Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User: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)

MMA, part 1287

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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Portillo (talk • contribs) 07:20, 7 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)

Slow-motion Wheel War

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

---

There appears to be a slow-motion wheel-war going on at Special:UserRights/Orangemarlin. The issue is Nikkimaria believes that indefinitely blocked users shouldn't lose access User access levels. While short of a wheel-war, that problem is occuring at Special:UserRights/Intoronto1125 as well. Discussion at User_talk:Nikkimaria#URM didn't seem to get anywhere. Toddst1 (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't really think her actions were disruptive enough to warrant action, I would just say if you are going to remove those groups at least notify the user. Not inconceivable that they'll return to the project one day. Other than that, it really doesn't matter. - filelakeshoe 17:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec) From my read, Nikkimaria is suggesting that a change at WP:UAL incorrectly justifies the removal of rights from blocked accounts. The change she references is this one. She would be entirely correct, I think, if the rights had been removed "As per UAL" or some such. But they weren't - the policy was not cited, and indeed Orangemarlin's rights were removed 8 days after the initial indef block, and a full 5 months and change before the diff cited by Nikkimaria. The reality is that the rights removals are a typical and routine process in the case of indefblocked editors. Whether or not that's consistent with policy and consensus is unclear, and bears discussion.

The initial removal was justifiable, and Nikkimaria's restoration might be justifiable as well. What's not justifiable is the subsequent restorations and removals - or, as the kids say, the wheel war. Once Nikkimaria was questioned, all reverting of rights should've stopped, and I'm disturbed that it did not. But this is salvageable - if we stop dicking about with the userrights and discuss the situation. Further changes to either editor's userrights - or to other users under the same justifications - would be a classic wheel war, and then it's Drama time. Think how stupid a topic this is to get sanctioned over, guys, and let's just sit down and talk about it. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

"Once Nikkimaria was questioned, all reverting of rights should've stopped, and I'm disturbed that it did not" - I've made no changes to anybody's user rights since I first saw Toddst1's question on my talk page, and I'm not aware of anyone else changing the rights of the users in question; could you clarify? I certainly thinks this ought to be discussed...but this isn't the best place for the discussion needed, which would be to clarify our policy (which currently does not support the actions of the admin who removed the rights, though he asserts that it does). Perhaps someone ought to open an RfC on the issue? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done Wikipedia_talk:User_access_levels#Rights_of_indef_blocked_users Nobody Ent 01:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, Nikkimaria - I misread some timestamps, apparently. As long as discussion is ongoing, I don't think there's anything to do here. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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. 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. 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.[2][3][4][5] 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 [6]. I thank Cuchullain for trying to rectify the problem with Baum citation now that the discussion is going on [7]. 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 [8] 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 [9]. 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. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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" [10] - !!!), 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 [11]. 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)

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)

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)

History of Champagne RM closed by an involved admin

Amatulic has an closed an RM at Talk:History_of_Champagne [12]. 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.[13]

• "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”.[14]
• An admin is considered WP:INVOLVED if he has, “current or past conflicts with an editor". I have reported this issue to ANI previously.[15] Amatulic has also made various accusations against me.[16]

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[17][18][19][20] 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.[21] 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: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: [22] (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)

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 [23] from TASMAC, [24] from Tamil Nadu Rice Research Institute and more. There is also an issue of edit warring, e.g. [25] 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. 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. 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. 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. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Raheem Kassam

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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. 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)

Edit warring by Leo Corbett

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)

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)

Android version history and User:User931

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. [26]. 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. [27]

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)

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)

Boomerang2 (returning sock of BoomerangWiki)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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. 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)

AIV Backlog

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

Old Church Slavonic

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

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)

WP:BITE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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. 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. 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 [43]. 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 [44]. 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. 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: [45]. 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 [46] 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 [47] 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)

Stumink, 88.104.219.74; spam of the rejected source necrometrics

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[48]. --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)

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)

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)

Dale Chock at Russian phonology

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[49][50][51][52]. 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[53].

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)

Blocking IPv6s

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)

Disruptive IP editor refusing to discuss edits

• 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.[54] 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.[55] 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.[56] 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,[57] one of which was fixing the infobox title and not related at all to his edits.[58] 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.[59] I corrected the inappropriate changes,[60] but tody realised thaey've been restored to the article.[61] 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)

User:Curritocurrito - potential suicide

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)

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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)

Ban for editor who refuses to sign any Talk page posts

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)

(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)
• 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)

• 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)

Unsourced material

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)