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

Editor refusing to explain closure of MR against consensus

The move review discussion for 30 seconds to mars,was recently closed by User:Jreferee as no consensus despite only seven !votes being cast and of those only two were to endorse closure. Two editors including myself have requested an explanation with no result. Could someone please either get an explanation for their actions against consensus or reverse the disputed closure. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 22:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I think this ANI thread is a little early. Earthh asked the question and 8 hours later you took the issue to ANI. Give it 24 to 48 hours from Earthh's message and then come here.--v/r - TP 22:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Jreferee did respond;[1] PantherLeapord's own behavior is cause of the breakdown in communication.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Observation: The problem is that the 2 overturn-pending-explanation votes were not adjusted after the explanation is given. However, even when you toss those 2 votes out, there are 2 endorse close, 4 overturn, 1 relist. That is still sufficient evidence that the move is not supported, and the MR should not have been closed as such. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Jreferee just replied with the following:

The move review close was based on the strength of arguments regarding whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. In other words, it was a review of whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly, not whether the close was correct or incorrect. The iVotes that addressed the sufficiency of the close explanation were not directed to whether closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. SmokeyJoe only wanted an explanation, which BDD provided. SmokeyJoe did not provide much argument, so it seemed to be a week endorse. B2C appeared to indicated that B2C adopted BDD’s explanation, giving strength to B2C position as endorse. Cúchullain and BDD both had strong endorse arguments, with BDD close additionally benefitting from closer’s discretion. On the overturn side, there were strong arguments and additional comments which addressed whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly to varying degrees. BDDs additional details on his close (18:34, 28 August 2013) was there for twelve days, but did not significantly move the discussion one way or another. I did not see a general sense of agreement one way or another. Since BDDs additional details on his close seemed to quell general concern for his close and there appeared to be no consensus in the move review, which has the same effect as endorse close, I close the review as endorse close.

What confuses me is that this implies that votes not going either way were to be interpreted as "endorse". Is that how things are supposed to be done normally? PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 04:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• I have asked B2C and SmokeyJoe to comment here, as their comments (and lack of follow-up) contributed (inadvertently, most likely) to this report. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm interested to see how this turns out. I was initially alarmed when an administrator, Jreferee, was upset with PantherLeapord because, quite frankly, I don't want him to make any mistakes since I was his mentor a bit ago after he got into a bit of trouble and sought out the adopt-a-user program. However, quite frankly, there's no way this should have proceeded this way by my definition of "consensus." Though it may be wiki-career suicide, I, too, disagree with the actions of Jreferee. However, with that said, I'll stop short of accusing anything more than a hasty or accidental action. I've certainly made worse mistakes than this. I do think that the decision should be reversed, but Jreferee, who has a history of very positive contributions, should simply duly note this, and everyone should move on. --Jackson Peebles (talk • contribs) 06:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Jreferee spoke about the endorses but not the overturs. The majority of the users expressed an overturn, so there's a consensus. Almost everyone in the move review wrote that at the requested move there was no consensus to move the page to the current title.--Earthh (talk) 13:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Looking at the whole; even the comments presents the official name is "Thirty Seconds". I like how the argument against "Thirty Seconds" is the Allmusic usage of "30 seconds..."[2], but the title is "Thirty Seconds" and the url changes as well to match it.[3]. Further evidence comes from the "Awards" which all list "Thirty Seconds".[4] MTV also lists "Thirty Seconds".[5] The official website is "Thirty Seconds to Mars".[6] Now let's not get into the limitations of Twitter where the short-hand is adequate. BBC uses it, but here is the interesting thing, other websites use "Thirty Seconds" and aside from the Youtube, the major sites all use it.[7] If anything, the usage in authoritative (not short hand) form is for "Thirty Seconds" and Wikipedia is a professional-level encyclopedia and should reflect that in both prose and title. The prose says "Thirty Seconds" not "30 seconds" throughout and when weighing the factors, seems to be a clear choice. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• You should read my comments on the move review. AllMusic changed the name recently, it was 30 Seconds to Mars when I posted it, but if you read the biography, they still use 30 Seconds to Mars. This also underline the fact that the "Thirty Seconds" is a new name. Since 1998 the band has been using "30 Seconds" while "Thirty Seconds" is used from 2013 onwards, that's why "Thirty Seconds" should remain a redirect (read WP:COMMONNAME).--Earthh (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hey, I just am pointing out what I see. For professionalism we should use the official name when it is recognized internationally as such, short or long form of "Thirty". Let's not get into the Manning issue, but this is not out of the Prince (musician) issue and its not like "Mammoth" to "Van Halen", but just whether or not you write out the number or don't. For appearances and professionalism combined with the adoption and official use of "Thirty" and not "30", the official use should trump over a shortening no matter how prevalent. Examples to this are rather rare, yes, but Wikipedia is the sole major site that doesn't use "Thirty". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• They currently use both "30 Seconds" and "Thirty Seconds". 30 Seconds to Mars has been the official name since 1998, only in 2013 Thirty Seconds to Mars became the official name. 30 Seconds to Mars should remain the title of the article since it has been the official name for almost the entire band's career and we should write that more recently the band is also known as Thirty Seconds to Mars.--Earthh (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• I think that you guys are getting a bit off-topic. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 23:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I failed to follow-up after posting this in the move review:

• Pending explanation - This close should have been made with a full explanation of how the closer found consensus in favor of the move. If this explanation is provided, as an addendum to the RM, and it's reasonable, I will fully endorse. Otherwise I will support an overturn. --B2C 06:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

However, the closer, BDD (talk · contribs) did provide a full explanation:

• Some editors here have asked for an explanation of the close: here goes. There were no real policy-based arguments to weigh. The nominator claimed the move per WP:COMMONNAME; the oppose voters thought the status quo was the common name. No one bothered to dredge up evidence. (And no, their Facebook and Twitter don't count; those "sources" conflicted anyway.) So I went with a headcount. After about two and a half weeks without decent arguments, I went with the majority position. So there you go. Not the most elegant decision, but you make closes with the arguments you have, not the arguments you might wish to have.

I disagree with BDD's finding; I think absent a policy based argument favoring the move, it was at best "no consensus". Finding WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in favor for the move by finding a marginal majority of such a small self-selected sample through counting !votes is not a reasonable explanation. If I had followed up, I would not have endorsed (I wish someone would have notified me to follow up before closing the move review...). Overturn.

What's relevant here is that my input should not have been viewed as an endorse in the closing of the move review. --B2C 23:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• I think closing it as no consensus is ridiculous. There's a 2.5-to-1 majority against endorsing the original closure, and this smacks as the SECOND !supervote in this case. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • You think closing "it" as no consensus is ridiculous? By "it" do you mean the original RM, or the RM review?

    You think "this" smacks as the SECOND !supervote in "this case"? What is the first "this" referring to? Does "this case" refer to the original RM, the RM review, or this ANI review of the RM review? --B2C 17:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• For fuck's sake, if you're going to make this pointless/stupid of a comment, then don't bother commenting at all. As a ten year old could tell, the move review closure is what was closed as no consensus (the RM wasn't closed as no consensus), both closures have been !supervote's, and you're wasting people's time when you attempt to distract from people's comments like this. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
  • In my comment I wrote that the original RM (BDD's finding) was "at best 'no consensus'". You replied to that saying you "think closing it as no consensus is ridiculous". There was no way to know you were referring to the no consensus result that actually occurred at the RM review, and not to the "at best" comment I made about the original RM. Anyway, thanks for the clarification. We agree the no consensus finding in the RM review is incorrect. --B2C 04:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that during the requested move, the nominator had been canvassing, leaving a message on User:Noyes388 talk page to notify him of the requested move, which he supported (read this).--Earthh (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Overturn per above post by myself and failure to adequately explain actions in the interim as well as the input of B2C and PantherLeapord. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
• Overturn original MR closure - Clearly a textbook supervote and should be reversed ASAP. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 22:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that we found a consensus. Could someone proceed and restore the original name?--Earthh (talk) 12:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The RM review and the original RM both need to be overturned. --B2C 04:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• The information page Wikipedia:Closing discussions provides process regarding Requested moves and reviewing requested moves. Consensus was decided at the Requested Move proposal and that close was reviewed at Move Review. Some of the same editors in the move request or move review discussions wanting to continue their move positions or move request positions in this AN thread. However, the discussion close and review of that close process provides for closure so that the community can move on. In regards to the request of this AN thread - "Editor refusing to explain closure of MR against consensus" - I was happy to provided it. In further details of that, I do appreciate the above feedback, but my reasoning reposted 04:40, 10 September 2013 above from here is still valid. I close the Move Review based on strength of arguments regarding whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. I considered, but gave less weight, to arguments that merely posted a conclusory statement or did not focus on strength of arguments regarding whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly on arguments. B2C posted, "This close should have been made with a full explanation of how the closer found consensus in favor of the move. If this explanation is provided, as an addendum to the RM, and it's reasonable, I will fully endorse. Otherwise I will support an overturn." BDD provided that explanation on 28 August 2013, B2C did not reply, and the discussion was closed 9 September 2013, so I think reasonable to have seen B2C's position as fully endorse and give it the weight I did (more than SmokeyJoe, less than Cúchullain and BDD), within the confines of that discussion. B2C's position in the move review does not make or break the close any more than any one position does. In looking at the discussion as a whole, the collective move review endorse and overturn arguments - which both fell in the spectrum of weak to strong arguments - resulted in both sides providing strong arguments in their reasoning of whether BDD's interpreted the requested move proposal consensus incorrectly. There was no general sense of agreement one way or another. -- Jreferee (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

And the community has disagreed with that reading. Please do the right thing and undo your closure. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 01:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

When I wrote my comment at the RM review saying I endorsed pending a reasonable explanation from BDD, I fully expected BDD to provide a reasonable explanation. I was so sure about that, I neglected to come back and check until I was notified about this ANI discussion on my user talk page. My bad. Surprisingly, the explanation provided by BDD on 28 August 2013 was, frankly, borderline pathetic. Certainly not reasonable:

Some editors here have asked for an explanation of the close: here goes. There were no real policy-based arguments to weigh. The nominator claimed the move per WP:COMMONNAME; the oppose voters thought the status quo was the common name. No one bothered to dredge up evidence. (And no, their Facebook and Twitter don't count; those "sources" conflicted anyway.) So I went with a headcount. After about two and a half weeks without decent arguments, I went with the majority position. So there you go. Not the most elegant decision, but you make closes with the arguments you have, not the arguments you might wish to have. --BDD (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

"No real policy-based arguments to weigh". And, yet, BDD found consensus? That's reasonable?

"So I went with a headcount...I went with a majority decision". That's reasonable?

Finding consensus in such a vacuum is exactly the kind of RM decision that needs to be reversed, and your RM review failing to see that is exactly the kind of RM Review decision that needs to be reversed. For the record, I have no position on the original RM question. I have no personal preference (never heard of the topic before), and don't know which meets COMMONNAME better. --B2C 19:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I am seriously considering taking this to arbcom unless the closure is reversed even if it is only so the community's will can be enacted. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 22:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thirty Seconds to Mars (also commonly stylized as 30 Seconds to Mars) is an American rock band from Los Angeles, formed in 1998

• RM1: The result of the move request was: not moved. @Jenks24: (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
• RM2: The result of the proposal was moved. --@BDD: (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
• MR: Thirty Seconds to Mars – Endorse Close. - There is no consensus in the move review, which has the same effect as Endorse Close. No action is required on the article title. -- @Jreferee: (talk) 00:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

On a re-reading of the above discussions I see: RM1 was clear. RM2 was a stretch to close this way, and definitely so if RM1 is considered. MR is a cautious "no consensus" that another admin may have read a rough consensus for Overturn or Relist.

• Is Jreferee at fault?

1. Could another another admin agree with the close? Yes Jreferee's close is defensible, and well defensible in isolation.
2. Did the closer have a COI or was he otherwise INVOLVED? No
3. Is there now so great a problem that it can't be worked on? No

No, Jreferee is not at fault. This discussion does not really belong at ANI. But where? So, ways forward?

(1) Jreferee could unclose the MR so that it might receive further attention.

(2) A fresh RM could be intiated to reverse the close on the basis that there was never a consensus to move (undermining the standing of the MR process and returning to the old endless "If you don't like the RM result, start a new one").

(3) Do nothing (offensive to an ordinary editor who believes that both BDD and Jreferee erred).

(4) Initiate #2 as an RfC.

(5) Go to Arb Com (my view: in the absence of even an allegation of poor conduct by any user, they should see no role for arb com in this question).

I recommend #1, failing that then #4. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact, I suggested (1) on Jreferee's talk page[8]. I suggest others encourage him as well. If he refuses to comply with our requests, I agree #4 is the best course of action. --B2C 23:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

No response, yet. --B2C 22:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Jreferee (talk · contribs)... we're waiting for your response to my question on your talk page[9]. Thanks. --B2C 23:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

If there is no comment within 48 hours of this comment then I may take action to overturn the closure and allow another admin to review it. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 08:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Well, for the record, Jreferee said he was not going to. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 20:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Well as long as they do not revert the reversal of the closure then things should be fine. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 10:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

What's going on here? I've just nominated Thirty Seconds to Mars for the Good article status, fixing multiple issues and expanding it, but how will we resolve this issue?--Earthh (talk) 12:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The simplest way to resolve this is for Jreferee to revert his close. That way I can clarify my position (as it has been misinterpreted), others will have a chance to chime in, and someone else can close it. However, for reasons I cannot understand, Jreferee (talk · contribs) is not cooperating. I mean, he cites lack of policy basis to revert - but that's an excuse. Anyone can revert anything they've done, including a close. He doesn't need "policy basis" to revert his close. I, for one, am still hoping he'll change his mind, because the alternatives are:

• Someone else reverts the close (preferably an admin after reading this thread - it certainly can't be anyone involved so far, other than Jref).
• Someone starts a new RM as an RFC per SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs)'s #4 above.

--B2C 17:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Jreferee (talk · contribs)'s obstinacy on this matter is disappointing, to say the least. All that we're asking for is a revert of the move review so I can clarify my position, and give it a few days to see if others have anything to add, and let someone else evaluate the discussion. His refusal to cooperate is bewildering and contrary to the spirit of WP as I understand it. But there we are. I suppose someone else can revert the move review, but it really should be an uninvolved admin. Otherwise, somebody who cares (not me) needs to start another RM. --B2C 23:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I am seriously considering doing just that. As long as Jreferee does not try to get it speedy closed due to some imaginary waiting time then it should be able to get a clearer consensus on this. I will give Jreferre another week or so to do the right thing before I start it. I know that I am being STUPIDLY generous with waiting for so long but I always assume good faith in that Jreferee will do the right thing and revert their closure before the 7 day deadline expires. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 00:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Their official website is http://www.thirtysecondstomars.com/ where they call themselves Thirty Seconds to Mars. FreeRangeFrog stated "As disclosure, I have been in contact with two of the band's reps via OTRS who requested essentially the same thing". If the band says that's their name by confirmed representatives emailing Wikipedia, as well as on their official site, then that's the name that should be used. Seeing what is written on their album covers, they once used the name "30" on their debut album, and then spelled it out as "thirty" on all future albums. Dream Focus 09:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you have proof of the ORTS interaction? PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 10:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

You have to contact the person making that claim and ask them. They should be able to easily link to it. Dream Focus 17:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Bot gone wild

I'm not sure of the procedure here but could someone please block or stop Cyberbot II from continuing its spam-tagging pending further discussion? It's making 20+ controversial main article tags per minute and it seems bot-edit-warring against editors who try to revert it, while the operator is offline. Please see User talk:cyberpower678 for the beginnings of a discussion on this. Best err on the side of not making a huge mess for human editors to clean up, if the bot gets fixed or properly approved it can always resume its rounds. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I have shut down that specific task, because multiple editors raised concerns. I have no opinion on whether the bot functioned correctly or not, but since it is not a very urgent task, some more discussion and clarification can't hurt. Fram (talk) 09:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

These spam tags should be removed automatically, as it would take too long to do it manually.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this change happened (ok if spamming site), I found another (inferiour?) link and changed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ARM_Holdings&diff=574425185&oldid=574323253 comp.arch (talk) 10:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Well I just woke up, so I am sifting throught everything to determine whether the bot was malfunction or not.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 11:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• From what I have been shown, the has been functioning correctly. It's validation engine to the regex list is exactly the same as MediaWiki's. The reason why it's tagging so many at once, is because it's running it's initial round. The bot removes them on it's own once they become whitelisted.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 11:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

  For example, I just tried to add the link mentioned above right here, and was blocked by the blacklist.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 11:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The bot is back to edit warring.[10] Can we please shut it down pending discussion? I'm not sure the question is whether it's functioning as approved, but whether it's operating without consensus. Bot approval is not the same as consensus, and this one seems to be doing a lot of high-speed damage. Plus, AFAIK bots are not allowed to edit war or create policy. Let's organize a wider discussion on what if anything this bot should be doing to tag articles. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't see this high speed damage? I understand that the bot didn't make any incorrect taggings?

The bot is not creating new rules, it's just warning about infractions of current rules. If the blacklist and the whitelist are broken, that is a different problem that needs to be addressed elsewhere.

Mind you, the bot needs a few fixes: don't re-add the tags, and tag at much slower pace. I don't care if it's the initial round, it's still too fast. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes it's back. This bot is blatant spam and should not be allowed to tag article pages. It should place the tag on the talk page. The existence of a possible blacklisted link is not worth ruining the appearance of a page over. Please can this bot be shut down until it is modified.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

If we have that many blacklisted links appearing on pages that the bot that's tagging for them is referred to as "spamming", that's a very troubling problem with the fact that there's so many blacklisted links that have snuck into the project, not a problem with the bot. We should be thankful that the bot is bringing this to blatantly obvious attention, not calling for it to be changed so we can stick our heads in the sand over the problem. (Also {{blacklisted-links}} works the same way as {{update}} or {{copypaste}}. Have fun moving those to the talk page.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that links that were previously thought of as OK are now being thrown up as spam links. This is compounded by the agressive nature of the bot, which doesn't allow the template to be removed for more than about 12 hours, when it takes weeks for a link to be white listed. I have no real problem with the bot, but a huge problem with the way it operates, we all volenteer here, and loosing good links because of a mistake in the blacklist is not a good thing; this is happening. It is for these reasons that I shut down the bot, and would request it not be started again for a week or so, to allow time for the whitelist/blacklist issues to be sorted. Liamdavies (talk) 13:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

No-one has problems with having a maintenance tag on an article for 1 year, why is it an issue to have this template there for a couple of weeks? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem is more with the template than the bot... A smaller tag on the link itself and a notification on the talkpage would seem more appropriate than a banner across the top of the page. MChesterMC (talk) 11:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I am going to comment here regarding the tagging on the talkpage vs. page itself. Maintenance tags are generally added to the page, and this is a maintenance tag. Although I see that there is no hurry (like with copyvio tags), the problem at hand is worse than not having incoming wikilinks, or having problems with references: I recently ran into a case where I had to whitelist a link, revert a page to a non-vandalised version that mutilated the link in question, de-whitelist, and then ask for whitelisting (I did not want to make the call on whether the link should be whitelisted) - there are cases where a simple rollback (which is ignored by the blacklist) does not work anymore. That is a serious nuisance, and that is what this bot could avoid. I would ask to consider to make the template left by the bot in line with banners that are produced by the other maintenance tags. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment by uninformed amateur, maybe not worth an answer, an opinion: This thing is clearly out of control. I tried to talk to Cyberpower678, and feel I was blown off. First I was told that it’s not his problem, then I was directed to a page that I don’t understand, and the same link keeps getting tagged, despite Liam. Now Cyberpower678 just posted that he’s gone for a while. This simply cannot be right, can it?Sammy D III (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that links are either (1) used inappropriately on an article, or (2) inappropriately in the spam blacklist. Complaining about the bot is just shooting the messenger. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Jackmcbarn: (1)No (2)sounds good. Can’t this be turned off, or be made to skip this one link? I tried to address blacklist, but am in way over my head. Either way, thank you for your reply. Sammy D III (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes; you need to either have the link removed from the blacklist or added to the whitelist. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The bot is running fine and is highlighting a problem not creating it any way and maintenance tags aren't spam. The bot isn't at fault for links being on the blacklist and i think The Bushranger summed it up correctly it highlights a major issue of how these links got added to the project in the first place.Blethering Scot 17:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I think Cyberpower has done a good job of reacting to feedback about this bot. Personally, I'd prefer to see the tags on the talkpage, but opinions will differ on that, and I'm not personally keen on maintenance tags in the "customers'" faces in general. That's a separate discussion that should be had elsewhere.

If the bot is exposing a long term problem, that may be painful. If the bot is too keen on edit warring, or needs throttling, then let's address that somewhere. Maybe we should address it before the bot is active again.

But the main reason for my post is the first thing I said - I think Cyber is being responsive, and if the bot task has exposed a large number of incorrect pre-existing links it's going to be hard for one editor to deal with the huge amount of "bounceback" that is bound to cause. I write code, and I am often in the position Cyber is now. He's trying (very hard) to do the right thing, so let's cut him a little slack, even if in doing so we need to get him to hold off on the bot tagging for a short while so we can discuss. I'm personally grateful he's taken the time he has (and the flack he has) to look at this issue for us. Begoon ^talk 19:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I am clearly missing something here. “I think Cyberpower has done a good job of reacting to feedback about this bot.”

I started with “Comment by uninformed amateur”, in fact I am impaired. But I try. I don’t know how to do diffs, so I am leaving page urls. I first tried this as “why is cable car guyblacklisted?”:[11]. No answer, not a problem, nobody goes to my stuff, anyway. So I tried this: [12]. Helpful? Who but a code person could get this? [13]. Then I came here. Lots more help. And despite this: “I tried to address blacklist, but am in way over my head.” Not one of you in any way tried to help me check this, or did it yourself. At 11:37 and 11:53 he defended the action of his program, then he posted this: [14]. At no time has he offered any real help, turn his program off, or in any way address the problem it was causing. Then he left with “Since I likely won't be able to think straight for a while”. As someone who deals with neurologists regularly, this doesn’t sound credible to me. But I am not a Doctor, I admit this. Now I read this (I’m repeating it, I know): “I think Cyberpower has done a good job of reacting to feedback about this bot”. This sounds crazy to me, and believe me, I know crazy. Personal attack? Feel free to block me, I certainly don’t belong in the ivory tower.Sammy D III (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Cyberpower has no responsibility for links being on the blacklist he never put them on there so 100% he has no issue to answer in that respect. He is also not resposible for adding or removing a link from said blacklist and cyber has pointed several users in the correct direction of what should be done. Now its time to stop putting the boot in on a perfectly functioning bot which has done exactly the task it is supposed to and a user who has no responsibility for the blacklist whatsoever. What has happened here is that a long list of users are unhappy that the links they want in the articles are on the mediawiki blacklist and these links should never have been put in wiki space in the first place and need removed or proven to be suitable for removal from said list. Blethering Scot 22:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

As mentioned above, Cyberpower has no responsibility whatsoever for what's on or not on the blacklist; asking him why link X is blacklisted is like asking a gas station attendant how a refinery works. And if you are "someone who deals with neurologists regularly" you should know very well that when someone gets frustrated/annoyed it becomes difficult to have rational discussions ("thinking straight") so that commentary is frankly rather disingenuous. Now let's get back to removing these bad links - and if there are some that are, in fact, valid links wrongly on the blacklist, Wikipedia will not get sucked into a black hole and implode if the link has to be commented out until it's whitelisted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Cyberpower indeed has no responsibility for flaws in the blacklist, and Cyberpower correspondingly has no reason to complain if the community shuts this task down for being unwise and a harm on the encyclopedia. In the past few days about 10% of +/- 1200 the articles on my watchlist have received a tag that impugns the integrity of the article and that a casual reader who arrives on this project from google would have no meaningful way of understanding or dealing with. Clearly, degrading articles is not conducive to the apparent purpose of the bot tag, an automated function for trying to deal with spam. The vast majority of the tagged articles on my watchlist are not spam, they are commercial sites of uncertain reliability (and many, clearly appropriate for the purpose cited). When I've removed the tags as inapt, the bot just re-tagged them. I could remove 100 tags per day from my watchlist, the bot would retag them... am I supposed to submit a WP:3R report to see who gets blocked first? The problem with bots is that they do not watch or listen to any consensus process, and there is no consensus for this. The template encourages me to go through a ridiculous guilty-until-proven-innocent process (full of warnings that reports would likely be denied) just to assert that no, the link in the article is either something we can deal with, or is a reliable source and not spam for the purpose provided. This whole thing reeks of betabot if you ask me, and I hope we all learned a lesson there. No, we long-term editors (who may have day jobs, who are working on creating new content, etc) will not line up 24/7 behind a scrubbing machine to limit its damage. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry what? Do you know how bots work? Stick {{nobots}} on the page, and it won't war with you again. Legoktm (talk) 06:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to be blunt, the only reason I can see for wanting the tags off the pages posthaste is a worry that it will stop people from clicking on the links in question, and I'll leave the implications of that to the reader. What I will say is that if the links are on the blacklist, they are likely inappropriate. I currently have 7,378 pages watched, and since this process started running all of two have been tagged. If the links are appropriate and you want the bot not to keep squawking, <!--comment them out--> until they are whitelisted, the encyclopedia won't be destroyed by this. And if they're declined for whitelisting, then maybe, just maybe, it's because they really are inappropriate links. The bot is not malfunctioning and it is not damaging the encyclopedia; the damage came from people who, in good faith or otherwise, and knowingly or otherwise, exploited a loophole in the blacklisting process that allowed the links onto the pages. The solution isn't to shut down the bot, stick our heads in the sand and declare 'no bad links here, nope', the solution is to thank the bot and remove the links. The scope of the problem is our fault, not the bot's. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a load of nonsense. As an editor of 6-7 years standing, if I look at an article and say no, no bad links here, nope, then my judgment deserves something other than an edit war ay a bot. Your "maybe" rhetorical comment is unintentionally apt: maybe yes indeed there is a bad link, but in fact, no. And the decision must be in the hands of human editors editing real judgment over articles, not a bot unleashed on the project to make policy by sheer persistence and in the process making a huge mess for us more thoughtful editors to clean up. That was exactly the betabot problem. Should my time here on Wikipedia mean I have to go to war with poorly conceived bots over their auto-tagging? If there's no deadline, then shut down the bot instead of making us human editors invest untold hours cleaning up messes, perhaps we could just stop dumb bots from causing damage. No, I'm not going to nowiki a bunch of links in my article, I'll just undo the harm by removing the inapt tag. I'm hoping we can all decide that good faith editorial discretion trumps hasty script experiments people unleash on the encyclopedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS? Have you even looked at the time I've committed to writing this script. It's BRFA was open since May. You had a chance to comment all this time, and chose not. This BRFA was advertised and no one gave significant. You have the audacity to call my script a betabot and poorly conceived, after it's been reviewed by other BAGgers? So I basically just conjured this script from my ass. Ok I get. I just months of work for nothing, all because YOU didn't comment while I was actually still developing this bot. Gee since I'm such I'm such a disruptive user, why don't I just leave. You'll be rid of burden.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 11:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Back away from the edge Cyberpower! So, fix the code so that it doesn't edit-war ... maybe it should only visit an article a maximum of once a month. The bot's doing something unwanted - the best response is to find out exactly what is unwanted, and fix it ... that's what botops and bot designers do. So yes, everyone's bot is STILL in beta mode because they'll never, ever be perfect ES&L 11:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Like everyone else is writing on here, there is no issue for the tags to remain while the link is blacklisted. It's a maintenance tag just like an orphan, notability, and other tags. When a page is at AfD, do we remove the tag. No. What happens if it gets removed, a bot adds it back. It's no different with this tag. And your concept of what beta is wrong. A betabot is a bot still being tested. This bot is out of it's testing stage, running under scrutiny until the code was complete and bug free. Now it's approved and the code is final, out of its testing stage, hence no longer beta. Oh, and have a look at my talk page. It'll explain my attitude at the moment. Sorry.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 11:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

No. It's always Beta because you always need to be responsive to the community (just ask Bill Gates - all Windows versions are beta :-) ). You cannot compare an AfD tag to a linkrot/blacklisted tag - one is specifically noted by policy to remain (and that's the AfD one). Your bot needs to follow the same WP:BRD processes as any other editor ES&L 12:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Windows sucks. I'd say it's always in it's alpha stage. And since when does Microsoft respond to user demands? Windows 8 tends to go against that. Ok the AfD tag is a bad example, but allows one maintenance tag to stay and another, which is much more severe to simply be shrugged off?—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 13:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Visiting once a month is not the answer at all maybe less frequently but certainly not that infrequently given these links shouldn't even be on the site at all. The main issue here is several editors being unhappy that a link they want is on the media wiki blacklist and reverting the bot which has done the correct thing. Editors should either be removing these links or applying for it to be taken off the blacklist. As a community we should be trying to remove these links and taking seriously the issue of editors edit warring or insisting that blacklisted pages stay on the site. The bot is an essential part of that and should be thanked for highlighting a very worrying issue, punishing the bot rather than the editors initiating it would be highly inappropriate but a compromise should be made by reducing its frequency potentially once a week but equally editors edit warring with it without valid reason or applying for said link to be removed should equally be warned by the community as we cannot continue allowing blacklisted pages to live on the site.Blethering Scot 21:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Per Blethering Scott, removing the tag and waiting a month for the bot to re-tag is just going to do that, month after month after month. Editors are not going to solve the problem. Get those links whitelisted (and get more admins engaged in the process). Get two individual vandals where the first removes the link, and you are stuck with a broken page where you will HAVE to wait until someone whitelists the link for you. Been there, done that. Get the whitelisting process started, and ask for temp excemtion by the bot. I really wonder how many people who just removed the tag went on to ask for whitelisting or actually considered that the reference could be improved and the old site should actually be removed. Some of these links should really not be used - do realise that the less suitable sites do have more reason to spam and get more incoming traffic than the really good stuff, and guess which end up being blacklisted. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly my problem Beetstra, the bot tagged a series of pages, people have removed the links before I had a chance to remove the tag, and I can't undo it. The links that were removed are not intended to be on the blacklist, and hence I feel justified in removing the tag. I have subsequently taken the link to whitelist request, but as that process takes an age I turned the bot off so I needn't fight it every 12 hours (or more frequently). I do not intend or request that the bot be turned off in perpetuity, but simply for long enough to get the whitelist requests sorted, whilst not having decent links removed from articles for no good reason. I would hope that others are doing the same thing, and by the looks of the whitelist requests they are, this will only slow down the process even more. The bot has already done at least one pass, so all links are now identified and users can now either request whitelisting, or remove them; there seems very little need to keep it going every 12 hours at this point. Once the first issues are dealt with there should be no problem with the bot doing a pass every day or two, it is only at the moment (initially) that I request it be deactivated, as it has shown obvious problems with the blacklist. Liamdavies (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it indeed shows the problem, the bot is tagging way more than the number of whitelist requests, which until now are just a few more than normal. So most people did not go through the problem of sorting it out, just ignore the bot, revert the tag, or at worst, blindly remove the link.

I agree that it should not edit war, but once a month is absurd. Once a day or every other day would be fine.

And the solution to solve the long waiting time on the whitelist is simple - send or select some competent admins that want to help out there. We do seem to have a system for that.  ;-). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

there is a way, i'm sure, to limit edits to each page, to , say once every-other day. but, as far as it saysin "hey, there are some links here that need taking care of", I see no problem with that. cyberpower has spent ALOT of time (months most likely) slaving away at the script, and getting it through BAG. i'm sure that any serious issues would have been raised during the process. if the whitelist process is slow, that's another issue entirely. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 08:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Late reply to User:Wikidemon: As an editor of 6-7 years standing, if I look at an article and say no, no bad links here, nope, then my judgment deserves something other than an edit war ay a bot - No, it doesn't, because if you look at an article and say "no, no bad links here, nope", when there are links that are on the blacklist in the article, your judgement is in error, regardless of whether you're a "vested editor" or not. If links are in an article that are on the blacklist, inserted via a method that circumvents the blacklist knowingly or not (the method should be obvious but I won't state it outright per WP:BEANS), then the links must be removed until/unless they are whitelisted, full stop, as they shouldn't be in the article in the first place - they should have been flagged as blacklisted and the edit that attempted to add them stopped as happens when blacklisted links are inserted not using that method. WP:BLACKLIST is a Wikipedia guideline - just as WP:GNG is. I'd love to see the arguments against the enforcement of the blacklist that have been made here used against the enforcement of notability; just let me get my popcorn first. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Bushranger, you can't honestly tell me that it is no accident that cable-tram-guy.com is blacklisted, along with all links ending in guy.com. Can you? I feel fully justified in removing the tag and saying no bad links here, it is an obvious mistake. There are surely other cases like this, and until they are whitelisted I feel that it is appropriate to ask for a reprieve from continually having to remove the tags in a race against other editors, whom like you, believe that the blacklist is faultless and any link that shows up MUST be removed. Beetstra, given the gauntlet that RfA has turned into I'm surprised anyone voluntarily subjects themselves to it, and know that I have zero chance of achieving adminship due to my relatively low level of activity. Liamdavies (talk) 10:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Liamdavies, my remark regarding RfA was a bit tongue-in-cheek - I know that RfA's are decided on other merits, it is not always a nice environment, and people are not probed on their ability/willingness to work on the anti-spam/whitelist/blacklist front.

Bushranger - some of the links are just plainly wrong catches of a, apparently, too wide net. Others were not removed as 'were there, but not added by the spammers' or just forgotten to be removed. I don't expect much bad faith circumventions of the blacklist (I've run in good faith attempts at that .. but well). Also, a lot of the links that are still there are in the grey area - some respectable organisations are relentless in spamming (or their SEOs are), still their info is good reliable info. If the ratio of spam additions over regular additions is really going over the top, sometimes the blacklist is, unfortunately, the only way forward.

Anyway, most of these should be whitelisted (or indeed plainly removed), and some might be even suitable for de-blacklisting (we're discussing such a case on meta at the moment). Those requests should preferably be made by regulars on the pages which are having those links on them (as they would know the validity of the links, and can give the best advice regarding replace-ability or appropriateness). Those requests often go uncontested (though may get some return questions). Problem is, as always, the manpower to actually whitelist the material (and also, to blacklist and clean out the rubbish). And when the whitelisting / de-blacklisting requests are there, the bot can be set to ignore that specific case, the bot will remove the template, and there will be no edit warring, page-defacing and whatever. I also suggest that the bot does not add the template more than once every 1-3 days, but some insistence would be good until the links are whitelisted/de-blacklisted. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

This is accepted as a mistake, correct? Then a practical thought. I knew about this at 16:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC), but didn’t know what to do. If there was a “false positive, report it” link which worked, I would have filled out a short form, it may have been fixed by now. I don’t know the backlog, but we would have been closer. Instead, later I got “don’t modify if you don’t know” something on a page of code. I can’t even find it now, not really a simple process. And I am. Thank you for your time.Sammy D III (talk) 15:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

There it is in plain sight. Sorry to bother youSammy D III (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

That is not easy, either. Should it be difficult for an amateur to ask if something is wrong? I KNEW that link was good, I still don't know how to do a simple report. Not real fast, but I hang out around there.Sammy D III (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• I just noticed this discussion for the first time, after having posted elsewhere about the situation several days ago. I seems that this bot's script has tagged many domains that were once blacklisted a long time ago, possibly inappropriately, but were not previously tagged. My concern about the blacklisting of the newspaper Education Update was resolved through discussion at Meta, but I see that other users who are encountering these templates are frustrated and bewildered. For example, another post at Meta expressed concern about the mass removal of links to reverbnation.com, which is an important music website that is (or was) widely linked in music-related articles. Another user posted at Meta about the template on Gerard Majella, only to discover that jesus-passion.com is not globally blacklisted; in that case, it appears that the bot is tagging all occurrences of "passion.com", which is blacklisted here at EN. It appears that the bot unearthed some sort of problem with the blacklists. That problem needs to be resolved before the bot tags any more articles -- and, as suggested in one of those discussions at meta, the bot should be enlisted to work on undoing the damage that was done to articles where valid reference citations and ELs were mistakenly removed as spam. --Orlady (talk) 17:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

  The bot simply tags pages with a maintenance tag. It doesn't remove any links, and the bot automatically removes the tag if it's no longer valid. The bot has already tagged every page that it wanted to tag. Starting up the bot now, is not going to have it tag new pages.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

  Given that, I'm in favor of turning it back on. Sticking our heads in the sand isn't accomplishing anything. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

  If the bot isn't planning to tag any more pages for having links that were blacklisted a long time ago (and have been here for years without bothering anybody), I suppose that it could be turned back on to start removing the templates about links that (like educationupdate.com) have been removed from the blacklist since the recent tagging. However, don't allow it to re-tag articles (like the ones that Sammy D III is concerned about) that it recently tagged until a more comprehensive effort has been made to resolve the large number of inappropriate blacklistings that it uncovered. --Orlady (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

  The fact that it will tag pages that have blacklisted links where the tag has been removed is exactly why it should be turned back on. The blacklist entries need fixed, and turning off the bot isn't getting them fixed any faster. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• From what I'm reading, more people are for the bot while a few express concerns about it's constant retagging. It seems the main concern lies with the fact that the whitelisting process takes so long, that the link may get removed accidentally by a new user as a result of the tag, the longer the bot keeps retagging it. So I have amended the instructions. Since I respond promptly to the bot ignore requests, if you file a request for whitelisting, you may proceed to the exceptions request page, link your whitelist request, as well as the page and link itself, and it will go onto the ignore list. The tag can be removed afterwards. I think that sounds like a fair compromise to the situation.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 00:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Just wondering. I ran into a case a couple of months back (April) where a page was vandalised by one editor, and another did an independent follow up edit, and the first of the editors removed a blacklisted link. I could not revert, and had to emergency whitelist, revert, de-whitelist and request. I wonder, how many cases have there been that editors who ran into the same situation, and chose to just disable/remove the 'offending' link and save the page .. I, for one, do not recall people coming to the whitelist requesting such emergency whitelistings to facilitate a revert (but I may have missed that). Seen that there are so many pages with (rightfully or wrongfully) blacklisted links, I expect that others must have ran into such situations as well. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Coming to this thread very late in the game but here's my impression:

Editors screaming for an emergency stop: This has been a problem for a long time, the bot is simply drawing attention to articles which do have the bad link in the wikitext. Just because we haven't enforced it in the past doesn't mean we should continue to ignore the problem. You had plenty of time to review the bot task (and assuming good faith) had multiple opportunities to discuss the changes. At this point you need to sit down and figure out how to resolve the tag. Willfully removing a tag without resolving the underlying issue is more disruptive than tagging the article. There might be a case for holding off the bot's re-checks/re-adding of the tag but that can be calmly discussed without using pejorative language like "Bot gone wild". Bot operators have to be experts in balancing the good of the project (that they will accomplish by doing the bot task) with the wishes and consensus of the project. Cyberpower has made several offers for how to make the bot's exclusion better, but I would argue that it would be better to not exclude if the page still has a problem. Hasteur (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Instaurare violating topic ban again

After having it clearly pointed out to him only a month and a half ago that he is still topic-banned from LGBT subjects, he has added a shooting at an anti-LGBT group, evidently motivated by their anti-LGBT positions, to Domestic terrorism in the United States: here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I've issued a final warning, rather than a block, in spirit of AGF. GiantSnowman 15:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I would have thought that the whole big discussion last month was clear enough. This isn't ignorance of the restriction, it's Instaurare trying to see how many times he can violate it without being blocked. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

If that was the case then there would have been more than one borderline edit. GiantSnowman 15:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Could someone clarify to me the boundaries of the topic ban? I thought this was outside its reach. Instaurare (talk) 00:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure; the topic ban applies to ALL LGBT articles broadly construed. This means that even if it is close to the topic then it is within the scope of the topic ban. ANY discussion at ANY venue about a LGBT-related subject is also within the scope of the topic ban. Any future breaches of this topic ban WILL lead to blocks. Are we clear? PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 00:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The Domestic terrorism in the United States is not an LGBT article, is it?. That's where I'm confused. Instaurare (talk) 01:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

No, but "a shooting at an anti-LGBT group" on Domestic terrorism in the United States is a "LGBT-related subject" and, therfore, within the scope of the topic ban. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Does it extend so far as to prohibit editing articles of LGBT persons about any subject? Like could I edit Tammy Baldwin about health care? Instaurare (talk) 01:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The topic ban DOES extend to the above example. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 02:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Even if it has nothing to do with her sexuality? Instaurare (talk) 06:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The way to get a topic ban lifted (or not extended when it reaches its best-by date) is simple: when in doubt, don't. If you feel the need to ask, at all, run away, run away. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'm just afraid of making an honest mistake and getting blocked for it. Instaurare (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Since you've already made "honest mistakes" that violated your ban at least twice, you could just be careful and responsible instead of reckless in the future. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

That's the point, I haven't been reckless. Instaurare (talk) 22:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

AGF is not a suicide pact; multiple editors believe your edits were reckless instead of WP:BOLD. Take more care. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Repeated NFCC violations (Result: 48 hours)

Judgeking (talk · contribs) needs blocked for repeated violations of WP:NFCC. Werieth (talk) 04:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) After looking at the page edit history, this looks like it belongs more on WP:AN/3, no? Technical 13 (talk) 04:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Already filed, but the user repeatedly violoates NFCC and will not discuss it. There has been a discussion about this already, but the user is owning the page. Werieth (talk) 04:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. This isn't a simple matter of editwarring, since unfair use of nonfree works is copyright infringement. Nyttend (talk) 04:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not question anyone's judgment here, but I would like to discuss this a little. Werieth is doing a great job of protecting Wikipedia here, I'm just finding myself asking if perhaps he's being a little overzealous at times here. It appears at this time that is current method for dealing with these has been driving away editors (at least it appears that Special:Contributions/Rachael89 has been driven away). I've noticed that his communication/language skills make him difficult to understand at times, and I believe that if some of our more sensitive and English attuned editors could make some cookie cutter responses for him to use in edit summaries or whatnot (I could make a userscript for him that would make it easier for him to get rid of such images and use these edit summaries at very least) that it "might" help our editor retention at least a little. Technical 13 (talk) 04:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Use the standard {{uw-nonfree}} when warning users. You will find that some users just dont like our restrictive policies on non-free media. Unless we make a drastic shift in our stance about copyrighted material (which wont happen) it will make users unhappy. Werieth (talk) 04:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• No way this should end in applause for the OP, this went through twenty-three (23) reverts and un-reverts by my count. I don't care who's on the side of the angels, this sort of edit warring crap should not be happening on Wikipedia. 3RR is 3RR. If you get to two, seek outside help. Trout smack. Carrite (talk) 04:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:3RR#Exceptions #5 Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy Thus this isnt 3RR. Werieth (talk) 04:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Hence my overzealous comment Carrite. I'll start development of an NFCC assisting script tomorrow, it should be fairly easy based on Anomie's User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js and some other image related stuff I started this morning for Monty845. I'll just need those edit summary ideas to add to it. Thanks if you can help with that. Werieth, I don't agree that they all necessarily violate #1 and #3, although #8 is a maybe in my eye and I'd rather stay on the line of they should have been removed for that. The question becomes, would you be willing to use a script to help you remove those with better edit summaries that are clear, concise, and less offensive to the editor whom you are removing the images of? Technical 13 (talk) 04:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Whenever we use nonfree content in a way that doesn't qualify as fair use, we're infringing copyright. Page histories for the article and for WP:AN3 show that Werieth reported soon after they got past 3RR, so he followed the "seek outside help" long before it reached the extreme proportions where it ended up. I came close to blocking Werieth, but only because I got confused who was doing what; as soon as I saw the situation, I planned to block the user who was adding the content and to leave unblocked the user who was removing it. No comment on Wereith's interactions with other users, since I've not seen such interactions. Nyttend (talk) 05:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

This is not an unambiguous, slam-dunk violation of NFCC. THIS is the file they were warring over, which is only flagged for deletion if no presentation of a valid fair use rationale by Sept. 27. This is a content battle at root. There should have been 3RR repercussions for both parties well before the war got to 23 reverts... Carrite (talk) 06:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Carrite, I think you need to review WP:NFCC. It was more than just one image. Files have a fairly high bar to meet, something that was quickly skimmed over in the background (was on screen less than 30 seconds) and is not critical to the article fails NFCC#8. There where a total of 5 files that I removed due to NFCC issues (The article had a total of 6), most film articles only have 1. Take the image of Jennifer Connelly as another example, it is a picture of a living person, no significant makeup, no major alterations to her normal visual appearance. We have 4 free images of her on her article. Completely replaceable non-free content, (non-free media of living people is fairly well defined as prohibited). I could break this down image by image and explain every violated point but I would recommend you review NFC. Werieth (talk) 10:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Good block. I count 23RR on that edit war. That should have been stopped way before that by some other admin. (I mean I know we've briefly discussed about 3RR this past summer, but still there is some ridiculousness to all this stuff.) --MuZemike 05:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

So Werieth is back after he made a similar report here where he made eight reversions in a 13-hour timespan recently. Now we have an instance of 22 reversions in a half hour. Even if these reversions are considered exempt for the purposes of WP:3RR, which they may not be unquestionable violations, this in my opinion should still be considered edit warring. Werieth should have stopped after making the report at the edit warring noticeboard but he made 17 reversions after that. Werieth also should have stopped after making this section but he made 12 reversions after that.

I agree with Techincal 13 that Werieth's editing and communication style is lacking. It leads towards other editors getting pissed off, edit warring, threats of blocks and bans and editors leaving Wikipedia. Better communication could really help relieve a lot of what has been happening. At the very least can we get Werieth to step back from reverting after he has submitted for admin help with an edit war? If there is a clear 3RR/edit warring violation then the other party will get blocked or the article will be protected and there is no immediate need for the image to be removed that could not wait until an admin could help out. Aspects (talk) 06:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The catch is that that last bit could easily be read as "there is no immediate need to remove copyright violations". It takes two to tango; the fact that there are editors who are willing to 23RR to defend NFCC violations is troubling. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Erb? I think the point is that it would be good if communication here were improved. I don't see anyone defending the user who was blocked as much as wondering if better communication wouldn't have resulted in less conflict and perhaps an outcome other than a block. Hobit (talk) 17:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Aspects, once you're past 3RR, it doesn't matter how many more reverts happen: either your reverts are exceptions from 3RR, in which case you shouldn't be blocked no matter how many you make, or they're not exceptions, so you're liable to be blocked, even if you don't make any more. Carrite, I'm not very sympathetic to objections such as "oh, it's missing a point from the rationale, so we have to get rid of it!" I agree that a slightly flawed rationale is nowhere near a good reason for revert-warring. I checked the images in question, but only fast enough to see that (1) they were marked as nonfree and (2) too complicated for PD-simple; with that checked, I blocked because the user was adding way way too many nonfree images, because no rationale could possibly justify so many of them. Nyttend (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that a violation of NFCC is not necessarily a copyvio, because NFCC is more restrictive than copyright law and American common practice as determined by the courts. I personally think that's a mistake on our part, that NFCC should follow legal precedent, but it does not, therefore it's not a slam dunk that an NFCC violation can be actively pursued that way an obvious copyvio can be. This means that a violation of NFCC (an internal policy) should not be treated the same as a violation of copyright law, and editors who wish to use "copyvio" as reason to exceed 3RR need to make the case that the NFCC-violation is an actual copyright violation in order to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• While that's a fairly technical argument, I've got to say I agree with it. People should be aware of the difference. Hobit (talk) 13:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Arguably even most of these images could be used under claim of US fair use law (you're not required to attribute or the like); just that removing non-compliant NFCC does help us stay far below any legal threshold that may trigger a suit. I do, however, point that the Foundation wishes us to remove non-frees used inappropriate in a timely manner. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
    • None-the-less, calling it a "copyvio" is factually wrong and as such, doing so should be avoided. Hobit (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes, that's my point: one should use "copyvio" only for those instances where an actual violation of copyright law has taken place -- and should be removed as immediately as possible -- and otherwise refer to NFCC violations as just that. The imperative to move NFCC violations is not as strong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
        • Yes, I agree on that point. There's copyvios (like uploading a full ripped movie) and then there's images that probably fall within fair use but fail NFC. --MASEM (t) 02:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
          • The point is that we've gone beyond fair use when we're using numerous images in this manner: we're really not using them transformatively. I say "fair use" and not "NFCC" intentionally, because my point is that we're exceeding the fair use criteria, not just Wikipedia's NFCC. Aside from confusion/misunderstanding/etc, there's no way I'd call a page a copyvio when it was full of unnecessary cc-by-nc images, for example: it's plainly at variance with NFCC, but not a copyright infringement because we're a noncommercial entity. Nyttend (talk) 13:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
            • Truthfully, no. The state of the Labyrinth article before the image removals was 5 images - cover, 2 screencaps, a production photo and a piece of concept art. They were "transformed" by the fact the article writes around those pieces, and compared to the volume of the work for the movie, the size used was very small and respected commercial opportunities. I would be hard pressed to find a legal court in the US that would find that page in that state a violation of fair use. It would take a lot more copyrighted media on that page to push it into a state where legal challenges may occur. But from an NFCC perspective, yes, there were images that did not comply with our policy (for example, we don't need a screencap of books that appeared in the movie that were thematically similar to point out that fact), and the number was somewhat large for what we typically allow for film articles. A problem with meeting the free mission goal, but certainly not an issue with copyright violations within the bounds of US Fair Use law. There can be copyvios as relating to images that are above and beyond NFCC: claiming ownership of a copyrighted image, using significant portions of copyrighted works at high resolution, etc. that WP:COPYVIO basically handles, but most of the work done at NFCC effectively helps to keep a large buffer between WP and fair use law. --MASEM (t) 14:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
              • Again referring to the legal "fair use" standard versus NFCC, I believe Masem is correct here. The more copyrighted material is used in an article, the more the article is a violation of NFCC, but, on the other hand, under the legal standard all the copyrighted material must owned by the same entity. In other words, having an article with a dozen non-free images is clearly an NFCC problem needing resolution, but if all the images are owned by different entities, the article is still compliant with the legal standard of fair-use, because each instances is separate from every other in the article.

                This just serves as another reason to keep "copyvio" and "NFCC-violation" strictly separate unless it's appropriate to do otherwise. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Judgeking definitely should be blocked for refusing to engage at all, and while in general Werieth was in the right to remove repeating without the issue, I am going to caution Werieth again that his choice to what to remove is a bit questionable, particularly in the case in this specific example for Labyrinth, as at least one of the files (the concept painting) has a reasonable chance to be used. (He did a similar wipe over here that took out a screenshot used to describe the gameplay of a video game, a typically standard allowance). If there are many multiple non-free, that is a problem, but if each image has a rationale for use on that page, a license, and otherwise don't fail NFCC#1 (freely replaceable) or #2 (commercial opportunity - aka press images), then this issue is how subjectively the rationales meet #8 and whether there is more minimal use per #3, which is not something the the 3RR exemption for NFCC allows for edit warring over. Yes, bolding removing excessive images once is a problem, but if it the a judgement call as to what are proper images the next step is NFCR or the talk page or the like. Werieth needs to be aware (I've tried to tell him this even though I back his NFCC work) that these actions are not always the right approach. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Werieth's actions should be censured. His insistence that his revert warring is protected by policy leads to articles such as Elizabeth David bibliography being locked, and then all the previously non-free reviewed media being deleted by default.

At Hey Ya!, a good article on a pop song, he removed the audio sample, which was then deleted by default. When a user disagreed with Werieth's actions and opened up a discussion on the talk page, Werieth described it as disruptive. Werieth's extreme interpretation of WP:NFCC is not standard practice. He should not receive a get-out-of-jail card by dressing up disruptive action as policy enforcement. - hahnchen 17:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You where told that the usage of non-free media on Elizabeth David bibliography wasnt acceptable. After discussion, one possible two images where deemed justified. Not the multiple that where removed.

On Hey Ya!, the article needs more critical commentary to justify the usage (which it lacked when I removed the file). When I remove media its because the article does not currently have justification for the included media. That is not to say that justification cannot be created, just as the article is it cannot support the use of the media that was removed. The sound clip lacks any critical commentary which is required for usage.

In this case I had a discussion with a different user, and attempted to discuss it with Judgeking, and was ignored. There is only one image that has a change of being re-added, however the article needs more critical commentary to support it before that can happen. Werieth (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• He should be censored for absolutely correctly removing a NFCC-violating gallery of non-free images from Elizabeth David bibliography? Er, I think not. Werieth can be a little over-enthusiastic (I have told him before to flag up the issue with an admin or at WT:NFC when faced with a group of editors who haven't read the policy, like that example), but we don't censure editors for upholding policy. Black Kite (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Trout to Werieth, there is a reasonable limit to how far the edit warring exemption for copyright violations goes. I personally would have gone up to 10 reverts before soliciting advice from another editor who is familiar with the policy/procedure regarding the rules. One against one is difficult to determine who is in the right. Two or three editors all upholding the same viewpoint against a single editor is much more favorable when admins come in to hand out sanctions. Hasteur (talk) 13:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Holdek and sources templates again

I am sorry to bother the community with this user for the third time, but I am afraid this goes over the top. I am afraid they need at least a topic ban for this article, given the previous history of editing. Would someone please inform the user of this thread, since last time they told me I am not welcome to post at their talk page. Thanks in advance.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Done for you. Blackmane (talk) 08:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

And as a note, Holdek has removed the notification from their talk page. Blackmane (talk) 12:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• I was willing to give Holdek WP:ROPE that they are merely enforcing WP:V, but his latest actions look increasingly disruptive and not in the spirit of collaboration. Looking at his past 200 edits or so, he seems to be only gaming the system. Another example is this. I support an indefinite block per WP:NOTHERE. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

No, there's nothing "gaming the system" about asking for sourcing of content. Rather, reliable sourcing is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. Per WP: Verify: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable." (Bold mine.) Pretty basic and easy to understand.

Oh also you are confusing WP:ROPE with WP: Assume Good Faith. Holdek (talk) 00:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

You said "The photographs in this article need to have citations." and nothing about captions. And here you didn't tag any caption. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The White Ribbon "For Russia Without Putin"

That's because Template: Citation needed did not show up when I tried to put it on all the unsourced captions on Russian opposition. (It did work for one of them, though.) So I put it on the talk page. As for the caption for the map of Moscow, I'll reinsert "Moscow" as the caption. Holdek (talk) 15:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

And even if they did tag the caption, I am not sure how I can best source that the map shows Moscow. Source it to the recent edition of the atlas of Moscow?--Ymblanter (talk) 07:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

That would work. Holdek (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

This is simply trolling. I'd venture a guess that 99.99% of the maps used as images on Wikipedia don't have inline citations in articles. Indicating the source on the image page rather than the article is what commonly done. If you're serious about inserting such inline references in the numerous articles that use that map, you can do it yourself by copying them from Moscow#Administrative divisions. The same style of spamming tags, deletion of content, "accompanied" by zero positive work towards satisfying those frivolous citation requests got Curb Chain topic banned. However, in your case, Holdek, it's hard to think of a single topic area that would suffice. The experience with that other editor showed little improvement after such a topic ban, and plenty of wikilawyering for admins to put up with, so I think indef block works best for such cases from now on. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, are seriously asking for a citation for the caption of the photo to the right? Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Holdek (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Could this user please be topic-banned from all Russia-related articles? The answer shows they have no clue and just try to prove the point.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Then you are definitely note here to build an encyclopedia, Holdek. You strongly remind me of Curb Chain who persisted on a similarly disruptive campaign of spamming citation tags and removing content while doing zero positive work in referencing material himself. The caption is simply a translation of the clearly visible Russian text in from the ribbon itself. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, based on your accusation, I'm finished talking with you. Holdek (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, they still seem to be unfamiliar with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section and add source requests to the lede on a regular basis. This one is truly ridiculous, and I do not see how this potentially can improve encyclopedic content.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to keep assuming good faith with Holdek when the issue is well referenced (even with sources in English) at Federal cities of Russia. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Adding clearly demonstrated battleground mentality [15].--Ymblanter (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban from all topics related to Russia

I think Holdek's wikilawyering and battleground attitude are just a prevalent elsewhere, but he has been recently spamming articles on Russian topics with frivolous "citation needed" tags for what is common knowledge while doing zero work himself toward referencing any such material even when such references are easily found in the main Wikipedia articles on the topics, e.g. the map of Moscow, its status in the Russian constitution etc. I think we'll be back at ANI for other topics, but for the sake of doing something about stemming the disruption (as in Curb Chain|a similar case), I formally propose a six-months topic ban on all topics related to Russia for Holdek. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I obviously support, based on the above argumentation.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Support, but with alternative scope. Based on the examples given above, and the demands to cite photograph captions (which, a quick glance across Wikipedia will show, is something we do not do) like this particulary egrerious example and its followup, I belive this to be appropriate. I'll also point out that, with the exception of controversial statements in BLPs, edits like this and this are inappropriate; WP:V only requires that verifable reliable sources exist, not that they be in the article at all; the proper thing to do in a non-egreriously-and-blatantly-wrong case like that one is {{cn}} if a cite is needed, not outright removal. Holdek's comments above showing no sign of listening to the concerns about these edits and how they reflect on his editing style convince me that a topic ban here is necessary, although I might query ifbelieve it should be Removing or tagging of content as unsourced, excluding BLPs and unambiguous vandalism should be the scope of the topic ban instead of "Russia". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

That is incorrect. WP: Verify: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material. And "Any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed."

Furthermore, I always add a citation needed template to non BLP material and give time for it to be sourced or source it myself before removing it. --Holdek (talk) 13:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Everybody can check that your statement is incorrect: [16]--Ymblanter (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moscow_mayoral_election,_2013&diff=564936031&oldid=564933179 Holdek (talk) 13:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't change the fact that you have to challenge the material first - via the {{cn}} tag. And the funny thing about saying "always" is that you have to be right every time for it to be true - but only wrong once for it not to be, and there are multiple cases there where you have not tagged and given time - when a cn tag is removed because, as in the diff you provide there, it was added in a particularly egregious example of WP:TAGBOMBING, you need to start from scratch. Your statement above has only strengthened the case that you need to be topic-banned, not from Russian topics but from WP:V related activities, not weakened it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Then provide your evidence that I don't challenge the material first with a cn tag (please reread WP:TAGBOMBING to see what it explicitly does not apply to). Otherwise, you don't have anything here to go on and

• someone should close this ANI; this is the second spurious ANI that Ymblater has started about me (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive804#User:Holdek). Holdek (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Johnpacklambert

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

A couple of days ago this editor began a series of edits that involved the removal of articles from 'from' categories.

• Billy Mayfair, he removed[17] 'Sportspeople from Scottsdale, Arizona' from this golfer's article even though his article says he resides in Scottsdale.
• Aaron Watkins, he removed[18] Sportspeople from Mesa, Arizona even though the article says he resides there. Edit summary- residence not notable
• Mike McCullough (golfer), he removed[19] 'Sportspeople from Scottsdale, Arizona' from this golfer's article even though his article says he resides in Scottsdale. His edit summary- 'Not from Arizona enough to be put in that states's golfers cat'. As I pointed out[20], as long ago as 1979 it has been reported[21] that McCullough lives in Scottsdale.
• Amanda Blumenherst he removed[22] 'Sportspeople from Scottsdale, Arizona' and replaced it with 'Sportspeople from Phoenix, Arizona' even though the Blumenherst article clearly says she was born in Scottsdale and still resides there.
• Aaron Watkins (golfer) he removed[23] 'Sportspeople from Mesa, Arizona' even though the article says he resides in Mesa. His edit summary- Current residence not notable.
• April Steiner Bennett he removed[24] 'Sportspeople from Mesa Arizona' with the edit summary- Not notable for being born in a place. Edit summary- Not notable for being born in a place
• Misty Hyman Almost the same as Blumenherst, he removed[25] 'Sportspeople from Mesa' and replaced it with 'Sportspeople from Phoenix' even though the article says she was born in Mesa.
• Julie Dusanko he removed[26] Sportspeople from Scottsdale Arizona and replaced it with People from Scottsdale Arizona though Ms. Dusanko is a former professional baseball player.
• Michelle Estill he removed[27] both Sportspeople from Scottsdale Arizona and People from Gilbert Arizona even though the article says she was born in Scottsdale and lives in Gilbert.
• Martin Laird he removed[28] Sportspeople from Scottsdale even though the article says it is his residence. Edit summary- No from Scottsdale.
• Mina Harigae he removed[29] both Golfers from Arizona and Sportspeople from Mesa Arizona when the article says Ms. Harigae resides in Mesa.

There's at least another 8-12 of these edits, but I stopped with these. All the above edits have been reverted by me or another editor. IMHO a few of this editor's edits, Michelle Estill for instance, border on vandalism.

Clearly there is something wrong. He removes categories because the person who he thinks their only connection to the town was that they were born there but in other cases removes categories because he feels residence isn't notable. That seems totally contradictory.

Consensus has long been that athletes aren't from a town that they are represent through being a sports team member from that location unless the athlete is from the town.(For example Babe Ruth or Lou Gehrig aren't Sportspeople from the Bronx because they played for the New York Yankees) A sports athlete is therefore a Sportspeople from somewhere else than the place they take part in their sport.

Johnpacklambert, aka JPL from this point forward, shortly after having some of the golfer edits reverted started CFDs for both 'Sportspeople from Mesa Arizona[30]' and 'Sportspeople from Scottsdale Arizona[31]' along with other occupation categories for Scottsdale.

I think the CFDs are a bad faith attempt to get around the reversions. These sportspeople categories are clearly well populated and the people are from there. Both The Sportspeople from Scottsdale and Sportspeople from Mesa CFDs he proposes merging articles into the generic 'Sportspeople from Arizona' category even though the person is from Scottsdale or Mesa. JPL has tried moving people into Sportspeople categories that are patently incorrect, namely with Blumenherst and Hyman. Note that JPL also removed people wrongly from these categories and then CFD the categories. At another CFD[32] not too long ago, several editors were bothered by JPL removing articles from categories that were up for CFD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamJE (talk • contribs) 13:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't expect JPL to reply for about 5 hours, but there's some discussion between these two editors at User talk:Johnpacklambert giving his rationale for some of these edits. Dougweller (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

It should also be noted that JPL has been submitting a large number of categories for deletion. It appears based on conversations that he feels less is more in relation to categories. He recently submitted several regarding military awards where he stated he wanted to eliminate all military award categories except maybe the Medal of Honor ones. This seems excessive and counter to being helpful to Wikipedia. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: This is hardly JPL's first rodeo. A cursory examination of his talk page will reveal numerous notices for edit-warring to add or remove categories against consensus. His use of CFD borders on OWNership. Frankly, categorization would be better off without JPL pbp 15:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
• Response I was under the impression that we had determined that the mere place of birth is not notable for a person. I am sure I have read that in the guidelines somewhere. I found it. It is the opening line in the place section of Wikipedia:Categorization of people. "The place of birth, although it may be significant from the perspective of local studies, is rarely defining from the perspective of an individual." So I think the guidelines are on my side in that case. In other cases, I will admit that some of these edits might not have been the best. Still, I question categorizing people by a place where they only have temporary residence there. On the issue of nominating categories for deletion. I am trying to implement an at least possible interpretation of WP:OC#Award. There is no rule against nominating lots of categories for deletion. I am trying to follow procedures in doing so. Clearly there are categories that we do not want, some of the military award categories were deleted. This seems to be a case of just attack John for doing anything you don't like.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Considering the guideline in categorization of people, and considering that all the connection that Estill's article asserts to Scottsdale is that she was born there, I find it very hard to understand how we can justify categorizing her as from that place. It is definitely not justified to call it "bordering on vandalism". It is a removal built around a lack of any in-article assertion of a connection beyond birth, and the guideline on categorizing people by place suggests that in general people should not be categorized by where they were born.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment' You also removed Estill being from Gilbert Arizona when that's her residence. Why? The possible vandalism part is that and your moving Misty Hyman to Sportspeople from Phoenix when there isn't a single mention of Phoenix in her article and the same for Amanda Blumenherst who you moved to Sportspeople from Phoenix in place of Scottsdale when her article says she is both born and resident of there....William 16:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment The central principal of Wikipedia is verifiability. Categorization must be verified. We only put people in categories that they verifiably belong in. Thus, it would seem that if place of birth is not notable to the individual that one needs something else to put the people in a place category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. Verifiability, Really? This article[33] comes up on the first page of a google search containing the words Michelle Estill and Scottsdale....William 16:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment Well, I have explained my view on people being categorized based merely on birth. The residence issue is much trickier. At least one case the only mention was that the person died in Scottsdale. Does it make sense to call someone Category:Actors from Scottsdale when they were not from Scottsdale when they were an actor? However lets look at some cases. Category:Brigham Young University alumni is not a sub-category of Category:People from Provo, Utah although alumni of BYU in almost all cases resided for some time in Provo. With the residents of Scottsdale, many maintain 2 or 3 residences. Are we really going to put everyone who keeps a vacation home in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina in Category:People from Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Being from somewhere is a complex, hard to define issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Vandalism is not the right term. Both people were moved to Phoenix because the text places their formative life in Phoenix by placing them in high schools there. "Vandalism" is not the right term. I am really annoyed by the accusatory nature of this. I will admit that I made some unwise choices. That is a scary thing, because it seems some other editors want to punish and ban anyone who makes choices that they do not like. My basic theory is we should categorize people by the defining aspects of them. I was wrong. I admit it. Will this help. I doubt it, since at least one of the users here has maintained a determination to punish me for 10 months or more.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Your moving to Hyman to Sportspeople from Phoenix totally contradicts your explanation. The word Phoenix does not appear anywhere in her article. As for Blumenherst, she is clearly identified as a resident of Scottsdale and you moved her to Phoenix because she went to school there. At best you have an argument for putting her both not removing her from Scottsdale entirely. Doing so makes it a case of vandalism....William 16:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment The claim the CfDs are "bad faith attempts to get around the reversions" makes no sense at all in any way. 1-the CfDs were all started before the reversion. 2-CfD is a totally logical way to respond to reversions. If one thinks a category is being misused, but others persist on still using it in that way, one possible response would be to start a CfD. That is not really what is going on here, but do we really want to classify that as bad faith. CfD is a place meant to discuss categorization policy, so to call going there "bad faith" in most cases makes no sense. 3-It is just plain not making sense. I have presented the view that people born in a place lack a personally defining connection to the place, thus we should not categorize by that. If I am wrong, and we have a general consensus to categorize by place of birth, we should change the language of Wikipedia:Categorization of people in the "by place" section to say "people should almost always be in categories for the place they were born". Either we need to conform our practice to our guidelines or conform our guidelines to our practice. Yes, the result of the CfDs if they happen will not be the removal of people from being categorized as being from Scottsdale, so I do not achieve the result of my edit by the CfD, so calling it an attempt to achieve the same result does not make sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Maybe I did or did not face some reversion before starting the CfD. However, I can tell you that I intended to start the motion on Scottsdale before I even looked at one article on a golfer. I had already started general nominations that included Category:Sportspeoeple from Modesto, California for example. This whole motion seems to violate the basic principal of assuming good faith. At a basic level, I in good faith believed that people who just reside in a place to play golf are no more connected with a place than those who reside there to play football. Or should we put Ziggy Ansah in Category:Sportspeople from Detroit, Michigan?John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment There is another issue that is at play here, that needs to be addressed. It is not clear if Category:Sportspeople from Phoenix, Arizona is meant to only cover the boundaries of the city, or if we are using Phoenix in the sense of the greater metro area, and if Category:Sportspeople from Scottsdale, Arizona should be a sub-cat of the Phoenix one. Closely related to that, is the question if an actress grew up in Queens, Brooklyn and the Bronx, assuming we keep the categories for actors from those three places, should she be in Category:Actresses from Queens, New York, Cateogry:Actresses from Brooklyn and Category:Actresses from the Bronx or should we just make it simple and put her in Category:Actresses from New York City. I think, realistically, we should go with the later course. I think the balance between category clutter or the one hand, with the other having the competing interests of category completeness, category useability and category relevance on the other, would suggest this decision. You can disagree with me, but it is a reasoned idea. The one issue that goes against my view is the view that Category:Actresses from Queens, New York should include every actress who ever lived in Queens. However is that really the best way to do such categories. Well, maybe it is if we have them, which is maybe why we don't want them. However, I think someone who grew up in Queens, Brooklyn and the Bronx is best described with the general appellation of New York City and not the three more specific apellations. I think with such high level of movement they become from the place as a whole. In the same way, someone who grew up at 10 military bases in 10 states is not really accurately described as from any of those places. Having known many people who grew up in the military and who when asked "where are you from" respond "no where", I think actually usage supports my understanding here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Verifiability means that unsourced statements in articles are removed. It is not the duty of editors to look for sources to statements that other editors have made. It is the duty of those introducing the statements into the article to include those sources in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
• Seemingly compulsory pointless bold bit JPL likes to edit categories and gets upset when people disagree with his editing. Some people don't like that, and they get upset too. Is there something ANI can do about that? I've seen it here many times, yet Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Johnpacklambert says "There is not even a hint of a consensus that there is even a problem to be resolved here". Am I missing something? Or is it just something we have to put up with having here, like "Neighbours" at 5.30 used to be - annoying but unavoidable? Begoon ^talk 18:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Probably nothing that ANI can do, alas. There are behavioural issues but a quick look at the RfC suggests that while a lot of people are upset there is indeed no real consensus. JPL has a tendency to swamp discussions with umpteen consecutive comments etc, as in this thread. It ties everyone in knots and I wonder if perhaps a bit more thought before making a comment, adjusting a category or nominating something at CfD might go a long way to easing the issues? FWIW, I, too, have become very frustrated with JPL of late but in part is coincides with my thoughts about the CfD system: the fact that he is so familiar with it and yet even recently has had to be reminded to notify people of discussions is a particular niggle. Perhaps just try a bit harder to be more accommodating and perhaps try to answer more of the points raised on your user talk page, JPL? - Sitush (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment This complaint is a-not about CfD, it is about editing categories. It seems this has now become a "pick on everything John does" section. Also, when I don't explain my reasoning in depth enough people attack me for not stating clearly and precisely why I think what I do. I did notify the creator of at least a lot of the most relevant categories, and even asked him to stop creating such categories until we can come to an agreement on which ones we really need.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• JPL, do you have any idea how to nest talk page comments? I didn't, btw, say that this complaint was about CfD. I was merely enquiring whether if you were to spend a bit more time cogitating before doing something then whether that might avoid some of the issues being raised. But no worries, if you're going to carry on doing what you do then that is your choice and doubtless someone will open another RfC in due course. - Sitush (talk) 21:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Separate the issues. Unfortunately, this discussion is conflating two different questions. The question of whether individual articles belong in any given category which exists is a separate one from whether that category should exist at all.
  JPL is quite within his rights to nominate any category for deletion, unless the intent is purely disruptive, or it is a tendentious attempt to re-open an issue which is already settled. However, it is quite wrong of JPL to write that "CfD is a totally logical way to respond to reversions". That is not the purpose of deletion discussions, and those CFDs have been disrupted by the separate argument over reversions.
  Similarly, this ANI thread is disrupted by arguments which belong at CFD. (Disclosure: I support the removal of these categories, but not the drama which has surrounded them, or the rambling, TLDR and off-the-point contributions JPL has made to the CFDs, such as these off-topic posts[34] today).
  Yesterday I supported discussing the specific categories at CFD[35], but at this point I think that they are too contaminated by the the off-topic chatter. So I suggest the relevant CFDs should be closed, pending an RFC on the question of people-by-occupation-and-place categories.
  As to the contested edits to individual articles, this clearly needs some centralised discussion. JPL needs a warning not to use CFD in this way, and also for the disruptive way he has pursued this disagreement. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I think BHG is totally not understanding how I am using CfD. This is really frustrating. The reasons for the CfDs have nothing to do with what articles are in them in this case. They are built around a belief that the intersection of being a sportsperson and being from a specific suburb of Phoenix is not notable. To kill the CfDs because of other comments on them would just discorage comments. There needs to be somewhere where the rules of categorization can be discussed. This whole process is frustrating. Especially since my point clearly shows that the directive is on my side, and we do not in general categorize by place of birth. If that directive is not how we do things, than it needs to change. But it is clearly unfair to try and punish me for having a view on this issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Let me try this one more time. The claims about my motivation in creating the CfD are false. I intended to create the CfD on Category:Sportspeople from Mesa, Arizona before I made any edits to any categories. When I actually created it is not at all relevant to this issue. I did not, let me repreat, did not create it, as a reaction to any reverting of any edit on my part. I created it because I do not think that the intersection of suburb of Mesa and occupation, at least in the case of sportspeople is notable. That is my view, and that is the key question at the CfD.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
    • ...JPL, please indent your comments/replies here. Failing to do so makes the discussion nearly impossible to read (and continuing to do so after being requested to do so has been found disruptive in the past). I have done so here; please do so yourself in the future. Also, please stop placing Comment before each of your posts, AN/I is all about comments and it only makes things even harder to read. I honestly find all of the above nearly impossible to comprehend because of these two issues. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
      • • Sorry. This whole discussion is very frustrating to me. The initial attack seems to largely be based on my 1-following what appears to be the guideline of Wikiepdia:Categorization of people under the place section. 2-a result of my hesitancy to accept that residence means "being from there", at least initially prompted by the fact some people had 2 residences listed. I have admitted I was probably too quick to remove people based on residence. I am not convinced I was too quick in removing anyone based on accident of birth, even in the vases where further evidence has been brought forth to show residence past birth. Why my second view, because we categorize not by what is, but by what is verified, and until articles have statements in them that indicate a categorization is appropriate, the categorization should not occurred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs) 23:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
      • JPL, you have enough editing experience to know how to address different types of issue.
        if you disagree with individual reversions, try discussion with the other editor(s). If there is an unresolved disagreement about what constitutes "from", then open a centralised discussion at WT:CAT ... but that is a separate issue from how "people from" intersects with people by occupation, which is the only issue which belongs at a CFD about people-by-occupation-and-place categories.
        You are using these CFDs to discuss an question which arises at a higher level of the category tree; that is a misuse of CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
        • The discussion of specific cases involved in the category was not started by me but by User:WilliamJE. If you want to criticize someone for bringing up specific cases in a CfD, then shouldn't you criticize him. Why should I let back and let someone claim "John is doing wrong removals from the category" when Wikiepdia:Categorzation of people clearly says "The place of birth, although it may be significant from the perspective of local studies, is rarely defining from the perspective of an individual". You act like I brought up individual cases, that was another user. It is unfair to blame me, and to threaten me with punishment when it was another user who engaged in such. Why should I let false claims of a consensus stand?John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
          • Ok, maybe I did start the discussion in the case of Scottsdale, but it seemed evident to me that the existence of lots of people in the category who only maintained residence in that location part of the year was problematic. This whole process has become very frustrating. If CfD has low participation, one should look at the talk page for Wikipedia:Categozation of people. Until I just made a comment there, no one had commented since last june.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
• Misty Hyman's article says she graduated from a specific high school in Phoenix. That to me says she is from Phoenix. I may be wrong, but the claim that there is nothing in the article connecting her to Phoenix is not accurate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I have now added a clearer indication that Misty Hyman's high school was in Phoenix. However the article already mentioned Paradise Valley, Arizona. Paradise Valley has a complex relationship with Phoenix, with most institutions identified as being say Paradise Valley Community College actually being within the boundaries of Phoenix, and we do not have Category:People from Parasies Valley, Arizona. Classifying people who are from Paradise Valley as from Phoenix may or may not be an agreed on course of action, but it is not an issue worth bringing up here. Especially since This issue, and most of these other issues were never brought up on my talk page. This all feels like a blindsiding attack.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
• On the issue of Mike McCullough being brought up here this seems totally out of line. All the article had was a mention that at some point McCullough was a resident of Scottsdale. That was not even in the main text, but in a side info box. True, User:WilliamJE has found by doing some sort of google search an article that mentions McCullough lived in Scottsdale in 1979. Does the article link to that source or incorporate the finds of that source into the article even now? Not when I last looked. Categorization should follow the text of an article. People do not have some special pass that allows them to add categorizes because somewhere, somehow they know they apply. They need to add categories that are based in the text of the article. This is a logical minimum requirement for categories. The proper response to removal of people when their articles do not have any in the article support that they have lived in a place long enough to be from there is to place it in the article. I could not know that McCullough had lived in Scottsdale for 34 years because it was not incorporated in his article, and the fact that WilliamJE has to use an old newspaper search to demonstrate this suggests it is not a commonly mentioned thing in McCullough's biographies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
• I think User:WilliamJE should have someone tell him to tone down his attacks. His accusation "it was vandalism" and "John Pack Lambert knew it was wrong and still did it" are just not justified. He seems to have gone beyond acceptable behavior in attacking me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • What I find most disturbing is the note "your dead wrong" left on my talkpage. Such notes are inherently uncivil.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
• Why am I accused of "getting upset" when it is another user who said "categorization would be better off without John Pack Lambert". Such downright rudeness is really unjustified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment It's safe to say that JPL and I disagree a lot at CfD. He frequently wants to delete categories that I think are valid, useful and serve a purpose in a larger context of categorization. But we manage to co-exist at CfD.
  

My complaint about JPL at CfD though is that he often doesn't notify the creators of categories and the relevant WikiProjects that the categories are being debated and might be deleted, merged or renamed. I know this because I often follow-up and post notifications on Talk Pages where I think the Editor(s) might have a stake in the outcome (whether the view is "pro" or "con"). Admittedly, about half of the time, the creator is no longer active, so no notification of the creator is called for. But, on the other hand, I think that if Category:African-American players of American football category is up for deletion, the discussion would benefit from hearing from Editors who write about African-Americans and those who write about football. Is this a useful category? Is it biased? Or is it part of a larger structure of categories about African-American athletes?

It's likely that JPL will say my concern is a separate issue from the one brought up in this complaint. But the larger question is how CfD includes or excludes Editors from the conversation of what happens to Wikipedia categories. Yes, there are guidelines on how categorization should be done but there is also the taxonomy of categories that WikiProjects work to put together. Categories aren't important in themselves and shouldn't be reified, they are a tool that organizes articles in order to help Readers find what they are looking for. They are partly navigational tools. The people who have a deep knowledge of Indian actresses or military honors or Muslim comedians should be invited to participate in the CfD process about those topics and be welcomed, not discouraged, from giving their input.

Yes, regulars like JPL who has been active at CfD for years know the guidelines backward and forward. Often I find his logic correct but the outcome wrong because we have to also consider how deleting categories impacts people who write articles about these subjects, whether the way categories should be corresponds with how categories work or function in practice. And that's why we often differ on decisions at CfD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, my first point would be that this is not really about CfD at all, it is a complaint about edits to specific articles. My second point is that I did notify the creator of Category:Muslim comedians that the category was up for deletion. On the other hand, with Category:21st-century Indian film actresses it was largely a follow up to the discussion of Category:20th-century Indian film actresses, and the person (someone other than me) who started that discussion (which I stayed out of, because I really am conflicted about such categories), did not notify the creator (the same as the creator of the 21st-century category), so it is clearly that I am not by any means the only user who starts CfD's without notifying the creator, so why do people want to single me out for it?John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

In hindsight, now that I've had a day to reflect, I can see that my comments above are more suitable for a RfC on the topic of notifications and not here. I won't strike it out but I can see it was out-of-place in this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Johnpacklambert and categorization of dogs

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

---

I noticed that Johnpacklambert has removed a bunch of categories from the Rin Tin Tin article, apparently taking the view that a dog cannot be an actor, that a dog cannot have a nationality. The same tack was taken by Johnpacklambert at Ace the Wonder Dog, that a dog cannot be an actor. I would like to ask the community whether they would allow a famous dog to be categorized by place or as an actor. Binksternet (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

JPL may not be trying to disrupt Wikipedia, but it's abundantly clear that his edits are having that effect. As for the dogs, if an animal can be an actor (which seems to be accepted), then an animal should be able to be a "serial actor", a contract player, an American actor, etc. And why would an article about a male dog be excluded from Category:Male dogs? --Orlady (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

This `is not an ANI issue, and shouldn't be here. But since you asked: Category:Actors is a sub-category of Category:People by occupation.
Do Binksternet you and Orlady Category:Dogs to be a subcat of Category:People?
If not, then don't categorise individual dogs as people.
(Somebody should move this sub-thread to WT:CAT.) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl:: Category:Animal actors has been a subcategory of Category:Actors for nearly 7 years. With that kind of precedent, unilateral efforts to take individual canine actors out of "actors" categories look like disruption. --Orlady (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Orlady, specific cases like this aren't really the purview of AN/I (as I understand it). Similar decisions are made daily at WP:CFD. The question I'm left with after reading your comment is a) how to publicize discussions about categories like Category:Animal actors when they are proposed for deletion, merging or renaming and b) how to get people who care and know about the categories & subject taxonomy to participate in the debate.

To be honest, CfD, even more so than AfD, has a relatively small group of people who weigh in with their opinions about the fate of categories that are being challenged. It would be great if there was a "sorting" system, similar to what occurs at AfD, so that different WikiProjects would be automatically informed if a related category was up for discussion. Right now, I think CfD could stand to improve their notification system but that is really a proposal for a separate RfC.

As for adding or removing individual categories to an article or to a subcategories, any Editor has that ability. And like with any edit, any other Editor has the right to revert that decision and discuss the proposed change on the article or category Talk Page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

It appears to me that until we sort out the problems with categorizing people by place (and probably occupation) we are likely to have arguments. An RfC seems the only solution. People move around, some more than others. Someone might graduate from high school only having spent 2 years in that area. Dougweller (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, the example you give is exactly why I hate dealing with categories. The false supposition is that Category:Actors should only include human actors because it is a subcategory of "people by occupation". That is a mistaken conclusion—the category of actors can never be a complete subset of human occupations if animals can be actors, which is clearly the case. The set of "actors" is larger than "human actors", though you would never know it by looking at categories on Wikipedia. I think the fact that a category is technically a subcategory of a parent category should not restrict the first category from including elements outside of the purview of the parent category. The more blindered, narrow interpretation is apparently being followed on Wikipedia. The whole field of Wikipedia categories makes me crazy because of nonsense such as this, and because of the embarrassing male v female occupation dispute which started with "American novelists" v "American women novelists", and centered on the activity of Johnpacklambert. Makes me wanna scream. Binksternet (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

They're dogs, why the hell should we care if they are listed as "20th century American actors" or just referred to as "animal actors"? It seems rather silly to me for them to be included alongside human actors.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. It's nonsense to list them aside humans. And 'acting' isn't the correct word for dogs. Dogs are trained - 'trick trained' - to perform in certain ways by people (I know people who do this), and what they do isn't what I would consider acting. Maybe 'performing', but not acting. Dougweller (talk) 05:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Entirely agree. Dogs aren't actors, and dogs do not have nationalities either. People have nationalities. A dog may live in a country, and it may be owned by somebody who has the nationality of that country, but the dog does not have a nationality. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Dogs are actors. Bears too. "Performing" vs. "Acting". Ever seen a John Wayne movie? ;) Doc talk 05:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Those arguing that dogs can be actors have taken Suspension of disbelief too far. The dogs are doing tricks. They haven't read the script. They're not interpreting a character from it. Cute and clever they may be, but they're not actors. HiLo48 (talk) 05:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

How do we deal with Bart the bear if he was not an actual "actor"? IMDB credits him in various ways ("The bear", etc.). But that animal is undeniably credited as an actor. Can O' Worms? Meh. Doc talk 07:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

We tend not to regard IMDB as a terribly reliable source. HiLo48 (talk) 07:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Regardless: Bart the bear was an actor. He was a single animal, and he performed under different credits. Should animal actors be as overcategorized as human actors? Probably not. Can an animal be considered an "actor"? Yes. Doc talk 08:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The thespian status of canines causes the taxonomy of Wikipedia categories to collapse. Is this a case of the tail wagging the dog? - Sitush (talk) 08:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I just looked up Acting. It tells me "Acting requires a wide range of skills, including vocal projection, clarity of speech, physical expressivity, emotional facility, a well-developed imagination, and the ability to interpret drama. Acting also often demands an ability to employ dialects, accents and body language, improvisation, observation and emulation, mime, and stage combat." There's an awful lot of those things that dogs don't do. HiLo48 (talk) 08:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

A credited role in a film goes to an "actor". If a dog goes uncredited, it's "scenery". When an actor goes uncredited, it's still an actor. Now when a dog is credited - it's an "actor" for all intents and purposes. Doc talk 08:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

To "act" means to "perform an assumed role". The concept entails a conscious activity of pretending. No animal ever pretends to be something other than itself. An animal may "appear" in a film, or maybe it may "perform" in it, but it doesn't "act" a role. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

If we want to get philosophical we can, but we shouldn't do it here. My incisor teeth indicate that I am an animal myself (at least a vestigial one). Some dogs are actually considered humans under the law: killing a K9 police dog is likely to earn a "murder of a police officer" charge. Overcategorization of animal actors? Hell, no. Disregarding animals like Bart as actors because they are animals? No way! Doc talk 08:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

This is getting into a pretty far-fetched tangent here, but just for the record: this thing about police dogs is a rather ridiculous urban legend. The law can impose heavy penalties on killing police dogs, but even in a place with a legal system as baroque as that of the US the law cannot magically define dogs to be humans. People who kill police dogs are not charged with murder, but with cruelty to animals. Police dogs are no more people than dogs used in movies are. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• one can certainly understand why anthropomorphism would raise categorization issues, but its not an ANI issue. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Propose to ban User:Hasteur

Nothing to see here. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. User:Hasteur edited other's comment in WP:Archive.is RFC diff:[36] replacing it with {{collapse top}} box with highlighted text. This highlighted text is not relevant to the original comment, but it repeats the point expressed by the same User:Hasteur earlier in the same RFC. Being pointed to this, he just undid the comment he does not like. diff:[37]. 79.47.98.149 (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC) IP appears to be very familiar with the rules of wikipedia. IP declined to notify me as required by this boards rules. IP edited my statement long since entered into the collective knowledge with respect to this RfC. I reverted the IP address citing It's exceedingly poor form to edit others comments... Please feel free to quote, but DO NOT edit other people's comments. IP tendentiously (and with WP:POINT obviously in mind) changed my comments so that when I reverted they could call the previous tendentious editing by yet another IP address who was listing other sites that used the archiving service. Per WP:TPO it is granted to collapse content when the content is not relevant to the topic at hand, which I assert that a blanket list of other sites that have used Archive.is at least once is. IP should beware the WP:BOOMERANG that they have already invoked for coming to this board with unclean hands and for also disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point in what appears to be an orchestrated effort by individuals external to the Wikipedia community. IP has not presented evidence commensurate with the opening of a ban proposal. I therefore propose that the IP's complaint be dismissed with prejudice and for the duration of the RfC that the page be semi-protected to prevent astroturfed viewpoints from further disrupting the consensus building exercise. Hasteur (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC) IP has also proceeded to edit war with another editor, EuroCarGT, as to the interpretation of the disputed diff and the applicable policies therein ([38]). It is suprisingly curious that this is now the 3rd or 4th IP that has sprung up that voices a very rigorous defense of Archive.is. I reiterate my statement that Any action designed to improve en.Wikipedia's disposition to Archive.is should be met with guarded hostility. Hasteur (talk) 23:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SaltyBoatr, Talk:Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

Obviously a very controversial topic, but SaltyBoar is being highly disruptive. He has created FIVE talk page sections today [39] , all making essentially the same complaint. He is repeatedly failing to WP:AGF and making personal attacks accusing all the editors of extreme bias. Several editors are attempting to engage him, and address his concerns, but he continually making accusations and highly sarcastic comments. A few choice comments from today (basically every comment he has posted today).

• Regardless of lip service to the contrary, this has all the appearances of biased 'mediator' serving the purpose of defending one POV at the expense of another.
• This is proof that constructive conversation on this talk page is difficult to the point of being hopeless. S
• and these responses from Gaijin42 have the appearance of bad faith debate diversion tactic.
• I find your sarcastic question to be extremely offensive. Further, I am astonished that measuring undue weight quantitatively by counting biased words is not "evidence". That assertion appears to be harassing and a stonewall. I consider your use of the talk page in that way to be highly disruptive
• [...] the apparent intent of suppressing the non-pro-gun point of view. Evidence of a NPOV balance problem here.
• The word appears fifteen times in the article! Maybe that is a little bit on the "undue weight" side of a POV push? Get real.
• Only six times. (laugh) One time would be sufficient
• GregJackP, provides even more evidence that this article suffers from ownership by a brigade of long term 'pro-gun' editors

I'm tempted to ask for a topic ban, but at a minimum a trouting to WP:AGF, WP:NPA and let one conversation go through, rather than starting up 5 sections all saying the same thing would be appreciated. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

In terms of a topic ban, I note that Salty's block log is decently extensive, and all related to gun topics. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Gaijin42 your porcine misspelling of my username 'Saltyboar' is insulting and harassing and over-the-top offensive conduct. Do you really mean to describe me as swine and piggish? Wow. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 22:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I apologize, This was completely unintentional. Your sig uses an unusual font, and I misread. However your over the top reaction to an innocent mistake is certainly part of the larger trend of why we are here at ANI. WP:AGF please. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Right--now I see it. "Salty" pertaining to the sea, and "Boatr" a slightly more economic version of "Boater". I didn't get it until I saw the "get wet" bit (it is an unusual and tiny font; it was difficult on my old eyes). "Get wet" is obviously a playful reference, a virtual invitation to jump into the lively brine that is the editor's world. They're not really asking us to take a bath, I think. Drmies (talk) 23:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

This is becoming what I've seen Salty do before. Extremely aggressive fighting. Most painfully, using large amounts of general accusations. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Pardon me for feeling frustration, but perhaps my feelings are understandable considering the hostility, edit warring and stonewalling aimed at me for my good faith efforts. The crime I have committed, at least according to my understanding of the barrage of attacks recently aimed at me, is having the audacity to attempt to edit in an article that has a POV ownership problem by a group of like minded editors. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 22:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I am a relatively new WP editor, but I get the impression that Salty and some of the editors he's engaged with on the page in question have a past on gun topics. As for editors currently active on the page, I have observed not-AGF and not-NPOV behavior from several in recent days. Although I have only been an active WP editor for less than two months, my experience in that time leads me to suspect that this article might suffer from some sort of pro-gun or anti-ban editor ownership problems. Lightbreather (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

ya think? ;-) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• SaltyBoatr is obfuscating the hell out of everything there. The claims of gangs of POV ownershipper is ridiculous. Their demands are overblown, and they are clogging up the talk page with their whining about things that should be obvious. I mean, someone who points at Salon, The Hill, The Daily Beast, and the LA Times and claims they're of the pro-gun lobby, such a person has no business editing an article where common sense and a basic knowledge of facts are required. I say block 'em next time they make any of these ridiculous claims on the talk page or elsewhere, or ban 'em from that article altogether, and anywhere else where they're preventing editors from getting some work done.

  Also, I'm with the anti-gun gang (we don't have a lobby, just a room in the basement). Every conceivable kind of gun should be banned, and your bullets too. If you want to hunt elk or whatever, learn how to thrown stones, you pussies. <--This is my disclaimer, lest SaltyBoatR (hope I spelled that name correctly--they're so sensitive) thinks that I'm part of the pro-gun lobby as well. Drmies (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Salty didn't claim that Salon, The Hill, The Daily Beast or the LA Times were pro-gun. The authors of the cited sources weren't the publishers or their editors. The articles weren't corporate editorials. Lightbreather (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Eh, please give me an alternate interpretation of "Does the 'cosmetic' sentence really need six footnotes? And all from 'pro-gun leaning sources?" Those are the sources that include the ones I mentioned, and these are SaltyBoatr's words--are they not? The rest of your sentences I don't understand: yes, the sun looks yellow and typically rises in the East, from where I'm sitting. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Im not sure you have a clear understanding on how wikipedia judges reliable sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, with their 22:41 post above, Salty is illustrating one key aspect of the problem. Rather than discuss the particular item at hand, their approach is that they just hurled 5 accusations and attacks in that one post. This has been the nature of their approach / "discussion" there. North8000 (talk) 02:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I think, considering saltyboatr's history, that a topic ban would be very appropriate. The article was very stable, and has become a mess. Saltyboatr has accused me of making POV edits, ridiculous accusation since I actually supported the ban. When on Wikipedia, we should be Wikipedians first, and advocates second. I've had a very long trouble free history on Wikipedia working in this way. No, prior to these disruptions, the article was very "whitebread", and uninteresting, and STABLE, qualities which I feel made the article very NEUTRAL. All it needed was perhaps a few tweaks, not a wall of undiscussed edits that amounted to complete rewrites of the article. A topic ban is in order here. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Sue. If I understand positions correctly, Sue, LB, and Drmies are more on the anti-gun rights (er, gun control, ;p) side, while I'm on the pro-choice, support gun rights side. I really don't have a clue who else is where, nor does it matter. We've been discussing things in a rational way and able to come to agreement. Not everyone got what they wanted, but everyone saw consensus. Unfortunately, Salty would not discuss matters. Based on his history, I don't anticipate that changing. Support topic ban, broadly construed. GregJackP Boomer! 05:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

This is one case where I would agree with a topic ban. There was a massive amount of discussion, rarely pretty, in the two months since Lightbreather began editing the article in earnest; It never crossed my mind to suggest, consider, propose, or participate in a topic ban, even with behavior that was unbecoming at times (but ostensibly 'forgiveable' by a newcomer). However, what happened on friday was outrageous; saltyboatr burst through the saloon doors and began knocking over tables and and trying to instigate fights, relentlessly. When other editors either demurred or tried to engage, we were met with - sorry, it has to be said - this editor's standard refrain that everybody else was acting in bad faith, that we're all horribly biased - practically a conspiracy - and that we were all attacking him. Completely unacceptable editor behavior. I tried in numerous responses to tease some semblance of actual engagement or rational discourse; none was forthcoming, only the repeated refrain above. It was one of the most disruptive displays I think I've seen on wikipedia in a very long while. Things have been silent this weekend; if it remains so, then of course there's no need for a topic ban. If it resumes on monday - enough. Anastrophe (talk) 03:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

IP anon editor failing to stop making changes on an article, despite being reverted by several editors

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

• Terra Nova (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of Terra Nova episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

On the surface this is just a simple content dispute, but this anon ip is obviously on the negative side of consensus. The anon has been reverted by no less than four separate editors in the past five days. Deciding to edit war than to accept that there is very little consensus for these edits. The anon has been informally warned in edit summaries that if he/she continues to edit war, the ip address could be blocked. Even the single editor who supports the ip also warned the ip not to edit war or there may be a block. The ip is not respecting WP:BRD, thinking that the article should reflect his/her version while the discussion is going on. I ask for a block for edit warring and failing to respect WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry JOJ, but I think ANI should be for more intellectually challenging stuff. I don't get paid my ridiculous salary for simple cases of edit warring--that's what Bbb23 was hired for. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• It's about time you got off your high horse and did something useful. BTW, Ponyo, bless her, left a cheese burger on my talk page because of my ridiculous salary. Why don't you have a bite?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• While you lazy bums just stood around and argued, I actually did something about it. The people they hire as admins these days...:-) Both pages semiprotected for a week. Nyttend (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Well, uh, I did block the IP for edit-warring... The note below by AussieLegend is interesting. It doesn't alter the case for the block on the IP (given the number of editors who reverted, for instance), but it does indicate that something needs to be done, and it does not reflect well on Jojhutton. What that something is is, perhaps unfortunately, outside the scope of ANI. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• For the record, this isn't just a "simple case of edit warring" and the consensus that Jojhutton is claiming isn't really consensus at all. There was a long-standing consensus, but Jojhutton and two other editors decided to overturn it in the space of a few hours then refused to discuss when it went to DRN. Comments by uninvolved editors at a subsequent RfC demonstrated the alleged consensus wasn't as strong as Jojhutton and friends claimed, although they ignored it. The IP is definitely edit-warring, and there is evidence in his edit summaries that he has misinterpreted WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO but Jojhutton should know better. Jojhutton has been reverting the IP, even when the IP added a source supporting his claim. Instead of discussing the matter on the talk page, Jojhutton has just warned the IP, citing the supposed consensus. Even now, Jojhutton doesn't want to discuss.[40] There's edit-warring here on both sides, from an IP who doesn't know our procedures and an experienced editor who should know better. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Repeated copyvio...

We've been having an issue with Mmay2's repeated use of copyrighted material from other sites; examples include:

• [41]
• [42]
• [43]
• [44]
• [45]
• [46]

It has been raised on their talk page, but without any response, and the copyright violations have continued. As noted here, there seem to be some wider editing issues as well. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

You may also wish to start a thread at WP:CCI. Looks like a competence block is necessary as well, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

CCI would be a very good idea. Mmay2 has never posted to any talk page, never responded to any warnings. Thus I've blocked indefinitely - of course, if the editor can show that we can be sure there will be no more copyvio, any Admin can unblock. There's far too many editors like this around, and I'm guessing most don't get found. Dougweller (talk) 15:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Doug. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

CCI opened at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Mmay2. Could someone please enact Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested#Plot summary copyvios to reduce the likelihood of this happening in the future? MER-C 03:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Suicide/violence threat in Monta Vista High School

In this diff, some kid is saying that they want to "burn the school down" and "run away from life". Already emailed emergency@wikimedia.org, and per Wikipedia:Threats of violence, it goes here too. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 08:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The edit has been removed from the public revision history, so the admins have presumably taken the necessary course of action.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 12:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Sophus Bie, thanks for bringing it to an administrator's attention and contacting the emergency email address. However, just a friendly reminder to all readers of this thread (because it is sometimes easily forgotten): as per Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm, it is best to contact an adminstrator privately in these circumstances, especially in cases of suicide threats. Increasing public attention on the specific threat of violence is unneccessary and often counter-productive. (This logic applies to all oversight requests.) Singularity42 (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I've updated Wikipedia:Threats of violence to match policy at Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm, since it had contained incorrect instructions to post to WP:ANI. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 23:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

There's yet another reference to ANI on that page -- footnote 2 says "Jimbo Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, has advised "it is very important that we respond appropriately to threats" and "I encourage people to err on the side of caution and report things to AN/I quickly." I don't feel comfortable editing that page, so will leave it as is.--Larry (talk) 00:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

(non-admin observation) Well, since it's just reporting what Jimbo said and not conveying instructions, it should be okay to stay. Ansh666 20:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Lowercase sigmabot II is malfunctioning

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

---

Look at what Lowercase is doing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ASandbox&diff=574861634&oldid=574861519 ! Adding more and more sandbox templates! Ban him befroe the entire wikipedia becomes a sandbox template crowd! . Wanabeadnim (talk) 11:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

You and your IP are edit warring—with a robot—in a sandbox. Kafka could have used it in a play about the futility of human existence. Favonian (talk) 12:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Malfunctioning? The bot's JOB is to ensure the top line remains in the sandbox. Looks like it's working just fine, thank you ES&L 12:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) I would say it looks like a minor malfunction at best. There should be one header, not two. Have you attempted to contact the bot owner? Technical 13 (talk) 13:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Ugh. I'll get to it. →Σσς. (Sigma) 22:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Apparently it only malfunctions on toolserver. No idea why, though. →Σσς. (Sigma) 00:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Report of a "Legal threat"

apparently under WP:NLT i should report that 122.163.229.138 (talk · contribs) wrote this " If you continue doing the same , we can also report the case to Cyber Crime Cell in New Delhi , India . They will hunt you down . Keep this warning in mind . " on my talk page.

based on the timing, my guess is that it was User:Shivamevolution had logged out to make that edit before he created User:Prakharveedang as another sock puppet to reupload the same copyright image to commons that had been deleted when Shivamevolution claimed that he had sourced the image from his blog. but thats just a guess. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what 'legal threats' you're talking about here, but the other user is not a sock puppet of mine, if that is what you are implying. You may ask an admin to investigate the same if you think it's necessary, but it'll just be a waste of time and energy. --Shivamevolution (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I have added more details about the "threat" above. You may also wish to go to Wikimedia Commons and explain your lack of socking there. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• I had blocked Shivamevolution for sock/meat puppetry before, and this falls very close to the earlier pattern, while the two users may be different, they operate only to embellish one article. The new user is clearly a sock of one of the older groups (there were two groups according to SPI and the linkage between the two groups was inconclusive). Also, the post on RedPen's page follows from this post earlier by Shivamevolution, so there's at least some collusion involved. I'll be away from computer for a while, so I can not respond quickly to any queries. —SpacemanSpiff 14:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, now an SPI is unnecessary, the first Commons image was uploaded by Shivamevolution, the second one by Prakharveerdang and now sourced to a flickr account of the earlier sock. So irrespective of technical evidence, this is editing in a group. —SpacemanSpiff 14:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• I've blocked the IP for the legal threat, and will leave it to someone else to sort out the socking question. Monty₈₄₅ 15:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• I've blocked both Shivamevolution and Prakharveedang indefinitely. The collusion, disruption, and deceit are fairly obvious to me. In keeping with the outcome of the sock puppet investigation itself, no user has been tagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• The issue of socking has been confirmed by CU on Commons -- Link to COM:AN post.—SpacemanSpiff 03:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps this user is back as 101.62.174.109 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). That account just left another complaint at User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom which they signed as "Wikipedia Editor", just like the blocked IP did [47]. Both IPs are registered to an ISP in New Delhi. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Editor blanking AfC submissions

Recently, I noticed an editor that was blanking many pages that appeared in Category:AfC submissions with missing AfC template. There may be more, but here's one diff: Diff of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Click Effects . APerson (talk!) 21:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Is this the right diff? The editor in the above diff has not edited since January 2013. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Personal attack

See the third post here. The thread is not fragmented, in fact, I did not reply. I could not understand what they are trying to say. Few months ago, when I went to Wikiversity to request admin's attention towards a long pending deletion discussion, he asked me support him at Wikiversity and promised to delete my requested pages "Request for custodianship", I did not support him (actually I opposed), previous two discussions: User_talk:Titodutta/Archive_30#Talkback_message_from_Draubb and User_talk:Titodutta/Archive_30#What_is_wrong.3F. And today's discussion was the immediate next discussion. --Tito☸Dutta 22:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

No one likes being ignored. I'll talk to him, you delete the comment that bothers you, and we're done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Six hours? Cripes, if not getting a reply in six hours is cause for a personal attack then Wikipedia's going to hell faster than I thought it was. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

A lot is being undone here

Right now SporkBot (talk · contribs) is busy ripping out templates from every IP tagged as a sock based on the TfD discussion. I don't think four people should decide such a drastic thing in such a short amount of time. Is this enough of a consensus for this? Should this have been better advertised when the consequences are so large? Doc talk 00:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe that there is enough of a consensus for it, following several discussions on tagging IPs as socks outside of WP:HSOCK policy. The discussions were held at VPP, at ANI, and at HSOCK, just to name a few of the places. First off, unless the IP has been previously blocked, policy prohibits the IP from being tagged as a sock. Going through the list manually shows that a vast majority of the IPs are tagged in violation of policy and, in some instances, being subjected to harassment without cause. GregJackP Boomer! 02:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

No. The consensus at the TfD Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_29#Template:IPsock is overwhelmingly AGAINST deletion. The bot needs to be stopped, just like people who are emptying categories before the category deletion discussion is finished. They are destroying evidence. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Unless an IP has been previously blocked it cannot be tagged? Ridiculous, really. What this is doing is taking a tool for tracking disruptive editors away. Sure, some people get abused when the tag is abused. I can't believe it's come to this. Doc talk 02:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I think tagging suspicious IPs is a useful endeavor, and should be supported. Binksternet (talk) 03:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

There's a lot of confirmed blocked IP socks using this template. Has any consideration been given to the 'confirmed' parameter? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 03:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Clearly there was not. The basis for this that I'm seeing is roughly "It gets abused sometimes, so it's bad." I, for one, do not buy that as a rationale for removing it. Doc talk 03:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Someone should probably mention the TfD: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_29#Template:IPsock. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 04:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I would love to see the empirical evidence that going through them manually shows that a vast majority were tagged in violation of policy. For example these three

• HarveyCarter (talk · contribs)
• Bambifan101 (talk · contribs)
• Pé de Chinelo (talk · contribs)

people are long term vandals (and all three still pop up) who used 100s if not 1000s of IPs and not all of their IPs were blocked. But, the tagging of them helps in tracking their hopping. At times simply placing the tag stopped them from using the IP. It also help to show admins who are unfamiliar with, or new to, the problem editors just how pernicious they are. The discussions linked to are disparate and, in no way, can be construed as indicating approval to remove the tags. We should work to reduce the abuse to our articles and the harassment of editors who work to stop this abuse rather than increase it by acting like there isn't a problem. MarnetteD | Talk 04:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly! The people who do this kind of work appreciate the tags. Another PITA is Chowkatsun9 (talk · contribs) who continues a Hong Kong-based IP evasion of his ban as we speak.[48] Binksternet (talk) 04:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

So what do you recommend doing with the editors who tag IPs as suspected socks because the IP is dynamic, and who tells IP editors that having a dynamic IP is automatically a violation of the socking policy? Or the users who tag anyone who disagrees with them as a sock? The policy was changed because at one time, 1 in 5 of the suspected socks of Scibaby were false positives. 20% of the blocks were innocent users. Say, oops, sorry? Or enforce the current policy? If you have proof, provide it, get them blocked and add them to the list. Otherwise it is just another personal attack without evidence. GregJackP Boomer! 05:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Anyone who tags (or says) that using a dynamic IP is in violation of policy will be corrected by those who know policy better. It is certainly not in violation of SOCK for any editor to use a dynamic IP address. When people abuse that right to edit anonymously from an IP, we get problems. Which is why the template exists. Doc talk 05:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Hasn't happened yet. I can show one editor that has been told repeatedly that using a dynamic IP is not a violation, including by WMF staff, yet has tagged at least 50 and probably many times that as socks and told many more that having a dynamic IP was automatically a violation of the socking policy. No one stepped up until an IP editor started raising the issue at ANI. GregJackP Boomer! 05:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

But you can't show one editor who has done it recently after this debacle, so going back in history is not fair. Even by your strict interpretation of an illogically worded policy, tagging IPs being used for block evasion is proper. When a registered user or IP is blocked, and they continue to edit and comment with other IPs, we have ALWAYS used Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets. You're not just reinterpreting history, you don't even KNOW the history of how this template and category have been used! @MarnetteD:, @Doc9871:, and @Binksternet: (below) are right. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh. Gee. I guess the fact that I don't have a problem with it being used properly, in accordance with policy, means that I shouldn't be concerned about the past violations? Have you ever apologized to any of the dynamic IPs you falsely accused of violating the socking policy? GregJackP Boomer! 22:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. One or two false positives are not enough to stop using the system. Binksternet (talk) 05:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not one or two false positives. At the point WP:HSOCK was changed, it was 1 in 5 false positives. All you have to do is provide your evidence. If it supports a block, then tag it. If it does not support a block, do not make a personal attack by labeling it as a sock. GregJackP Boomer! 06:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

This is not a realistic view of the situation. You are saying there must be more red tape in order to tag any IP because sometimes people abuse a tag. SPI is backlogged enough. Anyone who has had extensive experience dealing with socks knows that to require they be blocked first is unworkable. Stretching a sock tag into a "personal attack" (thus in violation of policy) is remarkably creative. And frightening. Doc talk 06:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

So I take it you would not have a problem with a sock tag being placed on your user page? I mean since it is not a personal attack, does it really matter? I've been accused of being a sock (and cleared through CU) - I can guarantee you that it is a personal attack. It was also frightening, that some editors could get away with accusing others of being socks based on "secret tells" which of course they could not share with anyone. It was sort of like what I imagine the Salem witch trials to be like. Especially when the "sock" is blocked and can't defend themselves at SPI. "She turned me into a newt!" GregJackP Boomer! 06:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack to accuse an account of being a sock. It just isn't. Doc talk 07:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Gee, then why is it listed as a form of harassment? Or noted as an "inherently personal attack" over 8 years ago in a template discussion? Or that only sock hunters think that it is not a personal attack? The history in the project shows very clearly that accusing an editor, whether an IP or registered, of being a sock is a personal attack unless you can provide evidence to substantiate that the editor is in fact a sock. GregJackP Boomer! 21:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I will be very annoyed if Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sheynhertz-Unbayg is depopulated. Only about 3 other editors even care about his ban evasion, so hindering me from dealing with his constant stream of sockpuppets is going to be counterproductive. —Xezbeth (talk) 04:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

A spotcheck of that cat showed that all of the IPs had been blocked or sent to an SPI or both. None appeared to be in the category outside of policy, unlike several others that I've checked. GregJackP Boomer! 05:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I am concerned with edits like this. There exists an agenda to stop tagging IPs, yet there is no real community consensus aside from policy "changes" like this to rely on. It's an ongoing issue. RfC time? Doc talk 04:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Greg. The vandalism is a far bigger problem than a handful of IPs not being able to edit for a short time. Some of the vandalism that Pé performed sat in the article for more than a year. We say "oops sorry" all the time around here (because none of us are perfect.) I would rather say it to an IP whose short block had expired than have the articles vandalized and/or the editors harassed or trolled who deal with these problems. MarnetteD | Talk 05:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not that simple. First, the "oops, sorry" rarely happens. There is a discussion right now on unblocking a user who was mistakenly blocked and just wanted an apology. Many editors will not apologize, feeling that being blocked is minor and easy to get over - it's not minor and it's not easy to get over.

I would rather have proof before we lock someone out or label them as a wikicriminal. GregJackP Boomer! 05:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It is that simple and I can't speak for other editors ability to apologize. As to proof perhaps you are unaware how things work at SPI. Socking can go on rapidly but response to reports about it do not. I filed a report on Pe [49] including proof that he admitted to being a sock that saw ten days go by for any action to be taken on it. So you are saying that I should not have been allowed to tag any of the IPs he was editing from before or during those ten days? I am sorry (see!) but that is taking a simplistic and absurd view of how thing work around here. IPs who have received an improper block happen (and some of those are for reasons other that socking) if you feel that is wrong then that is your prerogative. Articles that get vandalized by socks and editors who get trolled by those socks occurs much more often and my concern over removing the tools to deal with that is mine. I am logging off now so this takes care of stating my opinion on the subject. MarnetteD | Talk 06:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you are unaware of how things work at a lynching. Someone makes an accusation, and then someone gets hung. Sometimes the hangee is guilty, sometimes not. As long as you're part of the mob, everything's fine, but it sort of sucks to be the one that is falsely accused and standing under the tree branch. GregJackP Boomer! 22:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Nice piece of OTT sophistry. Adding a suspected IP tag isn't even a block so what hardship are they facing. In the case of an IP that is blocked having to sit out a few hours or days is in no way comparable to a lynching. On top of that they have options wherein they can continue editing. They can post an unblock request. Though not required they can even register. It is always odd that an editor thinks they are more anonymous by staying an IP. It only takes a few clicks to find out where they are editing from where a registered user can create a user name that has nothing to do with who they are or where they are and, thus, be much more anonymous. Once again your concern for the occasional IP is fine. Our larger concerns for the damage done to articles and editors who get trolled are hardly going to be changed by this kind of hyperbolic rhetoric. MarnetteD | Talk 05:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Request close

1. The TfD was closed, innocuously, as delete (3-0-1) by @Plastikspork: at 23:33 28 Sept 2013 [50]. It looks like they just went through TfD and closed a whole batch -- SOP for regular admins.
2. This ANI was opened at 00:51 29 Sept 2013. I don't see where Plasticspork was notified??
3. Discussion was initiated at User talk:Plastikspork#IPSock Template at 01:37 29 Sept 2013.
4. Plasticspork asked if Doc9871 wanted it relisted, and then did relist it at 02:30 29 Sept 2013 [51].
5. The balance has now shifted to not delete.

• So why is this here? It was resolved peacefully with the admin on their talkpage. Every single comment above should be at the TfD. Please close. Rgrds. --64.85.215.69 (talk) 12:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

User:AS92813

Rollback or other attention may be appropriate: User:AS92813 (I am editing via a mobile device, I normally copy/paste tildes to generate Talk: signature but none are provided when editing this page) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.55.155.165 (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I've undone one edit and left them a welcome message especially regarding using sources and participating in AfD. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

User:AS92813 is engaging in sockpuppetry through the use of multiple IPs on Major League Baseball rivalries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), could an admin please deal with it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Long running case of casting aspersions

Could someone please ask User:Jclemens to kindly drop his stick and quit casting aspersions all over en wikipedia and make accusations only in the proper forum. The most recent incident of bringing up actions from over three years ago is User_talk:Jclemens#Apology but they have been ongoing for over a year [52] If he really thinks there is an issue, he needs to take his evidence to SPI. If he lacks the evidence, he needs to drop the stick and quit WP:BAITing the user. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Beware the WP:BOOMERANG. I haven't cast any aspersions; referring to established events is not casting aspersions, and a review of my contributions will not yield any inappropriate attributions. If you have specific, actionable diffs where you believe I have recently accused of anyone of anything without evidence, please... present them. Jclemens (talk) 04:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Jclemens only "accusation" was a reference to inappropriate behavior that was documented in two sockpuppetry investigations. While it is indeed a personal attack to accuse someone of sockpuppetry without evidence, that does not appear to have occurred here. While it may not have been necessary for the history to be brought up in that conversation, there is no rule against doing so. This doesn't seem like a situation that needs admin intervention. It seems more like a case of a few editors who just don't like each other very much. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

While a single reference to a really old event may "not be necessary", repeating the "not necessary" event over and over again for over a year becomes problematic as laid out: Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another. (emph added) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Diffs, please? You realize that making accusation without providing evidence, which you are doing in this thread, is exactly the same thing as you're accusing me of: casting aspersions. Only I haven't accused anyone of sockpuppetry, merely made reference to the established judgements of other admins, on en.wiki and it.wiki, to which the named party and yourself have taken offense. Please provide one single diff within, say, the past year where I've accused anyone of current sockpuppetry. Jclemens (talk) 06:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

There is one big difference, I have done it in the proper forum. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

in addition specific examples that I initially posted, see the ones listed below by FdF. and its not like we havent been here before "Jclemens is reminded not to use the term sock casually. Investigate possible socking, but don't throw the term about otherwise. All editors are reminded of the value of dropping the stick. LadyofShalott 14:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's review the evidence so far: You have posted none--nothing new from the past year. Folken de Fanel has posted things he doesn't like, but nothing so far that supports what you've accused me of, which is currently casting aspersions about editors. The reason you haven't is actually pretty simple: I've never engaged in any such behavior, and for the third time I invite you or anyone to post any evidence that I've accused anyone of active, current sockpuppetry in the past year. The fact that you are in the right forum for founded complaints does nothing to protect you from the fact that your accusations are unfounded. Jclemens (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I have posted diffs of you casting aspersions on me from last month, and others from the past year to show your smearing campaign against me has never stopped. You haven't accused me of "active, current sockpuppetry", but of past sockpuppettry on en.wiki, which is unfounded, thus a personal attack.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Please explain how describing past misbehavior, absent any accusation that the behavior is still ongoing, constitutes a violation of WP:ASPERSIONS. Note further that you are explicitly disclaiming the basis of this complaint as brought by TRPoD. So, to summarize: 1) You admit I didn't do what TRPoD said I did, and 2) what you accuse me of, bringing up your past record, isn't even covered by WP:ASPERSIONS, the principle that you reference. Oh, and 3) Misuse of IP addresses is covered under WP:ILLEGIT and there is no separate category for abuse of IP addresses rather than registered accounts, so yes, you were sanctioned for sockpuppetry. Jclemens (talk) 18:59, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

You haven't discussed any past misbehavior that I can see, you just made up false accusations of sockpuppetry that never happened on the English WP, and pursued me with the claims to an AfD page, which certainly isn't an appropriate forum to bring up (imaginary, in this case) user conduct, per WP:AVOIDYOU. 1) This specific thread was opened because you are harassing me with false claims of past sockpupettry, but TRPOD is right to bring up your history of using groundless SP accusations against your editorial opponents, thus highlighting a general trend of bad faith, uncivility and misuse of the term "sockpuppetry", to which the current issue pertains. 2) the issue is two-fold: first you brought up false past record, second you brought it in a forum (AfD) which isn't made to discuss user behavior, which is thus a personal attack per WP:AVOIDYOU. 3) There is no "misuse" of IP that I can see and no I was never sanctionned for sockpuppetry on En WP.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) You are the one who is linking to that wiki jargon shortcut, and attempting to pigeon hole any of your behavior outside of what may be specifically outlined there. However, I was using the word in the general language usage of the intent of the Pillars WP:CIV that people [who are Wikipedians follow, things like It is as unacceptable to attack a user ... even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user. People make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks and harassment are contrary to this spirit, damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia and It is sometimes difficult to make a hard-and-fast judgement of what is uncivil and what is not. Such a judgement may need to take into account such matters as ... (ii) whether the behaviour has occurred on a single occasion, or is occasional or regular; (iii) whether a request has already been made to stop the behaviour, and whether that request is recent;" and Other uncivil behaviours (a) taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves. You have not provided any rationale for why you seem to feel the need to bring up LONG PAST behavior except that it will continue to cast a cloud over the user and likely bait them into actions he would not have taken if you had not repeatedly kept poking and poking and poking for no other reason than to poke and provoke - that is uncivil.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

For the record I don't see those so-called "sockpuppetry investigations". One only shows that my login cookies expired during a discussion and I forgot to log back in (I hadn't edited for two weeks before coming back to the discussion) . The admin called it "obvious", and I indeed would really be stupid if I hoped to sock while continuing the same discussion and still referring to my account "Folken de Fanel" as "I". Sure, I was blocked for the coments I wrote back then, but not for sockpuppettry. The other one is from the Italian wikipedia, which, for all intents and purposes, is outside of the English WP jurisdiction.

Given that I have never been blocked for sockpuppettry on en.wiki, Jclemens's choice to manipulate an earlier report so as to portray me as a sockpuppet, or to unconditionally call me a sockpuppeteer on en.wiki while using extra-en.wiki, years-old and out of context evidence, is a personal attack, as an experienced admin, he should know the difference. The fact that Jclemens likes to pursue me with sockpuppetry accusations in inappropriate forums also shows a behavior that is borderline wikihounding. Jclemens has a history of personal attacks and unfounded accusations against me which is unbecoming any administrator, and the "sockpuppet" approach is only the newest angle of his smearing campain against me. At one point, that behavior needs to stop. Jclemens may not like me, as Mark Arsten puts it, and I guess it is bound to happen on WP, but I don't see why I'd have to put up with so much abuse that's been going on for more than a year. That it comes from a user supposed to fight this kind of behavior and not to relish in it is is even more concerning.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

it may be that Jclemens feels his construction of not a wikipedian only applies to certain people. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• It's ironic that someone like TRPOD, who in my experience has little regard for following WP:CIV in discussions towards users with whom he disagrees, is now complaining about other another user with whom he has had a highly antagonistic relationship for over a year. I found this thread on his talk page particularly compelling, for example, to get an idea of how many users seem to have a reason to complain about his approach. You can find quite a bit of antagonism from TRPOD and FDF towards Jclemens documented at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Folken de Fanel as well. BOZ (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Correction: Antagonism from BOZ and Jclemens towards FdF. I'm not the one who is calling opposing users "clueless", "disengaged from reality" and "experiencing mental illness", or speculating that any user in disagreement must be a sockpuppet. Jclemens is. So the most ironic comment of all is yours, BOZ, when you seek every little fault in others in an attempt to divert attention from your buddy Jclemens who, as an admin, should be above this kind of behavior more than any of us mere contributors. When users like Jclemens, supposed to uphold the CIVIL policy, are the ones abusing, how are regular users supposed to feel ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, at one point over the past year Jclemens decided to make me the target of his vendetta, and I thought that since he was an admin he could be reasoned with or understand when to stop...unfortunately he never stopped pursuing me with groundless accusations of misbehavior or past history whenever we happened to interact and disagree on the same subject. And I'm not the only user to whom he does that, as seen very recently at AfD. In short, he has a tendency of accusing those disagreeing with him of all kind misbehavior or bringing up past conduct anywhere (usually at AfD) but on the specific forums made to discuss user conduct such as WP:ANI which, in effect, allows him to launch smear campaigns in attempt to discredit his editorial opponents (instead of bringing valid counter argumentation) while avoiding the consequence of potentially abusive user conduct reports, a specific type of personal attack depicted at WP:AVOIDYOU and for which he has already been admonished at ANI. Jclemens is certainly a competent admin overall, but such bullying and hounding tactics whenever the notability of fiction is in question are unacceptable and need to stop.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:Harassment from User:Binksternet

I have warned a user three times to stay off my talk page (1) (2) (3). Following each of my warnings, he continued to post inflammatory templates falsely accusing me of edit warring and threatening to block me (4) (5) (6). The claims of edit warring are specious, making the harassment motive all the more clear. For instance, he twice accused me of edit warring on Hans-Hermann Hoppe, a page which (on both occasions) I had done one total revert on over the course of several days.

This is WP:harassment, plain and simple, and I'd like to see a temporary ban imposed to teach Binksternet that harassment is unacceptable. Steeletrap (talk) 05:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Bink is on a roll: he's simultaneously edit-warring, removing other user's talk page comments and trying to get me blocked for pointing out that he's edit-warring. MilesMoney (talk) 05:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I posted an edit warring note on Steeletrap's user page because it is required to do so before filing a report at WP:3RRN. Steeletrap uses hyperbole in the above note, saying the standard templates are "inflammatory" and that I am "threatening to ban" Steeletrap. In fact, I have only used Twinkle's standard edit warring templates, so no discussion of banning is possible.

Steeletrap appears to be unaware that an editor may be reported for edit warring, and blocked, for long-term edit warring, or for tendentious editing. Steeletrap has engaged in all of the above at various articles I'm aware of including most recently Murray Rothbard and Hans-Hermann Hoppe, the latter a BLP. Binksternet (talk) 05:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a lie. You're the one edit-warring, along with SRich. MilesMoney (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet will get another WP:* for defending the Wiki against WP:TE editors once this nonsense is over. Baseless. WP:GAMING. Bullshit. That's about it. – S. Rich (talk) 05:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, look, it's Bink's partner in crime, supporting his buddy. How sweet. MilesMoney (talk) 05:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet has been harassing and hounding Steeletrap for months

User Bink has been attacking, misrepresenting, and hounding user Steeletrap for months now. It's a long complicated history and has driven away many editors who might otherwisew be here to affirm Steeletrap's complaint. I recommend that any Admin who chooses to step into this mess review the long-term pattern of hit-and-run attack and harassment. It seems to have begun when user Binksernet began following various articles relating to libertarianism and the Mises Institute. Shortly thereafter Binkser went on a campaign of personal attack against Steeletrap, and a few other editors, driving them away from these topics -- (see Ad-hom, here) -- but Steeletrap continued to work on content and articles which aroused Binkser's ire. I would say that Steeletrap is within her rights to request relief in this matter. SPECIFICO talk 14:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

So which of the "many" editors did I drive away? Please name names. Binksternet (talk) 14:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

To name just one, uninvolved, well-respected user:Stalwart111 ended his good-faith efforts to improve Mises Institute-related pages, in part because of your misattributing quotes to, and making false allegations/personal attacks against, him (1). Steeletrap (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I was sorry to see Stalwart111 go, but to me it looked like he became initially frustrated with Carolmooredc's work to stem the bias introduced by Steeletrap and Specifico, a bias he had not recognized himself. When I joined the effort to stop the bias Stalwart111 found the topic's complexity and the talk page debates to be too much. So Stalwart111 left the topic; that makes for exactly one editor out of the "many" I have supposedly chased from the article, according to Specifico. As long as we are talking about editors leaving out of frustration, we can add Carolmooredc to that group. She left because of constant attacks against her made by Steeletrap and Specifico. Binksternet (talk) 16:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet crossed a line with me with this edit. It seems innocuous. But there is a problem. I think the word "misconstrue" describes it. You can't make an argument that fails to correctly acknowledge the points of contention. A WP:TALK page is useless if it is not used properly. Bus stop (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Bus stop, the diff you show is completely unrelated to Specifico, and does not shine any light on the matter at hand. Perhaps you can explain your point more clearly. Binksternet (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet—Editing Wikipedia and interacting with other editors is not identical to Gamesmanship. If we are disagreeing over a point, there is an obligation to stick to the point of disagreement. You can't just pretend that some unrelated argument is taking place. You can't argue against points that are not even in play. To make up your own point of contention and then to argue against a position which is not even maintained by another editor is to present a straw man argument. Doing so creates an atmosphere of distrust. Bus stop (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It's interesting to hear that was your experience with Binkser, because that is exactly what he did here in this thread -- launching into entirely irrelevant accusations against user MilesMoney. SPECIFICO talk 17:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Belittling personal attacks on Binksternet and Srich32977

User:MilesMoney has engaged in personal attacks against me and User:Srich32977 in the last four hours, apparently for the purpose of belittling the contributions of me and Rich, to WP:HOUND us off the articles we are interested in; all in violation of WP:No personal attacks. Here is what MilesMoney has posted recently:

• "The SRich and Bink Show: Welcome to the show of shows, where our pair of entertainers will dazzle you by tag-teaming to edit-war!" This is a belittling comment completely inappropriate for an article talk page.
• Same as above.
• Same as above.
• Same as above.
• "The show goes on. Binksternet is embarrassed by this description of his tag-team edit-warring, so he keeps violating the rules by deleting it. Too bad nothing ever really gets deleted on Wikipedia. But what's really too bad is that the show goes on. Bink tagged Rich and now the latter is edit-warring to keep those photos out. It's hilarious to watch the lengths these two will go to violate Wikipedia policy. Let's see if Bink tries to delete this, too. It would be fun to watch him incriminate himself by doing so."
• "... the Rich & Bink Show." A belittling comment.
• "Oh, look, it's Bink's partner in crime, supporting his buddy. How sweet." A belittling comment.

I reverted the first MilesMoney post with an edit summary referencing his violation of WP:NPA. I reverted the second MilesMoney post using Twinkle to place an "only warning" on his talk page saying that he should stop engaging in personal attack. After two more posts I reported MilesMoney to WP:AIV where DanielCase said I should be reporting here.

MilesMoney is usually more balanced and objective than this. In the past few hours he is not his normal self. I think he needs to wait out this tendentious period of time. Binksternet (talk) 06:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The comments cited above are remarkably mild/do not constitute personal attacks and by your own admission, are out of character for Miles. This tedious ANI should be closed immediately. Steeletrap (talk) 06:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Repeated accusations of tag-teaming are rarely a good thing unless the point can be proven. - Sitush (talk) 11:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The guideline WP:NPA speaks against those who would "comment on the contributor" rather than the content. MilesMoney's article talk page post was wholly focused on belittling two contributors; it was devoid of article content. I was within my rights to immediately remove each of these comments as NPA directs "derogatory comments about other contributors may be removed by any editor." MilesMoney was in the wrong by repeatedly replacing his belittling personal attacks, no matter how "mild" they might seem. Binksternet (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm commenting on the content, which is that you and Rich are tag-teaming on Murray Rothbard. Each of you goes up to the red line on 3RR, then then next takes over. You keep reverting regardless of what reasonable compromises other editors propose and you absolutely do not have any sort of consensus. These aren't attacks on you, they're a commentary on your poor behavior, which comes down to various forms of tendentious editing. MilesMoney (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• There's nothing personal about these remarks. MilesMoney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is obviously upset about something. We need to ascertain whether he has good reason to be upset. If so, we should solve the underlying problem, not punish the person complaining about it. Jehochman ^Talk 17:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

  It looks like Binksternet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a fairly long block log for past edit warring and a prior 6 month 1RR restriction, though they've not been blocked since 2011. I don't think edit warring is the way to solve a problem. Participating in an edit war and then complaining about opponents, well, I take a dim view of that. Could you all please agree to use dispute resolution to settle your disagreements? Reverting doesn't solve anything. There's no urgent BLP issue. Jehochman ^Talk 17:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've already taken a step back to avoid getting further embroiled in their edit war. Instead of being part of it, I commented critically about it on the article talk page, which I believe is the appropriate place. I would be glad to use dispute resolution mechanisms, particularly if Rich and Bink stopped edit-warring and joined us in discussion. If not, then the rest of us can come up with a consensus even without them, although I suspect they might edit-war against that consensus. MilesMoney (talk) 17:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

As noted above, user:Binksternet has a history of repeated, unsubstantiated personal attacks on various editors including User:Stalwart111, User:Steeletrap, myself, and others. He is, shall we say, "selective" in his concern for NPA and other WP policies. At any rate, I hope that editors will return to discussion of the initial topic of this thread, namely, the harassment of Steeletrap. SPECIFICO talk 19:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior from User:Ryulong

Okay, this has gotten out of control real fast. I made an edit to Pokémon hoping to arrange some information in a way I felt was best, as a certain inaccuracy arises from the way it is now (see talk page). Ryulong reverted it stating "The series is "Pokemon" in Japan too."; completely reasonable, but my edit was for the same reason. So I asked him to explain further on his talk page, but he reverted the new section I had made and then went on to revert some edits I had made on some other Pokemon-related pages with no explanation. Then he had this to say on my talk page... despite the fact that the edits were made to resolve some clear, sourceable errors; one of the edits he reverted had actually been made at least two days ago with no opposition. So now I have to bug the talk page every time I want to make a change to any Pokemon article ever? What is even going on here? Despatche (talk) 07:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It's called Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I explained my point on the article talk page as well as your own. This need not escalate to this just because you think things should be done a certain way on multiple websites.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Ryulong could certainly stand to be a little more civil, but otherwise, this just seems like a content issue that should be hashed out on the talk page, and/or posted at relevant WikiProjects if there's not enough discussion going on... Sergecross73 msg me 14:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Ryulong has been a continual problem in this area with bitey, arrogant and rude behavior coupled with persistant long-term abuse of the rollback function as seen here.[53][54] Ryulong removes his talk page discussions concerning any objectionable behavior making it difficult and tedious to find such actions, but they are frequent and fall on deaf ears. When Despatche brought the matter to Ryulong's talk page to discuss, Ryulong removed it with "I saw, it doesn't work". [55] This is part of a larger scope concerning the abuse of the rollback feature; which is constant, like on Pokemon X and Y,[56] Pokemon Origins,[57] and even corrections of the heading to match the text by IP users in Kamen Rider Wizard.[58] He does this at AFD even, where an explanation is most certainly needed.[59] Now going through only edits in the last two days shows more abusive behavior. Including frequent all caps yelling while removing good faith additions by IP editors. Three instances alone in List of Power Rangers Megaforce characters history.[60][61][62] Though also in the history of this one page shows a lack of discussion by Ryulong and more abuse of the rollback function.[63] Ryulong has ownership issues, constantly reverts good faith edits without explanation and doesn't engage in discussion, instead, often yelling at the editors in his reverts. I think Ryulong needs to have the rollback rights removed, I've asked him previously to use rollback function properly and he quickly removed the discussion and continued to abuse the function.[64] Ryulong's "consensus" and BRD argument only works if the reverting party intends to discuss and Despatche did attempt discussion only for Ryulong to remove it. There are numerous other examples that can be provided. Many show rudeness, lack of AGF.[65][66] The issue is deep that even editors who assert what a source says get reverted and the talk page discussion removed without even a reply.[67] Frankly, this behavior needs to stop and quickly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm allowed to do what I want on my user talk page, even with rollback. It's spelled out at WP:ROLLBACK. This has been proven time and time again whenever I use rollback on a talk page message and then someone comes to complain about it at ANI. I had already begun discussing this issue with formatting on his user talk page and the article talk page, but he insisted on opening another thread and I did not want to discuss the same subject on 3 different pages. Also, rollback can be used to revert multiple problematic (although good faith) edits in quick succession, so long as a message is left on the user talk page of the one reverted, which I did, and I see that I was a bit rude looking at it 12 hours later. However, I have been a bit too enthusiastic at List of Power Rangers Megaforce characters, but I am dealing with IP editors who constantly add WP:OR despite requests that they not, and unnecessary formatting changes, overly detailed plot summary, etc., particularly when I have to deal with the same IP editor making the same mistakes and deleterious edits over and over because they do not know how this website works.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment I've had my fair share of problems with RL in the past. I especially don't like that someone with such a limited range of Japan-related articles s/he edits effectively controls MOSJ (unilateral edits by Ryulong are okay, but consensus-backed edits by others are not). But in this case I have to agree with him on the substance. There is no feasible way to incorporate the information Despatche wants to into the opening sentence without cluttering it, and any changes like that that are reverted really should be discussed before being re-added. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm a man, thank you. And the edit you made to change the MOS never had consensus while mine changed nothing major.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

That I can understand, but I cannot understand why he felt the need to revert other perfectly valid edits because I "didn't have consensus", despite the fact that one had been sitting around for at least two days at the time and both match up with Wikipedia consensus (one was an error and the other was missing information, which I'd really like to readd by the way).

But obviously, this isn't about the content, it's about the way he handles everything. Related: I'm tired of characters like Sergecross trying to hide stuff like this as a content issue (he's got some problems himself), because it's obviously not. People assume I have "hidden motives" because ????, when they have clearly shown their own desire to ignore reality. What do I do about these people? Despatche (talk) 18:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It only had been sitting around for 2 days because no one noticed it until you mentioned you had made several changes and I had initially thought they were unwarranted. Everything you've done and I mistakenly undid has since been properly formatted within the pages other than your insistence that Wikipedia no longer translate Poketto Monsutā as "Pocket Monsters" which is a content issue. And again, I am free to use rollback within my user space and I am allowed to use it to revert several edits in a row, provided I contact the user in question afterward (although I often find that this is fruitless for IP editors).—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

When did I ever say anything even remotely like that? I said that Pokemon articles as is try to put forward the idea that the series is known as "Pocket Monsters" in Japan, when that hasn't been true since before Wikipedia even existed; those sentences need to be rewritten to reflect how Nintendo has been doing its branding. And why do you keep trying to make this a content issue, refusing to talk to me about it where one is actually supposed to? Despatche (talk) 03:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Um, I'm not sure what "problems" exactly you're accusing me of, but regardless, my point is, your opening paragraph above concentrated a lot about not seeing eye to eye working on a Pokemon article, which sounds much more like a content problem. It's one thing if you're presenting it like Chris G did above, but a centerpiece of your opening comment was "I don't want to bring it to the talk page all the time", which is ridiculous, that's what you do if someone disagrees with you. My point is, here we are, once again you're clashing heads with editors who don't see your way, and you're way too quick to run to ANI, instead of talking it out, contacting Wikiprojects, starting up RFCs, etc. You need to learn to work with people, discuss, and concede to consensus when necessary, not just run off to ANI to attempt to "rat them out". Sergecross73 msg me 20:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I am an unknown third-party in this situation but I have been watching Ryulong's talk page for some time now. Unfortunately, I have to agree with the remarks that he comes off as demanding and arrogant. Yes, WP:ROLLBACK says you can use it freely on your talk page, but the way Ryulong uses it looks as though he is "covering up" certain discussions. Again, that's not a violation of Wikipedia rules, but Ryulong seems to be following an "I'm right, you're wrong" mentality. It's more of common practice to keep old discussions on talk pages and archive them as the page becomes longer.

Aside from that, Ryulong seems to not assume good faith at times which was when I started watching his page after a comment made on another user's talk page where he threatened them that they will "face the consequences" if they didn't stop adding unsourced information. More recently he's made comments like "Stop enforcing your damn proposed changes to the formatting when you do not have anything close to consensus behind you." on User talk:Despatche and insisting his correctness as it concerned Japanese because he "lives in Japan" on User talk:Ash Pokemaster.

All in all, I don't think Ryulong is a "bad" editor, I think he's merely passionate about editing Wikipedia and keeping it factual and tidy to the point where he can get heated at times. He needs to stay cool, be more civil overall, be able to talk disputes over, take constructive criticism and not take edits to his talk page and pages he follows so personally. Antoshi ☏ ★ 23:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

"I don't want to bring it to the talk page all the time" <-- Wow, shows where your priorities lie. I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works, and I'm really sick of you ignoring every little thing I say for the sake of whatever reason there may be. You are no longer in the "good faith" zone, not anymore. Despatche (talk) 03:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Right, I don't really like how he treats people either. I wish he'd tone it down a bit, be a little less aggressive. But he keeps it within the bounds of Wikipedia's civility standards for the most part, so all we can really do is ask him to summer down a bit, and Despatche to follow he proper channels before blasting into ANI... Sergecross73 msg me 23:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

But this is the only proper channel to actually report people for behavior! There's nothing else, except real vandalism channels and the like. I don't think he's a vandal, but I do think his actions make him look like one. Despatche (talk) 03:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment - As others have said, I do not believe Ryulong to be a bad editor, but his attitude towards people who don't agree with him needs to be worked on. For instance, on the discussion of many of these matters, he says something along the line of "Nobody else thought this was a problem until you came along". It is a VERY WEIRD thing to say as it really doesn't mean anything, and sort of is pointy and goes against assume good faith. Just because somebody is the first to bring something up does not mean it is an incorrect way of doing things. It is entirely possible that other people may actually agree with this person. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 00:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Let me clarify my position. My issue with Ryulong is rollbacking of good faith edits on article space, not on the talk page. Given the ArbCom case against Ryulong which included the rollback issue and is cited at the page, I challenge the acceptability of these rollbacks because they are done in good faith and typically by IP users and almost entirely on a single page or small subsection of related pages. This does not seem to qualify as an acceptable usage. Whether or not discussions are rollbacked back is moot, but refusing to discuss while continuing to rollback these edits are a problem. Ryulong may often be right about the content, but getting this point across in a civil and friendly manner needs work. Ryulong should stop using rollback as a substitute undo button or lose the right to use it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

This right here is why the whole "you must open a discussion for every single little edit before you make it" is ridiculous. "Edit first, ask questions later" is good--that's the point of Wikipedia--we're supposed to have good faith in people by default. "Revert first, ask questions later" is bad; it is subtractive, negative, and combative, no matter how hard you try to stress otherwise.

(Content-wise, it's one versus one (actually at this point Sergecross would probably side against me every single time just because), and something that needs to be taken to 3O maybe.) Despatche (talk) 03:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I was notified about this AN/I since I'd had some interaction with Ryulong in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines, where I weighed in on a proposed addition to the guidelines by another user. I advised Ryu several times, both in the discussion and on his talk page, that he was being unnecessarily antagonistic toward other users, and that I saw no evidence that they were deliberately hounding him as he claimed they had been. I advised him that he should cool off and keep the civility policies front and center. I'll note that he reverted all of the comments I made on his talk page, and apparently didn't even read my first one (since at one point he believed I'd only ever posted one comment there when in fact I had made three edits). I don't have any other specific experience with this user, but from what I've seen, I agree that his attitude could certainly use some adjustment. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I've had (and am having right now, in fact) similar frustrating experiences with Ryulong and his tendency to revert edits without/before even checking if they might be correct. See the recent sections on my talk page, for example. I also remember depressing discussions over at the talk page of the Manual of Style for Japanese articles, where Ryulong was so confident about his Japanese skills that even native Japanese speakers had to give up... Basically, for the past few years, whenever I realize I'm editing a page Ryulong has been working on, I know there's going to be trouble. I've avoided certain articles specifically because of that. Erigu (talk) 05:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

You never explained why I am wrong for the Baoh thing until today. You just kept reverting me without any explanation when I've shown that the translation is possible. Everyone just reverts without giving an explanation and I am also guilty of this, but I've attempted communication multiple times just to get nothing in return but editors consistently reverting me because no one wants to back down from their point of view and come to a consensus.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're saying "until today" here nor why you said on my talk page that I have been edit warring over this for the past week. I first edited that bit just a few hours ago.

I also don't understand why you'd keep reverting something simply because you think the edit could be wrong. That was your argument: your translation is possible. And so was the one you kept reverting. You were reverting based on a mere assumption (well, maybe several of those: "for all I know you've been reading some illegal scanlation rather than an official English release"). Maybe you could (should?) have checked the manga to try and see which one was actually correct, before reverting. Erigu (talk) 05:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I see now that others had made similar edits (which you immediately reverted) over the past week. You apparently (and wrongly) assumed we were all one and the same. That's a lot of assumptions.

I also note that you said on my talk page "I reverted because it was the status quo before your proposed change". That particular bit was first added (by you) to the article not even ten days ago. A bit short to be talking about a "status quo", especially considering it's not an overly popular article and very few people have edited it since then. Also a bit dishonest to tell me about a "status quo" when you know very well that you're entirely responsible for it, that you've been forcing your version with immediate reverts of dissenting edits.[68][69][70] Erigu (talk) 07:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I am wrong in saying that you were in any way related to the multiple IP addresses that have been making the exact same edits over the past week since the text was added as I was under the mistaken impression that they were simply using an overly literal translation of the phrase. However, I still find it ingenuous that no one bothers to go to the talk page after they're reverted and it just fosters an edit war.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

And I find it unfortunate that you'd so quickly skip over the part where you made those reverts in the first place (not just this time around either, as the recent subjects on my talk page show), as if there were nothing to discuss there anyway (I got a similar "there couldn't possibly be an issue with my behavior anyway so why even talk about it?" vibe from your comment on this very discussion: "an ANI discussion that should have never been started in the first place")... I have to say it's a bit frustrating to regularly be treated by you like I'm wrong by default, to get yelled at like a vandal when you clearly didn't take the time to actually check. Erigu (talk) 08:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

disruptive editing by Harirajmohanhrm

he has been warned numerous times about removing content from Indian musicians, films, and actors. he has even added articles to WP:GA without any review or nom. he is removing entire sections from articles that have passed GA, PR, and FA. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 07:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Armenians in Cyprus

Resolved

 – Neo^ blocked indefinitely

This issue has become ridiculous. It seems that any change I make, no matter how small or big, is reverted by someone "clever". After being blocked for a whole week, I made 7 small factual corrections in one edit and then I made another edit to balance social life. Both of them were reverted by PantherLeapord. Please tell me what to do! I am tired with this stupid argument. When there is a mistake, it needs to be corrected. When we need to balance something, we need to balance it. I cannot go into that much trouble to spot the mistakes and rectify them and someone "smart" coming and undoing everything and purely saying "Participate in the DR case and wait for that to close before further reverts". It seems that some people are more interested in the formality not the actuality... Neo ^ (talk) 08:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Beware the aussie flyin' stick Neo! PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 08:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Reverting without explanation was incredibly bad judgment. not the first time, either: [71]. — Lfdder (talk) 09:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Neo ^ persistently fails to understand that there is a dispute here over the sheer amount of detail that is appropriate for this article. There is a consensus of everybody except himself that the article was simply too long and overly detailed. His second edit today, which he here glosses over as being just to "balance" something was in fact a re-insertion of more than 6,000 bytes [72], all of which had previously been in the article and had been removed in the context of pruning the article down. He refuses to understand that such edits are by their very nature contentious, both for being reverts and simply for being so voluminous. He has had several escalating blocks over the exact same issue already, and shows no sign of understanding what's wrong with his approach. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but the way some people have approached Neo about it is provocative, intentional or no. — Lfdder (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Listen to me. The balance issue cannot be counted with bytes. There are certain organisations within the community. You cannot choose to keep one (AYMA and its satellites) and not make mention to the other important ones (AGBU, Armenian Club, LHEM, Nor Serount etc). This has become insane. One needs to look at this...

What you pruned you didn't look well. Let me put it in different terms. The community has organizations A, B, C, D, E, F and affiliated organisations v, w, x, y, z. The way the article was, you had organization A and suborganisations w, x, y, z. What I did was rectify the situation. Clear your head guys of all prejudice... You have demonised me... Neo ^ (talk) 10:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Neo; please familiarise yourself with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 11:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

What does WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS have to do with what he's saying? — Lfdder (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

"you cannot choose to keep one and not make mention to the other 'important' ones". To me that portion of the text screams WP:OSE PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 22:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

OSE is about drawing parallels btn WP pages, not the real world. Mentioning one but not the others is WP:WEIGHT, so Neo is right this one time. Do we need a whole bloody paragraph on each though? No, probably not. — Lfdder (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

This report has indeed boomeranged. I became too familiar with this user over the last month through his increasingly obtuse (not that they didn't have far to go to begin with) unblock requests, and now after his third block he has just started this up again. So I stuck a fork in him. Daniel Case (talk) 14:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

"This s--- is getting old", "sent off", "stuck a fork in him" and "had it up to here and back again". Are you sure you're in the right state of mind to be blocking people? I've not administered an online encyclopedia, but people who need to make such a big deal over blocking someone (block summary, edit summaries, comments here and on the user's page) strike me as unfit for the job. — Lfdder (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

(non-admin observation) While that's probably true, I don't think the result would have been any different if he had let someone else do it. Ansh666 20:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Neo ^ has stated he/she will stay away from this article. I think this hasty block should be lifted. Mentoring would probably go a long way towards helping this Editor know when he crosses the line. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I am far from convinced that it was a "hasty block," given the state of his user talk page, and honestly, the comments of his unblock request don't inspire a hell of a lot of confidence that he may not go on to other related articles in the same problematic way. I think mentoring might help, but that if the block is to be lifted a topic ban or maybe some sort of mandated editor review might be called for. John Carter (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

After their recent behaviour I do not believe that for a second. That being said; I will support an unblock if and ONLY if they are put on an indefinite 0RR restriction. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 22:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Revdel required

I've spotted something that needs revdel'ing for BLP reasons but do not want to post the diff here. Can an willing admin stick their name below - I'll email the diff to you. Ta. - Sitush (talk) 11:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

- Sitush (talk) 11:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Being wikihounded for sure

My letter to info-en-q at wikimedia dot org (re AFD on everything I am associated with musically in the open source and on the greatest online encyclopaedia ever

Haello all, delete my page but leave Adam Rabuck's and Mike Wagner and Josh Alpert's bands alone. This is my note to the ppl who are supposed to aid me against this duffbeerforme witchhunt against everything I have ever done.

[show]Copy of en email to WMF re a series of AfDs

Hi all, I know I am notable. So do you because I was told so unequivocally several times and have screenshots of chat room transcripts and more wiki archival correspondence to support what I started this email with. It's true. But Ellin Beltz and DuffBeerForMe in particular are ignorant of this.

The Dennis Donaghy page (abbrev 'DD') may need cleanup (again, first time Revent was the user that neutralized the DD page). But not AFD Deletion.

Why? I am a musician, subject to musician guidelines as far as living people.

Musician guideline 6 even as reads now and even without my note edit a few minutes ago, is how I was repeatedly told you can never really become un-notable unless they change the rules or something. IU may be mistaken but I have screenies showing vet wiki ppl tellin me this. Snapped shots just in case Duffbeerforme types who inevitably emerge to strike ppl like me (is how i truly feel) instead of getting up and earning a possible notability if thats what they want. I didnt ever want notability (actualy in '07 I unpromptedly made a page called Iteprunct (Multimedia Artist) but didnt contest the deletion, had fun with it. Having fun with this one too, as much as I can, but it's stressful and I thik it's unfair for this and here is why I characterize it as a witch hunt-

This Duffbeerforme person is AFD'ing everything I am associated with. He's trying to unnotable all the bands that made me notable. Look fer yerselves, dont believe me as I am the biased subject.

But seriously, I am aware Duffbeerforme is perfectly entitled to do these afd's the tags etc, but man it really seems like overkill, like you know, some OTHER motivation other than loving and defending the wikipedia. maybe jealousy or to prove a point, or to flex wiki muscles, I have no idea. I don't have and never had 'wiki-jealousy' or feel the need to slash away at ambiguously notable ppl. I have been simply trying to adhere to the rules, creating pages (Button King, Golden Eagle Regional Park and Sports Complex, and I just helped oon the Navy Yard Aaron Alexis thing) and not editing DD page except those two minor times after RRevents neut. where I made totally minor uncontroversial edits to correct wrong info.

Anyway, Duffbeerforme has quickly slapped tags on everything associated with me. I don't care what happens per se as long as it is FAIR.

It seems fishily unfair at this point to me and I am trying to be careful pointing fingers. It's weird for this user to start hacking away at a very admittedly grey area as if its some clear-cut flagrant violation of some highly prized moral code he's crusading on. I made a page about me, it was neutralized, I corrected it, uhh, LOTS of time transpired where I either did nothing, or edited other pages.

The DD page is a listing of a man, a person (me) who seems fairly notable despite fragmented open source citation material, and virtually or not virtually, admittedly absolutely zero major media. WHICH IS WHY I was characterized initially as OUTSIDER MUSICIAN! read the entry, thats me almost to a T but I digress...

For the interest of your time and efforts please realize Revent was the first user who neutralized the DD page. It can be done again, but DELETING Dennis Donaghy, Blanket Statementstein, and Dirt Bike Annie over this is seriously weird since I had nothing to do with either of those bands since I left, nobody was questioning their pages and now they are due to my page being suspect.

You guys should leave Adam's andd Mike's pages alone (Rabuck and Wagner) they don't deserve to be part of this witchhunt, if its me you want knock me out of the wikipedia I wanted that in the fucking first place

This is so frustrating, but thx guys (meaning guys and or gals)

Dennis

So that's it. I'm done. (with this afd defending myself bs, not done contributing quality volunteer work here lynching successful or no. squigglies. Phaedrx (talk) Phaedrx (talk) 10:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

"This is the Help Desk for requesting help with using or finding your way around Wikipedia. AfDs should be discussed on the relevant discussion page. If you genuinely feel you are being wikihounded by a user systematically reverting your past contributions or nominating them for deletion, you can report it to administrators at WP:ANI, but their first concern, like any other users', will be with the individual merits of each revert or AfD nomination. Other than that I'm afraid there's little for us to do here, unless you have a specific question. - Karenjc (talk) 11:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)"

in the interest of full disclosure I felt the need to prominently publish the above text, verbatim, on my personal Official Artist Website at www,phaedrx.com and use it as a platform to defend myself, however MY site's rules govern what I can do there. I am acting with love and in righteousness as I always do. I am not simply gonna sit and take this if I think it's wrong. Please be fair. Thanks. squigglies Phaedrx (talk) 10:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

THANK YOU WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION AND THANK YOU ADMINISTRATORS. LOVE, PHAEDRX. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phaedrx (talk • contribs)

??? I have no idea what's is going on here, or what is being asked. Canterbury Tail talk 16:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a relief, I thought it was just me. Looking at his website, I'd guess he's cross with us. Not that what he's written there about us makes more sense. Dougweller (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

So, we AfD'd some articles he created. Most were deleted by the community. He whined to the WMF, and is copy/pasting those e-mails here. He's mad because the community determined his "work" was not-Wikipedia-worthy ES&L 18:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, based on some of the comments, like "I know I am notable," I get the impression he's also talking about articles he or someone created about him, and is complaining that they were deleted. I think maybe WP:COI might apply as well. If this editor can establish through sources that the subjects of the articles involved, whether they directly relate to him or not, meet guidelines as per WP:NOTABILITY, then I guess he is free to create pages on them, although he probably should indicate his relation to the subjects of some of those articles somewhere. Otherwise, honestly, I don't know if there is anything that can really be done here, and I guess maybe, except for perhaps someone maybe advising the editor of some of the relevant policies and guidelines, this thread could be closed as there really doesn't seem to be in any way really actionable. John Carter (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Apologies. He presumably ended up here because of my response to his email copypaste here at the help desk, which he's then repasted here along with my reply. The catalyst seems to be the AfDing of the article about himself but he was claiming a sustained campaign. I hatted him but offered links to WP:HOUND and here, with what I hoped was a suitable caveat, in case he found he did need admin assistance, but he's obviously not reading links or taking advice, just forum shopping. Sorry to give him this as another venue. -Karenjc (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Just saw this today, so it's new to me, too. It's a COI and a WP:OWNERSHIP issue. His associated IP account was blocked for edit warring on his bio [73], and in his dudgeon he's taken swipes at other editors [74], [75] and played with the music notability guideline page for WP:POINTY effect [76]. The subject interprets the AfD process as a personal attack, and is questioning the integrity and motives of other editors. JNW (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• A person with no wiki experience and little knowledge of our processes who is understandably (not "justifiably") irritated with what he sees as a concerted effort to wipe him off the wiki map. Pay it no mind, let the AfDs run their course, and this will all blow over. Drmies (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

You're mostly right on all accounts, as usual, Drmies. But: he has edited at least since April, when he created his bio, and has subsequently edited primarily to debate his notability, using--per his admission and credible claim that there was no intent to sock--multiple accounts [77], [78]. This is someone with enough wiki knowledge to have created and, as much as possible, controlled their own bio. That's not unusual, but it neutralizes our response when the subject cries foul. JNW (talk) 00:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hi: I was one of the people working with this editor from the beginning. On my advice he left a note on his userpage about his previous use of other names and various IPs, and has since edited under the single account of Phaedrx. The article on him was rewritten by an experienced editor to be more neutrally worded, and Phaedrx has been occasionally tweaking it to make it more accurate. (Those edits are in the record of course; I have the article watchlisted and did not see self-aggrandizement in them.) He's also written a couple of other articles about topics other than himself. His notability rests on his having played in various bands; now the bands have been taken to AfD as well as the article on him, and the nomination statement refers to it as a vanity article. Unfortunately his response culminated in his blanking most of the article while logged out, and I was forced to block him for edit warring, so he will not be responding for a few hours more. That's the short version. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for providing a good summation of the history, Yngvadottir. Though for all your good intentions, perhaps you, too, will receive acknowledgment at Phaedrx's website. JNW (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

IP User Continuing to Ignore WP:SOURCE

There is an IP user, 88.159.238.200 who continues to ignore the rules of WP:SOURCE to Jonas Brothers articles, and related pages. And whenever I remove the fansites/social media sources, they automatically add them back in. They've been blocked on two occasions, and are continuing to ignore why they've been blocked. And they're also ignoring proper citation styles per Wiki guidelines. The articles they're editing are in extreme poor quality, and are written in the format of a fansite page, and are not even acceptable to be on Wikipedia as their standing. If proper re-construction were to even possibly begin on these articles, this IP would certainly get in the way of doing that. I'm sure their intentions are well of providing proper information to the fans and readers, but continuing to go against Wiki policy for doing so is unacceptable. I was told to bring this matter here, so I'm hoping you'll be able to help in this situation. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 14:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Jaguaré Bezerra de Vasconcelos

May some administrator please simply remove edit in the above article from

• 09:06, 4 July 2012‎ 186.221.156.37

and forward. Improvements later are less significant than crapification then. I don't intend to sort out details with means given to me. If my request is ill placed here, please forward to where in place. Just get things done. Thank you. Researching the article was work. Cheers, Oalexander-En (talk) 14:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

"Getting thing done" usually means doing simple things yourself or politely asking for help from a fellow volunteer. I've removed the unsourced nonsense from the article. For future reference, this is what Talk:Jaguaré Bezerra de Vasconcelos is for or Wikipedia:Help desk is another option. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

IP making unfounded accusations

IP 212.50.182.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been prodding a number of law-related articles created by David91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who no longer seems active on Wikipedia and is therefore unable to respond. While I have no reason to doubt that said articles do need reviewing by expert editors and the prods will follow their natural process, I consider that unfounded and malign accusations, such as these, supposedly "supported" by links that do not in any way support said accusations, should not be tolerated and need to be brought to admin attention and corresponding action taken, including removal of such comments.

Although circumstantial, I have consulted with an admin, who is also a lawyer and had a number of dealings with David91. Said admin is of the opinion that the latter is a lawyer with many years of law practice, which coincides with my opinion that the IP's accusations in that respect are, to say the least, unfounded. All of which seems to suggest that there is probably more behind this than an IP wanting to help clean up Wikipedia. --Technopat (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

While it is a hassle, you can remove PROD tags if you object, Technopat, and then if the IP user wants to nominate them at AfD, they will have to register and compose a nomination for each article which is more work than slapping a tag on an article. I'm glad you're watching over these articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reply, Liz. While the prods themselves undergo their due process, I do think that the IP's unfounded accusations regarding the bona fides of a user who is no longer active should be removed by an admin.--Technopat (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, now I'm slightly doubting myself for assisting the IP user in the creation of this AFD. Seemed like the correct thing to do at the time. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 23:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

This may be worth mentioning. Kleuske (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Article on Alfred H. Bartles

Some time ago I submitted to Wikipedia an article on Alfred H. Bartles, American composer. Some editor decided that it had too much "original research" in it and that it needed more references. I presumed that that was the end of that submission and thought it completely canceled and rejected.

I then gave what I had written to the library of the Blair School of Music at Vanderbilt University, where "original research" is welcome. With minor changes, it was then put on the library's website, as I had hoped. It was my intention then to rewrite the article for Wikipedia with references to the Vanderbilt website for facts. Today I get a notice from Wikipedia that my Wikipedia article -- which I thought had been completely rejected and thrown away by Wikipedia -- is in flagrant violation of Vanderbilt's copyright! Well of course! The website IS my rejected Wikipedia article!

I find it extremely difficult to communicate with Wikipedia. For example, there is no clear way to respond to this strange notice. Your instructions for authors are verbose and confusing. I have no idea whether I have found the right way to respond. But I know that I do not like being accused of plaigerism of myself when the problem is the difficulty of communication with Wikipedia.

In any event, would you please completely remove the previously submitted article from any place where it is still lurking in Wikipedia files.

Someday, if I have time and get over my irritation with the self-righteous attitude of Wikipedia, I or someone else may send you an article on this remarkable American composer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClopperAlmon (talk • contribs) 03:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi ClopperAlmon. I'm sorry for the frustration you've been put through. The Alfred H. Bartles page was posted on 10 January 2012 at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alfred H. Bartles. Wikipedia uses a variety of namespaces, each having a different purpose. Wikipedia articles are posted in Main/Article namespace. Your post was in Wikipedia:Project namespace in a project called "Articles for creation." In that WikiProject, contributions can become Wikipedia articles, but are not Wikipedia articles themselves (because they are not in Main/Article namespace). The notices you received on your talk page included a username of the person who posted the notice. You can communicate with them by clicking on the "talk" link next to their user name. The previously submitted article has been deleted. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alfred H. Bartles. -- Jreferee (talk) 03:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I have created Alfred Bartles and notified ClopperAlmon on his talk page. I think some of our templates (particularly the standard Twinkle notifications for A7, G11 and G12) are bitey in the extreme and said so previously. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Slow edit war at Curse of Ham

A user called "User:Watching Eyes" has been engaged in long edit war with several users, removing reliably sourced in information which he insists comes from "zionist sources". He has not broken 3RR yet, but simply continuously reverts to remove the information that Muslim writers supported the concept of a "curse of Ham". he has so far removed the content and been reverted 15 times. The editor has ignored attempts to raise the matter on the article talk page, but has responded with a long, rambling comment on my talk page [79] (which I have copied with responses from another editor to the article talk page). He then blanked his own talk page and replaced the content with "jews are masters of the slave trade, known fact." It is clear that Dispute Resolution would be pointless with this editor. Paul B (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)