated on an article talk page to threaten me with being blocked (Talk:Russian_phonology#Discussion, 21:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)). Two months prior to the edit in question, this administrator totally lost his temper at me and established that he is hugely biased against me (Talk:Diasystem#Reply_to_declared_dispute_resolver, 15:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC) and 00:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)). Now he has just commented against me at AN/I about the same Russian phonology article as prior[127], 01:02, 9 June 2012.

DOCUMENTATION. The administrator User:Kwamikagami made an insertion into the article, Kerala in mid April 2012. Kerala is a one of the states of India. For many years, the opening sentence has contained a phonetic transcription of how to say the name. For six years, the attribution ("sourcing") of the phonetic transcription was unsatisfactory, because there wasn't any attribution (a situation I myself rectified in mid May 2012). Although Kwami did not create this situation, he made it worse. Over the years, there was vacillation as to whether the transcribed pronunciation was that of Keralites or of English speakers (probably Britons). There was never an indication given in the article as to which community's pronunciation was being represented (sometimes such an indication was given in the edit summary), AND, the phonetic transcriptions changed over time, AND, citations were never offered. (The native pronunciation of the letter 'e', [e], is close to the vowel in 'day', 'say', whereas the transcription inserted for many years, [ɛ], is the much more open-mounted vowel of the British Received Pronunciation pronunciation as in 'hair'.)

Also for many years, there has been an insertion that Keralites call the state 'Keralam' instead. Until 2009, this insertion, too, was unsupported. The latter claim is just a claim that Keralites add an 'm' at the end, and did not include a phonetic transcription.

What administrator Kwamikagami did at 19:36, 15 April 2012 is that he moved the then current phonetic transcription from the article lead to the existing passage which claimed 'Keralam', then without justification, he augmented the transcription with the false claim that it is the inhabitants' pronunciation, AND he arranged the sentence so as to create the impression that his insertion was sourced by the footnote already long in place to substantiate the 'Keralam' claim). In an associated edit just three hours later, 22:34, he inserted a different transcription in the opening sentence, in the gap created by the prior edit. The differentness of the transcriptions, along with a remark he made a month later (see below) prove he believed that the transcription of 22:34 was an English language one, although this is never stated AND no citation is offered for it.

Here is his change made at 19:36:[128]
before: Kerala is often referred to as Keralam by the native Malayalis.[footnote citing "Oliver Freiberger"]
after: Kerala is pronounced Kēraḷaṁ [kɛ̀rɑ́lə] (listen) by the native Malayalis.[same footnote]

The chief misdeed here is that while the new text is most reasonably interpreted as citing "Freiberger" as the source of the transcription, "Freiberger" is not its source. The "Freiberger" footnote, in place for three years, asserted only that the locals add 'm' to the end of the word. In fact, the only "authority" for Kwami's insertion is that it was present in the article, unsourced, for many years.

In any case, this phonetic transcription was incorrect. Not only are syllable stresses wrong and the vowels transcribed into IPA wrong, the dotted 'L' is transcribed into IPA wrong. The dot indicates the sound is retroflex, but Kwami's IPA transcription uses the wrong IPA symbol! This from an editor who specializes in updating IPA transcriptions! His transcription even overlooks the 'm' that supposedly distinguishes the inhabitants' version of the name!

Granted, there are multiple interpretations of what Kwamikagami's intentions and responsibility are. Perhaps it's plausible that his intention was not for readers to associate the longstanding "Freiberger" footnote with Kwami's inserted phonetic transcription, but to associate it only with the longstanding content it had always been associated with. But this interpretation is unreasonable (given the content of the previous passage as well as its longtime stability, and given how Kwami laid out the footnote). Besides, even if this interpretation were correct, it would entail that Kwami deliberately inserted a claim that has no basis.

An interpretation even more difficult to defend is that this lapse was an oversight. (1) The bad insertion stood for one month, unchallenged. (2) Kwami is not a casual Wikipedian who edits rarely and fleetingly, rather he's one of the most active among us. (3) He chides other editors on the insufficiency of their sourcing. (4) He's a longtime administrator. (5) At first, he swiftly did a global revert of every insertion I had made simultaneous to the one about the phonetic transcription -- incidentally, without acknowledging he was doing so[129] -- which in itself is a misdeed when committed by an administrator. (However, he did relent after I posted a discussion on the Talk page.[130].) For him to restore the original insertion is inconsistent with the interpretation that he had meant to change it but never got around to doing so. Please notice that in making this restoration, he did demonstrate inattentiveness in two ways. First, he still didn't catch the two whoppers I mentioned above, the missing 'm' and the bad 'L' symbol! Second, regarding his rationale that the English pronunciation of a foreign name customarily precedes the native at Wikipedia, the article contained no indication that the pronunciation he claimed is native, is so.

Incidentally, the invocation of "Oliver Freiberger" was not a proper citation because Freiberger is the editor of a collective volume -- that's why I have been putting the name in scare quotes all along. A proper footnote would use the name of the author of the chapter where the cited material appeared (the cited material being the claim of 'Keralam'). This is of course a minor point, but Kwami is supposedly a citation "hawk" (diligent auditor). It would strongly imply he committed the prevalent Wikipedia crime of not checking the citation for proper form and for content. Of course, if he did check it, if he did find it through Google Books as I did, then he incontrovertibly became aware it did not support his insertion.

APPENDIX Partial edit history of the article Kerala relevant to this complaint, only for people who think it's important, which doesn't include me).
(a) 16 Jan 2006. User Saravask inserts a phonetic transcription of 'Kerala', apparently, the first in the history of the article. Text: Kerala (IPA: ['kɛrʌɹlʌ].
(b) as of 01:56, 10 March 2006. User Saravask amended his own IPA transcription. Text: Kerala (IPA: ['kɛɹəlʌ].
(c) as of 23:17, 13 March 2006. User:Saravask amended his own IPA transcription. Text: Kerala (IPA: ['keːɹeɭã]. ES: (use native pronunciation (nasalization, suprasegmentals, etc); gm; clarify chart caption)
(d) as of 19:35, 27 April 2006. User:Saravask (talk | contribs) amended his own IPA transcription. Text: Kerala (. ES: ()
(e) as of 07:12 1 July 2006. User:Grammatical error changed Saravask's transcription. Text: Kerala ( (Anglicised) or [ˈkeːɾəˌɭəm] (native). ES: added native pronunciation.
(f) 2 Jan 2007, IPA transcription had been changed to ['keːɹəˌɭɐ].
(g) Sometime between 11 May 2008 and 22 Jun 2008, a separate section, Etymology was created.
(h) 26 November 2009. User:Caughingjoe inserts reference "Freiberger" to support the claim that the natives say 'Keralam' instead of Kerala'. This claim had been in the article since at least 5 December 2005[131].
(i) 19:36 15 April 2012. User:Kwamikagami wrongly associated the "Freiberger" footnote with a detailed phonetic transcription.
(j) 22:23 16 May 2012. Dale Chock (that's me), citing a grammar of the Malayalam language, removed a phonetic transcription from the section, Etymology and amended the transcription in the lead sentence to native pronunciation.
(k) 01:52, 17 May 2012. Kwamikagami globally reverted me with the ES: "undo: that's not a "correction", that's a different language. English first on WP-en." In fact, instead of putting English first in the lead, he made it English only. (At Wikipedia, it is common practice to include the native pronunciation of names in the opening sentence.)
(l) Two minutes later. Kwami slightly amended his transcription (using updated markup to produce the same result).
(m) 15:23, 17 May 2012. I restored my edits with the ES, "Restore factual enhancements on prehistory and pronunciation. Restore Infobox heading. Clean up citations. See two new sections on talk page."

• * * End of Appendix * * * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dale Chock (talk • contribs) 22:21, 9 June 2012‎ (UTC)

• The above post clearly evidences lack of assumption of good faith and battleground mentality. A cursory review of the OP's contributions will show that this is a consistent pattern.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

A bit of WP:TLDR in there too. I feel like there might be a valid content concern buried somewhere in there and perhaps WP:ECCN would be a better venue (or the article talk page of course). SÆdon^talk 02:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Dale, you're welcome to fix any errors. I didn't read your complaint past the summary (way TLDR), but the problem arose because the India project decided to remove all native script from geography articles, and several people implemented the decision badly. In this case (as in several others), the result was that we claimed the English pronunciation of Kerala was [kɛ̀rɑ́lə], which was not true. I moved the pronunciation down where I thought it would be more appropriate, rather than simply deleting it. — kwami (talk) 02:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• 1. If your AN/I posting comes to 12,522 characters, you might want to stop and ask yourself if maybe you're talking too much. and 2. I don't see a signature on that wall o' text. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• This feels like a tempest in a teacup; I don't see any evidence of any wrongdoing here, no evidence of deliberate bad faith or anything like that. I see nothing to be done here at all. --Jayron32 03:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, we may have more than just a lack of assumption of good faith here. The Kerala thing happened a month ago; Dale didn't said anything until I responded to an edit war of his on Russian phonology, where he was making an unsupported (though very possibly correct) edit against sources. In that discussion he said I had it in for him, though frankly I didn't remember who he was at the time, and now he's using this ANI posting as evidence against my character in that debate, in an argument he added after the debate had been archived.[132] Since I'm a minor party to that and it's now linked to this ANI complaint, perhaps I'm not the one to revert his additions to an archived talk page. — kwami (talk) 04:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I noticed a similar occurrence when I suggested at Wikiquette Assistance that his behavior at Diasystem was WP:OWNy and he has since taken to either accusing me of article ownership or implying as much by saying I'm the most significant contributor to this or that article.

I've un-archived the other thread. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 06:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Bushranger's point (1.) is invalid since I led off with a short summary. I am entitled to fully document an accusation. I went to extra length because (a) the person I'm accusing is an administrator; (b) the article gets 50 edits a month. His point (2.) is valid. I'm sorry for the oversight. I was logged in and in earlier drafts my signature was there. The last thing I can be accused of is concealing my authorship of controversial comments. Bushranger's response is poor administratorship because he doesn't address the complaint: the citation invoked for an insertion does not support the insertion, and the inserter had no reason to think it did; if the inserter had read the cited source, he would have seen so for himself. As for Kwami's annoyance, the timing of my complaint was already addressed by me in a short, titled section right after the Summary. Dale Chock (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• This seems a minor content dispute, and should be resolved elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 20:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • More to the point, if you have a content issue, wouldn't messaging kwami on their talk page 'first before bringing it to drama-central have been the way to go? I mean, seriously... Blackmane (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attacks after being warned by User:Mishae

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Mishae has been told multiple times [133] [134] [135] not to make personal attacks like calling editors scum and calling them fascists. He has responded to his most recent warning by writing "...If it offends you, and don't want to see it just ignore it! Is it that hard? My other suggestion would if you will just cut both of your eyes out, that might prevent you from seeing my pointless edits, and other crap that I do, that you don't like..." [136]. The editor has shown a high level of incompetence, i.e. arguing after he was told to stop removing persondata (User talk:Mishae#Persondata) and tries to excuse himself by claiming that he is Russian and has Autism [137]. I personally think an indef block is needed for personal attacks after warnings were given, an unwillingness to accept consensus, and an unwillingness to receive advice. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow yeah, I support an indef block for either WP:CIR or WP:NPA, admin's choice. SÆdon^talk 04:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

It is difficult for me to support a block considering he has created 664 articles; however, I cannot justify allowing someone to continue editing after they have told an editor to "cut both of your eyes out". Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

While we by default often allow good content creators a little leeway, what he said to you was so unacceptable that it can't be excused by positive contribs. Indefinite, as you know, is not infinite, but he needs to be blocked until he accepts and understands that kind of behavior is unacceptable - Russian autistic or not. SÆdon^talk 04:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

(Said to PamD) Right, that's why I brought it here, I was just remarking on how I dislike these situations. The final aspect is the fact that he was fully aware that it would get him blocked. "Altough I don't want to be blocked by using threats now". Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Ofcourse, thats the best way is to show how much you guys hate disabled people, especialy those that are here to help. I just was upset with PamD and Stemonitis. Well I actually do have autism and CP. It now feels like like I can't explicit my feelings. Rich told me that you are a good mentor. I don't see it. And as soon as admins would make the choice everyone will say "heil" on it. Just great!--Mishae (talk) 05:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I just need help, not a block. If Worm That Turned will be my mentor, I will stop issuing threats and namecallings!--Mishae (talk) 05:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

That is a problem. There should be no if/then situation for you to stop issuing threats and namecallings. All threats and namecallings must end now and should have been redacted before. Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Rich was referring to Worm That Turned I believe; however, I did nothing but assist you prior to your personal attacks. We do not hate disabled people. There are constructive editors on the encyclopedia with just about every disorder you can imagine. We even have blind editors. The deal is, we do not treat any editors differently due to what disables them. That means that we never treat them worse, but we also don't allow editors to act in a way that is contrary to the policies that are set in place while using their handicap as a crutch. Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Rhetoric about hating disabled people is not helping your case here. If your disability interferes with your ability to edit in a collaborative environment it is something you will have to deal with. WP is WP:NOTTHERAPY and competence is required to edit here and follow behavioral norms and guidelines. SÆdon^talk 05:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

O.K. I agree, so whats now? I don't know how to deact?--Mishae (talk) 05:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no guarantee that redacting your edits will keep you from being blocked for the reasons described in this thread; however, you can redact your attacks by striking them by adding <s>COMMENT</s> around your comment, or you can remove your attacks and replace them with (Personal attack removed). Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Strike your comments, apologize to everyone to whom you spoke like that and promise not to violate the spirit or letter of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL again. Keep in mind that if this happens again it will likely be a quick block (and that's not even guaranteeing you're not getting blocked now, but if you do what I said it will be a step in the right direction). SÆdon^talk 05:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

O.K. I agree, so whats now? I did the deact. If you guys don't hate disabled people you'll have stoped reverting and ignored the pointless edits I made. That way I could have talked to Worm That Turned without getting into a conflict. Instead, I have PamD and Stemonitis giving me warnings that I find to be a scare tactic rather then helpful one, and now you Ryan, telling administrators Boo-hoo-hoo this guy insulted every editor. Ofcourse you will be on their side! Why you even came to Worm That Turned talkpage? You weren't invited. Neither you or PamD were invited to my talkpage. Fine, I apologize, but not because I feel like it, just because I don't want to be blocked. I can't promise, since I don't want to lie.--Mishae (talk) 05:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm. Heiro 05:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

If you can't edit here without attacking other users then you can't edit here; it's that simple. SÆdon^talk 05:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

O.K. I did the deact. Whats now, what is facepalm?--Mishae (talk) 05:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm is my reaction to "Fine, I apologize, but not because I feel like it, just because I don't want to be blocked. I can't promise, since I don't want to lie." :It would be a good idea to say you will not repeat such behavior again and actually mean it, and strive to not repeat the offending behavior again. Otherwise you are likely to end up blocked until you can do these things. Heiro 05:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Mishae if you say you won't promise because you don't want to lie, you are in effect saying that you already know you will call people "scum" and "calling them fascists" over and again. If you must be insulting simply to function, there is a serious issue of incompatibility. How would you suggest we handle your conduct and your stated intention to continue? My76Strat (talk) 05:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

We don't "hate disabled people" here at WP, as Mishae likely knows. And the rhetoric that alleges that we do seems a bit trollish in nature. Doc talk 06:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Misha has struck through the two words "scum" and "fascistic" but I see no indication of an apology, and no change to the "cut your eyes out" rhetoric. This editor seems to have a lot of problems with Wikipedia, quite apart from the obsessive removal of spaces from places where they are widely accepted as beneficial (between asterisk and text in a bulleted list, between "|" and the following text in a template set out on separate lines) which was the trigger for various discussions. PamD 08:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Mishae is notoriously known for similar activity on Russian Wikipedia, where he was indeffed in August 2011. In addition, he went to external sites to place there insults to his opponents.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Fine, I am sorry Pam that your feelings have been hurt, boo-hoo-hoo. But you know my feelings are hurt now too, because of all this! Don't you want to apologize to me too. And besides just because its "easy to read for editors" the spaces I believe are worthless. Because how many editors even go through every article and look for removed trailing space? O' and I did cross that retoric out too, so that you will shut up and quit whining. How would you handle my conduct? Simple:

1. user:koavf will help me with it
2. Don't create the same "circus" you guys did here!

And yes, I already know that I might call people names, but only if they provoke me like here. I don't want to get a one way apology. It makes me feel like this: I apologize to Pam, Pam says "thanks" and will continue on critisizing me, with which I have an issue with! As for the comment: "this editor have a lot of problems with Wikipedia"... Question to you Pam: Don't you have problems understanding something too, or are you implying that you are perfect and people that have autism are suppose to be banned? If that so, then put a sign under the missleading "encyclopedia that everyone could edit" that "people with disabilities are not welcomed here, because they cause dissruption, thretening your cozy personal talkpages and articles, etc"--Mishae (talk) 11:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

You're invoking the "look what you made me do" game. No one can "provoke" you here, unless you choose to be provoked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Mishae, people with autism or any other disability are welcome to edit here, but they still must comply with all behavioral guidelines. I personally knew several editors here with varying degrees of autism, and they are excellent contributors. Having a disability isn't a license to bypass the community expectations. We shouldn't discriminate, but we also should not coddle. If someone is blocked from editing for disruption, it doesn't matter why they are disruptive, it only matters that they are disruptive. I would strongly suggest you seek to learn ways to better communicate your frustrations, because while your contributions appear to be very beneficial, your disruption isn't. If necessary, seek mentoring for this to help allow you to continue being a part of the community here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

"No one can "provoke" you here, unless you choose to be provoked" - so what you are saying is that I chose to be provoked!! I didn't chose to be provoked, people set me up on this and now want my apology. I can't apologize to people that are setting me up! I already asked user:koavf for help assistance or mentoring as you guys call it here.--Mishae (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I think he meant you can choose to ignore the other person's comments, but this is often easier said than done. The mentoring is a good idea and I'm glad you are trying to initiate it. I would recommend that if you see a comment that upsets you, don't reply to it so quickly. Take a few hours or a day, then collect your thoughts, and make your reply be persuasive instead of reactionary. It isn't easy, but it is more productive. I do mentoring as well, but I'm full up right now. If you can't find someone to assist you, let me know and I will try to find someone. You are obviously a good contributor, we just need to help you communicate better, both to avoid future misunderstandings, and because it actually helps you to be a better contributor as well. Until then, I strongly suggest you avoid confrontational situations, as the totality of your comments are block-worthy, but I'm trying to give you an alternative. English is a funny language, and sometimes it isn't what you say, but how you say it. And again, no one will hold any disability against you, but you are still expected to comply with the same rules of civility that I do, and everyone else does. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

As Dennis says, we don't hold any physical or mental handicaps against any editors, but competence is required, and Wikipedia is not therapy. Editors are required to follow Wikipedia's policies, and those policies include the civility policy and the No Personal Attacks policy. If you cannot honestly and genuinely promise that you will abide by those (and of course the rest of Wikipedia's policies as well), then Wikipedia is not the place for you. If you are willing to make a good faith effort to comply, we'll more than happily give you another chance, but it's up to you not to turn that last chance, mentored or not, into WP:ROPE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Mentoring could be worthwhile. Either way, if the editor sincerely wants to edit, then he needs to make that his priority instead of worrying about being "provoked". I've been blocked a few times here. Each time it was because I went too far. I accepted that fact and sat out the block, even when I felt emotionally that I might have been "provoked" or "baited". No one can provoke me or you unless we choose to allow ourselves to be provoked, i.e. if we choose to "take the bait", if we choose to "let it get to us" - as Dennis describes above. We are not anyone else's puppet. No one owns us or controls us. We take responsibility for our own actions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

O.K. I will try to comply. You see, I can't ignore warnings either, because people can block me for WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT rule, another burden with which I need to get along with. To be honest, I would have prefered to be blocked for that rule rather then for my comments. On the other hand, I am proud that I shared my feelings, no matter how harsh they were. Because see, throughout this month user:Uncle G mocked my spelling, after which he refrained from. Another problem, is that I have a feeling that every edit I make even on my own created articles are causing can uproar. Can I at least edit the articles that I wrote? Apparently not! And in your opinion I can't call it "fascism", even though that in my opinion it is! Like I understand that majority of people on Wikipedia are Jewish, and they might take it pesonaly, but can they ignore it? Ofcourse! The thing is, if Ryan would have not gone to my talkpage with his "friendly notice", but rather ignored it and helped me, the conflict wouldn't have escalated further. Instead, it turns out, people can't ignore a "fart" here, just like on the Russian Wikipedia. Well people shouldn't use a bait in the first place!

"No one owns us or controls us." - Hold on. Jimbo Wales is controling the site and the consensus controls your/our minds.--Mishae (talk) 16:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The "burden" as you call it is entirely of your own making. If it was down to me I wouldn't give you the hint of a second chance for your despicable, threatening comments. I would site ban you, end of. This place can be difficult for anyone, threatening to blind someone is way beyond acceptable, no matter how good your content is. Leaky Caldron 17:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)First, you are allowed to edit your own pages; however, other editors are allowed to edit your pages too. No matter where you edit you must work with other editors. I am very disappointed that this had to come here to ANI. You went to Worm That Turned's talk page asking for someone to go through your contributions with AWB. I responded that I could do that and then I asked for some clarification of what you wanted done. In your clarification, you introduced a personal attack which I referred to on Worm's page, and Gilderien pointed out on your talk page. This was to give you the opportunity to remove your personal attack rather than face any consequences. You responded to the remark on your talk page with another personal attack at which point PamD and I both described to you that your actions were inappropriate but gave you the option to discontinue, or change, your responses rather than coming here. Many editors don't get this option. You responded to that with a particularly harsh statement of having PamD cut her eyes out. Since my interaction with you has begun, I have done nothing but assist you and/or give you extra opportunities, so I don't appreciate the way that you are stating I am against you. In fact, I even remarked once that I felt that warning you for removing spaces and reverting your edits may have been inappropriate [138]. In fact, if you wanted to be more specific as to what you wanted me to do with AWB on your contributions, I would be happy to do so. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

And couldn't you ignored that personal attack, not to mention it wasn't about you? O.K. I already signed up for AWB, and an admin granted me one. Question: How do I use it? What I want to do: So that you will prevent my edits from being reverted, thats all.

"threatening to blind someone" - read that comment again, it was just a suggestion not a threat. The "threat" feeling was in your and PamD's mind. Which means that the "threat" is of your own making as well.--Mishae (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

In the circumstances I don't think you should have access to anything other than basic editing functions. I don't think that you are either competent or trustworthy. Leaky Caldron 17:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We don't just ignore personal attacks and you can't use AWB to prevent your edits from being reverted. We have not even referred to a threat, so I don't know what you are talking about. I am leaving a request at User talk:Graeme Bartlett that AWB access be revoked. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hold on! You make it worse by revoking the AWB, and I am competent and trustworthy, just give me a chance!!!!--Mishae (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Enough - I think we all know how everyone feels, and beating this horse isn't helpful. He said he will seek mentoring, let us leave it at that. If there are continuing problems, blocks will follow, but let us not antagonize the situation any more. I would suggest simply ending the conversation and close it, now please, and let us just see what tomorrow brings. If nothing else, because I'm asking everyone to. Nothing is revoked, let this rest a day. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If you were competent in using AWB you would no be asking how to use it. If you were trustworthy you would not be here at all. Leaky Caldron 17:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Ryan already asked for revokation, and I posted my appropriate opposition to it. And yes, I am competent but at the same time I don't know how to use it, whats wrong with not knowing how to use it, or how to activate it?--Mishae (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Because you should already have read this WP:AutoWikiBrowser/User_manual. Leaky Caldron 17:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Its funny that I requested an AWB without reading how to use it, but I still don't get it! So, I should log out and then log in my AWB, how do I do it? I loged out, I loged in, nothing happened. It says something about being "sixth from the top", but the only sixth thing on the top I have is "My contributions". Any suggestions?--Mishae (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

So, O.K. I callmed down, now what?--Mishae (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

In the editors "apology" to Pam above he not only mocks her with "boo-hoo-hoo" but goes on to say that he only struck his words so that she would "shut up and quit whining." Why has this editor not been blocked yet? His behavior is completely unacceptable and his attempts to mitigate it have lead to more unacceptable behavior and blaming other people for his actions. Dennis, I know you like to give a lot of leeway and I respect you for that, but this seems to me to be a pretty clear cut case of an editor abusing other editors and continuing to do so after being warned not to. A block would be purely preventative. I realize compassion is important, but not to the point where we let other editors get abused. SÆdon^talk 20:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

To add: how would this have been handled if it was User:Malleus Fatuorum or User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz? I've seen both of them get blocked for less. SÆdon^talk 21:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

If it had been Malleus, the thread probably would've been closed within minutes. If it had been KW, it probably would've been handled, well, much like the above. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

And the comment Like I understand that majority of people on Wikipedia are Jewish is also utterly unacceptable. I honestly don't believe that any more WP:ROPE is needed; the potential continued disruption to the project regrettably outweighs the potential good here, IMHO. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Having been highly supportive of a block earlier, I think Dennis has a point. After this cooled down, the editor began editing constructively and any work with User:Koavf should assist him. That being said, I am still disappointed by the fake apology. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

In response to a request on my talk page, I have decided not to revoke AWB access. The reason is that AWB is a tool not a reward. It has not been used by Mishae to cause any disruption. Wikipedia will not be helped by removing AWB access. Revoking AWB will not affect any of the complainants or victims of attacks mentioned here. However if AWB does not get used after a long period of time, or on user request, then it could be removed due to lack of use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Graeme Bartlett for listening to me. I was a bit worried where it will lead, and I am glad it all got resolved piecefully. I'm sorry if I caused any trouble. As for my comment Like I understand that majority of people on Wikipedia are Jewish, well I said majority doesn't mean all or is it pretty much the same thing? Again, can we please close our eyes on it, as Dennis said we sholdn't beat a dead horse. I got callmed down so should the rest of the party! As far as the abuse goes, I was a bit abused by Uncle G when he mocked my spelling in a quotation. And you all think that wasn't abusive? I'm not putting a blame on him I just use it as an example. Different people have a different definition for this word. To me, my personal attacks were just a part of my anger problem, I sometimes can't except warnings or criticism as a good thing. Especially if people threaten to block me, the discussion of which still goes on despite Dennis's enough.

"Why has this editor not been blocked yet?" - well, why should I? If the conflict have been resolved, and I apologized (either weakly or not), then the block should be withdrawn till future notice (which hopefuly wont happen). I maybe tried using humour to detract from conflict, but apparently got it even worse. Either way, if the party agrees, I think its over. Your comments?--Mishae (talk) 00:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive. As Ryan Vesey pointed out above, Mishae has made some constructive edits. I say, let's encourage that behaviour by allowing him to continue to edit. At the same time, let's hope this serves as a reminder that he has to stay civil toward other editors—and a final warning that any future uncivil edits will lead to his account being blocked without discussion here. —C.Fred (talk) 01:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I still would like discussions to be the main theme for any conflict resolutions. This example is one of them, by talking every user learns a lot, by blocks though not so much. I understand that blocks are ment to be preventative, but at the same time some people look at it as punitive, especially if a block is indefinite.--Mishae (talk) 01:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

True. That's why I said, if you do the same thing again—if you haven't learned from this discussion—that a block was in order, because it would be the next step up. —C.Fred (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Slightly off-topic, but I ended up looking at Mishae's user page and thus userboxes, and some of them seem to be fairly serious BLP violations (particularly the one about George Bush which he created himself using a blank template). Is this really the place to be referring to living people as "traitorous scum"? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 01:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

First of all I didn't created it myself, I copied it from another user who had it, and thats every user box. No body ojected to them, so why should somebody object to me! The only userbox I did create was the WikiRabbit one, even that was with the help of an editor.--Mishae (talk) 01:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen it on anybody else's userpage, I've only seen it on yours, which is why I'm raising it. A BLP violation is a BLP violation, regardless of how many people commit it. I just think it's pretty libellous language to use on a public website. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 02:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

While I highly disagree with the statement made by Mishae (I highly respect president Bush), I believe you are incorrect that it is a BLP violation. It is legal under Florida law due to freedom of speech and it is clearly presented as opinion and not fact so a source is not required. What in WP:BLP do you think his statement violates? Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Well maybe they delete it? Well its my opinion too, you can't accuse people of their opinion. Isn't it my userpage? Isn't that why its called that? Another thing, as you can tell I don't like Putin either, thats not a BLP violation, right, considering that he is alive too?--Mishae (talk) 02:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough about genuine opinion; not sure the Sarah Palin box can be defended in the same way. Also Mishae, the BLP policy applies everywhere on wikipedia, not just article space. FWIW I have no dog in this race; I'm British and couldn't care less about American politicians. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 02:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Talk about it with User:Secret Saturdays, not me. I just shared the same opinion. And the fact happened, she wasn't elected, infact I don't think she is in politics anymore! Another thing, for the future reference can you talk about it with Ryan not me, O.K?! Just to be fair, I don't like Obama either, I just coudn't find similar userbox.--Mishae (talk) 02:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• My goodness, I seem to be all over ANI today. Just for anyone who's watching, I'm now having a snoop at the whole Mishae situation. Worm^TT(talk) 09:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I am concerned at the laissez-faire attitude taken by Admins in this case so far. I do not think that the editor "gets it". They have shown scant consideration in their mealy mouthed apology, as noted by SAEdon, above. They continue to reply defensively, introducing tangential material (ethnicity) for no obvious reason. This editor is clearly disruptive, here and as noted above, elsewhere where he has been banned. If he is to be allowed to continue here they absolutely must sign up to very clear conditions (a) understanding the damage he has done, (b) clearly stating that such behaviour is at an end and (c) accepting mentoring as suggested above. As for the AWB, he doesn't know how to use it, it should be removed until he demonstrates clue. I think we need clear and decisive action in cases like this, not the wishy-washy let's leave it and see approach demonstrated by admin Brown to date. Leaky Caldron 09:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe a block is required at the moment, however I've left a long message at Mishae's talk page explaining some things to him. I've also revoked AWB - Mishae should not be making large numbers of automated edits whilst he cannot demonstrate that he is able to handle these sorts of conversations. I do not have an issue with it being returned in the future. I hope that's sufficient for everyone. Worm^TT(talk) 11:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with the way you're handling the situation. Thank you for stepping in. SÆdon^talk 19:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't undo the "sins" of previous admins being too quick to block, I can only do things my own way. In this case, Worm and I 100% agree on how this should be dealt with, and I think his message is on point and fitting. Obviously, if these points aren't listened to, then we will know that the editor has been given every chance, given adequate explanation, and is responsible for what they do. In other words, this is a bit of a final warning and blocks will follow if the behavior continues. Once again, I suggest we simply wait and see now, hope for the best, and close this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Tnanks Dennis and others for being patient with me. I know I caused quite a trouble here, but I did learned lots of things, and with yours, Worm's, and Ryan's help, I will hopefully survive without excidents hopefuly till next year. You know, once a year, something gives a hutch to do something that I believe is good, even though that the result might be bad. I never know the ending, as in life itself. As I said before, I came here to write and edit articles. I wasn't prepared for arguements of any kind. So to me, it was a shock. Another thing that I am upset about, and probably another reason why it happened is because I was mad thatr I was promised a reward, but never got it (I mean the SIA barnstar). I know, maybe I shoudn't whine about it, but I did wrote 49 articles, which was a bit less then a half that was offered (out of 149 (?)). Update: I checked the project page and it turned out that its not done!--Mishae (talk) 23:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Fixed a typo, Sorry!

Dear honorable editors,

If my name is to be mentioned gratuitously, then alert me, per the guidelines of this page.

Demiurge1000, please do not mention me.

Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

That goes for me too. And I deeply the resent the easy assumption represented above by Demiurge1000's typical covert attack that I have that I have ever called another editor "scum" or a "racist", or suggested that they should cut both of their eyes out. Malleus Fatuorum 17:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dale Chock at Russian phonology

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Dale Chock is refusing to acknowledge the agreement in the talk page that he needs to find a reliable source to back up a claim he wishes to make about Russian consonant clusters, a claim that sourcing thus far has directly contradicted. Before doing more exhaustive research, I had tagged the claim to request citation, which Dale continously removed[139][140][141][142]. In addition to edit summaries that show as much, Dale has also repeatedly asserted in the talk page that this claim does not need verification:

• April 28: "We do not need to prove that a particular Russian spelling is unrealistic just AEsos, in an attitude of linguistic chauvinism, finds it hard to believe it is realistic."
• May 2: "...about AEsos's insistence on demanding a citation for the quintuple sequence /kvzglʲ/, i.e., that this is pronounced as spelled. Contrary to what he would have us believe, Russian spelling shows Russian pronunciation, except for as noted in reference works."
• May 4: "About clusters of five, I've already explained that: the spelling is to be taken at face value. It is irrational to call for confirmation, and this has already been exhaustively explained."
• May 11: "At the moment, he also persists in the approach of manipulativeness and aggression, bringing us chapter two of a petulant fiction that I really accept the validity of the demand for a citation."

I should note that some of these quotes illustrate Dale's mischaracterization of my request as being one regarding a specific consonant cluster. As I have said repeatedly, the issue is whether clusters with more than four consonants are permissible in the syllable onset. Despite a lengthy justification where I showed the problems with Dale's claims, he has chosen to disregard both my points and the responses by two other editors that show agreement on his need to find sourcing. This includes a recent restoration of the claim in question[143].

And, as I have shown in the past at Wikiquette assistance, ANI, and AN3, this all comes amid talk page hostility where he accuses other editors of incompetence and bias. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 04:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

This is the third complaint in a month by this same complainant against me about the same article, and although this one seems to raise a new point, all three otherwise make the same allegations. In this his latest complaint, the opening words are a lie, as I will explain. Please bear in mind that virtually nobody else besides him and me is interested in this article and our editorial disputes (I regret that nobody else is interested in the article).

I call attention to a fresh act of his bullying of me which immediately preceded the lodging of this complaint. Please note that there is a behavior pattern from this complainant, where a complaint to Administrators' Noticeboard against me is preceded by some act with a cunning, mischievous design. The most notable example is when he deleted comments I made on an article talk page and moved them to his own talk page, stating that that was a more appropriate forum for my remarks. (This outrage was documented in my response to Aesos's previous complaints to AN/I.) This time around, earlier this week, while he was awaiting a reply from me at Talk:Russian phonology, shortly before I posted it, this complainant took to taunting me with this message. He is referring to an article he had never edited and in fact has no interest in; he tracked my recent edits to stalk me. Notice the message's sarcastically exaggerated camaraderie and bonhomie -- remember, this is from someone who had just complained about me twice to AN. Evidently, there is an emotional escalation within him which gets reflected in a progression from a display of personal harassment to a lodging of a complaint with AN.

Regarding the single dispute issue he is now complaining to you about: two other editors took his side against me, and two days ago I discussed that on the article's talk page.("Talk:Russian_phonology#Discussion", 23:29 4 Jun 2012) Therefore, Aesos is telling a lie in stating that Dale is "refusing to acknowledge". The reference to "agreement" is phony because all the "agreement" consists of is that a grand total of two other people have responded to his most recent discussion at Talk:Russian phonology, and they agreed with him. Just two days ago, before the complainant lodged this complaint, I made a comprehensive response to the his discussion topic.("Talk:Russian_phonology#Discussion", 23:29 4 Jun 2012) Please note the complainant preferred not to discuss points of contention with me until twice failing to get me disciplined. Even then, he chose just one contentious issue out of many, and addressed it in repetitive fashion.

I fault this third complaint for selfishness (the complainant can't stand that I disagree with him, but conversely he disagrees with me); repetitiveness; and distortions. He uses rhetoric that insinuates that certain true things are false, while on other points he exaggerates. He proposes a "majority vote" criterion which doesn't exist (or at least it shouldn't exist).

One of the two persons to respond to Aesos's discussion point and take his side, Cnilep, did so with reservations, and more importantly, Cnilep did not address my arguments and did not even argue his opinion, he just stated his disagreement with my opinion. Even if he had addressed my arguments, I am not obligated to desist from my editorial stances just because nobody agrees with me -- especially in a situation where participation by third parties is feeble. The other person to take his side, the administrator User:Kwamikagami, is very biased against me. Notice that Aesos uses rhetoric insinuating that my charge of bias on Kwami's part is a fiction. It is a fact I have alluded to in responses to Aesos's previous complaints to AN as well as on Talk:Russian phonology.

Aesos also alludes to my objection that he is incompetent as if it weren't true. I have proven ad nauseam how ill informed and uncomprehending he is at Talk:Russian phonology, Talk:Diasystem, and Talk:Diaphone. (To mention just a few examples: for Russian phonology, during five years he confused a source's claim about word roots as being a claim about words; he uses multiple spellings for the names of his own sources; he has twice inserted Russian language examples while misstating their grammatical case or mistranslating them, gaffes which drew swift corrections by native speakers; and once when he addressed the history of linguistics, he characterized a diehard opponent of generative grammar, Trager, as an "early generativist", which is like confusing Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant. Just two weeks ago in Russian phonology, he mistranslated a phrase meaning '(away) from friends, from among friends, on account of friends', as '(together) with friends' (a confusion of genitive plural with instrumental plural).[144] He's been participating in this article for five years!)

One last, tedious point, in response to "I should note that some of these quotes illustrate Dale's mischaracterization of my request as being one regarding a specific consonant cluster. As I have said repeatedly, the issue is whether clusters with more than four consonants are permissible in the syllable onset." He has obsesssively complained that I mischaracterize this particular request -- which is mischaracterization on his part. He has given two stories of how I mischaracterize it. The first time, I responded on the talk page, rejecting his story. This time, my lengthy contribution to the Talk page at 23:29 4 Jun (linked above) was devoted to that objection. Aesos gets a kick out of refusing to acknowledge that I acknowledge the true content of the objection. Dale Chock (talk) 08:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment

This case is simple: since our sources say Russian onsets may have up to 4 consonants, if Dale believes it to be 5, he needs a source to support that. Meanwhile, he has issues with civility and assuming good faith. — kwami (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

As detailed in this fresh post, Kwami is the last person to be faulting people on "civility", "assuming good faith", and editorial judgement regarding citations. There is his verbal aggression toward me 1 March (linked to in that post), in which he yelled (in two posts, actually) "you're ranting, Dale", flatly refusing to acknowledge paragraphs worth of substantial, objective criticisms I made about a third editor. (To his credit, he has never lost his temper like that since.) That outburst is far more extreme than any indigation I have expressed. Likewise, what he did with a citation in April 2012 is far more objectionable than anybody could reasonably say about the editing action by me that is the subject of this thread. Dale Chock (talk) 03:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Or, as seems to be the case, if Dale believes that there are exceptions to this 4-consonant limitation, he needs to find sources to support such a claim. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 01:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I am responding here only because Dale Chock has referred to me in his response above. Anyone who is interested may view my comments on the article talk page. I am not quite certain what Dale Chock means when he suggests, "Cnilep did not address my arguments and did not even argue his opinion, he just stated his disagreement with my opinion." My comments there were not an argument for or against any individual; I merely stated my understanding of relevant Wikipedia policy and best practice. Cnilep (talk) 01:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Cnilep, by disagreeing with my stance on how to edit an article, disagreed with a particular individual on something. His talk page comment was not "for or against that individual", but against an opinion -- some individual's opinion. He did not stop at "merely stating my [Cnilep's] understanding of relevant Wikipedia policy and best practice", he applied that understanding to make a determination on whether to oppose or second an editorial judgement. Not a hypothetical judgement, but a deployed judgement, deployed by an identified Wikipedian. Cnilep's reply is a string of obfuscations and insinuations. On the article talk page, he evaded engaging my reasoning about a particular action, and he evaded presenting his reasoning. What he did instead was state a conclusion, then chat about something else. The chat was interesting and informative -- of lasting interest in fact -- but it was only tangentially pertinent to the dispute. Dale Chock (talk) 03:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

A fresh example of Aesos inserting misinformation into articles on languages and linguistics (a point discussed above). He has been editing Russian phonology since 2007 (or is it 2005?). Here's a mistranscription he inserted 20 May 2012, and restored 04:02, 7 June 2012. "For example, the phrase с друзья́ми ('with friends') is pronounced [zdrʊˈzʲamʲɪ]." (The first time, he erroneously wrote с друзья́х instead, but that's beside the point here.) The point of interest is how to transcribe the portion, '-ья-'. Aesos gives ʲa instead of ʲja. Not only that, but for this and some other examples, he fails to do what he demands of me, to cite a source for his transcriptions. Dale Chock (talk) 04:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The last sentence exhibits the very mischaracterization I referred to above, one that you say I have mischaracterized. If you really aren't arguing that I'm asking for you to provide citations for the transcription of specific words/phrases when I ask you to cite the claim that clusters with more than four consonants are permissible in the syllable onset, then your written prose is prohibitively obtuse.

Here, I'll put it plainly. Either you to provide diffs that show me asking you in a talk page/edit summary to cite a specific transcription, or you concede that you're making this up. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 06:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: Restored from archive. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 06:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

After reading all of this it is clear that you are involved in a rather routine debate related to opposing views and stubborn convictions. That is called normal editing. If you feel you need outside opinions, an RfC is the way to go. There is nothing here to intervene. This thread should close without prejudice and you editors take this to the article talk page and work it out. My76Strat (talk) 06:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you really believe that continuous removal of citation tags are part of normal editing/routine debate? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 15:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

With reference to the above comment by User:Aeusoes1 06:26, 10 June 2012, note the mixture of imperious tone, self-contradiction, and bafflement. Let's see if he corrects that phonetic mistranscription I called attention to.

I repeat: I comprehensively discussed his objection to me at "Talk:Russian_phonology#Discussion", 23:29 4 Jun 2012. That's where I presented a case for why his "citation needed" tag is invalid. Instead of replying to my reasoning on the talk page, he has ignored my discussion, taken the dispute here to AN/I, and blurted, "No, you just have to do what I say." Dale Chock (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I have never asked you to cite a specific transcription. Asking you to provide diffs isn't me telling you to "do what I say", that's the format of this forum. Without diffs, you aren't even providing evidence. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 21:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Dale Chock continued

• Dale Chock has now followed one of the editors who posted here and to whom he apparently took offense editors to the article Linguistic relativity which that editor had nominated for GA - he started with a series of edits that can only be described as trolling (redefining the topic against what sources (which he is obviously unfamiliar with) say, introducing snide and dismissive language into the lead, and publishing long rants on the talk page in which he takes objection to the articles entire layout and topic). Incidentally this article received praise from a professional on the talkpage only days ago. Can we not do something to stop Dale Chock's rampage of uncollaborativenes and battleground mentality. He has some knowledge about linguistics (although a lot less than he thinks), but he is entirely incapable of collaborating with others. I have made a habit out of taking article's off my watchlist once he appears, but this one happens to be one I care about and which has much promise.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Note how his first comment is a personal attack that aims directly at huimiliating me as a human and a professional being by lying about the two articles that I have edited in my professional domain and even having the nerve to suggest that I had misrepresented the views of my own mentor Una Canger. That is beyond base. I really really hope that someone will stop this creatures rampage through the linguistics articles on wikipedia because he is clearly only editing to raise his own selfesteem at the expense of others. I strongly urge an admin to look through Dale Chock's contributioins and realize that he is the epitome of a troll and a WP:DICK - a toxic personality if I ever met one. He should not be editing here.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree something must be done. I'm tempted to block him, but if others think that's too strong, a ban (topic or interaction) might be in order. Dougweller (talk) 07:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The complainant, User:Maunus, deleted some posts from Talk:Linguistic relativity, some of his, some of mine, after posting this hysterical complaint. That includes the post where he called me "scum". I am awaiting help getting those posts restored. He also does not disclose that he and I had acrimonious disputes on three articles in 2008. I wonder whether admin User:Dougweller was informed or ignorant of these facts. I have collaborated fine on linguistics articles except for him and one other editor. I wonder whether Doug Weller has read my Talk page discussions on a range of articles, engaging a range of editors. Of course, Maunus justified deleting posts claiming "lies and slander", but that would apply to me accusing him of, say, real world crimes or of acts that objectively jeopardize Wikipedia. It does not apply to me complaining about his refusal to debate me or his ignorance. Maunus's accusation that I followed him is self serving. First off, I edit mostly languages and linguistics articles and this is a linguistics article. But beyond that, only a small number of editors devote themselves to linguistics articles. Maunus has probably edited 95% of all linguistics articles. I bet Doug Weller -- who doesn't edit languages or linguistics articles -- doesn't know any of that, either. As it happens, I did not have specific knowledge that Maunus was currently involved with Linguistic relativity; my attention was drawn to it in another way. By the way, you can compare my usual style of discussion with Maunus's usual style at Talk:Pochutec language. Don't be scared: it's only two screenloads. Dale Chock (talk) 08:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Since Maunus has brought it up here, let me respond specifically to the rant about his mentor, Prof. Una Canger, although normally AN/I would not be the most appropriate forum for this. Point of information: the topic involves Mesoamerican linguistics. OK, many of us can see how absurd it is to accuse me of horrendous abuse and talk about punishing me because I said he didn't understand some professor's views on a subject! Even if admin Doug Weller can't. Furthermore, Maunus is not being factual in assuming I knew that Prof. Canger was his ten year mentor. At Talk:Linguistic relativity I drew the connection that she and Maunus are scholars in the same tiny field (Mesoamerican linguistics) from the same tiny country. That does not mean I ever before knew that he studied extensively with her. It would be smart of me to assume that he, the young person, would be well aware of her, one of the senior scholars in his field from his country. But it would be stupid of me to assume that any one of the Danish experts on the linguistics of Mexico has taught and mentored every single Dane who enters the same field. When last Maunus and I tangled, 3-1/2 years ago, I never asked him about it and he never said. Dale Chock (talk) 08:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Maunus, who has been under attack by Mikemikev and another IP as well recently, has had his user and talk pages blanked by another Administrator. It looks as though we have lost another extremely valuable editor. He'll be sorely missed if he stays away and Wikipedia has been diminished yet again. Dougweller (talk) 09:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Doug, you've got a mop for a reason; please use it to fix this mess. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 09:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

looking at the red user page and a bunch of the recent edits, I'd say Dougweller's got a damned good idea above. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 09:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I have just finished looking through Dale Chock's recent contributions, and concerns expressed above about his continued battleground mentality are justified, in my opinion. There may well be legitimate concerns with content here, but they seem overshadowed by the conduct issues, and for this reason I'm not sure they would respond well to our content dispute resolution processes. Dale has shown that he has a hard time differentiating criticism of content from personal attacks (e.g. in his comment above/in the archive about Cnilep's post on Talk:Russian phonology), and his posts are generally antagonistic and not conducive to collaborative editing. (Some recent examples: [145][146][147][148].) These issues were pointed out to him at the previous WQA thread in March, in which I was involved, but he doesn't seem to have taken the advice on board, as evidenced by the ANI thread last month and the current thread. At the moment I am torn between whether to recommend an RFC/U or a topic ban from linguistics articles. Normally an RFC/U would be the next step, but seeing as my primary concern is Dale's failure to act on reasonable advice, I am not sure it would be effective. I would be less inclined to support sanctions if Dale showed any recognition that his behaviour has been problematic, but I can't see any evidence of that. If anyone has other suggestions on how to deal with this situation, they would be very welcome. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I have restored the comments that he made, as he requested therough a "Help Me" template. I will now re-remove them and the warnings issued to other people who have deleted them Mdann52 (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Too late; you're not the only one that can edit quickly. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

*Attention*. This thread needs clueful closure with some teeth. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Dougweller said above that a block or ban of some sort is called for. I tend to agree with that assessment. I would remind Dale that in fact Denmark, with five and a half million people, is not "tiny", as he says above. I also think that, whatever his comments above, it is clearly rather stupid of Dale to rip into professional academics as he has apparently done, unless their personal work is of the really fringe type. Also, the indications of battleground mentality indicated by Mr. Stradivarius above are to my eyes sufficient basis for consideration of some sort of sanctions. I have also run into more than one editor with perhaps some competence who seem incapable of adhering to basic rules of conduct, and that seems to be Dale's problem as well. Discretionary sanctions, in this case to probably include article bans (including article talk pages), might be best, but they work best when imposed by ArbCom, and an ArbCom case without Maunus might be really difficult. On the basis of all of the above, I think a linguistics topic ban might be the best way to go here. John Carter (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Considering other editors have also experienced problems with Dale Chock, particularly myself in the last three months or so, why would an ArbCom case be difficult without Maunus? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 18:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, maybe I was wrong. I was thinking it might be difficult to get the evidence Maunus would present without Maunus. However, if there are others who can present their own substantial evidence of conduct problems, particularly if they are willing to go through the history to find the similar conduct related to Maunus, that might well be enough to get ArbCom to accept a case. John Carter (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Methinks Dale does not warrant such bother. This can be resolved here and now either with an indef or a wide reaching topic and interaction ban. /resolve/ disputes, don't prolong them. Besides, AC doesn't take cases the community hasn't already sought to solve (and doesn't much resolve things, anyway). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that Dale is not just hostile toward other editors, but assumes that other editors are hostile towards him. In Russian phonology, for example, I made the rather obvious comment that we need sources that support our claims, which he took as evidence that I was biased against him (he had not been supplying refs). I hadn't realized how disruptive he was being on other articles. Perhaps he could work with a mentor, but meanwhile, regardless of the quality of his contributions (which I'm not in a position to evaluate), his attitude causes more harm than good. — kwami (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fang Zhouzi

Moved to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Fang Zhouzi Jim1138 (talk) 18:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Crystal Cathedral article renaming problem

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Without any discussion an editor has improperly renamed the Crystal Cathedral article to Christ Cathedral on the basis that the Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange has recently announced that "Christ Cathedral" is to be the building's name when it becomes the diocese's new cathedral. Although the building is now legally owned the RC diocese, under the terms of the sale it is still currently functioning as the "Crystal Cathedral" and will continue to do so until Crystal Cathedral Ministries ceases to use the building, which is not expected until the middle of 2013 at the earliest. I have tried reverting the name change but for some reason this didn't have any effect. I will appreciate it if an administrator, or any editor who knows how to do so, will revert the name change. I apologise if this is the wrong place to request this. Thanks. Afterwriting (talk) 11:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Then just move it back and invite ktr101 to discuss the move on the talk page. It only becomes an issue if he moves it again without consensus. and yes I did check the redirect to make sure he didn't pull a dolovis by editing it so only admins could move it back. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ron. As mentioned above, I already tried to "move it back" by reverting to a previous version but - although all the article's text was reverted - the name change wasn't. I tried several ways to do this without success. Can you tell me what the best way of reverting a name change is? Another editor has already reverted it for me. Afterwriting (talk) 12:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with Ron, this seems consistent with WP:BRD. Also, I notified Ktr101 that you brought the issue up here. Even though you didn't mention him by name, this is obviously referring to him since he made the move, so in the future, be sure to use the template at the top of this page and notify any party who is the focus of an ANI, please. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Dennis. Your advice on the notification of other editors is noted and appreciated. I had already considered doing this but didn't think it was so much an "incident" with another editor as a straightforward article problem that only needed changing without too much fuss and I didn't know where else to ask since I was unable to do it myself for some reason. But I will know better if there is a next time. Cheers, Afterwriting (talk) 12:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've just moved back the "Christ Cathedral organ" article to Crystal Cathedral organ. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

212.118.232.164 / User:HunterSilver

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi. I think banned User:HunterSilver returned again, with his attempts to push his unconstructive edits at List of Prime Ministers of Nepal, now with this IP address: 212.118.232.164. Just to let you know, User:HunterSilver is a sockpuppet of User:HasperHunter, who was banned indefinitely on April 20, 2012 for abusing multiple accounts. All of them are, in turn, sockpuppets of User:DBSSURFER (A few days ago, I opened a SPI, which can be found here). I'm really becoming tired of this, and I hope someone can solve this issue for good. --Sundostund (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• IP blocked, article semi-protected for a month. Let us know if he comes back on other articles. Black Kite (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"NPOV" or bias?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Dear Editors: I am writing about the article formerly entitled “Non-helical DNA structure” (Non-helical DNA structure (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)). This article originally reviewed the powerful and generally non-controverted 40-year history of evidence against the Watson-Crick “double-helix” structure in living systems (as opposed to artificial laboratory settings). The term “non-controverted”, as used here, should be read “not substantially considered and rejected, but mainly just ignored”. Wikipedia could have played an important historical role by bringing this history into public view, and thereby helping to fill this knowledge void. --- I said “could have played”, because the article has now been axed by a pair of kids, one a graduate student who seems hell-bent on promoting high school textbook models of DNA structure, (Antony-22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)), and the other, well, there’s nothing that can be known about him from his page (HandThatFeeds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)), but he evidences no knowledge of the subject at all, not even on a high school level. Every time these kids swing their axes, another arbitrary and capricious deletion (and occasionally an inappropriate addition) occurs, so that the article at this point is the literary equivalent of a man who had carefully dressed for the opera, but who, on the way there, suffered an attack by a vicious street gang, wherefore he now struggles to remain standing in the street, dazed and bewildered, in tattered rags. In its current form, the article is a complete joke. Incredibly, these two child-editors have now flagged it as needing “attention from an expert on the subject”! How will that be possible? The people about whom the article was originally written, namely Gordon Rodley, V. Sasisekharan, Tai Te Wu, You Cheng Xu, Ken Biegeleisen (that’s me), and Clive Delmonte, ARE the experts! Now that we have been axed, exactly whom do they think will emerge as an “expert” to repair the damage they’ve done?. --- There’s no point in wasting any more time on this. If you have any editors with knowledge in the area of DNA structure, and who are really and truly NPOV in their outlook, something of value can perhaps be saved here. Otherwise the article will stand forever as a monument to the ignorance and bigotry of these child-editors, who have raped and mutilated it to the point of worthlessness. Even the very title betrays their ignorance. For no earthly reason, they capriciously changed it from “Non-helical DNA structure”, which is meaningful and appropriate for search engines, to “Non-helical nucleic acid structure”, which no one will search for (perhaps their intention?). Moreover, changing the word “DNA” to “nucleic acid” implies that the article is not merely about DNA, but also about RNA, which is simply a false implication. RNA is usually single-stranded, and to raise the question of “whether or not RNA has a helical twist in its double-stranded structure”, when it’s not even double-stranded in the first place, is logically absurd. --- If you think you have an editor with whom we can work to better-conform this article to “encyclopedia style”, but who can somehow refrain from butchering the content, then there’s still hope. Otherwise, it will just sit there and rot, and, in the end, Wikipedia, in this instance at least, will wind up looking very foolish.Voice of 5-23 (talk) 13:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Any more of your accusations of "bigotry" and attacking other people as "child-editors" and you are likely to find yourself blocked. As for the article, you yourself say this theory has been "mainly just ignored". Theories that have been ignored rarely find much space in encyclopedias, and it is not an encyclopedia's job to "play an important historical role" in promoting them. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow, this is still going on? It's been almost two weeks now. Viriditas (talk) 14:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

This topic seems to be more appropriate for Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard--Ymblanter (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hang on Boing! said Zebedee. The guy might have a point. Article written by experts -> Edited by folks unfamiliar with the subject -> Tagged with expert needed. This seems like a legitimate complaint to me. Voice of 5-23, have you tried engaging those two editors in dispute resolution? Also, please cool it with the name calling, it isnt going to solve anything.--v/r - TP 14:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

TP, the previous 'discussion' (and I use that term loosely as 'discussion' implies 'dialogue with both parties listening') ended with Voice of 5-23 declaring on the article talk page that he would from then on ignore it but would not stop editing the article regardless of peoples' (extremely valid) concerns about the content he was adding. Voice of 5-23 has proven to have a severe case of WP:IDHT and is, quite frankly, IMHO WP:NOTHERE to do anything but push his WP:FRINGE theory as WP:THETRUTH. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:Non-helical models of nucleic acid structure#Quality and recency of sources. Non-helical models of DNA structure were briefly considered in the 1970s to solve a theoretical problem in bacterial DNA replication, and have legitimate historical interest for that reason. They were rejected by the mainstream scientific community due to the discovery of a class of enzymes called topoisomerases, which obviated that particular problem, and would be considered a fringe theory today. The article as originally posted focused extensively on recent, low-impact papers by some of the authors mentioned by Voice above, which have been largely ignored by other authors, and the article itself mostly ignored any sources supporting the mainstream view. The "expert" tag has been there since 25 May 2012; right now I'm looking for someone with more expertise in topoisomerases and/or bacterial DNA replication, and I've been collecting sources here.

Also, please see the previous AN/I thread on this issue, as well as Talk:Non-helical models of nucleic acid structure for examples of previous personal attacks by Voice of 5-23 / Notahelix (the same user due to a mixup about a username change). Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 15:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

@TP. He might have a point, yes, but he's not making it very well by asserting that we need to promote a theory that he himself says has been ignored. The non-helical DNA idea, imo, deserves a mention in passing at best as it was entirely theoretical as far as I know, is clearly fringe and is not taken seriously by mainstream academia - but that is something to be discussed civilly on the article talk page or at a suitable project, and is not to be addressed by hurling insults at people here at ANI. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC) (BS, Biochemistry).

(sigh) This still? Guys, this is another example of a field expert who has decided he does not have to follow Wikipedia's rules. The article he added was written like a paper for publication, and when editors started cleaning it up, he threw a fit. Anyone who questions him is treated like crap. Thing is, the system he's writing on has been discarded decades ago, but I get the impression Voice is trying to bring it back. And his statement above doesn't help dissuade that impression (emphasis mine):

" This article originally reviewed the powerful and generally non-controverted 40-year history of evidence against the Watson-Crick “double-helix” structure in living systems..."

"The people about whom the article was originally written, namely Gordon Rodley, V. Sasisekharan, Tai Te Wu, You Cheng Xu, Ken Biegeleisen (that’s me), and Clive Delmonte, ARE the experts!"

"Wikipedia could have played an important historical role by bringing this history into public view, and thereby helping to fill this knowledge void"

Now, he may just mean documenting this older theory for everyone to view. But his adamant stance that it must conform to his standards, and not Wikipedia's, combined with his defense of his theory, is the concerning bit. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and one comment directly to Voice: equating the changes to the article with rape is not only melodramatic, it's highly offensive and inflammatory. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment Given his behavior, it's past time to delete, block, and show him the door. The project is better off without people like him. DarkAudit (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Because he's an expert (in some sense), and we don't want to unneccesarily chase experts away, he should be told he's got one last chance: edit collegially so Wikipedia gets the benefit of his extertise, or get the boot. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

BMK, he's already had that last chance and demonstrated that he not just isn't listening, but deliberatly so. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

If that's the case, that he's been given a "last chance" warning and hasn't changed his behavior, then I would support an indef block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

VOICE_OF_5-23 RESPONDS: I don’t know if I’m supposed to post a response here, and if not I apologize. If so, however, I’d like to start by thanking TParis for at least attempting to focus on the problem at hand (which is important), and not merely on the question of whether Voice_of_5-23 should be blocked (which is not important). Secondly I’d like to thank John J. Bulten for restoring a meaningful title to the article. That having been said, I must now compile and concisely re-state the monophonic case against me. First of all, I have been accused by The Bushranger of something called WP:IDHT, which Wikipedia defines as “sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it”. This implies that the “community” has considered the 40 years of published data on non-helicity, and has appropriately, or even inappropriately rejected it. I’d like to see a reference for this. I’m not saying that it’s Bushranger’s “job” to provide me with references for this or anything else – he’s not “on trial”; I am. But ... if he wishes to testify against me on the basis of a “community consensus”, it’s my opinion that he has thereby taken upon himself an implicit obligation to show us all -- not just me, but all of us -- a published reference from a reliable source documenting this “consensus”. (And I hope we can do better than Gautham, who may be a very talented crystallographer, but whose negative remarks on this page were mere hearsay – unreferenced, undocumented personal opinions). Secondly, we have Antony-22 saying “Non-helical models of DNA structure were briefly considered in the 1970s to solve a theoretical problem in bacterial DNA replication, and have legitimate historical interest for that reason. They were rejected by the mainstream scientific community due to the discovery of a class of enzymes called topoisomerases, which obviated that particular problem, and would be considered a fringe theory today.” Isn’t this almost exactly the same thing Bushranger said a few lines above? Wherefore my response is the same: Who “briefly considered [them] in the 1970s”? Where is the encyclopedically-acceptable reference in which that is documented? And if it was never written in a reputable source, why is it being used as evidence against me? It’s not Antony’s “job” to provide me with this, or with anything else whatsoever, but if there exists no published reference for what he says, then why is it being posted on the editor’s page of an encyclopedia? I thought everything had to be referenced. Moreover he says that the “discovery of…topoisomerases..obviated that particular problem”. What “particular problem”? Who said that there was only one problem, and in what publication was the entire issue arbitrarily reduced to “one problem”? The non-helical page addressed not one, but many serious problems. More importantly, in what reputable source is it stated that non-helical DNA structures were ever seriously considered before topoisomerases? Again, it’s not his job, or his responsibility to provide me with this or any other information, but if he is going to use it as a weapon against me, shouldn’t he have an encyclopedically-acceptable reference? Thirdly, we have HandThatFeeds, who says “the system he's writing on has been discarded decades ago, but I get the impression Voice is trying to bring it back”. Are you perchance beginning to discern a pattern here? This is the same criticism yet again -- a third time! Who considered and discarded this system decades ago? Is there an encyclopedically-acceptable reference for this? If so, why aren’t we being shown it? And if not, why is it being used, yea even a third time, as a weapon against me? In summary, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you gentlemen (and ladies, if there be any among you) for taking what I understand has been a HUGE amount of your personal time to consider all the issues I have been raising for these past months, and for bearing with me as I went through several episodes of anger-management failure. But I say now, as I’ve been saying all along, the subject matter of this non-helical article is a 40-year-old well-documented history, and if quantitatively it is not the largest body of scientific literature on earth, so be it. I know that no one among you is going to rank “quantity” above “quality”. Now, however, I think that it’s your turn. If I’ve ignored a body of literature, or even a scrap of literature which documents what you’ve said, three times over in this discussion thread alone ( i.e., that non-helical DNA structures were considered long ago, perhaps in the 1970s, and rejected by some sort of mysterious and elusive “consensus”), I respectfully request that you either present that body of literature openly, or accept that it’s merely undocumented hearsay. More importantly, in the event that you cannot find the thrice-invoked but persistently elusive body of literature, you might consider, for the love of pure knowledge and for no other reason, to start to consider that the undocumented and non-encyclopedic part of this dispute is not the non-helical part after all, but rather the part which alleges that the “double-helix” structure rests on [what some refer to as] a “mountain of evididence”, when such mountain has always been, and remains to this day astonishingly well-hidden.Voice of 5-23 (talk) 03:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe you're misconstruing what WP:IDHT means by community. It's isn't talking about the scientific community; it is referring to the Wikipedia community. It's being based on your behaviour, not your research. Ishdarian 04:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

...this has gone on long enough. It's clear that User:Voice of 5-23 is here to establish his viewpoint as WP:THETRUTH, to the exclusion of other viewpoints, refuses to listen, and shows increasing signs of not getting how Wikipedia works. It's clear that this editor is a net negative to the project; accordingly I've blocked him indef. If anyone can make progress, feel free to unblock without needing to consult me. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ongoing 4chan raid

See h**p://boards.4chan.org/v/res/142750682 (or this archive, if the original thread 404s). Many videogames-related articles need to be cleaned up and maybe semi-protected due to vandalism. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Why on earth does boards.4chan.org trigger the spam filter? It makes no sense, what's there to spam? It's a discussion board. It's not like the website sells Viagra. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's the generic blacklist, since 4chan is one of those "The Internet Is For..." sites. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Surely, the usual reason for an edit containing a URL is that it's being ref'd, in article-space..? Stopping people attempting to cite 4chan, at the cost of a much smaller number of legitimate edits outside article-space needing the URL to be obfuscated, seems like an acceptable level of collateral damage to me. bobrayner (talk) 17:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

at least it's not an ongoing 4skin raid ... we've had those discussions here too many times (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

"Surely, the usual reason for an edit containing a URL is that it's being ref'd, in article-space..?" - Quite unlikely - threads on 4chan 404 after they lie dormant for some time, and do not last forever. And I don't really anticipate that people are actually maliciously posting links to 4chan threads (rather, it's the other way around; Wikipedia links are posted on 4chan for "raids"), and it seems counter-productive that one has to obfuscate a URL to report ongoing abuse. Well, it's not a big deal anyway. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 18:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

4chan is indeed on the global blacklist being added here apparently based on Meta:User:COIBot/XWiki/boards.4chan.org although I'm not sure if the bot is correct (AFAIK 4chan doesn't have a redirect service/ability, but I could be mistaken). Nil Einne (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The Zeitgeist Movement (continued)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Previous discussion at ANI

The Zeitgeist Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Discussion at WP:DRN

Reinventor098 (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

After the previous discussion, I set myself up as a quasi-mediator in the ongoing content dispute about the article. I may live to regret that, but, nonetheless, a fair amount of constructive dialog has taken place, both on the article Talk page and at DRN. When, in my view, editors have regressed into name-calling, I have called them on it in an effort to refocus the conversation. Unfortunately, Reinventor, a WP:SPA, has not contributed constructively to these conversations. Instead, he has come back from a block for edit-warring on the article and recommenced his behavior. See here. In addition, he incorrectly labels other editors' actions as vandalism and makes oddly veiled comments at the article Talk page in a section he labeled vandalism ([149]), e.g., "It is a truly sad to see the level of dishonestly here and disheartening to see how malicious many of your controlling parties really are." I think "your" means Wikipedian editors who add material he doesn't like but it's not clear.

I suggest a block is warranted, and significantly longer than the previous 24-hour block.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked 96 hours. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk page deleted

User:M0rphzone is deleting talk page discussions, and then reverting attempts to restore the thread back to its original state. There is nothing particularly inappropriate in the deleted content. I've tried to reason with him/her, as did another user PBJT in this post, but the response has been prickly ("mind your own business.. go focus on other topics.. your ego is so big .."). I even tried a compromise by just linking to the deleted content, but that was reverted by M0rphzone also. Green Cardamom (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

You did not notify me correctly on my talk page and you did not discuss about the issue on my talk page. I don't understand why you are making such a big deal out of this, and trying to get help for it. It looks like you are deliberately attempting to harass me. I already tried to resolve the issue and didn't intend for the discussion to go in that direction, but you continued to harass me about my actions. And not only are you harassing me about this, but also canvassing on other user's talk pages. I've already talked to an admin about this, so this issue should be resolved. - M0rphzone (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

You are not allowed to remove your comments on talk pages, especially after other people have replied to them. You can strike the comments, like this, but outright removal isn't something you can do. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:REFACTOR says users can delete comments that are inappropriate or useless. Nothing says users can't delete their own comments. But fine, I am restoring them and striking the comments people think are attacks. Conflict is resolved. I don't give a fuck now. - M0rphzone (talk) 22:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. FWIW, WP:REDACT discourages outright deletion of remarks after others have responded to them. It suggests striking them, or at least marking it as having been redacted by the commentor. LadyofShalott 23:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Barts1a

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Barts1a (talk · contribs) and I have not been amicable with each other in the past. An early interaction with him over my use in rollback ended up with him imposing the restrictions he has on himself. Sometime last year, he involved himself in a discussion he was not involved with on my talk page and I requested he butt out after he left unwarranted comments and continued to accuse me of misusing rollback on my own page.

I have not been in contact at all with Barts1a since then, as our topic areas do not crossover. However, this did not keep him from leaving this snide comment today regarding another editor's actions in regards to messages I have been leaving on their talk page. He has not been editing heavily this month, and it has been his only edit in a 24 hour period, so it seems he decided to make a concerted effort to be rude to me because he found the opportunity to do so. This is clearly not acceptable behavior.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Ryulong, have you pursued any other forms of dispute resolution before bringing this to ANI? What administrator attention does this issue require? Have you discussed this issue on Barts1a's talk page as directed by the instructions at the top of this page? While I question what positive motive Barts had for making that comment, and at the very least he should be trouted for it, it seems to me bringing this one comment to ANI (particularly when Barts can't comment here) is a bit excessive even with the backstory. Note: I was Barts1a's first mentor after that discussion you've previously mentioned boomeranged on him. N419BH 21:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a long standing behavioral problem of his that was addressed on this board previously, so I felt that this repeated instance of him being disruptive in an issue for which he is not involved needed looking at here. It's not just one comment. It's his now 2-year obsession with my actions. And from personal experience, he will revert messages I leave him on his talk (particularly because I do not htink I need to use his "Yell at me" page just so he can separate all negative criticism from his talk page's history). However, I was not aware that Barts1a is banned from the adminstrative noticeboards (which is what I believe you are referring to) but I believe there should be some leeway when he is the subject of discussion.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Ryulong; you of all people should know that jumping straight to ANI for matters such as this is what ended up getting ME banned from noticeboards in the first place! If one of my talk page stalkers could copy this comment onto the relevant ANI thread that would be much appreciated. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 23:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC) (copied from barts1a's talk page --AniMate 01:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC))

Barts1a should know he shouldn't have made the comment in the first place. And it's not jumping straight to ANI when it's a long term behavioral problem on his part.—Ryulong (竜龙) 03:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Also I find his labeling of this as a dick move is also problematic. I was not aware he was still under a self-imposed ban from the noticeboards (it was not something I paid attention to in that orange block on his talk page).—Ryulong (竜龙) 03:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The reasoning for making the post in the first place is to highlight how Ryulong is treating other editors by reverting their edits to his talk page almost all of the time and he expects us to grin and bear it. Now that someone is doing to them as they did and are doing to others he spits the dummy. Treat others how you wish to be treated.

Also: thanks for copying that! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 03:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Copied from Barts1a's talk N419BH 03:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

So basically, he's refusing to acknowledge the fact that I'm free to remove comments from my talk page as I please, mostly because I did it to him because I can't stand his unnecessary intrusions. It's good that he cleared that up then because that still doesn't make up for the fact he felt to point it out in the first place.—Ryulong (竜龙) 04:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes WP:IDHT seems to be happening here. WP:ROLLBACK provides a clear statement that's its okay to use rollback as you please in your own userspace, and furthermore WP:BLANKING says users may remove content from their userpages as they please with very few exceptions. N419BH 05:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• There was no way that comment was anything but disruptive, given the past history with Ryulong. As Barts1a's mentor, I've blocked him for 24 hours, explained on talk page. Ryulong, I agree with the comments above, ANI was not the place for this - I've seen no other administrator interest and I'd have taken this action based on Barts1a's reaction without the ANI. In future, revert him, drop me a note and then forget about it, a much better course of action. Otherwise, we have more appropriate boards, including WQA - this certainly didn't need urgent administrator attention. I hope that this won't happen again. Worm^TT(talk) 07:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Archived -- yet still OPEN -- ANI item

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could an admin please review and close THIS "ancient" request (Administrator's Archive #231, item #8)? The incident is rather short and, imo, rather straight-forward as well.

The incient was initiated over 4 months ago, and has not seen any activity in 3 months, yet there it saw no closure.

Subsequently the incident went into Archive mode, together with a few others (on or around 9 February 2012????). However, the matter is still open. I am now wandering if closing admins regularly look at Archived ANI items with the same frecuency as they do current ANI items...

I am requesting that an admin please review and close the INCIDENT. Thanks.

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

• I've taken the liberty of correcting your links. That probably shouldn't have been archvied, but there was no consensus to unblock (given the situation two !votes was insufficient for action), and at this point the block is about to expire anyway... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

In general, no, we don't look back at archives unless looking for something specific. If they did get archived (and left for months!) then it was either acted upon or had no consensus for action. LadyofShalott 23:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

If something goes into the archives that's generally a polite no. Nobody Ent 01:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Avaya1 and Victor Ostrovsky material

User:Avaya1 is unilaterally removing material related to Victor Ostrovsky from Mossad ([150][151][152]), Sayan (Mossad) (replaced with redirect [153][154]) and Katsa, which as been in the articles for quite some time, on the grounds that it is from a primary source. I have repeatedly asked him ([155][156]) to engage in discussion on the relevant talk pages and reach consensus, or to take the issue to WP:RSN. I'm not clear what category of misbehavior this falls in if any. I am asking only that he not blank articles with a redirect without a talk page discussion of the reliability and appropriateness of the source, or whether the Sayan (Mossad) article should exist at all. I do not wish to engage in back and forth editing over this on the premise that he is refusing to utilize the talk page to reach consensus. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 21:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

It's true that we could content fork separate articles for the things that Ostrovsky reports/claims, if that made to easier to organise Ostrovsy's content. However, the Ostrovsky article is extremely short and there's plenty of room to put it there. Secondly, Ostrovsky's reports are only based on one source - himself. Giving them separate articles is already POV content forking and against WP:Undue and Wikipedia:Fringe theories, since it implies that there is more than one source for them. Ostrovsky's book is written and actually marketed like a spy-novel, and reliable secondary sources (such as Benny Morris) have described him as a novelist (albeit one who had a career - at least as a trainee - in the Mossad). This is the content forking policy we follow on every other Wikipedia article of this nature.

As for writing whole sections on the main Mossad article, based entirely on Ostrovsky's book, this clearly is not WP:RS. Avaya1 (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

You may be absolutely right. I am not familiar with this material well enough, or the objections to it, although I did create the Sayan (Mossad) article which has not been challenged in any way yet. Similarly the material in the Mossad article has been there for some time and has withstood the scrutiny of a number of editors. I feel obligated to protect the material until there is at least a discussion with any other editors interested in the topic. The importance of WP:CONSENSUS seems paramount, although I do understand your point of view on this. Rather than discuss the topic here, that's all I will have to say about it unless you should choose to take it to the talk pages. I won't revert your edits on this anymore. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 21:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for seeing both points of view. Feel free to add the content you wrote to the main Ostrovsky article, there's plenty of space. Avaya1 (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Zzspeed -- Industrious, competency-challenged fan at work

Resolved

 – Seems to have been all cleaned up, and User:The Anome has left word for the user. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Zzspeed appears to be a devoted fan of soap opera actress Nina Arvesen, and edits, just about exclusively, articles related to her. Unfortunately, most of their edits seem to be cut-and-pastes of nonfree text. I've just had to stub the actress's main article, and an article on one character she played, because so little material could be salvaged. On June 7, they executed a complicated and senseless series of page moves (example, one edit moved page Angela Cassidy to Nina Arvesen played Angela Raymond), with at least one article ending up in the wrong namespace; while I've fixed that, I can't unscramble the whole mess. I suspect the article that's ended up as Angela Cassidy Raymond belongs at Angela Cassidy, but that looks like it requires a deletion to effectuate the move. There may be other articles buried in the chaos, but I can't find them. Anybody interested in taking a look at this? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Reopened: After a repeat of the same behavior today, I again cleaned up the redirects, and then move-locked the two articles in question. Following this, User:Zzspeed now seems to have stopped editing. Seven minutes after their last edit, User:Jaonwagner has popped up, and is now busy inserting the unsourced middle name "Elisabeth", that so preoccupied User:Zzspeed in their redirect activities, into the Nina Arvensen article. Can someone please keep an eye on this new user's activities? I've reached my three-revert limit on that article, so I'll leave it to others to carry on from here. -- The Anome (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I reverted per WP:BLP and will watchlist it. Editor has been warned on his talkpage by Anome. I don't know if we're in a field of DUCKs or just mindless edit-warring against policy, but either way I'll probably wind up setting some blocks and/or locks soon. DMacks (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I now see User:Jaonwagner is only willing to edit-war, not discuss, so he's got a 24h vacation. DMacks (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I've also moved Angela Cassidy Raymond back to Angela Cassidy where it apparently began, tidied up the inbound links, and deleted the redirect. That should be the last of the redirect maze removed. -- The Anome (talk) 00:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

A few similar recent edits have been made by User:99.194.171.165 (a CenturyLink IP). I've just blocked the IP for a week. Semi-protection of the pages involved is probably the next step, if this goes on. -- The Anome (talk) 08:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

And now also User:12.248.220.202 (an AT&T IP). I've now semi-protected both articles in addition to the existing move protection. -- The Anome (talk) 22:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Perceived threat to bomb Wikipedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I don't take these things seriously but this perceived threat of violence is probably against a few Wikipedia policies. Can we at least block the talk page access?--JOJ ^Hutton 23:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• another threat a few minutes ago. This one even more descriptive.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• I've upped his indef block to include talk page and email access. I think that should do it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Threat to bomb Wikipedia? Come on!

I can't read the dangerous and frightening threats mentioned above, since they've been oversighted (probably just as well, or they might give me nightmares). Seriously, threats to bomb Wikipedia? What's next, Bishzilla gets indefblocked for threatening to burn little users to crisps? Bishonen | talk 23:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC).

Somebody set us up the bomb! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Not oversighted; they were simply deleted. If I understand rightly, talk page access was not revoked because of the threats themselves, but because threats were the only thing coming — talk pages are enabled for blocked users largely to facilitate unblocking and to permit other constructive discussion with blocked users, and when blocked users do nothing with their talk pages except making empty threats and frivolous unblock requests, they're abusing that access and should have access revoked so that they don't waste our time. Nyttend (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mirahmet.hyraidabassa

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This account was created a few hours ago, and so far all of his edits have been to revert me. The user usually refers to me as "a Muslim", and accuses me of "Islamic supremacism". His edits exhibit a level of Islamophobia ("Muslims, who are considered to be extremely intolerant of cultures and religions other than their own"). How can I respect WP:Bite, and deal with the obviously problematic edits? Is there a possibility he's a sockpuppet?VR _talk 03:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

There's almost no chance that someone would join Wikipedia and immediately begin reverting another user without doing anything else at all. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mirahmet.hyraidabassa. Nyttend (talk) 04:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

VR, do you know Jose.medez248? SPI says that these two accounts are related (along with several others) and suspects that Jose is the master for the whole group. Nyttend (talk) 04:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Never heard of him till now. Looking at the contributions of Jose.medez248, he looks more like a sockpuppet than a master. So the sockmaster may still be unknown.VR _talk 12:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Outing and Threats at Talk:Hogganvik runestone

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Someone take a look please?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

IP has now made another threat, blanked the Talk page, and blanked the warnings on his own Talk page. Meters (talk) 05:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Outing revdel'd and RFO'd. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Android version history and User:User931

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

He refused at first to contribute to a discussion on his repeated reverts and tagging of a section in this article with the WP:CRYSTAL policy but without explaining it. Even after i bought it up he continues to do it and remove large sections, basically edit warring with me. I started placing edit warring tags on his talk page, which he ignored and sought the advice of my mentor User:Worm That Turned. User931 finally started conversing on the article talk page but this turned out to be just immature insults and when i bought this up he went back to edit warring and removal of questioned content. I started an RFC, which he will only contribute to while using personal attacks and arguing instead of proposing changes and continues to delete content and undo, my undos so we can discuss it on the talk page. I have warned on numerous occasions and am needing Administrator advice now as i believe i am at the end of my tether, he is immature and that i am generally seeing him exppress ownership of the article even with extra eyes trying to discuss changes before they are made on the talk page. Sorry about the rant there and thanks Jenova20 21:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Without comment to the content dispute, you shouldn't be using rollback in a content dispute. - SudoGhost 21:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely, i was told not to by my mentor as i saw the previous warring as vandalism since he wouldn't discuss it. This time i acted on the same thing and can see that i shouldn't have. He has since worked around it by readding the content and so i could not undo my use of the rollback. I apologise again. Thanks Jenova20 21:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

And i added a tag for this discussion here on User931's talk page but he removed it so i assume he will not contribute to this. Scratch that, he's removing all criticism on his talk page and all warnings he has received from others. [157]. Thanks Jenova20 21:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

He's now putting the page back how it was before he removed everything fromt he section under discussion. [158]

I hope you can see from this how active he is and how he is and how as soon as administrators are involved he cleans up his act. Thanks Jenova20 21:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed this from the archive as the issue is unresolved. Thanks Jenova20 22:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

When something gets archived, it means it's not going to be acted upon. You have an RFC in process. On the article, you have not followed all of WP:DR as of yet. While those are still in process, what do you anticipate us to do in the meantime? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I was going by the guide at the top of this page. "Threads will be archived automatically after 24 hours of inactivity. If you see a thread that should not be archived yet, please add a comment requesting more discussion, or if it is already archived, remove it from the archive and restore it to this page, preferably with a comment."

Thanks Jenova20 11:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

But it deserved to be archived. Indeed, you never even responded to my question above to even show why it should remain open (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how to respond to that. I requested a third opinion on this a while ago and was told this is the wrong situation and to open an RFC. I have opened an RFC and got no response at that time so took it to the Administrator noticeboard as the issue being addressed is the wording of the paragraph and not the actions of User931. So even though the RFC is doing good it doesn't address the issues i have had with User931. Thanks Jenova20 13:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

You have the option of a RFC/U. But to be honest if the only problems are in that article and they stopped after the RFC for the article it's not likely to be a good idea. If they haven't stopped, then I presume other participants in the RFC will have commented here if they felt the behaviour required administrative action. Nil Einne (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The problems are more the user than the article. We are having a productive conversation now on the page about the improvement of the article but User931 is a problem in this and other articles, as can be seen from his talk page messages that he removes.

He is gaining criticism for refusal to work with people and edit warring but just removing the messages and when i did finally get messages from him they were petty personal attacks. So i want to push this. I realise i'm far from perfect and my own record is far from clean as i have made my own mistakes but his conduct is unproductive and unacceptable. Thank you Jenova20 14:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:PERSONAL and Attack on Communities.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

SUMMARY:- I'm reporting a WP:PERSONAL attack on me, and "Attack on ethnic communities" by "User:Mayasutra" in the Talk:Iyengar page.

Reason:- First of all, a "DISCRETIONARY SANCTIONS" template could be seen on top of that article's talk page. According to a decision by wiki' admins - "The Wikipedia community has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor who is active on any page about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties, related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." The discussion leading to the imposition of these sanctions can be read here: [159].
Inspite of that, User:Mayasutra has been repeatedly using names(my username) in talk page discussions, and that too in a way that maligns the user(s), which is considered very offensive. Although i've used his name in discussions, i did so only while replying to his messages so that other users might not take it on themselves. But i've always maintained a civil tone unlike Having seen the general sanctions template, placed on top of that talk page, posting such comments should attract a considerably higher penalty than usual.. Let me list out User:Mayasutra's behaviour in the Talk:Iyengar page: I'm mentioning some of his comments that were aimed at me:

• He said - "People with half-baked or no knowledge on genetics, like Hari7478...". Diff of his edits:[160]
  
• Again, he insults me by saying - "You are absolutely ignorant in genetics. You can blabber whatever you like here." Diff of edits:[161]
  
• In another post, he said "This being a talk page, Hari's blabbering is ok". Diff:[162].
  
• He also said "...Hari7478 does not seem to have a background in the genetic sciences. It is useless to reason out any data with him." Diff of edit:[163].
  
• He's posting diff of the edits that i made 3 years ago, and is pointing out the mistakes, thereby maligning me. Although now, i'm a good and an experienced editor, at that time(3 yrs back) I was new to wiki' and made some obvious errors. Posting the diff' of those edits, and trying to convince the administrators reg' his stand is extremely cheap & mischievous. Diff of his edit:[164].
  
• Attack on communities - The user said "there are some enthusiastic vadagalais propagating falsities, like racists." Diff:[165]. He referred to the "Vadagalai community" in this case and is defaming the users belonging to that community.
  

Having seen the "general sanctions" template, placed on top of that talk page, User:Mayasutra posting such comments should attract a considerably higher penalty than usual. Considering the "DISCRETIONARY SANCTIONS" factor, i request the administrators to take appropriate action on User:Mayasutra. It is because of the "DISCRETIONARY SANCTIONS" factor that i brought this issue directly to WP:AN/I. Hari7478 (talk) 11:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The complainant has been spamming the above somewhat, as it has appeared on my talk page and someone else's in the last few minutes. See my response at here and my comment here. - Sitush (talk) 11:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You are supposed to notify Mayasutra, per the message at the top of this page. I have done it for you. - Sitush (talk) 12:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but i wanted to bring this to the notice of the admins and senior editors who are editing in the Iyengar page. Otherwise, i donot intend to keep posting this everywhere. I wanted to notify him, immediately after posting it here. However, thanks for doing it yourself. The user has been notified. Hari7478 (talk) 12:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

First a general warning; Talk:Iyengar will make your eyes bleed if you're not familiar with this topic. That being said; Hari7478, you're lucky it took so long to impose your topic ban, as I would have done it much earlier. While I'm a supporter of civility as a policy, I think I'd have developed temper issues if I was in Mayasutra's place. My advice would be to back away, quietly edit completely unrelated topics, read up on Wikipedia's various policies, and come back to this in several months. If you continue that here or elsewhere, I have no problem imposing sanctions. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Yikes. What topic ban? - Sitush (talk) 13:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Pardon me; I was conflating this with another unrelated situation. I'll go hit myself with a trout... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I have apologized to Hari7478 on Sitush's talk page. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sitush#User:Mayasutra.27s_behaviour_in_the_Iyengar:talk_ I am expecting User Hari7478 to sign the party agreement for Formal Mediation filed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iyengar#For_Dispute_Mediation Let him resolve issues brought up there. Thanks.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

I have also apologized on Hari7478's talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hari7478 Can someone please guide me what is a topic ban? Does it affect Formal Mediation in anyway? Also, if Hari7478 does not agree to Formal Mediation, what happens to the article ? Will the controversial content continue to be involved in an edit war? --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

@ admin(s):- While this discussion is going on, User:Mayasutra had yet again attacked me (just a few minutes ago) in another user's talk page, where he said - "I suppose Hari7478 will want to chicken out without agreeing to the Formal Mediation". Diff of Mayasutra's edits:[166]. Now, i never provoked him, and I wasn't even involved in that conversation. But this was Mayasurta's comments about me in another user's talk page, although i'm completely uninvolved in that conversation. Now, he totally flew off the hook. It is a little sad that he's still being let off. Hari7478 (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hari7478, my apology to you on your userpage came after the attack you complain of. To that extent, i have apologized on Sitush's user page also. So now it may be a good idea for you to sign the Formal Mediation filed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iyengar#For_Dispute_Mediation. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

Mayasutra apologised almost immediately that it was brought to their attention, as you must surely know. Yes, Mayasutra seems to be apologising left, right and centre at the moment but, as Blade intimates, this is a messy situation and it is not at all surprising that frustrations are appearing between the two of you. I suggest that you accept the apology with good grace and just drop it. Equally, Mayasutra, splattering your request/demand for Hari to sign up to the mediation proposal across multiple pages is not likely to be productive. Hari knows about it and it is up to them what they decide to do.

This entire report needs closing and people need to go have a cup of tea, IMO. - Sitush (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Well Sitush, none of us intend to be rude but some topics and events lead us to loose patience. Am sure Hari7478 too will come across as a polite person, if i were to meet him/her in person. And i can assure you so will i :)) Yeah, good to have a cup of tea or a nap. Best wishes.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Abusive language from User:Uboater

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The language in this edit is unacceptable. It is his response to my querying a photograph which had been added to his user page with the caption"© Bruce Adams/Daily Mail", although being claimed as "own work" in the file upload details. Despite his comments about me, he had been happy to ask me for help last month. PamD 13:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It's been our second interaction today: after I flagged as copyvio an addition which didn't even make sense (one sentence of the source having been omitted, so that an "Evans" was suddenly mentioned with no explanation) which his brother-in-law had added to Royal Armouries Museum, he added a tirade to the article. WP:AGF I removed it and copied it to the talk page, and replied there. There seems to be a WP:CIR issue here too: either that or vandalism. PamD 13:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed the personal attack and warned the user. Arcandam (talk) 13:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• I thought this name looked familiar [167], although that was about legal threats. What I see here is an unprovoked attack and unacceptable incivility from Uboater. I think a warning is sufficient, although I think a sterner warning is due, and I will leave an additional one myself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
• And I've blocked him for 24 hours. Calling a fellow-editor a cunt is about as archetypically disruptive as can be. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Actually Kim Dent-Brown has blocked them 24 hours, which I think is fine. The mild warning wasn't sufficient, I was going to be considerably more verbose and blunt in my warning, but Kim seems to have it well under control. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)x2 Good idea, thanks. I probably would've left a sterner warning myself if I was a native speaker (and I wasn't so darn lazy). I just read through a couple of Pam's recent contributions, they are all fine, so I can confirm Pam does not deserve to be treated like this. Arcandam (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)x3 So, we stumbled over one anothers' feet but were all heading in the same direction at least! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

@Arcandam. No one deserves to be treated this. Leaky Caldron 13:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. But some people deserve a treatment that I would consider to be much more insulting than four letter words; RBI. What I meant is that I tried to find extenuating circumstances and as far as I know there are none. Arcandam (talk) 14:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• The block was extended to indef by User:Jac16888 after his unblock request contained additional personal attacks, coupled now with legal threats. When his follow-up piled on personal threats, I've removed talk page access. This user has been blocked for making legal threats before. It seems proper dispute resolution is not currently in his repertoire. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, didn't we have a go-round with this idjit a couple months ago? Either he doesn't get it or he doesn't care, but one way or another, Wikipedia doesn't need his kind around. Ravenswing 16:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Userpage advertising

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

New user Donald C. Farber's userpage is a self-marketing Wiki article about himself. It doesn't seem appropriate on Wikipedia -- it's almost like he couldn't get an article on himself posted on Wiki, so he made his userpage into an article. (Also notable is the fact that his sole contributions on Wikipedia namespace have been self-promotions, which have been reverted or deleted.)

I'll let admins and those in the know decide this. Softlavender (talk) 14:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll deal. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent uploading of copyrighted images of User:Jmagsunod

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

All of this users uploaded files have now been deleted due to copyright infringement. A warning was issued here. --RA (talk) 22:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

---

User:Jmagsunod_13 has persistent uploaded copyrighted images taken either from the sources' original websites or those taken from Google search and claimed such files are his own work. Not sure what action should be taken. GrayFullbuster (talk) 14:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

A couple of them even had other people's copyright statements on them, so I've tagged those for speedy deletion. I'll see if I can find the originals for the others later (if they haven't been deleted by then) and tag them too - but there's little doubt these are all copyvios. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• The user uploaded this photo today, claims to have made it him/herself on 9 February. However, it was published here on by an amateur photographer/blogger on 29 March. I'm unsure of the copyright status of this image but I think it's very clear that User:Jmagsunod_13 has no right to be claiming ownership and trying to release as free-use. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 16:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that pretty much seals it - two images with different embedded copyrights, and one identified to another source. I've gone ahead and deleted the uploads that were photos, but I've left the ones that are logos as it might be possible to retag those correctly for fair use. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this one - it appears to have been copied from this website, which in turn took it from the organisation's former (now defunct) website. The new under-construction Manila Philharmonic site has a revamped logo. In other words, this lazy plagiariser hasn't even managed to upload the correct copyrighted logo! ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 16:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:POINT disruption at Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Resolved

 – User:Robertmossing has been blocked for 24 hours for violating the 3RR rule. Hasteur (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Robertmossing has been insistent on inserting a quote by Jacob G. Hornberger from his website at [168]. He has been reverted by a number of editors including myself, User:Nick-D and User:LauraHale. I removed the quote as it is from a WP:SPS by an individual of no obvious expertise. After referring to self-published sources in my comment in talk, he has now decided that an academic thesis is an WP:SPS see [169] and is edit warring to remove material from the article to, as he puts it, Let us strengthen the bias. He is also claiming a quote from a speech by Winston Churchill is also an WP:SPS [170]. It seems clear that the agenda is to make a WP:POINT, its a relatively new account and from the contribution history an WP:SPA and his talk page already has warnings regarding edit warring. He is singularly unpleasant [171] and is being needlessly combative [172] and accusing previous editors of "quotation fraud" [173]. I am not going to edit the article anymore but thought it best to bring it here for further review by an uninvolved admin as it appears to be disruptive editing. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear you intend not to edit the article anymore. Robertmossing's combative manner must be ended, yes, and I will stick it out at the article just I have before he arrived. It is preposterous to think Churchill does not hold a relevant opinion regarding the proposed invasion of Japan and the dropping of two atomic bombs. Binksternet (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I was in two minds whether to instigate a 3RR report as he has reverted 6 times in the last 24 hrs. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed the Hasegawa-SOURCE from: Those who argue in favor of the decision to drop the atom bombs believe that massive casualties on both sides would have occurred in Operation Downfall, the planned invasion of Japan. Hasegawa calls it a 'myth'. page 299, line 3 and can as such not be used as a source to confirm the view. Yes, I do accuse Binksternet and Wee Curry Monster for "quotation fraud". When one does look up the sources - in the talk:Debate... - I've mentioned a few, the source does not support the view quoted.

Tell me: is it a rare habit of Wiki to look up the sources?

I feel bullied by Binksternet and Wee Curry Monster, who just vandalize my editing without any references whatsoever. I have Hasegawa right here in my lap...and that is why I can say he does not support the things, he is quoted for. --Robertmossing (talk) 17:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Claiming Binksternet makes a POV: Give me a freakin break... of course there would have been millions of dead Japanese if the Home Islands were invaded...and reintroducing a self-published source. And please notice I do not contradict him, but just do not want to give him 'a freakin break' if he has no source, but just want to bully his POV through!--Robertmossing (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Content dispute!--Deathlaser (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Nope and the only person doing any bullying is Mr Mossing, who despite a polite request is restoring his less than friendly message on my talk page. Please leave me alone, the article is off my watchlist. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

They keep vandalizing. Latest Oda Mari. They do not care what Hasegawa said or did not say. Looking up the sources are not their speciality. Just bully.--Robertmossing (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTVAND. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

No, it's the new definition of "vandalism": Any edit that another editor disagrees with. --MuZemike 19:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Whatever it is, I'm against it! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

details

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can an admin. please consider deleting this revision [174] in which an unregistered user has disclosed personal details? Leaky Caldron 19:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hasteur deleted request for speedy deletion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The article does not quality for speedy deletion. Ordinary requests for deletion can be made at through the process decscribed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. --RA (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

---

While I am not fully familiar with the rules for Speedy Deletion, a person who is not important outside of their work is supposed to qualify under A7. I listed the article for Charles Carreon as Speedy Delete request, as his work may be important, but he himself doesn't matter, and he has not won any significant awards.

I did not relist it for three reasons

1. I did not want an edit war.
2. The page is seemingly a target for vandalism, and I'd rather just leave it be for now until it's wrangled.
3. I was not sure that he wasn't allowed to undo said edit.

If I am mistaken about it, then I apologize, but I do not feel it is correct to undo the edit, and that it's more correct to just click the dispute button that is provided. Yes, I only learned about the guy from The Oatmeal, but I am requesting deletion due to him not being anyone who matters.

The edit can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Carreon&oldid=497123897 70.15.136.149 (talk) 21:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, speedy deletion is very stringent and A7 only applies if the page doesn't have a "claim of significance". If you feel that the page should be deleted, you can take it to WP:AFD. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

To be more specific, the claim of significance must be credible (i.e. not blatantly false information) and any editor who is not the author can remove a speedy deletion tag. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• The point about speedy deletion is that it is only for use if the deletion unambiguously matches one of the specific CSD criteria and is uncontested. Anyone, other than the article's creator, is allowed to contest a speedy deletion request by simply removing it, and it must not be put back. I suggest you take it to WP:AfD if you still believe it should be deleted. (I'd started so I finished :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ah... I always wanted another reason to come to drama central. CSD:A7 is only for no claims of notability. The notability asserted by the legal proceedings is sufficently sourced and notable. I note that the IP address did not attempt to contact me on my talk page or discuss this on the article talk page. Finally I am also an Oatmeal fan and discovered the article by looking the guy up. I've been part of the anti-OatmealBomb squad before and I recognize the hallmarks of yet annother. As such I requested temporary semi-protection so that the BLP isn't besmirched. Hasteur (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not even for no claims of notability, it's for no claims of importance, which is a lower bar than notability. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Meh, just delete it for G2 and no one will be the wiser... ;-) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hehe :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attacks, edit-warring, copyright issues

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Yryriza (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

This editor is out of control. They personally attack editors in edit summaries and on Talk pages. They edit-war. They reinstate copyright violations. Also, if you look at their Talk page, make sure you look at the history because they remove all the warnings.

Examples of personal attacks:

• "This is NOT vandalism If you god damned idiots watched the damn short you would know it is a direct quote. God damned morons. Do a search of it genius." [175]
• "It's hanged, not hung, you baboons." [176]
• "hanged not hung, morons" [177]
• "My attitude is acceptable because I am talking to someone with a major attitude problem of subhuman intelligence. I watched the damn short last night, but of course little 12-year-old needs a power trip. Try getting a job or a life. Maybe you won't look quite as pathetic and obnoxious as you do now." my Talk page

As for edit-warring, see Uncivil War Birds.

As for copyright problems, see here, which was after I had removed it with an explanation here.

The most recent removal of warnings from their Talk page is here. I understand it's permissible to remove the warnings, but it is part of a pattern of arrogant behavior.

A block is warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

This issue has ended. I clearly proved Bbb23 wrong. Now he cannot let go of being wrong, so he comes here to cause problems and now wants to have me banned. Bbb23 should not be allowed to edit his own memories let alone any Wikipedia articles about which he knows nothing, then claiming while being ignorant of the facts, accusing others of vandalism. He is also making the sad argument to ban me because I removed the warnings from my page. If Bbb23 had his way, he would probably tear up the US Constitution because it gives people the right to speak to him any way they want. He also consistently writes they about me. I am not multiple people. Maybe if he learned English properly, no one would correct him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yryriza (talk • contribs) 01:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, the first reversion of the material added to Uncivil War Birds by Yryriza was made by another user and labeled as vandalism. Given the material that was suddenly added to the article ("Moe says 'Brother, you all ejaculated a mouthful.'") with an edit summary ("adding information") and without a source (although film plots don't usually have sources), it's easy to understand why the other editor did that. Then, when Yryriza reverted with the lovely edit summary quoted above ("This is NOT vandalism ..."), it's kind of easy to understand why I, too, thought it was vandalism and reverted it. However, this is not the only "issue", and I see no evidence that the editor's pattern of disruptive, uncivil behavior will cease.--Bbb23 (talk)

He didn't report you because you remove warnings from your talk page. He reported you because you seem to have a huge problem wrapping your head around the requirements of WP:CIVIL. The purpose of warnings on a talk page is not to harass the recipient, but to let him know that he is breaking the rules of Wikipedia ... is there some reason you feel you're allowed to do so at will? As such, the block Moonriddengirl placed on you is quite legit and appropriate. Ravenswing 02:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• I've blocked for 24 hours for persistent personal attacks. The contributor was warned about this after refactoring somebody else's comments on June 3rd and editing his user page. His reaction to that warning is instructive, as is his subsequent behavior. If he does not follow WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL after the block expires, additional steps may be necessary. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Since all four of his edits after the block were personal attacks, I went and removed his talk page access. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'm tempted to just go ahead and save us all the trouble and indef as this is clearly somebody who's WP:NOTHERE, but I suppose more WP:ROPE won't hurt. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem with WP:ROPE is that we end up at the same place, but have to go through unnecessary unpleasantness to get there. Why not indef now and wait for the user to see the light? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to someone being less generous than I was. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Me, either, especially not since his behavior subsequent to the block shows no sign that he intends to comply with policies. I will leave it somebody else to decide if they warrant an indefinite block. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

A couple of suspicious looking accounts appeared on Yryriza's talk page. One I blocked per user name policy and the other for harassment/possible sockpuppetry. I had filed an SPI over the first account and then added in the second account. I protected Yryriza's talk page with an expiration time the same as the block is to expire to put a stop to more possible socks showing up. Should the SPI come back positive, I think The Bushranger's suggestion of an indefinite block should be applied. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Be bold and nip this trouble maker in the bud. Blackmane (talk) 07:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

[Laughing helplessly at Yryiza's outrageous edit summaries. Wipes eyes. ] Sorry, sorry… He's too funny to be blocked. You baboons! Bishonen | talk 12:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC).

At least we didn't get called Orang-Utangs. OOK! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• After the deafening quacking from the socks followed by his other commentary, I believe there's no need to monkey around (ahem) further. Indef'd. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I am reminded of the scene in The Naked Gun 2½: The Smell of Fear, after hearing that all the animals in the city zoo were set free by Lt. Frank Drebin's incompetence, the police commissioner told Drebin that the city was being overrun by baboons; Drebin responded: "Isn't that the fault of the voters?" --MuZemike 18:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible need to redact edits by 199.96.82.92?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Some background to this one: Purrum and myself have been targeted by a long-term abusive editor for some years now, see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Escapeeyes for the tedious details. She has a long history of using anonymous IPs, mostly via open proxies.

A while back Purrum found a newspaper article that appeared to identify the culprit (one of the commenters in that article had the exact same style and obsessions as our regular stalker). He linked this on my Talk page.

I read the comment and agreed with his suspicions - from further investigation I'm sure this is the same person. She's not exactly subtle. However, after a while I realised this probably constituted outing, so I requested that the relevant edits (linking to the article) be redacted. This was done, with the article link removed.

Today, an IP who I believe to be Escapeeyes popped up and re-edited Purrum's comment on my Talk page (and material elsewhere). Instead of just reinstating the link, she added the full name of the person in question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GenericBob&diff=497162703&oldid=497157056

I believe this is almost certainly self-outing. If the person named chooses to identify herself with a long-term vandal and stalker, that's her choice. But since it's coming from an "anonymous" IP, maybe it should be redacted against the slim possibility that somebody else has chosen to out her? --GenericBob (talk) 03:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The edits have been revdelled, along with some other disruptive edits by what are probably IPs of Escapeeyes. Even if it is self-outing, it's also disruptive, stalkish, and editing in violation of what is now sure to be a de facto ban. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response! Additional request: I've already requested semi- for my own Talk and Talk:Ronald Ryan, but could somebody with redact powers please keep an eye on Purrum's user/talk pages? From EE's past history, she may try this on again from another IP, and I don't know how often Purrum checks his pages. --GenericBob (talk) 03:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

In addition to what User:Someguy1221 said, if you believe that content is subject to WP:Oversight, be sure to use the procedures at WP:RFO. Posting links to Oversight-able content here only draws eyes. --Tgeairn (talk) 03:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake. Will do, cheers! --GenericBob (talk) 03:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can we include an RfC within an AfD?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Descent from antiquity. This doesn't seem a good idea or precedent. Dougweller (talk) 08:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• No, and it's pointless as well - an AfD is effectively an RfC for deletion. I've removed it. Black Kite (talk) 08:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP editor removes maintenance templates, adds spam links, other disruptive editing

99.1.180.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) active since May 18, this user has engaged in various forms of disruptive editing such as removing valid maintenance templates also here and here; and adding unwanted links to articles. This user has not used a talk page to discuss his edits except to blank his own and make threats of further disruption as well as requests to be permanently blocked - see previous diff and edit summary in this diff. The user has been warned ample times but continues to make disruptive edits. User is also making somewhat constructive edits to various pages, so mass reverting is not indicated. Last report to WP:AIV was declined so I am taking it here. Elizium23 (talk) 11:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done IP has already been blocked 3 times this month, and one of the blocks was for 3 days. A quick review of their contributions shows mostly obvious vandalism with the occasional semi-constructive minor edits. Blocked for 2 weeks. If it continues after the block, feel free to let me know and the next block will be longer. -Scottywong| converse _ 13:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

User:MastaRhymes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

MastaRhymes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked earlier for WP:COMPETENCE. ANI Link. Given that the user had added fairuse images with blatantly wrong rationales (File:Edgreenberg.jpg, File:Lawandorder.jpg, File:Frankphilly.jpg) in addition to adding New Zealand and British Crown Copyright notices to rap album cover images ([178], [179], [180]) and reverting removal of deleted images back to articles ([181], [182]) it seems that we certainly either have a WP:COMPETENCE issue or just an editor who doesn't care about our policies. Thank you --CutOffTies (talk) 13:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Much of his uploads are fine but very sparse, leading me to think he is being sloppy or lazy in his uploading, rather than it being a CIR issue, per se. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

If adding New Zealand and British Crown copyright notices to several hip-hop album cover images isn't a CIR issue, I don't know what is (unless the user thinks it was helping sneaking a copyvio in). Some of the deleted images have blatantly wrong Fair use rationales, such as audio recording for an article about a character in a tv show (along with the British Crown Copyright) [183]. A variety of these mistakes have been done for several images and along with the previous block and other bad edits (removing AFD tags, reverting commonsdelinker) I believe some action needs to considered here. Thanks. --CutOffTies (talk) 18:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Not knowing any better would be a CIR issue. Being sloppy and careless is a disruption or not caring about policy issue. Both are problems, just not necessarily the same thing. I'm saying it might be either, both of which are a problem. I agree there is a problem that needs addressing, my comments should not have been taken otherwise. The solution below by Drmies might be a reasonable solution and opportunity for them to continue, and serve as a last warning as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• The editor can be told, by consensus here, to not upload any more fair use images, for instance. A quick perusal of their talk page and their contributions reveals that this editor's net benefit to the project seems to be marginal. Drmies (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, the current indef I just laid down until the editor is prepared to stop violating copyright, and perhaps explain some potential competence (I see he was blocked for that in April) might just help. It's unfortunate to have to get them to realize we're serious about copyright this way (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you --CutOffTies (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Peterlewis

Not sure this rises to the status of an incident, but I've run into this editor a couple of times recently. Here he introduced snide unreferenced POV into a BLP article and when challenged he twice restored the controversial passage, without any consensus or source. The edit summary here is also interesting. I am done reverting these additions; could some other admins please chime in? --John (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• This sounds like a textbook case for WP:BLPN. It isn't edit warring (yet), but it does look pretty POV. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I already raised it there, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Steve Jones (biologist), sorry I forgot to mention. This posting is about editor conduct and (possibly) admin enforcement. I am involved as I have previously edited the article; I am appealing for other admins to help enforce our policies.--John (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
• And while I was reporting this problem he reverted again. I note this editor has previously been blocked for edit-warring. Wasn't he previously sanctioned or restricted from this area of Wikipedia? Pardon me if I am wrong. In any case I think we do need some other admin eyes on this article and this editor, urgently please. --John (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • If I read correctly that user is prohibited from reverting without discussion in the climate change topic area, logged here. shellac (talk) 19:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I've just given him a final warning, if he adds it back, someone needs to just block him. I'm about to hit the road, so someone else may need to block him if required. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both. I appreciate the support. Let's leave this open in case some further enforcement is necessary and Dennis is busy. --John (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Dennis is always busy :-) In the end, what some might call "wishy washy", I prefer to call fairness in giving all editors every opportunity to comply with community standards of conduct, and hopefully avoid being blocked. Of course, if he goes back, after being warned by myself and considering prior sanctions, I will block him on the spot, and would encourage any other admin do the same if they see it first. Really, I could have blocked him here without any notice, so I hope he appreciates this undeserved kindness. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Userpage Kuffs

Looking at User:Kuffs's userpage they have written an article on themselves which although referenced looks like promotion. However, looking through Kuffs history it looks like he is a good contributor to the encyclopaedia. I did leave a message a week ago saying I want to discuss his userpage and he has not responded. Simply south...... always punctual, no matter how late for just 6 years 20:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Next time, use the tag for WP:CSD#G11 - I have deleted it as if you had done so (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Psst ... he also has not edited since May 5 (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Simply south...... always punctual, no matter how late for just 6 years

Disruptive editing by Guy Macon

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

user: Guy Macon is removing well-sourced information from the Joe Paterno page, as seen here and here and here (there are more, but you get the picture.) He claims on the talk page that this is a BLP (Paterno is dead, but the others mentioned are alive) so that 3rr doesn't apply. Technically true, but only if there is poorly sourced, contentious material -- not for material that is well sourced to reputable articles.

I kinda/sorta fixed the problem by removing mention of the other parties, as seen here, but I don't think that should be necessary just to please this editor.

Also, he posted on my talk page here a semi-warning about 'not adding unreferenced material to BLP'. I deleted, and, in my edit summary, stated "Removing bullshit comment from page." I did that because...it's a bullshit comment, and it was on my page. He then came back and added another comment here stating that I must refrain from personal attacks (and, I removed that BS comment as well, because I don't consider what I wrote to be a personal attack, and I feel he's just engaging in disruptive editing to try to preserve Paterno's legacy. There is a long history of a slightly different line of argument by someone trying to get this same content removed. Not sure if these parties are related, but just thought I should point that out. JoelWhy? talk 20:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.