Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at 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

India v. South Asia

The following editors have, IMO, gamed the system to have their way when the broader Wikipedia community opposed a move request, something which all of them had supported.

• Mar4d (talk · contribs · block log)
• Athenean (talk · contribs · block log)
• Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs · block log)
• Gun Powder Ma (talk · contribs · block log)
• Huon (talk · contribs · block log)

Neutral and uninvolved administrators are requested to evaluate the situation, rectify it (by deleting List of South Asian and discoveries and restoring List of Indian inventions and discoveries to a state where content was not removed due to "duplication") and take appropriate action against the editors per WP:GAME and WP:FAITACCOMPLI.

Timeline

• Around March 19th, Fowler&fowler made a move request to move the article titled List of Indian inventions and discoveries to List of South Asian inventions and discoveries (which was a redlink till very recently).

• By March 27, the move request had more or less failed but it was still open when Fowler&fowler encouraged User:Mar4d to go ahead and create List of South Asian inventions and discoveries. Mar4d did so soon afterward.

• On the basis of this newly created article/list, Gun Powder Ma started removing content from the original List of Indian inventions and discoveries calling it "double entries" because the same or similar content now existed in the newly created List of South Asian inventions and discoveries.

• Because the move request was still open and newer people were still arriving at the discussion to oppose the move ("WP:FAITACCOMPLI", 2nd oppose, "no consensus"), I pointed out that this was a case of gaming the system and WP:FAITACCOMPLI (also pointed out by another editor) and reverted the removals. My revert was then undone by User:Athenean.

Zuggernaut (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

For my part, I was fooled by the proposed move template, which states: "The discussion may be closed after 7 days of being opened, if consensus has been reached." Seven days had elapsed, and consensus seemed to have been reached on a proposal almost everyone agreed on before the first of the "new" oppose !votes Zuggernaut links to arrived. RegentsPark pointed out that Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions actually has a little more to say, which I acknowledged here. I still don't think that implementing a solution which at that time almost anybody but Zuggernaut agreed on counts as gaming the system. Huon (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. I too was under the impression that a valid consensus had been reached on the talkpage (Not counting a couple of !votes, it was 8-2 or something like that at the time). Moreover, Zuggernaut's revert undid several valid, unrelated intervening edits, which I found inappropriate. Combined with the absence of any talkpage posting by this editor, but instead canvassing [1] [2], and spurious accusations of "gaming the system", I deemed his revert disruptive and undid it. In general, it is my impression Zuggernaut has been disruptive in this discussion, as he has canvassed [3] in non-neutral fashion (note the wording), launched into personal attacks against others [4] [5], and largely been absent from the discussion only to return a week later to claim "consensus" (and then more canvassing). Athenean (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose and support positions were running neck and neck right from the start and at almost no stage of the move proposal was there any consensus. So even before the new votes arrived it was clear that the move was doomed. As for Athenean and you not understanding the text in the move template ("The discussion may be closed after 7 days...) and pursuing another 'solution' with an identical title could have be viewed as a problem of competence if [you were newbies but given that both of you have thousands of edits on Wikipedia over the years, it is a clear case of gaming the system. You should be topic banned from editing articles on Indian history. I see that revert/edit warring has been a pattern with Athenean as is reflected by his block logs. More recently this person received an interaction ban as a part of Wikipedia:ARBMAC enforcement. A topic ban on Athenean will help us all keep the focus on improving articles in the limited time we have. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, if anyone needs to be topic banned for the sake of progress, it is you, for canvassing, assumptions of bad faith, major incivility and general disruption on this topic (and now mudslinging by bringing up something completely unrelated to this topic). Talk about gaming the system. Athenean (talk) 03:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't be under the impression that you will get away by obfuscating the situation. Let's wait until what other admins have to say and if either of us are not satisfied with the outcome of ANI, we can start take it through WP:DRR where Fowler is headed anyway and you can come along as well. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) Zuggernaut, was not a part of the regular discussion on the Talk:List of Indian inventions and discoveries page. He has an old gripe with me from the Talk:India page and was there in the "inventions and discoveries" discussion for only one purpose, and that was to oppose me. Unfortunately for him, he managed to confess said purpose in one of the rare posts he made on that page. Said he, crossing in the process the line between reality and fantasy several times:

"It has nothing to do with your opposition to the project proposal and more to do with your patronizing and arrogant attitude which you have repeatedly displayed on Talk:India. In addition, I will scrutinize each and every proposal coming from you on my watchlist for your strong and demonstrated anti-India, pro-British bias. Your edits throughout Wikipedia demonstrate this bias and have included separating out Indians and British by ethnicity when the situation is ugly so you can put the blame on those of Indian ethnicity ..."

This means, of course, that if I support/oppose something, Zuggernaut will naturally oppose/support it, on the logic that I am demonstrating my anti-India and pro-British bias. What "India vs. South Asia" has to do with it, beats me. If anything, "South Asia" is more American and international usage, Britain (still fondly remembering its Indian empire in the haze of an after dinner pipe and port) would likely go for "Indian." As for the real discussion that began on March 1, there were some regular discussants; these were: Gunpowder Ma, Athenean, Huon, SSeagal, Mdw0, Wikireader41, SpacemanSpiff, Mar4d. In this discussion, Zuggernaut made two appearances, both on March 1 (his first ones); once in a humorous vein and the other to (predictably) protest my tagging the article. He then disappeared for three weeks, while the regular discussants labored through all the permutations and combinations of words in the various proposed names. They considered stopping the "List of Indian inventions ..." at 1947, they considered Gunpowder Ma's proposal to create a new "List of inventions and discoveries in the Indus Valley Civilization," ... Predictably, Zuggernaut was absent from all those discussions. However, when I finally proposed a page move, Zuggernaut was the first one to register an "oppose," confessing, in the process, the real reason (quoted above) for his appearance.

He then canvassed. At first, in this somewhat provocatively worded post on the "Noticeboard of India related topics" in the hopes that putatively "Indian" editors there would naturally oppose a page move in which their beloved "India" was being deleted. When the editors there didn't bite, he appeared in this discussion, accompanied by music from the Twilight Zone, on the Talk:India page. His fellow conspiracy theorist there has meanwhile added an oppose vote as well, having been no part of the "India vs. South Asia" discussion.

Now for the page move and the votes. First, the page has not been moved. My proposal was not implemented. What has been implemented is Gunpowder Ma's proposal. That proposal had 8 support votes—not just the six who supported my proposal, but also Shovon76 (who merely commented on my proposal) and AshwiniKalantri (who opposed my proposal). In other words, we reasoned that the vote count among the regular discussants one week later for Gunpowder Ma's proposal, which did not involve any explicit page move, was 8 to 2 not including Zuggernaut's drive-by vote.

Sadly, for Wikpedia there is now a type of editor, of which Zuggernaut is a good example, who spends his energies not in adding content (Zuggernaut has added precious little (read zero) to the "List of Indian invention and discoveries" page), or for that matter to the India page, but in holding forth every now and then on the deep ideological biases involved in the work of those who actually do add content, and in leaving no stone unturned in their path to help them trip. As the New York Times reported last year, a large proportion of Wikipedia editors left in 2010. I'm afraid that trend is only going to continue if Wikipedia doesn't stop a handful of disruptive editors from heeding the clarion call of their conspiracy theories. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Per Fowler&fowler. Zuggernaut was mostly absent from and participated little in the discussion, realized too late that a consensus had crystallized and is now trying to undo community consensus via the noticeboard. I don't see any bad faith on the part of the users listed above, all has been only done after lengthy discussions taking over two weeks. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Sigh. Another tedious encounter with our modern-day Indian wiki-nationalists. Zuggernaut has arguably merited a page-ban for stalking Fowler - which is, self-admittedly, his entire reason for being there - and CarTick apparently lacks the ability to follow a coherent argument. Someone really needs to sort this out and deal with the issues of consensus-stacking, canvassing, harassment and disruption. Moreschi (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• This is not Zuggernaut's first attempt at canvassing and will not be his last (there are at least two ANIs where this has been discussed), he has consistently used provocative language and posts to canvass his positions on WT:INB. The only reason he canvassed me (per Athenean's statement above) this time is because I had a mild disagreement with Fowler on this particular issue. I'm not entirely convinced that a name change is in order at the present time, although I can appreciate the arguments in favor. It's not a page ban that's needed but a topic ban that's required here. See the history on Talk:India where his proposal was rejected in September, then he comes back a few months later adding the same POV stuff in claiming that there was consensus in September, then in the face of complete opposition starts an RFC and keeps arguing the same points again and again. —SpacemanSpiff 18:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• I haven't commented on the move discussion (and would oppose it actually), but this Zuggernaut Vs Fowler thing is getting a little bit out of hand. Though Fowler doesn't help things with his sharp remarks and pithy edit summaries, Zuggernaut's behaviour is getting tiresome - he has a pretty strong POV on this issue. He has even suggested that projects to distribute wikipedia articles offline in india, go through the contribution history of articles to check for "known editors who have a known POV issue". Read the whole thing - he is actually suggesting a "pre approved editor list" for india related wikipedia articles that are selected for distribution. It gives me the creeps. Apparently, if you are non-Indian and you dont agree with him, you dont count; and if you are an Indian and you dont agree with him you are a "Brown Sahib". --Sodabottle (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
• Perhaps it is time for a topic ban on zuggernaut. I have opposed the move proposal but it is impossible to have a reasonable discussion on the merits of a proposal or on alternative titles when persistent POV pushers with an agenda are around. The persistent resurrection of topics that don't get consensus (see the Talk:India history pointed out by SpacemanSpiff above), the references to brown sabibs noted by Sodabottle (not, I am sorry to say, for the first time[6]), the long list of acronyms in the complaint above, these are all examples of an editor with a single minded agenda to insert his own POV into wikipedia. I suggest a topic ban on all articles related to Indian history. --rgpk (comment) 23:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

let us not forget the English nationalist POV pushed by Fowler. His edits across wikipedia promoting British East India Company, attempts to forecefully define Indian history to have started from English intervention and his recent attempts to separate Indian history from South asian history thus resorting to history revisionism requires a topic ban for Fowler as well. his relentless English nationalistic POV brings out the worst among other contributing editors. --CarTick (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I have not seen anything by Fowler&fowler during the move discussion that I recognized as pro-English POV pushing. Could you please provide relevant diffs if you argue for a topic ban? Huon (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

because he didnt do that. what he did in that move discussion was history revisionism. i am sure you didnt notice that! will provide evidences when topic ban is seriously considered. dont want to waste my time for nothing. --CarTick (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you expand on your view that Fowler&fowler has an "English POV"? Because I don't know what this means in this context and I haven't seen any of it yet. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• Zuggernaut does have a very strong POV on issues regarding India and the British. If you look at Talk:British Empire, about two thirds of archive 12 and most of archive 13 are filled with threads started by him or exacerbated by him trying to add information about famines in India and how they were completely the fault of the British. Back then he was also canvassing and forum shopping to try and get his way (at one point contacting the Ireland noticeboards to try and get them to comment on whether information about famines should be in the article). His POV is very clear when he makes comments such as "I'm sure, free and democratic nations such as India would have industrialized or even surpassed Europe in the industrialization" as a reason for including economic information about India in the British Empire article (seen in this thread). Notably when discussing this article he had another editor pegged as a British POV warrior, similar to fowler now. Zuggernaut has twice before used AN/I to try and censure other editors (search for "Zuggernaut" here and here, both of which were remarkable flops. The current disruption has been caused because he found this inventions article and objected to the move to South Asia, which is fair enough. However, he provided no solutions to the issue at hand, and it trying to maintain that the article List of Indian inventions and discoveries should include inventions from all over the Indian subcontinent/South Asia/India before 1947, and for all inventions from the Republic of India as well, going as far as to ask for sources calling ancient inventions Pakistani. I dislike the idea of a topic ban, as the user does make good contributions to some India articles; however there does seem to be some sort of need for it as the same behavioural patterns have continued until now. Perhaps just one relating to Indian/British history, under the discretion of an administrator or something similar. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
• This remarkable bit of logic just appeared, "reliable sources consider IVC a part of India and per WP:Commonname, India equates to the Republic of India." I leave it up to others to make sense of this. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
• If others want to take the time to discuss this, I support a topic ban of Zuggernaut as there is plenty of reason to believe the nationalistic POV pushing will never end voluntarily. One clear example was a suggestion here (permalink) that text be added to Famine in India to say that due to his racist views, Winston Churchill had deliberately ignored pleas for emergency food aid and had left the population to starve. Despite the fact that the "refusal" was in 1943 at the height of World War II, Zuggernaut did not want to consider the possibility that the failure to ship food might have been influenced by the war—further than that, Z did not even want the war mentioned, saying "World War II is more or less European history and I think its a distraction in this discussion" (diff). Johnuniq (talk) 05:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

That might sound displeasing to Churchill's supporters. but he seems within bounds to suggest that sentnence as i hope he had reliable references to back up his claim. however, the decision to include or exclude the sentence should depend on several other factors, WP:Due being one important. it is a content dispute and he clearly has a pro-Indian POV. what about other editors with pro-English and anti-Indian POVs? --CarTick (talk) 05:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• So, is a topic ban being planned for Zuggernaut (talk · contribs) and, if so, how will it proceed? Will RegentsPark and Morsechi (and SpacemanSpiff?), being admins, take the initiative, or will they invite some other admin? Please let us participants here know what is being planned. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed restrictions

Zuggernaut (talk · contribs) is indefinitely:

1. topic banned from Indian history, broadly construed. He is not permitted to edit or discuss these topics anywhere on Wikipedia.

2. banned from interacting with or commenting about Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs), directly or indirectly, anywhere on Wikipedia. This means Zuggernaut is not to discuss, either explicitly nor by allusion, the actions, behaviours, editing, or existence of this user.

3. subject to an editing restriction (probation). Should he make any edits, comments, or actions which are judged by an uninvolved administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected pages or set of pages. The ban will take effect after it has been logged here and the administrator has posted a notice on his user talk page. If he is specifically not banned from using affected talk pages, this must be specified in the notice and log.

4. banned from List of Indian inventions and discoveries and List of South Asian inventions and discoveries due to inappropriate canvassing in relation to these 4 pages. Note to closing admin: this last measure is to be logged as an enforcement action of the probation listed at 3.

• Proposed. Interaction ban warranted after [7] & [8]. Enforcement of probation warranted after canvassing (note the wording for the lack of neutrality). The repeated POV-pushing warrants the topic ban and need for supervised editing - see other diffs in the above discussion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support I suspect we may need more evidence presented in order to gain a consensus on this broad proposal, but my observations over the last few months have convinced me that some form of topic ban would be the only way to provide a stable editing environment. My above comment with timestamp "05:04, 30 March 2011" has one example of unhelpful POV pushing. Johnuniq (talk) 10:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose that he has pro-Indian POV (which i dont deny) can not be a reason for such broader bans. everyone comes with a bias. that he has no blocks logged indicates he has worked within the boundaries of wikipedia policies and guidelines. looks like an effort to get rid of a serious opposition to pro-English and anti-Indian POV pushers. --CarTick (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Are you suggesting that Ncmvocalist is not acting in good faith? Syrthiss (talk) 12:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
    • nope, i am not. please dont put words in my mouth. i just disagree with him. most of the ban proposers had fought with Zuggernaut in pro-English and anti-Indian camps in various talk pages and i dont expect them to be objective. so, i would say Ncmvocalist is one of the uninvolved here. we should consider where the opposition comes from. i dont want to accuse everyone of holding a grudge against Z. some are sincerely worried about the way Fowler vs Zuggernaut rivalry is playing out in various talk pages. i have my own reservations about Z but i dont think we have sufficient background for topic ban yet. --CarTick (talk) 12:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
      • i have such a bad memory. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/YellowMonkey, Ncmvocalist and many others including myself were defending YellowMonkey. ncmvocalist was quite vocal in his defense. the RFC was filed by User:Yogesh Khandke over a block. Zuggernaut was there opposing YellowMonkey. therefore it is wrong to say Zuggernaut and Ncmvocalist have never interacted. just clarifying. --CarTick (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
        • It appears that you have no idea what the meaning of uninvolved is. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
      • My preference was to avoid losing the user's contributions from all areas of the project when the problems seem to be when he is editing in relation to these topics. But to take an example; arbitration examines the conduct of all involved parties, and as you are one of them in this case, your own conduct could be the subject of a finding of fact. Is it necessary to get to that point before the problem can be addressed through a binding voluntary agreement? If we want to think about blocks, to take you as an example again, your edit-warring in the mainspace ([9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]) was worthy of a block...but do you really want blocks to be used? These two ways of dealing with the issues are a last resort, and the restrictions I've proposed are to avoid the need for that in the future, particularly if in the case of the Zuggernaut, he can conduct himself more appropriately and provide useful contributions in other topics. Incidentally, having a POV is not the problem; what is a problem is when it is pushed in a way which is disruptive and inappropriate; the canvassing, the comments I linked to above which were directed to Fowler, and what Johnuniq has shared earlier, are just a few examples of that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Neutral: This seems too harsh. The civility restriction I can agree with, and while we're at it we might consider a WP:1RR restriction to head off edit warring. However, I've seen his most recent interaction with me (on a naming proposal to end the debate that seemingly started all this) to be civil and in compliance with relevant policy. Obviously the consensus hasn't been judged yet, and I'd be curious to see what his attitude will be when/if the consensus is judged to be against his point of view on the matter. N419BH 14:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I did consider 1RR, but I think it simply slows the edit-warring down to a point of exhausting everyone involved rather than resolving the underlying concern. That (to me anyway) seems pointless and will just exhaust precious time unnecessarily when it could be spent addressing the content issues. I'm not going to waste time trying to prevent the inevitable (I've been here far too long to try to meddle with what is destined to happen, be it an arbitration case, or more frequent usage of the blocking tool to prevent the problems). But at least after reading this discussion, nobody in the future can complain that there was a shortage of practical good faith proposals at the time (which is now). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Limited Support: As I said above, Zuggernaut has done good work (a few GA's etc.) in some areas, and I don't wish to see him shut out of areas of editing unnecessarily. The topic ban range under 1 sounds feasible, although perhaps could be trimmed down to just British history, unless similar problems exist for other time scales. As for 2, I'm not sure if this will help. Fowler's not the only editor Zug's had these issues with, and frankly I don't think Fowler gives a damn (he can correct me if I'm wrong). In addition, Fowler works on many Indian related articles, so this may push Zuggernaut out of non-history areas as well. I'm not sure what 3 will work, although if it's creating a place where administrators can look over complaints that sounds good. As for 4, that seems to depend on 3. In the end, what I really wish for Zuggernaut to understand is that just because information he wants to place about how India's economy was destroyed, or how Churchill was racist, or how famines were caused by the British, was not added to the article due to other editors does not mean that the article is controlled by a British cabal, or that the editors involved are pro-English and anti-Indian. He should make sure he's not out on a mission to right great wrongs and fix the systematic bias of the wiki, and needs to understand that opposition to his pro-India edits does not mean a systematic bias is being enforced. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Changed to support. As seen in his response below, Zuggernaut just doesn't understand what it wrong, and refuses to acknowledge he's violated guidelines on editing. His claim he doesn't know if he has violated canvass is (per his want to call things a spade) complete bullshit. A previous time he was accused of canvassing, he asked about it here, and was told that it was indeed canvassing. After that he made a request (section below that) to change the guideline to allow people to ask others to vote with them. He has even edited the actual guideline. Another user additionally noted in the discussion that he was forum shopping, which he has also done at the systematic bias page, and arguably has done with this and previous AN/I's. In summary, he has broken editing guidelines, and he knows it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• From my brief time spent looking at this problem and being involved at the list page, I'll support 2 (very strongly, as he's openly admitted wikistalking), 3 (clearly necessary), and 4. 1 is probably a little OTT for now, and can easily be implemented under 3 later if necessary. Best, Moreschi (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support 1, 3 and 4 per my reasons above. --rgpk (comment) 16:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support 2, 3, and 4, particularly 2 due to odious wikistalking. Athenean (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support 1 and 3 without reservations. At this point this is a necessary measure, given the past behavior on various topics (Famine in India, India, British Empire etc etc). 4 is just a subset of 1, so I'm not sure it needs to be called out, but it has my support nevertheless. As far as 2 goes, I think it's necessary in principle, but the behavior is not restricted to F&f, so something broader would be preferred in terms of addressing the issue of wikistalking and not just interaction with one editor. That said, there's also the problem of one-way interaction bans (although there's no reason to make this a two-way ban currently) being that there's always the possibility of the perception of the banned party not being able to respond etc. —SpacemanSpiff 02:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support 1 2 and 3. (4 comes under 1) We all come here with our biases, but most of us learn to suppress the worst of them and work within the limitations wikipedia imposes on us. In the past, i had hoped Zuggernaut would change his ways and use his obvious talent to do some good work; But his disruptive behaviour far outweighs the article work he has done. I dont believe any editor who advocates censorship based on nationality, wikistalks, throws out insults like "brown sahib", "acting white" would be a net positive to India related articles.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Since I am mentioned by name in the proposal, I won't express an opinion on Zuggernaut. I will say that Zuggernaut was not the only one accusing people of anti-India and pro-British bias; CarTick, too, on the Talk:India page was accusing me, and Chipmunkdavis as well, of such bias, repeatedly accusing me of having "sneaked in" the reference to the British East India Company in the lead, and making me out to be a 21st century lobbyist for the East India Company on Wikipedia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Responses

Three policy violations have been cited for the ban. I will address each of them below.

1. POV pushing - As a part of my editing philosophy, I follow the essay on POV pushing, which says:

The term POV-pushing is primarily used in regard to the presentation of a particular POV in an article and generally does not apply to talk page discussions. Editing a POV in an article that corresponds with one's own personal beliefs is not necessarily POV-pushing.

Since I have never knowingly violated 3RR and since I've now been sticking to 1RR as an editing philosophy, it is, by definition, impossible for me to push my POV in to articles. I would like to point out that all of the diffs and references made to my violation of this policy by those who want me banned are from talk pages.

2. Wikistalking - I had been thinking of setting up a new project about special India issues for several months. A diff from February shows this. Since I spend only a limited amount of time on Wikipedia per day, I never got around to doing this until March 4. In preparation of the creation of such a project proposal, I was searching Wikipedia for India-related articles that would come under this project. One such article amongst several others that I was able to locate was the List of Indian inventions and discoveries.

3. Canvassing - Per my colloquial usage of English, I am pretty sure that my notification on the India noticeboard is not "non-neutral" but I now see how other speakers of English variants might see it as non-neutral. I'm sorry about that.

Here's my general editing philosophy on Wikipedia:

• No edit warring, stick to 1RR
• Stick to WP:BRD
• Stick to all known Wikipedia policies and guidelines closely (no particular diffs to provide, just look at my entire edit history)
• If there is a policy or guideline that I have hitherto not been aware of and have violated, I apologize for doing so and I ensure that I abide by it in the future
• Calling a spade
• Be civil and polite as seen in GA success for Upanishads, GA success for Deshastha Brahmin, GA success for the Third Anglo-Maratha War

A friendly note to closing admin - here's what the banning policy says:

If an editor has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia, the community may engage in a discussion to site ban, topic ban, or place an interaction ban or editing restriction via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute.

Pretty much everyone here who has participated in the ban discussion has been involved with the underlying dispute. Exceptions are Moreschi and N419BH. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Frankly Zuggernaut, I'm not sure you understand the meaning of uninvolved anymore than you understand the meaning of tendentious POV pushing (the page you're looking at is an essay and what you've cherry picked out of that part of the essay is not widely held by the community). Good intentions don't justify disruption, and similarly, the worst kind of disruption occurs on talk pages. These proposals are giving you an opportunity to demonstrate that you can contribute usefully in other areas without engaging in problematic conduct; perhaps this issue won't exist in areas you don't feel so strongly about, and perhaps in the future you can resist your temptation to push POV so strongly to the point of testing and exhausting the patience of so many of your peers. In any event, whether you voluntarily accept the restrictions as binding, or whether they need to be imposed on you involuntarily, is another question altogether. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Wuhwuzdat

I am a member of Wikipedia Farsi and English, a few days ago I became target of known vandal in wikipedia farsi after reverting his bad edits and reporting his sockpuppeting accounts. This user attempted to speedy delete topics which I was heavily involved with in Wikipedia Farsi, and then here. which led to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iran Software & Hardware Co. (NOSA) usually this should have been defaulted to speedy keep as the user along with his suckpuppets were banned immediately after the AFD. however User:Wuhwuzdat voted delete in what I can only assume was in good faith.

Wuhwuzdat was the only editor with delete comment on the article, following this I wanted to know how i can improve it up to his standards so I left him the following comment in his talk page,

"Hi, Thanks for your vote in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iran Software & Hardware Co. (NOSA), I appreciate your honest comment and will attempt to make it a less of a "steaming, stinking, pile of self referential spam" in near future. I would like to argue that while you may have 0 interest in such topic, Wikipedia is a place for information which might prove useful to public, and sharing a search able network of million of records is in the interest of scholars interested in Persian heritage. so is sharing information regarding free open source software and accounting software being used by a thousands of companies. In the article there has been an attempt to be as specific as possible and stick to the facts and the technical side as much as possible. either way I appreciate your honest opinion and will try to improve it.

Please also remember that while you may not care about who put up the article or why, according to Wikipedia, it is wrong to recognize vandalism, the user in question is a very well known abuser of the system in wikipedia Persian with more than 30 closed accounts and ips. Thanks 2:40 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)"

His response was to flush my edit, and say "you are correct, i have little interest in this subject". So i reflected this in the article for deletion as it seemed like he didn't care and the article was a good candidate for a snowball clause. at which time he decided to make things personal by breaking WP:OUTING rules and linking the article to removed edits by the banned user, also by proposing AFD for other topics edited by me such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pardis Technology Park, editing my user page, and finally by reporting me to intervention against vandalism falsely, which was removed by administrator.

I did notice that he was very good editor when I approached his talk page with good intentions originally but he has so far harassed me and made it very personal, breaking Wikipedia:HARASS and WP:OUTING rules and abusing the intervention against vandalism system. Could you please intervene as you see fit, and also remove the links and history of the personal outing as put forward by banned user and mentioned in Wuhwuzdat's post? also I would highly argue speedy keep at least for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pardis Technology Park based on WP:DENY as it is clearly an important technology park as referenced by United Nations document, and it is clearly a case of personal harassment. Thank you very much  Rmzadeh  ►  20:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• People are allowed to remove messages from their Talk page if they wish, and you should not use that fact to turn the AfD personal - the AfD will be decided by consensus, without any need to personalise things -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oh, and I don't see any evidence of outing - could you please provide a diff? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there is no indication that Wuhwuzdat has done anything even remotely close to a breach of WP:OUTING. (The same may not be able to be said for the original nominator of the AfD or a sockpuppet thereof, but that's not the user under discussion here.) —C.Fred (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course anyone has the right to do with talk page as they please, that is not why I'm reporting this here, I am reporting him for harassment as outlined by him tagging other articles which clearly do not qualify as afd, and as him outing, and reporting me falsely for vandalism. this is clearly harassment

Isn't sharing a link to outing link the same as outing?!! so if a user wants to share personal information without getting cought all he has to is to make a user and share personal info, get banned and then link to that outing with his main account?! that does not make sense! he has clearly shared personal information by sharing a link to someones else's edit which shared personal information.

he has provided a link to a deleted history of outing in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iran Software & Hardware Co. (NOSA) in an edit today starting with "In light of a deleted contribution by a sockpuppet, alleging COI"  Rmzadeh  ►  20:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• That's not outing - there is no personal information disclosed about you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) It's borderline, Boing, but I would say there was one tidbit that falls within the spectrum of possible outing. This would be less messy if Rmzadeh had put it a timely request for oversight rather than airing it here. I have revision deleted the edits in question (including one of my own, which came in between the posting of the information in question and its reversion off of the page and am putting in a request for oversight of the material. I will not comment further via talk page about the material in question (though if Wuhwuzdat or a user who feels (s)he was potentially outed by the edit would like to email me about it, I will respond). —C.Fred (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Suppressed now. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, OK. it looked to me more like an unconfirmed question to me -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, and where did he report you for vandalism? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

here [15], I had a rollback shortcut in my user page as I was under the impression I could rollback! his edited my user page, and following that reported me to be inspected for vandalism. the edit was removed by admin as it was clearly not a case.

honestly you can't see any harassment in what he is doing? am I to believe him nominating a 2nd article edited by me for afd when it clearly does not fit the category and him reporting me as a vandal and "not" quite outing me by sharing a link with intention to put up personal information is not wrong at all?

Thank you C.Fred for removing the outing history, I was not sure which board to use, I found here to be a good tool. I will use the other board next time.  Rmzadeh  ►  21:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, yes, that was kinda pointy - but it was quickly resolved and I see no need for further action about it here. What I'm seeing here is two people getting a bit too heated with each other - and I have to say it looks like it was you who first turned it personal by taking the spat from his Talk page over to the AfD. You should have just ignored that (because he is entitled to remove your messages from his Talk page if he wishes) and not inflamed it further on the AfD. All I think that is needed now is for you to stick to discussing the actual article on the AfD page, and drop the personal arguments. And the second AfD? I'd suggest just letting it run - if the subject is considered notable, it won't be deleted. Both just cool down a bit, because nothing very bad has happened here - and I don't see any need for any admin action at this point -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I will drop it here, it is however a little unusual that you are letting the 2nd afd run its course and not closing it due to its personal nature. Thank you both for your assistance in this matter, I will update you if the user makes any more personal attacks and will refrain from any attacks of such nature, as I have so far.  Rmzadeh  ►  21:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• For the record, I've undone [16] Wuhwuzdat's {{spa}} tagging of Rmzadeh's comments at AfD. Wuhwuzdat's edit summary was "spa tag an editor who has made this article a major part of his wikipedia editing over the last 4 years" [17] which was followed by a comment with the edit summary "is there a COI?" [18]

  This type of tagging is highly inappropriate and is tantamount to using tags and templates as weapons. Such COI claims are also not appropriate and appear to be nothing more than an attempt by Wuhwuzdat to discredit Rmzadeh. From Rmzadeh's contribution history it is readily apparent he has worked on other articles and has been around awhile. While Rmzadeh might have a vested interest in an article he spent a great deal of time editing, that does not necessarily mean that there is a conflict of interest.

  Given Wuhwuzdat's editing patterns and interactions with others, this AfD nomination and other edits such as [19] and this failure to assume good faith [20] this seems to go far beyond simple incivility and begins to appear as though Wuhwuzdat is persecuting Rmzadeh. At the very least, Wuhwuzdat's contribution history seems to indicate a systemic pattern of bullying others. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'd agree with the above assertion. Earlier today when I was patrolling new pages I noticed there was several pages where Wuhwuzdat was placing both a CSD and a BLPPROD tag on at least two articles less than 10 minutes after they'd been created, and then tagging them for cleanup. (I can't link to any particular articles since they've all been deleted.) After attempting to explain to him that it's likely best practice to only tag for the most pressing issues (i.e., only the CSD) and leave the less pressing ones for later if they're necessary, he simply deleted my comment on his talk page with a somewhat noncommittal edit summary. Perhaps it's not entirely relevant to the discussion at hand but it speaks to his character. elektrikSHOOS 02:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Yes, I also agree with the removal of the {{spa}} tag - there is no reason to suspect Rmzadeh's contributions as being anything other than good faith. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Wider Implications

• Please notice that with my outing history removed, and with both articles on afd in no clear danger of deletion, I consider the personal case between me and Wuhwuzdat resolved, as the user has been online, he has been informed of the proceedings, and there has been no further personal issues. The only reason I approached Wuhwuzdat talk page in the first place was due to the fact that after seeing his user page with the mass of self awards (which i did not know existed btw), I was under the impression that he was a very respectable editor of Wikipedia whose rather sharp and toned opinions must be valued and discussed, at the time which I approached his talk page there was no danger of removal of the topic in question either way.

• However also please note that in the past few days I have reviewed Wuhwuzdat's contributions in detail and in the spirit of keeping Wikipedia a great place for all parties interested in sharing knowledge, I would like to share my findings and plead for appropriate assistance to new users and articles plagued by his general overzealous behaviour, filtering, and arguably rude tone.
• Wuhwuzdat 's long editing history is almost entirely made up of patrolling and tagging pages for deletion, while I admire him for his countless hours spent patrolling Wikipedia, an act which is both encouraged, and appreciated, I find his actions to be of bullying nature and against the spirit of creating a growing community interested in sharing useful information. His behaviour as previously discussed in the following archived AN/I cases Amy Fisher reported by Wuhwuzdat (Result: 12h to reporter), User:NE2 reported by User:Wuhwuzdat (Result: Both parties warned), Wuhwuzdat on a CSD spree, User: Wuhwuzdat, and User:Wuhwuzdat could be seen in many of recent edits, not using myself as an example, i invite you to look at an example of his uncalled aggressive approach in dealing with articles such as [21] in which he tags csd, and BLPPROD for an arguably notable article within the same moment of its creation, or the following case in which he has requested csd for user sandbox draft of the article before its formal creation[22]. Imagine the shock of the victims of such action, the dissatisfying feeling that it creates for the new user whose article which they just spent hours writing will have no chance of standing against the force of a seemingly qualified agent of Wikipedia who has in practice told them in different and repeating formats that they have no chance of being useful in here, that we are not going to look at the article in detail, we are not going to help them make it viable, we are not going to give them the chance to do so either, we are just going to delete it because they are a new user creating a page.

• Is this really the attitude that Wikipedia likes to approach new users with? Do you think they stand a chance against this type of bullish response while not familiar with Wikipedia? Is it unreasonable to think that this will result in either user leaving Wikipedia or trying to get in touch with the editor, at which case as examples in his talk page and records [23] show, often such users get frustrated from his lack of appropriate response, end up using inflammatory language in response to him or even consider creation of more accounts to voice their opinions, at which time he reports them to be banned. While I Conquer that such behaviour is never acceptable, I would argue that new users are really being put in a corner by such aggressive contributions. I have been around long enough that I know the right venues for voicing my opinions against what I consider bad behaviours by editors such as Wuhwuzdat, you have to consider the fact that Wikipedia is a hard place to become familiar with and many will not know of such venues when they are just starting in here. I beg of you to ask this user to relax his treatment of new articles and users so they too may have a chance of creating useful information in their topics of interest within the confines of this great encyclopaedia.

• I have also found out that Wuhwuzdat's area of interest lies in articles related to railroad transportation, I read these articles and I greatly appreciate his contributions to these articles however I must voice my concern that being an editor who knows the rules very well and deletes topics frequently based of lack of sources and similar issues, much of his own contributions lacks both notability and credible sources as seen in GMD GF6C,Railpower RP14BD, Railpower RP20BD, articles with no references, and his other contributions with geocities as primary source on reference. Even more harmful is the issue with his uploaded images [24] such as this image [25], which in my honest opinion, suffer major copyright issue as they have been taken from Western History Department of the Denver Public Library and published with fair use tag and the claim that the "The department actively encourages fair use of its images for educational purposes" the link provided to the copyright information does not work however upon researching the centres website I found out that based on their updated copyright page here [26], they have clearly stated that "All images from the Denver Public Library collection are copyright © protected and may not be reproduced in any way without permission from the Denver Public Library. Commercial use of images is subject to service fees." not only there is not a clause allowing educational use, there is also a clause specifically prohibiting these purchasable images from being reproduced for any reason without specific consent. I have not tagged or acted on any of these pages as I am not experienced enough to want to edit his pages and I do not wish to flair the fire any more then absolutely necessary, but I do expect an editor to hold himself to at least the same standards and he does a new user with no knowledge of the rules.

• In closing, let me make this clear that I still believe Wuhwuzdat to be a very accomplished editor and I do not wish to belittle his value in anyway for he has done much for this community, the purpose of this article is not to go after personal vengeance or punitive measures, infect I am very well aware that being a newer editor with fewer friends, I am risking my own standing in this community by going after such veteran editor, and probably should expect some throw backs very soon, but it is just this editors honest opinion that attention of the powers that be must be brought, to what in his mind, equates to an example of an editor with unjust attitude towards new users. I shiver of the day that Wuhwuzdat becomes an administrator before changing his attitude and tone of comments. I'm afraid to do so again, so I ask you, please talk to him and take appropriate action to save new articles and users. Respectfully yours  Rmzadeh  ►  21:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

  If you want to seek community opinion on an editor's long-term editing patterns, the best place is probably WP:RFC/U - this ANI forum is for requesting specific admin action in response to specific incidents, and I don't think any admin action is needed at this time. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

A Requests for comment/Wuhwuzdat was launched last year and it led to no result, with the user User:Amanda.nelson12 leaving due to harsh treatment and inability to get any remedies and Wuhwuzdat taking a break and becoming "semi-retired". Quoting from the RFC/U, it "was summarily and impolitely dismissed by Wuhwuzdat,[27] since he believes that only administrators should be able to question his actions.[28]". A previous Wikiquette Alert was also filled and closed as stuck: [29], concluding that "attempts to resolve this dispute have halted. Seems to be outside the scope of WQA to do any more than it has".

I really think the only people capable of talking to this user are Wikipedia Administrators, there are a dozen cases everywhere regarding him and non have so far led to any change in his behaviour. Hence I think this requires an administrator intervention, be it an admin seriously discussing his behaviour, warning him of such behaviour, or applying stopping measures. If history has anything to teach us, is that users trying to talk to him have not been able accomplish anything.  Rmzadeh  ►  00:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I still don't think ANI is the forum for it, as by its nature ANI is for dealing with individual incidents. Admins don't have any more say than the rest of the community, they just have access to tools with which to enforce the community's policies and decisions, so I think this would really need to go via the various steps in the dispute resolution process if you wish to pursue it. (I'll leave my thoughts at that - others may disagree with me) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• I've noticed that User:Wuhwuzdat often makes poor nominations at AFD. For example, on observing this thread, I checked his contributions and his most recent nomination was Linda Lusardi. She was quite a famous pin-up and so I instantly recognised her name. There are lots of sources out there which confirm this and so it seems clear that no due diligence has been done. In other words, when the nomination asserts that this topic is "not notable", this is a blatant falsehood. This pattern of negligent editing is disruptive and so action here seems appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Editor preventing maintenance tags to Mary G. Enig

• Mary G. Enig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Lambanog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The article is a BLP of a person who promotes fringe medical and nutritional theories (including the theory that coconut oil may be able to cure AIDS), and who runs a company that promotes these theories. As such, I expect a number of Arbcom decisions would probably apply to the article.

Very few independent, reliable sources exist about Enig, making it difficult to make a neutral article.

Since 6 March 2011, Lambanog has been removing maintenance tags from the article, and demonstrating ownership behavior toward the article (corresponding with Lambanog taking up working on some of the theories of Enig across multiple articles).

Lambanog appears to have stopped participating in the talk page discussions altogether, choosing to revert edits instead.

This may be in part a retaliatory action against me for past disputes. His behavior is similar but escalated from that of List of Philippine restaurant chains and Philippine cuisine.

Discussions: Talk:Mary_G._Enig#Self-published_banner, Talk:Mary_G._Enig#BLP_banner, User_talk:Lambanog#Mary_G._Enig --Ronz (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Lambanog seems to have some ownership stake based on the latest edit history for the article. WP:LEDE is fairly clear (IMO) that some of the material they're trying to keep in the lead article shouldn't be there, but they're reverting all efforts at change...strangely, citing WP:EDIT. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Ronz has been asked repeatedly to provide inline tags so that his concerns can be identified and addressed. He put in three inline tags; I fixed them. Apparently he is not satisfied. He can of course fix the items he has concerns with himself; but he has chosen not to and I cannot identify what they are without inline tags. Banners can sit around for months waiting for someone to come along and address the concerns. But in this case, I am there willing to fix any problems—but he insists on adding banners anyway. The end result is article defacement for no purpose contrary to the spirit of WP:TAGGING and WP:RESPTAG. Ronz can of course try to build consensus via dispute resolution but he has chosen to come here instead. Ronz has a history of adding banners and removing content provided by other editors against WP:EDIT. I don't see much of a history adding references or building articles. The one reference Ronz did add back to the article [30] from aspartame.ca I found of low quality. From my first edit or near it [31] to my latest [32] the article has seen the addition of 18 or so references that I added including ones from The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, The Chicago Tribune, The New England Journal of Medicine, The Washington Times, and award-winning food author Michael Pollan among others establishing her notability. I therefore find Ronz's assertion that "very few independent, reliable sources" exist about the subject. Of course one can also be given pause by looking at the number of times she is referenced by other authors with a Google Book search for Mary Enig to see how often she is referred to. I find Ronz's insertion of a BLP banner odd as well. I don't know on what grounds he placed it and he hasn't been very forthcoming with a clear actionable reason. If he has complaints with the article or its presentation let him fix them by presenting sources, build consensus, or bring this to AfD. By the way if Ronz wishes to bring up the past we can re-examine that too. I will refrain from bringing up details for now because it's in the past and I'm sure the admins here would prefer to simply look at the immediate issue and see it resolved quickly but if opening up that can of worms is deemed necessary then it's fine by me. I certainly have no reason to shy away from it.

N5iln/Alan the Roving Ambassador, please take a closer look at the edit history. I only recently made changes to the lede and it was to move a significant bit to the body. [33] I can only imagine the parts you object to are the parts that were there from long ago even before I started editing the article and not the short summary I introduced. Lambanog (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Lambanog, for demonstrating exactly the problems you're causing:

"I fixed them" No, Lambanog did not fix them. That's a problem.

"he has chosen not to" Lambanog's asserts that I've made a choice not to fix the problems. Better he simply AGF.

"The end result is article defacement for no purpose" Again, better to AGF.

"Ronz has a history of adding banners and removing content provided by other editors against WP:EDIT." As I pointed out, this appears to be personal and retaliatory on Lambanog's part. That he continues here at ANI demonstrates the degree of the problem. --Ronz (talk) 23:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The article is now protected. Maybe this will get Lambanog to focus more on content. --Ronz (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

So what is the result right now? An article with a banner fixed on it and defaced—for issues that are unclear. Who is going to improve the article? Ronz? Apparently adding several references from newspapers of record is not constructive while adding banners willy-nilly is and deserves page protection. Is it too much to ask an admin who actually has article writing experience to examine the edits and reverse this silliness? Lambanog (talk) 02:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd like an explanation for why OrangeMike chose to revert before he full protected the article? The reverted edit did not seem contentious. It appears that OrangeMike chose his WP:PREFERed version. -- œ^™ 22:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

You have been hacked....controlledyN@wikipedia.org

I have no idea why I would be receiving e-mail from Wikipedia.org but I started getting them late last week. The address I keep receiving it from is wikipedia.org. The current address is in the subject line of this message. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.47.95 (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm 99.9% sure that this is not from Wikipedia. See E-mail spoofing; it is fairly easy to make it look like an e-mail came from someone it didn't. BurtAlert (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Blacklist/Spamfilter the email address; I can tell you right away that the second half of the email address should tell you all you need to know to determine if it's legitimate or fake. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 02:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't know how the "second half" thing works - you can fake an email to look like it came from anywhere, including genuine addresses -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I think Jeremy is referring to the "troll" element of the email address. Chillllls (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• Open the email's header and check the "from" section; often that will show who's really sending it. HalfShadow 17:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It's almost certain that this is a fluke. Someone faked a legitimate email by spoofing it. —mc10 (t/c) 06:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

IP removing CSD template

Resolved

 – article toasted

IP 209.89.186.223 has repeatedly removed the CSD template from the article Euthanasia LP. [34], [35], [36]. User was informed that he can not remove the template [37]. His response was "don't be stupid" [38]. User notified of ANI [39]. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Why not just take it to AFD? The very first AFD (in 2009) emphasized the lack of a set release date and insufficient sourcing, both of which are at least addressed in the current article? It doesn't look quite right to G4 it. And there is no hard-and-fast rule against removing speedy templates, although it is bad form to remove them, especially G4 and G12, without an explanation. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• The released date keeps getting set, changed, set, changed. 2 years ago, the promised release date was roughly as "reliable" as it is today. Half of the sources are questionable. (the article has half as many sources as it look at first glance) It has already been G4'd once before. I strongly suspect that the "creator", an editor with a proven COI is doing this under an IP. Almost all the edits from this IP are articles that the creator coincidentally edits in. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I was under the impression that speedy deletion was only for uncontentious matters? If an IP keeps removing it, then it should probably be properly discussed at AfD unless it's a BLP issue and in that case we have sticky prod. If it really meets the criteria it won't survive AfD. 65.29.47.55 (talk) 06:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami moving ship class articles from XXXX class format to XXX-class format reported by Toddy1 (Result:)

User being reported: Kwamikagami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Kwamikagami has a plan to rename all the ship class articles from the format "XXXX class ship" to the format "XXXX-class ship". This contentious move is under discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#Bot_request.

At 22:10, 30 March 2011 User:Kwamikagami agreed to stop making these moves at User_talk:Kwamikagami#Stop_moving_ship_class_articles. Nevertheless he is making these moves on 31 March 2011 - showing bad faith.

I know that User:Kwamikagami is an admin. One user has told me that User:Kwamikagami using his admin tools to make these moves (see User_talk:Toddy1#User:Kwamikagami).

Please can User:Kwamikagami be halted in his endeavour until WikiProject_Ships has come to a conclusion on whether these moves should be made.

I do not know whether using his admin tools to make these moves - if he is misusing them, is it appropriate that he have these abilities?--Toddy1 (talk) 11:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

This is stupid. We have an eight-year-old consensus on this. I agreed to stop making wholesale changes just to bring articles into line with our naming conventions, and I have. However, when there is other reason to move an article, such as caps, plurals, or omission of the ship type, then I'll hyphenate as well. — kwami (talk) 11:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

We do not, as you claim, have an "eight-year-old consensus" on this subject. Indeed we don't have much of a consensus at all and there has been an inconclusive discussion ever since you made the original bot request. You are making a pretty blatant attempt to impose your own view, disregarding the views of others and ignoring repeated requests to wait. The Land (talk) 12:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

As a complete outsider to this issue, I'm a bit confused. What was the other reason to move VMV class patrol boat to VMV-class patrol boat? [40] There doesn't seem to be any change except the hyphen. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

To summarise; Kwami is strongly of the opinion that these articles ought to have hyphens in the titles and requested a bot to do so. Others, myself included, asked for a discussion about whether that was a good idea, which has happened largely here, which has yet to reach a conclusion. There was a previous discussion about this issue last November, which concluded that ship class names should generally have hyphens, but only about 5 editors participated in that conversation. There is only one person who seems to think there is an urgent need to change all of these names with no further debate, which is Kwami. Most ships editors (regardless of their views on hyphens) are happy to let the debate run its course and then, if necessary, have a bot update the titles. The Land (talk) 12:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Kwami, I am now to this dispute, but I can't see how your statement here is valid when I see moves like VMV class patrol boat to VMV-class patrol boat or TID class tug to TID-class tug: they don't match "when there is other reason to move an article, such as caps, plurals, or omission of the ship type, then I'll hyphenate as well.", but only add the hyphenation. Can you explain how these (which are just the most recent examples) are examples of your agreement above? Fram (talk) 12:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

No, Kwami, this is not stupid. That kind of behavior (specifically, trying to shoehorn your change in with other edits) would get you blocked for edit-warring if this was a content dispute. You've been around for far too long (not to mention the fact that you're an admin) to play dumb about this. Let the discussion run its course, then we can move pages if we decide to. This is not time-critical, nor is a fait accompli an acceptable tactic. Parsecboy (talk) 12:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, those last couple (Moonriddengirl) were among the remaining few on a short list[41] along with some that needed other fixes. That's a valid complaint. But the hundreds of red links in the main lists[42][43][44][45][46][47] are articles I've left alone. If I'd wanted to shoehorn in my edits, I would have moved or a substantial fraction of them by now. — kwami (talk) 12:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Initially I was closely following this debate when it started a week ago. However arguments over using "hyphens" versus "en dashes" and "uses as a noun are not hyphenated" versus "uses as an adjective are hyphenated" quickly put me to sleep. — Kralizec! (talk) 12:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

What form is used by sources?

I just had a quick look at two of the classes mentioned above; one was wholly unsourced (surely a more pressing problem) and the other had sources which preferred an unhyphenated name.

It seems unlikely to me that all sources on hundreds of ship classes around the world (different countries, different ship types &c) all use hyphenation in exactly the same way; in which case such mass moves guarantee that some articles will be moved to a new name not used by sources. Just for the sake of consistent use of hyphens between articles even though lay readers would never want to compare a hundred article titles like that. Faithfulness to sources is much more important than lining up hundreds of articles neatly with the same particle of punctuation at the top; I fail to see any overriding benefit that justifies such mass moves. bobrayner (talk) 12:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources are for facts, not usage. You will find hyphens mis-used by hundreds of sources, and that doesn't make them right or wrong. Wikipedia has its own guidelines on hyphens, which Kwami is following. Personally I don't think Kwami is showing much good sense in antagonising the rest of WP:SHIPS, but what he's doing to the article names per se is not wrong - it is in fact in accordance with both WP:HYPHEN and WP:TITLE, so far as I can see. The original question was whether a bot should be used to mass-move the ship class articles to incorporate (what was at the time considered to be) the consensus. In the meantime we've had some editors questioning the original guidelines and the (apparent) consensus on their use in titles, and Kwami has been busy doing manual moves of these articles. Personally, I'd wait, get consensus and let the bot do the work, but I can't see that his moves are actually wrong as such. Shem (talk) 13:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME I'd say sources are pretty important in choosing the name as well! 212.68.15.66 (talk) 13:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a choice between "XXXX class ship" and "XXXX-class ship" for a range of thousands of articles, not a choice between "Bill Clinton" and "William Jefferson Clinton" (to choose just one example from WP:COMMONNAME). Furthermore, it's got nothing to do with the subject of this discussion, which is about moves conducted by one editor. So, I'd say WP:COMMONNAME is far from "pretty important". Shem (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• Whether I agree in principle with hyphenation (incidentally, I do) is neither here nor there. We are talking about multiple page moves in the absence of a clear consensus. To start moving pages in huge batches today based on an "8-year consensus" is clearly as poor a show as doing it without consensus at all (WP:CCC). IPs and new users who go around moving pages on a whim get indeffed; and Kwami is an admin who, dare I say, has a less-than-exemplary record of edit warring and abuse of WP:ADMIN (just one example here). Need to start thinking about locking him up and throwing away the key. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with the hyphenation: it is easier for our readers, especially non-experts, who don't see these compound constructions every day and are assisted by the joining of the double adjective. The sources out there are no doubt mixed (= in a mess, as is typical), and the MoS is quite clear about the need for a hyphen. If Kwami is using admin tools to do it, he should at least have posted his intention at WT:MOS and the appropriate WikiProject. There has been at least one recent case in which he used his tools while WP:INVOLVED, at the locked page WP:MOS. He did revert after several warnings, and I am willing to take on trust his explanation that he did not realise the page was still locked. But do be careful, Kwami ... Tony (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• I've no opinion about hyphens or ship classes, but: Making mass changes, such as by bot, to many articles without prior explicit consensus, is disruptive. But apparently Kwamikagami is now only making these changes manually in conjunction with other useful edits. This does not strike me as disruptive, as long as the change follows WP:MOS, which it is claimed to do.  Sandstein  16:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Way too much energy is expended on wikipedia arguing over the names of things. I'd like to hear an explanation as to how the presence or absence of hyphens benefits the readers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

No one seems to have answered your comment: "I'd like to hear an explanation as to how the presence or absence of hyphens benefits the readers". Not commenting myself on the merits of hyphenation, but Tony1 seems to clearly explain just above how the hyphen is useful to non-expert readers. Jenks24 (talk) 03:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• • Is there another option to using or not using the hyphen?? :) - BilCat (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Oh, did I forget to mention the n-dash, or whatever it is? The option that was forgotten here is to leave the bloody thing alone. With or without punctuation, an item can be found in the search box. I'd like to see the hyphen-obsessed editor explain how all his busy-work helps the viewing public. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
      • That's utterly besides the point of the thread. If I were you I wouldn't draw too much attention to the subject of editors doing things which aren't useful to the encyclopedia while dropping in yet again to add chatter to a random ANI thread, Bugs. FWIW I strongly support a censure here, based on Kwami continuing to move pages after agreeing not to yesterday on the rather flimsy subtext that nobody would presumably mind if the moves in question could be described as copyedits. As others have said, a non-admin who acted like this would have a less than spotless block log by now. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 19:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
        • I understand that the primary complaint is about moves without discussion, and it's certainly a legitimate complaint, but it's only a symptom of the real problem. Editors wasting countless hours on the names of things, which is the real problem, is a direct quote from a trusted admin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
        • If you want to fix the real problem, lobby for removal of move rights from regular editors like moi, and leave that up to the admins. That would require discussion before moves occur. It would also take away the ability of characters like Grawp to rename articles to something stupid, thus saving even more wasted time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Large repetitive actions without prior consensus are disruptive and improper per WP:MEATBOT regardless of whether actual automation is involved. Kwami, please discuss operations like this on the relevant talkpages and wait for discussion to conclude BEFORE starting the operations. Also, the hyphen-vs-endash thing is complicated ad I urge the discussion participants to reach a firm consensus on it before going ahead with any renames, so as to avoid yet another mass-move operation sometime in the future if the first one wasn't decided carefully enough. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Response to Baseball Bugs: certainly not an en dash. It's either hyphen or space between the compounded words. Tony (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

User Creativesoul7981

The user has been blocked before for edit waring on generation y page. She is now in another argument on the page. She has been in confrontation with numerous editors on here. In addition she is now workign on editing the generation x page with more of her opinions. Even though the dates were already decided on she continues to add her dates to the page. Check out the generation y talk page to see the current conflict. In addition you can see her previous warning on here. rc03

You should always sign your comments, but more importantly, you didn't inform Creativesoul of this thread. I did that for you. By the way, why not take it to the content dispute noticeboard? That's more suitable for cases like this. Zakhalesh (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Im sorry but you really dont understand this user. She has had a constant history of edit waring. rc03

Sign your comments using four tildes ~~~~, it's way better. Edit warring should be reported at WP:3RRNB. Zakhalesh (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Can can someone please help me? I am being accused of vandalism without warrant. I have used reliable sources with my edits, and these complaints are ridiculous. I have also recently edited a paragraph on the Generation Y page to include various start dates, using a variety of sources supporting these dates. Please see my last few edits. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

You have changed the dates again on the generation x page. This is what you were warned about and blocked before on here for edit waring. rc03 18:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict, fix indent) Calm down. No one's accusing you of vandalism (or at least shouldn't be). If I've understood correctly, what we have here is at worst a content dispute or an edit war, both easily settled by talking. I've no idea why it is here instead of the article's talk page though. Zakhalesh (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, "constant history of edit waring" isn't too descriptive here - the user has one block in their block log, and that's half a year old. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Wait, what dates did I change? I added dates, not changed them (Generation X page). I was not prohibited from adding to the Canada section, since another person added that section. That section made it seem as if all of Canada followed this one author's date ranges - which is blatantly false. I added reliable sources and included other common date ranges. I never wrote that these dates were definitive. Also, the other parties involved in the old dispute have no problem with my sources on Canada and Australia on the Generation Y page. They are official bureau of statistics dates - and I added a disclaimer about there being some debate about start and end dates. Perfectly within Wikipedia policy. I also added various dates to the demographic section on the Generation Y page - when one user had it limited to 1980, 1982 or later start dates. His source (not originally his) has been included in the Generation Y article in the intro. for at least a year. This is just a ridiculous complaint by a disgruntled user. I have not had objections from other parties involved in the original dispute. In fact, they were okay with my sources and edits. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The user has been blocking others from making edits even if they have sources. She has been in conflcit with a number of editors. Right now on the generation y page you are in a conflict with editors. Please check out the generation y talk page and you can see the discussion. rc03 19:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I was temporarily blocked over 5 months ago, and parties involved worked things out. An anonymous user is badmouthing me on several talk pages, including other editor's pages, and has just been warned by another editor for deleting my comments on another user's talk page (topic: March 2011). Please see this user's talk page for the warning and the deleted comments on Educatedlady's talk page.

I have NOT blocked others from editing. A couple of editors have been removing my sources. I included various start dates on the Generation Y page (Demographics section) to show the different start dates used (including other user's additions). Please see the talk page on the Generation Y page. I have every right to include different common date ranges in the Canada section (a section which I didn't add). Another user's edits made it seem as if that one Canadian author's dates were definitive, which they aren't. Several Canadian sources support different birth ranges. I have included them, without making them definitive. The Australian and New Zealand date ranges are official dates used in both countries by their governments. Not only demographers, but the media, and in general, the Australian/NZ societies as a whole use these date ranges, including the official Bureau of Statistics of Australia and New Zealand. I am not violating any policy. Others have by deleting my sources. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

As CreativeSoul7981 is not (AFAIK) an admin, they can't block other editors. I've got little interest in the actual content but there's nothing I hate as much as false accusations as a weapon of POV. Therefore, I'd appreciate it if RC would provide diffs for CS's alleged misconduct and start signing their comments so there's a link to their talk page, much easier that way. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

She has been reverting the edits of other people on there. That is what I meant. She has a history of many conflicts with editors on there. You can check out the generation y talk page and see them. rc03 19:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any excessive reverts, and they have a plausible explanation for the reverts. Why haven't you taken this to the talk page? Also, fix your signature so it contains a talk page link, according to WP:SIGN - lack of such link is very annoying. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that the anonymous user has just been warned again by Millahnna for his vandalizing (blanking) the Generation Y Talk page. Also, I don't have any current conflicts with those involved in the dispute from several months ago. That is a lie. Any disagreements I have are being worked out with other editors and through mediation. As I've said repeatedly, I left the other dates added by another user intact; I just added sources already included in the article to support the different start dates. A couple of editors are making accusations without merit. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

She has just got done changing another edit. She is in a conflict on the page right now. What do you think the discussion on the generation y talk page has been about. rc03 19:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I have legitimately contributed to these articles and have not violated any policy. I invite administrators to trace my IP address. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I just looked over the diffs for the Generation Y talk page. CreativeSoul7981 has NOT deleted anything. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

THANK YOU, Alan! Great user name by the way. I am not in conflict with the other users. In fact, I made sure to include the different dates on the Generation Y page, and include the various sources as well. Administrators are free to check my IP address. I have nothing to hide. Thanks again. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I never said she deleted anything. She is changing edits others have made. She has been in conflcit with numerous editors on the page. rc03 20:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide some diffs for comparison? I see no edits by her today on the main article page, and only additions of comments on the Talk page. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, could you explain why you are altering the signature Sinebot makes on your posts? To some, changing the signature makes you look like you're trying to hide who's making posts. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I was talking about the generation y page. If you look at history you will see changes that were made by the user recentlty. Im not sure how to provide diffs. rc03 21:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockman03 (talk • contribs)

Only one editor has changed the Generation Y article in the past 17 hours. And it's not CreativeSoul7981. Are you certain you're looking at the correct user here? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

My edits are all legitimate. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the generation y page there were edits made by Creativesoul in the last day. Im not sure what page you are looking at. rc03 21:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockman03 (talk • contribs)

Are you referring to this? I see no issues with it. A reference with a dead link was replaced by a reference with a good link, and the material was expanded. Perfectly legitimate and constructive since it provided a functional citation. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I have just recently added a source. I haven't gone against Wikipedia policy. Again, administrators may investigate and trace my IP address so that they can put these accusations to rest. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

She is constantly using her opinion and not having a neutral point of view. That has been the issues here. She will make edits and only use the sources that she wants. rc03 21:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Considering the fact that I have included various start dates in the demographics section of the Generation Y page, and expanded on the sources, your accusations are baseless. My edits are all valid. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, plain and simple. I can't see that CreativeSoul7981 has done anything wrong from either the (nonexistent) evidence here nor on the talk page. No administrative action is likely to be taken. Please seek a third opinion or take the dispute to requests for comment if you want impartial advice on moving forward. Ranting about other users on here is not likely to work, especially if you can't follow the basic etiquette of following our guidelines on signatures. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 21:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It might be content dispute but the user has a history of arguments with users. She doesnt want to provide a neutral point of view on the article and only wants to use her sources. I am not sure about signature as I am still a fairly new user on here. Thanks. rc03 22:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

You sign with this: ~~~~. Now, please disengage from each other or it's likely you'll both find yourselves blocked for disruption. See WP:BOOMERANG. N419BH 22:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Apparently you are ignoring administrators who have stated those disputes were nearly half a year ago. Those disputes have been resolved for quite some time. I have let the other parties know that I was seeking to reword a phrase in the future with the help of another editor/administrator later. I have had no conflicts regarding my legitimate edits. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I only came here to defend myself against accusations. I will not be engaging this user. I will leave the situation to the administrators. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 22:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Question - How does a "fairly new user" understand edit warring already? --Blackmane (talk) 09:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Spambot attack!

There is currently a spam attack going on using a highly dynamic IP range. The spam all consists of adding the same text for printed circuitboards to articles and article talk pages.

The following IPs have been used as far as I have seen, and the edits are very recent, so a rangeblock may be necessary.

• 123.49.23.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 123.49.20.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 123.49.23.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 123.49.23.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 123.49.23.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 123.49.23.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 123.49.23.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 123.49.23.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 123.49.22.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 123.49.21.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 123.49.20.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 123.49.20.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 123.49.20.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk | contribs | block) 01:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked 123.49.20.0/22, which covers all of the above IPs, for 24 hours. — Scientizzle 17:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe the site was b/l'd, too. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 20:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks guys! However, I am relatively certain that spam will continue, so I will keep an eye on that CIDR range. Reaper Eternal (talk | contribs | block) 01:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Article Jacob Barnett and User:Negi(afk)

Jacob Barnett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Negi(afk) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi. It seems as if this user has made it their personal crusade to get this article deleted from Wikipedia. While that is not a problem itself (many people have topics or goals they fight for vehemently), this user seems to cross the line by edit warring, personally attacking people at the related AFD and trying to adminshop (after I explicitly told them not to retag the article both on my talk page and in my second decline). As such, it might be useful if one or more uninvolved user(s) could monitor the situation and possibly intervene if needed. As the one who tried to tell them to not tag the article for speedy deletion without avail, I'm not sure they would accept me cautioning them, even if I'm technically WP:UNINVOLVED. See also: Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Negi.28afk.29 (which unfortunately does not seem to have the desired effect if you check this user's talk page after the WQA notice was posted). Regards SoWhy 18:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to accept a user who thinks calling others idiots is okay. I'm aware that he hasn't had the usual four-warnings-then-block, but he's been pointed to WP:NPA multiple times without any change in behavior. I've blocked him for 31 hours. Feel free to unblock if he realizes that his behavior was problematic. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Non-admin opinion here, but reading his comments at the AfD and on his talkpage, I think a permanent block seems in order. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• I don't know, but "Admins can fuck their own asses" is pretty extreme. Though, I enjoyed Closedmouth's response [48]. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• Didn't you hear? It's a new button in the admin toolbox! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'd like to add on here; everybody has a bad day from time to time. This editor does not have a ton of edits here, but prior to today he contributed positively and in a manner conducive to good article development. Today's spate of insults/attacks is rather unusual for him. I don't know that a permanent ban would be appropriate. I think an indefinite block until such time as he's willing to abide by WP:NPA, whether he thinks he's right about someone or not, would be more appropriate. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Hammersoft. If we are lucky, it's a one-time occurrence and they will accept WP:NPA. Let's just see how they behave after the block expires. If they continue to do so, we can still indef them later as well. Regards SoWhy 18:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• I've made a plea to him to carefully consider his return to editing. User_talk:Negi(afk)#Coming_back_after_the_block. We'll see if it helps. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Holocaust denial

Resolved

 – Article has been semi-protected N419BH 03:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

For some reason which I do not understand, a series of IPs are repeatedly inserting CCP Games at Holocaust_denial#Notable_Holocaust_deniers. I really don't understand what this is all about, but there's nothing at the company's Wikipedia article that supports this. Perhaps a few days of semiprotection until this settles down would be a good idea. There have been over 15 reverts on the article today. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Request page protection here: WP:RPP. BurtAlert (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

A bit of Google searching finds Eve Online-related forum posts like this. CPP produces that game. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 22:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The best I can tell from googling and looking at some forum posts is that someone playing Eve Online was banned for posting a link to Holocaust in one of their forums or chats in way that looked like it was an attack on German players of this MMORPG. Looks like some players are retaliating by adding CCP Games to that list.--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Mtking

I would be grateful if someone could look at the behaviour of User:Mtking, who I believe is acting in an unconstructive and bad faith manner. On Nuclear power in the United Kingdom they have reverted non-contentious edits for what, in my view, are reasons wholly unrelated to the nature of the edits themselves but are motivated by their views on my editing style and their desire to somehow prove a point. I believe that their edit summaries and the comments that they made both prior on my Talk page: User talk:Rangoon11#Talk Page consensus and User talk:Rangoon11#Levitt Bernstein, and then on the article Nuclear power in the United Kingdom Talk page and my talk page (User talk:Rangoon11#Nuclear power in the United Kingdom) subseqently, make this clear. I have attempted to enter into a discussion with User:Mtking before coming here but this does not appear to be a constructive activity and is now leading to reversion/editing of Talk pages.

Beyond this specific issue the overwhelming focus of the User:Mtking account appears to be mass adding notability or speedy deletion tags to articles and referring them to AfD. Is this relevant to the specific issue above? In my view - which is admittedly that of an arch-inclusionist - yes, because it demonstrates a user who is not generally focused on positive activities. Rangoon11 (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless I'm reading it wrong, this is a content dispute limited to one article which started yesterday. What administrative action were you expecting here? ANI is not supposed to be a first resort for disputes. As for the deletionist rant, you'd find that more time is wasted on bad-faith inclusionism round here than was ever spent undoing or closing spurious deletion noms. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 01:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that it is a content dispute, if it was a content dispute then I would have quite happily discussed the edits with User:Mtking. The edit summaries and talk page discussion, in my view, make this more than clear. The summaries and discussion are all about my editing style and User:Mtking's views on it. Rangoon11 (talk) 02:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

So what is the administrative action you require here? Mtking's behaviour does not warrant a block in itself and there doesn't appear to be serious disruption which would require page protection. This is not a wrist-slapping service: that's what WP:WQA is for. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 02:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

What Rangoon11's problem is, that he made a number of edits to the page that changed it's look considerably. He has resisted all attempts to explain why he feels they improve the article, instead hiding behind rules and polices, cross posting my comments with out asking me. Mtking (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

All fools day/ April Fools day Notice

Muhuwahaha!

Good Morning UTC Wiki-Administrators.

Please be aware that today is April Fools day. Please be on high alert for higher then normal levels of Vandalism, trolling and other nonsense. Also, please assert AFG on the more cleaner jokes that may occur today as well between users and wiki-groups on Wikipedia.

Thank you. Phearson (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay.... Reaper Eternal (talk | contribs | block) 02:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

We'll see what we can do...98.16.37.157 (talk) 02:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It's still only the 31st where you are. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, it's 5 o'clock somewhere in the world! –MuZemike 02:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

(nods) —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 02:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't think of any truly funny pranks to pull today. In fact, I sorta forgot all about April Fool's Day until now. Anyone mind if I sit this one out & just work on improving a few articles? (Or I could take the rest of the day off & play with my 3-year-old daughter, if someone does object.) -- llywrch (talk) 05:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Powerful conspiracy uncovered!

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jimbo Wales The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm rather concerned about your investigative skills, since you didn't connect my account to the others. Wait, wait, get that hammer away from.... — Huntster (t @ c) 02:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh my! Am I imagining things? I have to wake up... Bejinhan talks 02:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

They should have done Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spartacus and just listed everyone... HalfShadow 03:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

This is Sparta? Drat. I knew I should have taken that left turn at Albuquerque. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

No no no. It's: THIS! IS! SPARTA! Get yer memes right. HalfShadow 03:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spartacus for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

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

---

Grow the hell up

Resolved

 – This is pointless. Hopefully on the 2nd people will realize what I was saying. Oh, and please, whoever did that, do not refactor my comments (including section headers) ever again, that's a serious offense, irregardless of the day. Policy does not go away on April 1

This is a stupid holiday that seems to encourage stupid behavior. The fact that registered users and even admins are stooping to this stupidity is disturbing. As mentioned above, Wikipedia is going to get hit hard with vandalism today, we don't need experienced users adding to the chaos. I personally will treat pranks as vandalism, no matter who is doing it. Stop it, please. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Dude the moment we cant laugh at ourself is the moment We die as a community The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 03:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yup. Well said. Actually, as I'm sure our Resident Poker-of-Noses-Into-Other-Cultures-Business will tell you, a little Topsy-Turveydom is more or less compulsory once in a while. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Longstanding tradition on wiki...Wikipedia:Rules for Fools.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

(Cocks head, confused) —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 03:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) If you can't laugh at yourself, you've got no business laughing at anyone else. And Ceiling Cat knows I can serve as an example of how to laugh at oneself. I'm just sayin'... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 03:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Plip!

Oh come on, we're not allowed to do ANYTHING WP:HUMORous on the Wiki....EVER!!! seeing as this page still has to function and most of the WP:BOOMERANGs er thread starters are new posters anyway, I'll spare teh full size fish Now come on, we're FAR TOO SERIOUS to have ANY FUN WHATSOEVER here on the wiki! NONE!!!! Well, except for that entire category... N419BH 03:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Jeez, Sven, if you're gonna fart in here, open a window first. HalfShadow 03:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

(Whines - that was him. Lowers ears and tail.) —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 03:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I mean geez, he's acting like we just stole forty cakes or something. And that's terrible. HalfShadow 03:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

(shakes head - even a terminally-retarded pack lizard wouldn't use a Superdickery meme) —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 03:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not April 1 yet where he lives, so that could be the reason for the sudden outburst. Give it another 20 minutes. Magicperson _{(Politically correct)} 03:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we found the April Fools Day Grinch...  Rmzadeh  ►  03:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

No you didn't. That's my job. I support Sven 100% on this. If you wanna be taken seriously, be bloody serious. BarkingFish 03:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

...and this is why girls won't go out with you. HalfShadow 03:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Retract that please, HalfShadow. I don't appreciate that one bit. BarkingFish 03:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

(stands in front of BarkingFish, growling, tail tip pouffed) —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 03:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a very simple prospect Jokes stop being funny when they start being disruptive. You want fun, I'm fine with having fun with the main page. I'm not fine with people replacing noticeboards with images and I'm neutral leaning on not fine with these MfD the major pages things. Stop being disruptive and committing vandalism in the name of humor and I'll have no problem with you. It's really a simple boundry, one everyone seems to get every other day of the year. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• Please change my nick to Basket of Rusty Bolts! Basket of Puppies 04:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI, BarkingFish has reported ResidentAnthropologist to AIV. (klat) hamronnoC 04:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Sven, if you don't view this as a joke/prank, others do. Why don't you go back to editing instead of wet-blanketing others' efforts? You're just wasting time on us. IMO, I think that this sort of thing is a good sign that we Wikipedians still have sense of humor despite all the Wiki-stress we are bombarded with daily in here. :P Bejinhan talks 04:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm suprised no one is complaining about In the news being the only grinch on the main page... Passionless -Talk 04:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Sven on this. It's plain stupidity to allow poor humour to infiltrate our community. Our reputation is already shitty at best with media and others shunning the content for its purported unreliability. We have no need for nonsense here, irrespective of what day it is. Evilorg^Talk 04:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. At least someone has common sense :) BarkingFish 04:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

ROFL — you didn't just create a sock for this, did you? That takes the cake! Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

...all forty of them? My god, man...that's four tens! HalfShadow 04:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Er, no. That is nothing to do with me. Feel free to file a CU if you suspect otherwise. BarkingFish 04:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, someone did. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

lol... I really don't think socks are allowed! not even in April Fools....watch out, Jimbo's socks might not be the only ones with a ban tonight! btw I looked at your vandalism report earlier... seems like the joke was on you :P. Please Chill :), if you need, go take a pill  Rmzadeh  ►  04:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm fed up with this. Sobriety has been shattered to the point of no return to rationality. Get real everyone, and realize that April Fools does not mean we should abandon sensibility. Evilorg^Talk 05:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

---

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

Excuse me, is this the way to the men's room? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

April fools

There have been several different april-fools things on various different parts of en.wikipedia today. In principle, at least one of them should be funny rather than being a banal annoyance. Has anybody found the genuinely funny one yet? I'll report back here if I find it. —Preceding signature removed by DoNotSignBot.

I've been trying to find a suitable article to insert the claim that Doctor Who had contracted the Rash of Sassilon; can anybody help? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Backlog at RPP

Just FYI, there's a backlog at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Zagalejo^^^ 02:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

All the requests appear to be handled now. The page just needs a clerk to clean up. -- œ^™ 07:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I know I'm going to get killed for this...

I'm not totally anti April Fools Day, but can we at least stop nominating the main AFD page for deletion? We are on a recruitment drive, we really need new editors, and the last thing we need to do is confuse new editors. Can we maybe limit it to less visible pages? Kansan (talk) 05:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

If it's any consolation, I AfD'ed the AfD page for AfD. But then someone AfD'ed that. Seriously, though, I suspect the new editors can figure out from the "this page is humorous" boxes that this is just some harmless April 1 fun. As long as the articles are kept strictly off-limits for the funnin', I'm not too worried about the project pages containing some temporary levity. 28bytes (talk) 05:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

You can have the AFD ... but you don't need a confusing notice at the top of WP:AFD to do it. Just transclude it in the daily AFD list or put a notification on the talk page or something. When you put a banner like that at the top of a major process page, you confuse users. --B (talk) 05:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I think B's compromise seems very sensible. I'm not trying to cause problems here at all; I'm just remembering how confused I was when I was new to Wikipedia and trying to navigate through the site, figuring it out it works. I probably would have seen that and assumed there was a serious community proposal to shutter the AFD process. Kansan (talk) 05:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

So... Fanny Scratching doesn't confuse new editors? And since I haven't seen a case yet where someone was actually "confused" by the AFD... I find it ridiculous to think that a new editor would be driven away from the project from a simple tag at the top of a page. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 05:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference between providing a silly but accurate hook to an article and putting up a statement that is false. Yes, nobody has said they were confused by the AFD, but the type of person who would be confused is a brand new potential editor who would either not know where to bring their concerns or who might just assume it is for real. You may say it is "ridiculous", but I tried to get a friend of mine to edit, and she told me she was too intimidated by the way the site works. While much of our current system is inevitably going to be complicated, in general, the less confusing the better. Kansan (talk) 06:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• I think you are confusing a relatively harmless (but dumb) prank on a process page which new users rarely see with general UI complexity. I'm also a bit confused about the "we are on a recruitment drive" statement. We always want new editors. Protonk (talk) 06:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm referring to the new outreach campaigns being initiated by the Foundation in response to declining editor numbers, as well as their attempts to determine what keeps potential editors from staying around. Kansan (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• It's one day a year. I hear CostCo is doing a special on senses of humour. tfeilS (talk) 08:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • That assumes that AFD-ing the same pages every year is funny. Surely there's someway to freshen April 1st up? Slapping AFD tags on high profile articles and making odd RFA nominations is kinda old and not all that funny. RxS (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• Once upon a time, someone did delete AfD.Thread about it from WikiEN-l. Anyone else remember it? -- llywrch (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• I remember, that was funny.....think it got Uncle G in some hot water. RxS (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, I remember the day. Votes for Deletion was deleted, and replaced with the very-near-identical Articles for Deletion, following much Wikidrama. The Land (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

User:BruceFisher at Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher

I am concerned about the conduct at Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher on the part of BruceFisher (talk · contribs), who has just started a new thread (see base of this diff) with the sole aim of calling for another user to cease editing the talk page's associated article. Without substantiation, he claims that the user in question has "compromised himself by posting on an advocacy site" and has "clearly shown bias", finally ordering that he "recuse himself from editing". This development is merely the latest incident in a catalogue of uncivil behaviour from BruceFisher, who has issued similar demands in earlier edits within the last week and has made attacks on other editors, again without foundation. His most recent actions strike me more for their complete disregard for the purpose of talk pages – namely, that such pages are intended for discussion about the topic of an article as opposed to a user's (alleged, if not improbable) misconduct. In the spirit of discussing content, not contributors, I initially considered blanking the entire section of the talk page as a long, baseless personal attack. However, since I am an involved editor at the Murder of Meredith Kercher article and talk page, I have decided to seek a second opinion at the Administrator's Noticeboard. I feel that this tirade cannot stand, and that a warning on the subject of this kind of behaviour is now firmly warranted. Regards, SuperMarioMan 06:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I am concerned with SuperMarioMan's conduct. He seems to be more concerned with policing Wikipedia than he does about helping to create accurate content. He recently went to Candace Dempsey's talk page simply to point out minor infractions. He wasn't there to talk to Candace. In fact the only comment he made to her was in reference to her infractions on her talk page. It is clear that he went there simply looking to see if he could find anything to complain about. I am new to Wikipedia and I understand there are guidelines. I apologize if I have broken any rules. SuperMarioMan has made it very clear that he is not happy with all of the activity on the Meredith Kercher article. It appears to me that he may be using Wikipedia's guidelines as a way to threaten people to be quiet. The Meredith Kercher article has been poorly handled for a long time now. So much in fact that Jimbo Wales felt the need to get involved. I understand that SuperMarioMan may be upset with me because it was my blog that brought the issues of the article to Mr. Wales attention but I don't feel that it is appropriate for SuperMarioMan to devote his efforts to picking apart every word that myself or others that may not agree with him have to say. I would think in the spirit of Wikipedia, the energy should be directed at creating accurate content. BruceFisher (talk) 07:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Not being familiar with all these blog sites, I thank Wikid for the clarification and context. Nevertheless, I don't see how initiating a new talk page thread simply to demand that someone stop editing a particular topic falls within the boundaries of good user conduct - that is at the heart of my original post. Bruce, I would respectfully like to point out that as 85% of the 4000+ edits that I have made to Wikipedia since 2006 have been devoted to the article mainspace, your allegation that I serve only to "police" the site seems curious at best, especially given that I have never held administrator status. I also fail to see how CandaceDempsey comes into this particular dispute. SuperMarioMan 08:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add that I think Bruce is confusing a conduct dispute with a content dispute. For one thing, I'm not aware of actually having expressed any personal opinions on the topic of the article. Hence, I reject the insinuation that I am somehow waging war on particular editors on ideological grounds (e.g. by "using Wikipedia's guidelines as a way to threaten people to be quiet"). What I will not allow to go unchallenged is a section of a talk page created specifically to attack another user. SuperMarioMan 08:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Mario, can I ask why you haven't taken action against Hipocrite for this post, which was designed specifically to attack another user (a user who had not been engaged in a long history of personal attacks as FormerIP had? [49]LedRush (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• The user FormerIP (talk · contribs · block log) (as user with the most edits to article "Murder of Meredith Kercher") has posted to the advocacy site Truejustice.org with what appears to be a self-identified personal-attack rant against User:Jimbo Wales and the talk-page "Monkeys" and this is just scary. The post to blog Truejustice.org is near the bottom of their webpage:

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/evolution_of_the_wikipedia_article_on_the_murder_of_meredith_kercher/

A self-identified claim for that post was put under a closed-discussion topic @User_talk:Jimbo:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=421757391&oldid=421754931 - by FormerIP 02:37, 1 April 2011

The initial message on the blog-page, by a "Gwaendar" username, basically claims Jimbo Wales cannot hope to influence any improvements to the MoMK article, by claiming dire concerns about "prospects for Jimmy Wales if he can indeed have any effect on the editing process - set up so that even he essentially can’t." All of this is just disruptive to the mood of working on the article. So, when User:FormerIP (the editor who has deleted more article text than any other), joins into the negativity, then proudly claims that blog post in User_talk:Jimbo_Wales, the result is unsettling. He has already systematically deleted hundreds of phrases from the article, and now, in a confrontation with the "founder" what will this user do next. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is disruptive from side of FormerIP besides your "flowery" views of what actually happened?TMCk (talk) 07:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

You act as if Jimbo's opinion should have greater weight than the rest of us, when it is Jimbo himself that continually states that he should be treated just as a normal editor. Personally, I agree with Gwaendar and that blog post, but that is neither here or there. Article talk pages are for discussing changes to be made to the article in question, not for discussing user conduct even if it is in relation to the article in question. Thus, I have removed the section on the talk page. If Bruce wishes to discuss actions by FormerIP, then he should go through the proper channels of doing so, such as the very place we are at right now. Silverseren^C 08:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking that refering to the article's talk-page as "Monkeys Go Crazy" and saying that normal editor User:Jimbo_Wales has hamfisted his way into the article might reveal a, perhaps, slight intense hostility, but whatever. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

That's true, but my comment wasn't about FormerIP, it was about the subject line on the talk page. Bruce may very well be justified, but he should be reporting it through the proper channels. Silverseren^C 09:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Well that's not what he said (he quoted someone else) and he didn't say it on wiki and if Jimbo takes offense by the off-wiki "hamfisting" remark he is absolutely capable to defend himself. Still, you seem to see no problem with Bruce's talkpage behavior or do you?TMCk (talk) 09:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Just for completing the record, let's also point out that SPA BruceFisher (talk · contribs) runs his own outside advocacy blog, Injustice in Perugia, and that the totality of his actions here are limited to WP:ABF, attacks, insinuation and innuendo against other editors, loud calls for recusal, and attempting to get their own book added into the article. MLauba ^(Talk) 09:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice to see you again, MLauba. This article should probably be noted also. SuperMarioMan 09:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• Well, perhaps one person's view as "insinuation and innuendo against other editors" could be considered another's defense against insults to User:CandaceDempsey and User:Jimbo_Wales, both of whom have shown remarkable restraint in expecting insults to stop, although the current prospects seem grim AFAICT. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

However, starting a new section on the talk page simply to order another user off the article seems more than just a little heavy-handed as a "defense against (perceived) insults", does it not? SuperMarioMan 10:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems like you're looking for excuses for Bruce's behavior though.TMCk (talk) 09:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a "foot in mouth" comment (by FormerIP), certainly, but looks fine to me... Bringing it up on the talk page like that is a big no-no. Does BruceFisher have a constructive history at the page? (i.e. in terms of discussing content). If not is an appropriate sanction some form of topic ban? It might resolve some issues if he was restricted from the Kercher topic for a bit (say, 3 months?) --Errant ^(chat!) 10:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to apologise for any offence caused by "Monkeys Go Crazy". It was not meant to be aimed at anyone in particular, but as a comment on the state of things. I think editors on that talkpage in general, not necessarily excluding editors of any rank or faction (or myself), could benefit from reflecting on their conduct. However, I can see, given the climate, how editors who saw that comment might have taken it differently. --FormerIP (talk) 10:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, FormerIP, I thank you for that apology because posting to a forum-blog website about the article's talk-page was beginning to seem very extreme. I think if you posted some alternate ideas for the article-editing process, writing ideas somewhere inside enwiki, then that would seem less hostile. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

According to BruceFisher's contributions page, he is an SPA that has pretty much only edited the talk page of said article for his entire Wiki-life of one week. That doesn't bode well in itself. Silverseren^C 10:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the conclusions of MLauba, who quite rightly states that Bruce's contributions to the project have consisted solely of attacking and barking orders at other Wikipedia editors while pushing to have his own book put in the article. The Murder of Meredith Kercher topic has unfortunately been no stranger to disruptive single-purpose accounts with these kinds of advocacy and agenda issues. SuperMarioMan 10:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I am little surprised by this discussion. The MoMK talk page has been a source of contention for a long time. Generally, though, the site has been dominated by a group of editors who seemed to be protecting a specific POV and who engaged in bullying and Wiki-lawyering to prevent other editors from editing. To me, this looks like another example. Bruce's edit was not very helpful, nor, do I think, it was very off base. User Hipocrite basically did the same thing, [50], except it was merely the beginning of a series of personal attacks and disruptive editing. I really hope we don't fall back into the bad old days when one group of editors which seem to have one view on the article/case gain control over the other through means like this.LedRush (talk) 11:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, User FormerIP has engaged in a binge of personal attacks on the site, making his POV very clear. I believe Bruce's statement asking for FormerIP to recuse himself is also based from that fact. This information is not furnished to either excuse any bad action by Bruce (which I don't think was that bad, BTW) nor to instigate any admin action against Hipocrite or FormerIP - this is merely to present some context for people who may be looking at one post in isolationLedRush (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• The problem is that like many other contentious topic areas, one "side" feels that NPOV is achieved if both are presented side-by-side equally, even when one rests largely on conjecture and accusations of conspiracy. We have a case here of a dead girl and several people convicted in a court of law for the murder. We unfortunately have a very small and very vocal cheering section for one of the convicted criminals, a section who thinks that every perceived discrepancy and alternate theory for what happens should be worked into the article. Equally unfortunately is Jimbo's recent involvement to insist that the concerns of some advocacy blog's "open letter to Wikipedia" be addressed, which has now made him a part of the story. Tarc (talk) 13:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately, it's the ideas behind this comment which are actually the problem. A small group of editors has decided that despite the incredible amount of controversy surrounding the case, they want to present an article which states only one side of the story. In order to achieve that end, they bully less established editors and engage in endless Wikilawyering (while breaking WP policy in the process).LedRush (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is the truth. Fringe conspiracy theories don't get weighted the same as, y'know, facts. Otherwise, the lead of the Barack Obama article would be rife with Muslim/Marxist/Kenya innuendo. Tarc (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Observation: Not taking sides here, but this is not a fringe theory. If I understand Italian law correctly, Knox is not convicted and continues to be considered innocent during the appellate process. This is very different from American or British law and we are treading in places where presumptions shouldn't be made. Knox & Sollecito are not considered guilty yet under that system although they would be elsewhere. Fringe theory is not applicable here based on your above arguments. She is not fully convicted yet, correct?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

How can Bruce's comment reasonably be described as a 'tirade' or 'uncivil'? It is neither. None of Bruce's posts have been uncivil, unlike the many extremely rude posts I have seen from people like FormerIP and Hipocrite.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyJoeBibby (talk • contribs) 16:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

*COUGH!* HalfShadow 16:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It must be slander season for this new (?) user[51].TMCk (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I removed it BTW [52].TMCk (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Biophily does WP:POINT editing to "test" me (reported by User:OpenFuture)

• Biophily (talk · contribs · block log)
• OpenFuture (talk · contribs · block log)

I'm at a loss about how to handle this, so I'm going here directly. Full story:

The Jacque Fresco article previously contained pretty much only information on The Venus Project. I moved that information over, and what was left was only a unreferenced stub, so I instead redirected it to The Venus Project. Some people took issue with this, including Biophily. However, he was already then working on a new version of the article, which he recently put up. There has been some discussion on what to include there, my main problem is that many of the claims made are sourced indirectly to Jacque Fresco himself, via interviews in papers and in one case some YouTube videos. I've tried to discuss this to build consensus, but I didn't really think we were getting much forward in the discussion, and was planning to take that another level soon, via a Third Opinion as the number of people involved is pretty much me an Biophily.

Yesterday I reverted an addition as the source of the claim was clearly not reliable. A motivational speaker was used as a source about Jaque Fresco's economic ideas. This prompted the following reaction from Biophily: [53] The relevant parts are these:

"When you delete praise which you claim is illegitimate, yet you don't delete clear and obvious libel which I intentionally included to test you, suggests you may have a bias. Beware of the experiment."

That's editing to make a point. It's also a sort if baiting I guess. He is intentionally including information he thinks shouldn't be there, to try to somehow trip me up and prove and point. That seems like a very strange way to behave. How much of this article is now some sort of bait? This one was extremely subtle as he thinks he made a negative claim, while I thought it was positive. Does he do this with other editors? It's going to be very hard to Assume Good Faith with an editor that readily admits that he doesn't do things in good faith. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

If I may defend myself, I didn't include the information thinking it shouldn't be there. I included it *uncertain* of whether it should be there. I expected editor consensus to determine if it should be there. Despite pointing that out, no one responded to me. The statement I made (you quoted above), I would restate as, "When you delete praise which you claim is contentious, yet you don't delete equally contentious criticism, it suggests you are not fulfilling your duties as an editor, to either change it or discuss it." This is the actual fact of the matter. I didn't create the article with a plan to bait you, it was merely an exagerated whimsical after thought used to make a point in the Elaine Smitha discussion to suggest that you were not being balanced in your editorial conduct. Though I realize the difficulty in redeeming my previous statement that you quoted. It does look bad. But I was BSing. At this time I have not moved on to edit other articles until I am finished with this one. This is the first article to which I have given major contribution. Therefore its impossible for me to have tried to "bait" other editors as you have suggested. I recommend the administrator look at my history of edits to verify this.

Regarding good faith, I did enter with good faith from the very beginning, however I noticed a pattern in your responses to other editors (now archived) that made me wonder about your own good faith towards others. You were very sarcastic and discouraging in some cases, believing that a new Fresco article could not be made.--Biophily (talk) 11:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm also unsure if much of it should be there. And I have responded to these things. I've also already said that I don't think that Fresco himself is a good source for the claim that he converted a group of KKK people. It does seem to me to be an acceptable source for the statement that he was involved with the KKK, as that is not a self-serving claim. Your attempt to pin some sort of bias on me therefore rests on entirely fictional grounds.

Indeed, I didn't believe that there would be grounds for a new article, and I was wrong. I didn't think you could do it, because you repeatedly claimed that sources for notability could be found, but yet you refused to produce one such source. As a result I thought you didn't have any. Sarcastic, no. Did I say "So, do it then" a lot, yes I did.

Before you claimed to try to test me. You now claim that you didn't try to test me? One of the statements is obviously false. You lost my trust, and will have to regain it. Sorry. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

You're right, joining the KKK is not a self-serving claim. However that is only half the claim. To include it would be incomplete and a manipulative attempt to portray Fresco in a libelous light, which I believe is what Sloane may have tried to do when he first introduced the KKK claim.

I realize that I have stupidly jeopardized trust (thanks to my lack of sleep and deterioration of rational judgment), but my initial concern still stands: Why did you delete an opinion of praise, but not delete the KKK claim even though they are both contentious by your judgment? Aren't both unreliably sourced and doesn't the KKK claim defy Wikipedia's policy for libel? From this I suspected bias and tried to pin it on you by claiming to have rigged something to show it. I regret it, but my initial concern still stands as stated above, though I don't know if I have the right to ask why you do and don't do something. But I have the right to wonder.--Biophily (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe I have answered this on the talk page now. From my viewpoint this issue has now been handled as best as it could, and the issue is now closed. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

82.8.192.142

(Drops here from WP:Administrators' noticeboard, wags tail and pants) —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 11:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

A particularly nasty individual who I ran into on the Siege of Malta (World War II) is now trying to make life difficult on The Hardest Day, an article that I've just created to offer some commentary on the Battle of Britain campaign. It is incomplete at the moment, but this individual insists on insulting me at any opportunity [54] (while adding that I am a "fucking moron"), while adding little to the article. What makes his complaints even more ludicrous is that his edits are not any better, and he insists I'm violating WP:OWN (and WP:DICK - the irony). I've created the article, I have done most 99.99% of the work, and if I object to changing of wording am I violating WP:OWN? He also thinks that there should be no citations in the lead, but there are plenty of articles at GA and above with them in the introduction.

I'd appreciate someone giving this trouble maker a warning about his conduct. It is insulting, and counterproductive. I want to get this article to GA, and this individual is preventing it from progressing. Dapi89 (talk) 09:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks like someone has warned him to tone down the language; it is inappropriate and if he keeps it up, I guess a little block might be in order. On the other hand I looked at his additions/changes to the article and they seemed appropriate and largely beneficial - fixing some grammatical problems and helping the wording flow properly. I can't comment on whether he changed the technical details to be inaccurate (if that's the case, perhaps just fixing those back would have been a better approach) but the IP appears to have been improving the article. Ownership is not a well expressed idea; usually when you write an article in its entirety some latitude is given to you as an editor - on the other hand rejecting those IP edits out of hand isn't a good idea. At the very least a legitimate explanation for why your version was better (or at least a partial revert of the piece you disputed) on the talk page is a much better approach. Reverting the whole thing w/o commentary should be avoided. Also; interesting article :) --Errant ^(chat!) 11:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm just asking someone to watch the article. I don't believe it is a coincident he has now turned up here and will likely argue about everything. The last thing I want to be doing is to be wasting my time with what Wikipedia refers to as a piss artist - the definition of a time waster. BTW, I noticed at least five mistakes in his copyedits. Some were not technically wrong, but the previous versions just look better. Had he not been so abusive 'on Malta', then I would have been more accommodating. Thanks for the interest in the article BTW! Dapi89 (talk) 12:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, looking over thetalk page at the Siege of Malta article I think you need to take a deep breath when dealing with people who are disagreeing with you. From what I read you both acted with a lack of decorum. Try to see other points of view. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It was technical point. He made a claim that Wikipedia expressly forbade the style I introduced, though I proved unequivocally he'd misquoted the paragraph. Anyway, as I expect he will be beck with vengeance, could you please keep on eye on the Hardest Day?Dapi89 (talk) 12:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you ErrantX for noting that the additions i have made to the articles, regardless of my language on talkpages, have been constructrive on all articles i have thus far edited. I have no intrest in "seeking vengeance" regardless of Dapi's numerous unfounded accusations towards me: what really needs to be addressed is Dapi's inability to co-operate with other editors, out of hand reverting constructive edits, and in general his attitute towards others; his talk page is full of these examples.

Dapi, you noticed five mistakes: would you care to enlighten me to what they were considering the dozens of yours i fixed, that is really a poor excuse for a blanket revert with such pathetic edit summarys that once again throw unfounded accusations my way.

As for the Malta thing, you once again insert lies to defend yourself: three people disagreed with you and you argued tooth and nail with straw man points to revert an anon user who had corrected you... kind of like your misuse of German. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.192.142 (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you'll find I was closer to the correct translation than you were - by a long way. Dapi89 (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

This IP is from Woking, Surrey, while the earlier IP 86.4.81.225 was from quite some distance away in Runcorn, Cheshire. Nevertheless, they definitely appear to be the same editor, who would have been blocked, I think, for personal attacks by now if he had a registered username. Neither he nor Dapi89 have been acting with collegiality. Binksternet (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it is harsh to say that I have stooped that low. Still, comment appreciated. Dapi89 (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Timeline of events leading to the American Civil War

Timeline of events leading to the American Civil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rjensen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Donner60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I found some instances of WP:SYN on Timeline of events leading to the American Civil War which I tried to address without much success with the editors involved, User:Donner60 and User:Rjensen. In the process I started finding plagerized statements from one source that I happened to be able to read via Google Books, Wagner, Margaret E., Gary W. Gallagher, and Paul Finkelman. The Library of Congress Civil War Desk Reference. (2009) ISBN 978-1-4391-4884-6, page 59-63 google books. I've found nine instances of plagiarism so far which I detailed on the talk page. I haven't researched all of them, but a few were added by Donner60 on February 20th - diff.

While reporting the copyvio, apparently Rjensen decided to simply delete the template and keep editing the article. I documented 7 more instances of plagiarism, including a second source, and today I restored the page to the copyvio version, and I'm reporting this as an incident so the copyvios get 7 days to be researched.

This article contains mostly sources that are only available in print, and there are hundreds of citations to check. Some statements were plagiarized before these two editors were involved, then while they were trying to add citations simply cited the plagiarism making it easy to find - I don't understand why they didn't rewrite the statements at that point. One plagiarized statement is in the oldest edit from 2004. No one wants to blank the article but it would be very complex to remove the individual instances of plagiarism; especially considering the editors involved don't seem to take wikipedia policies seriously. Thank you for your assistance. Kirk (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

You may find Wikipedia:Copyright problems a more useful place to post this. (And spelling the word "plagiarism" wouldn't hurt.) -- llywrch (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you even read his post? He followed the instructions on wp:copyright problems, but ended up in an edit war when trying to place the {{copyvio}} template. I will place the template again and suggest the page is protected and relevant editors warned if it is removed again. Yoenit (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, spelling things right would have helped, sorry about that! I already reported this & Yoenit understood my request. ThanksKirk (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Forever true

I came across this user (Forever true (talk · contribs)) who seems to be using Wikipedia mainly as a vehicle to promote his book, and as a battleground (insisting on debating either Richard Dawkins or other editors, I can't tell).[55] They've even removed material from Talk:Richard Dawkins and replaced it with debate challenges.[56] Somewhere in their user talk page, which mostly consists of incomprehensible rants, there appears to be what may seem like a veiled legal threat, but I honestly can't tell what is meant. Kansan (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

This user has actually made legal threats (I had to warn him on one), and is spamming incomprehensible arguments that, if we get rid of the article on his book (which is at AFD and currently trended deletion as non-notable), he's threating we should get rid of other articles on various topics that surround the science-vs-religion debate. I would at least AGF until the AFD closes, after which if he continues to engage, blocking would be appropriate. --MASEM (t) 15:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Book of Pure Logic now speedily deleted as spam. Related user page versions at User:Forever true/Book of Pure Logic and User:Forever true/Pure Logic also tagged for speedy deletion. – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The user's edits as 96.55.192.149 (talk · contribs) are also self-promotional and confrontational. I think there are severe WP:COI and WP:COMPETENCE issue...here are some choice edits:[57][58][59][60] I think a block of the account & IP, perhaps with a standard offer, is appropriate. — Scientizzle 16:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked Forever true (talk · contribs) indefinitely and 96.55.192.149 (talk · contribs) for 72 hours. I provided some reading material and suggestion in the block message... — Scientizzle 16:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

So...so he's Forever Gone, then? HalfShadow 16:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Featured article link on main page reads "Fanny scratching"

Resolved: read this: April Fools' Day — Scientizzle 15:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

... but links to article on Cock Lane Ghost -- the ghost in question's given name apparently was "Fanny" and she was known as 'Scratching Fanny' but I'm thinking some enterprising vandal inverted the order from "Scratching Fanny" -- it makes it sound like a practice rather than a person. I mention this here b/c it's the main page and is protected -- apologies if this isn't the correct venue. Thanks. BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

And if that *is* in fact correct then I recognize it's a content issue and doesn't belong here. BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

*wandering through the page* Buttscratcher! Get yer buttscratcher! *wanders off* --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It's intentional - it's April Fools Day, remember, and Malleus and Raul654 composed the summary, complete with Fanny Scratching. Acroterion (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

This is an example of precisely why we need to end this annual "April Fool's Day" b/s. It consumes more bandwidth than it's worth and most of it isn't even funny. – ukexpat (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea from that April 1 pranks were supposed to be funny? Malleus Fatuorum 15:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Malleus Fatuorum made the most significant start to the blurb. Raul and Malleus hammered the rest out between them. I think the blurb's most preposterous wording was the best. I love April 1 tomfoolery and heartily endorse it. Binksternet (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

In American vernacular fanny refers to the buttocks but in the British it refers to the female genitalia. So basically you have an April Fools joke about female masturbation to your British audience. For an international resource that is just classy. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Coming from someone who's name indicates xe is urinating on the curry monster.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• Cock Lane...*pfffft*... HalfShadow 16:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I assumed that was intentional (...Cock Lane) since I've heard that the UK meaning of fanny is now familiar in the US. DeCausa (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I assume this was especially popular along Gropecunt Lane... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Danielclements

The account Danielclements (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email) has an obvious singular purpose of promoting the website www.pendulumofmayfair.co.uk. See brief contribution history, previous warnings,[61] and User_talk:Jeffro77#Nebuchenezzar_Edited_link. The editor has previously made reference to "a clock we have in our collection",[62] indicating that the editor is directly affiliated with the promoted website.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC) (The editor also e-mailed me using Wikipedia's e-mail function, with the same [benign] text as at my Talk page. I have not replied.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC))

Enforcement of non-free content policy

I'm being repeatedly reverted while trying to enforce the non-free content policy on Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey, where the non-free image File:2001child2.JPG is being used as a top decoration (see the article's history and the file's history).

The fair use rationale's says the image is necessary because one of the article's sections discusses a certain passage in the movie captured by the image. But not only the discussion is obviously not about the "visual aspect" of the passage, but the image is also not even placed on the mentioned section.

I'm reporting here because I can preview the outcome of being reverted again, being myself reported at 3RR, and being blocked for that. I hope someone with a better reputation than mine could interfere to do the policy enforcement. --Damiens.rf 16:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no comment on the actual merits of the image, but just saying, you probably should not add speedy tags to an image that has either survived a previous deletion discussion or is currently being discussed. If you still want it deleted, you should start a new FfD with an explanation of why the "keep" !voters in the previous one failed to address your concerns. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not asking it to be deleted. I'm just removing it from the article where it's used as a decoration. --Damiens.rf 17:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Because 1) the image otherwise conforms to the basic requirements of NFCC (has a rationale, licensed, and used in at least one article, in addition to the use you are contesting), and 2) it is a disagreement over whether the image is really needed or not (eg does it meet NFCC#8), it is not a good idea to edit war on image removal. You should try discussing the image inclusion on the talk page, and, failing that, at Non-free content review to discuss that specific usage. --MASEM (t) 17:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I observe that you have not engaged editors on the page about this topic. Please try discussing your objection to the image before outright waring to have it removed. Hasteur (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Whether a fair use image is validly used or not in an article is a content dispute that should be resolved through discussion (WP:DR), not by reverting. People may in good faith disagree about this, and edit-warring about this matter is just as disruptive as edit-warring about any other content issue, such as whether any content is original research or has undue weight.  Sandstein  17:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Article's editor's will always want to put as much images on "their" article, and nfcc would never be respected. I don't thing enforcing a policy needs to be discussed on talk page, since it's not an editorial decision. I'll try the non-free content review link you posted. Is it really active? --Damiens.rf 17:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps the complaining editor should have discussed the issue on the article's talk page, where other editors were discussing it. Dreadstar ☥ 17:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Don't try to create an animosity. You know I've discussed the matter with you. --Damiens.rf 17:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Considering the nature of the star-child, I doubt very much that someone's attempt to "describe it" is adequate. The visual speaks a thousand words. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
      • The "visual" is not discussed in the article. --Damiens.rf 18:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Why not? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
          • Probably because no one found a reliable source that does that. --Damiens.rf 20:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• WP:Concensus, try it. If several editors are against you in the interpertation of policy, it could be a sign that you're not reading it correctly. Hasteur (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• This has been listed at WP:NFR, and that's the best venue for the discussion. fteSil (talk) 19:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)