User Dolovis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has over the past year or so been involved in several disputes over the topic of diacritics (which he wants to rid wikipedia of). The common pattern has been a display of battleground mentality by move-warring, edit-warring and gaming the system (via editing redirects, so that page moves would not be possible without the intervention of an admin). For this, he deservedly received a page move ban (which seems to have been lifted since). After receiving the ban, he immediately started peppering WP:RM with move requests, which would normally have a good chance of going through if no-one opposed noticed it, thereby obtaining the same end result. For this, he was banned from making move requests for a while.

See also the latest (?) major quarrels over diacritics on Talk:Dominik Halmosi and Talk:Ľubomír Višňovský.

Dolovis is now back to his old tricks, making deliberate "mistakes" while creating redirects with diacritics, prompting him to edit the redirects again, adding template "R from title with diacritics". Diffs: [1], [2], [3], [4]. This is exactly why he received the page move ban.

It seems to me that Dolovis is set on having his way in wikipedia, no matter what, kind of a WP:OWN for the whole topic of ice hockey. He displays a total disrespect for other editors, in effect dismissing the whole idea of consensus, hoping to eventually wear other editors down. I think it's time to discuss expanding the ban on Dolovis to at least a topic ban for ice hockey (which is where his contributions are the most controversial) – and to reinstate the move ban and the ban on WP:RM, if indeed they have been lifted.

I think it's safe to say that Dolovis's pattern of behavior indicates that he will never learn.

User is notified.

HandsomeFella (talk) 10:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Point of order: User:Dolovis has been wp:BLOCKed from editing for 1 week (until 17:47, 8 January 2012?) and cannot respond directly to any claims made here. See section: #Replies from User:Dolovis (far below) for responses copied from User_talk:Dolovis. -Wikid77 16:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already being discussed: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Controversial moves Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 10:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issues are related, but not the same. Dolovis is reporting Thomas280784 for "controversial" moves, I am reporting Dolovis for gaming the system – again. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not following, sorry ... are you saying the diacritic spellings are wrong, or that he should be making the diacritic spelling the stub and the ascii-7 (non diacritic) versions the direct? Nobody Ent 13:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This report is aimed at Dolovis's behavior. On the diacritics issue, my view is that since they exist, and since there are articles on people, places, etc, that use them in en-wiki, it should reflect them (i.e. use the diacritics) in the title too. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd oppose any type of ban, on Dolovis. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that you are supporting his behavior, which is what this report is aimed at? Is gaming the system allowed for diacritics-critics, but not others? Do not the rules apply equally to editors, regardless of views? HandsomeFella (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Banning editors on either side of the dios dispute, will only add to the drama surrounding the topic. In future, go the RM route & there'll be less hassle. GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You did not answer the question. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I support his actions if the end result is limiting or eliminating diacritics. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can't be serious. That is an unreasonable position. Having rules that don't apply to all editors ... I'm ... speechless. You're advocating anarchy, do you know that? Say, is there any breach of rules (or law) that Dolovis could commit, that you wouldn't oppose sanctions against him for, as long as that furthers if it furthered his fight (and yours) against windmills diacritics? HandsomeFella (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HandsomeFella (geez.. some ego.. lol), GoodDay is well know for his strong pro-English national sentiments and Anglo-centric ideals, whether for better or for worse, that's my observation not a criticism. Simply put.. don't get drawn into a prolonged argument with him over this, you won't change his mind. On the flip side, I don't think a ban on Dolovis is necessary either. Just a firm bollocking, and told to read Wikipedia:DIACRITICS#Modified letters. I see this in the same way as British English vs American English – either use the strongest national tie, or if that fails, use whichever version of the article was created first, for the content, and redirect the other. In the end it's the same article. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 18:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you have to interrupt? Goodday was just a few replies from defining himself as the first-ever wiki-terrorist sympathizer. ;-) HandsomeFella (talk) 20:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a) that would be baiting, and b) "wiki-terrorist" might be seen as a personal attack, so best not use it. I wouldn't get too smug that Dolovis has not won his argument.. things can quickly boomerang on ANI if you get complacent. Besides, GoodDay would be cautious, as he already has restrictions in other areas and wouldn't want to make his situation worse. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 21:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• To clarify, Dolovis is redirecting articles about hockey players whose names feature diacritics to titles without the diacritics (which is incorrect to start with as the thread above demonstrated) and then editing the redirect which prevents his action being reversed without administrative intervention. He has been warned about this before and instructed to refrain from this practice. I have blocked him for a week while further discussion can take place about what should be done long term. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the problem here -

• Dolovis creates Tomas Matousek [5] - which isn't correct as the guy is Swiss and his momma called him Tomáš Matoušek, and we can see above that the ice hockey guys are now agreeable to the use of diacritics for players outside of the main North american ice hockey league.
• Dolovis then creates Tomáš Matoušek as a redirct to Tomas Matousek [6], and edits the page to add {{tl:R from title with diacritics}}.
• This means that his redirect cannot be reverted, so User:Kajman87 attempts to make a mend by copying the content from Tomas Matousek to Tomáš Matoušek, which is of course not how it's supposed to be done, violates Wikipedia's content release licenses, and is going to take some poor admin several minutes to clean up.

This is just disruptive. It has been the subject of previous ANI discussions and Dolovis has only escaped sanction by agreeing not to do it again. I consider the week block a mere precautionary, and would recommend that the community discuss how to deal with this long term. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the really clear explanation. A ban of some sort seems appropriate. Nobody Ent 18:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Long term solution: follow MOS guidelines. Use templates — Wikipedia:DIACRITICS#Modified letters and {{R from title without diacritics}}. Most standard English keyboards don't have easy ways to add accents, and not all native-English speakers are aware of every form of accent.. never mind incapable of creating them. So non-accented alternatives are necessary for searching which then redirect to the correct versions. It should be policy under ENGVAR to have unglyphed redirections of accented names to make it easier for everyone. See also recent RFC discussion: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 18:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problems at all with someone properly creating unglyphed redirects to all the versions with diacritics - as you and MOS both agree, it's very useful. It is the way Dolovis does things to attempt to prevent the creation of the article at the glyphed title that is disruptive. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not terribly impressed by this. Dolovis and I have rarely gotten along, but I did support his request to have his page move ban lifted because he claimed to recognize how such behaviour was disruptive, and promised to cease making such edits. Hopefully the block serves as a reminder that these kinds of actions won't go unnoticed. Resolute 19:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that these latest articles are all participants in the World Junior Hockey Championship, which is currently ongoing. Dolovis created them (typically with almost no information or value) so that he can dictate that the articles start without diacritics. If you wish to consider the IIHF's official literature for this tournament, he is potentially correct in some cases: all official programs and guides drop diacritics for Czech/Slovak names. However, diacritics are used for Finnish, Swedish, Danish and Swiss names. Russian is transliterated, and it appears Latvian names are also somewhat transliterated. Canada and the US have no names that require them. I would not care to guess whether the disuse of diacritics for the Slovaks, Czechs and Latvians indicates that dropping them is considered a proper spelling, or if they themselves just simplified for the sake of a North American audience. Resolute 19:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also this. Resolute 19:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a hideously cynical abuse of the system by Dolovis; he's just exploiting a technicality to get his own way. Regardless of whether we should use accents in titles, his behaviour, considering he's been subject to sanctions for this kind of thing before, is unacceptable. I propose a full topic ban from modifying/discussing/suggesting changes to the titles of articles about ice hockey players, or any other article titles which could contain accents, as he's just causing disruption when he edits in this area. It's time for him to move on. In response to Marcus British – we don't need to omit the accents for search reasons; you'll still get to the article even if you type it in without accents. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basalisk, you are right with one exception. The drop down / "matching suggestions" search box works by Javascript (which I just tested to confirm). Without Javascript, or with it disabled, you don't get offered accented alternatives, thus making the process harder. I know disabling Javascript based on a lot of cynicism and "more vulnerable to hacking" myths, these days, but there are people and places who still practice it. And I'm not sure how iPhone/Blackberry type handsets work with regards to searching Wiki, and Javascript, as I don't use them, but I wonder if there are more limited. So in some case there are going to be people who experience hold-ups. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 19:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I don't really know enough about such things to bolster my opinion really! I guess I just like the authenticity of writing names the way they would be presented in their native language. I still stand by my suggestion of a ban, though. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm, there would be no issue to creating an unglyphed version and redirecting it to the glyphed version. It is creating an artificial history at the glyphed version to prevent the article being at that title that is the problem. here is the original discussion concerning Dolovis, where this behaviour has been previously discussed. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC) here is the discussion from October where he asked for the pagemove ban to be reduced on a pledge of good behaviour. Dolovis is arguing on his userpage that his actions are entirely above board. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly think that this is a very trivial matter. We're talking about letters here.. it's not like he's playing with fire by altering religions and nationalities, etc. This is more a matter of MOS practices and accessibility, possibly an aside to ENGVAR. However, if he has has a ban or restrictions placed previously, he should not directly aim to breach it, or indirectly the spirit of it. But again, the matter is so trivial, that imo only people with a COI or a pessimistic admin could really say there is a severe lack of "good faith" in what he is trying to accomplish. His methods may be questionable, his goal is not. Ban him? No. Stop his methods being disruptive. Yes. Perhaps a little more headway would be achieved if editors stopped trying to make a mountain out of this.. it's not a big issue. It's a few wavy lines above some letters. In the end if we can have both, accented and plain English, then we can't go about punishing an editor for trying to apply one more forcefully. We simply need to get him to adopt a more NPOV. Mentor him or some shit.. don't beat him up over it. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 20:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to try talking to him? He might listen to you. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd second that.

Slightly related... MarcusBritish, re bad faith. As I pointed out in the previous thread Dolovis I'm uninvolved with this but I do see them acting in poor, if not bad, faith when they level an SPA accusation at an editor that obviously isn't based on contribution record. I also see it in creating new redirects under a accented name in such a way as to block good faith editors from boldly moving articles to them. This is part of the behavior that earned the indef ban from moving pages, true. But it is as disruptive, and a little more deplorable, when they have only reason for the edit after the fact to add the category template is to "lock" the page. - J Greb (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That'll be a first.. but will give it a go. Am not taking sides though.. from his POV I don't think he's done anything too severe, just untoward, from a Wiki POV diacritics are a pain in the ass and limit accessibility. There are solutions, and I see no reason to deny him the ability to partake in doing things the right way. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 20:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't fault you for that. The only concern I would have is if they continue to be disruptive if the "right" way doesn't match their way. We're here right now because of that. If it persists, it may become the reason for the denial of participation in some degree. - J Greb (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This matter affects such a small percentage of articles, that it seems to me to have been over-looked and only thinly tackled in MOS. That's not the fault of the editors, but the fault of the community for not closing the loophole. It only appears that he is going against policy.. but the policy on diacritics appears so thin, it's hard to say. Maybe time to tighten up the policy like ENGVAR, and make it less open to interpretation. At the moment it's his interpretation against others. I don't care either way, because both solutions can be applied. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 21:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he closed the discussion on his talk page whilst whining about something or other. To me that's an example of WP:IDHT. I know where he can shove my thoughts now. Later, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 22:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the article Tomas Jurco, Dolovis' rvts were correct. An RM to move to diacritics, had been held at that bio article & no consensus was reached. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They might have been, but then again, this issue is about his other behavior. And another RM could be opened, and then there would be a new decision.

I must say that I am very pessimistic about the chances of Dolovis complying by the rules. His history demonstrates the opposite, and still there seems to be admins ready give him more room. I don't know of any editor who has been so disruptive, and yet so cuddled by parts of the community. He adapts his tactics for the time being when he is punished, and, when he thinks nobody is looking, he resumes his previous behavior. We should have learned by now. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a section about move functionality at the Village Pump. The technical problem of the edit needed to add a template to the redirect following a move causes inconvenience after any affected move, not just in cases like this. --Mirokado (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My take on this is that Dolovis is being deliberately disruptive despite having been told in the past that such behaviour is not wanted. In the days of typesetting, diacritics were not generally used in English language text, unless it was in a book on learning a foreign language, where such use was essential. Nowadays, we have the technology to use diacritics. As we have the technology, we should use it. For those uncomfortable with the use of diacritis or unable to use them for whatever reason, a redirect should be created from the plain text version of the title whenever an article is housed at a title with a diacritic in it.

I would support any restriction that prevented Dolovis from moving such article or creating such redirects. There are plenty of other editors around who are able and willing to do such tasks without creating controversy in doing so. Mjroots (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this case the issue is not the need to add a template to a redirect after a move, but that Dolovis creates an article at a non-diacritic title. At a later point, he creates a redirect with diacritics (ok), then in a separate edit, adds a template so as to frustrate any non-admin's ability to move the article. It is that last edit that is causing Dolovis his issues. Resolute 23:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand that. If Dolovis cannot play nicely, then he shouldn't be allowed to play at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by mjroots (talk • contribs)

Cut and paste moves

User:Kajman87 appears to have "fixed" some of these articles via cut and paste moves. I am going to try and clean up that mess At the risk of causing a pile more issues, if they are current World Junior tournament participants, I will move them to the version that is reflected either in the IIHF programs I have (some cases with diacritics, some without) or per the result of a recent RM discussion. Resolute 23:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2-ish¢

I'd restore the article/stub versions (plain) first to what was initially created. Check the redirects (diacritics) to see if anything points to them. If not just flat delete them. If so, delete and recreate the full redirect in one go. Then move things that need to be moved by a reliable source.

Some article won't, some diacritic redirects won't exist, and some of the moves may be yelled at, but at least the basis will be relatively "clean". - J Greb (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the end, it seems they only moved about four Slovakian players. I simply undid the edits rather than get complicated. As such, they are presently back at non-diacritic formats. Discussion on the proper spellings I leave to interested parties. Resolute 00:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, I hope the RM route is used for those bios 'in future'. GoodDay (talk) 06:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite topic ban proposal for Dolovis on moving/redirecting/or otherwise changing the titles of diacritic articles

Question on scope of topic ban

Will Dolovis be able to help in restricting diacritics on North American based hockey articles? GoodDay (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the idea is to ban him from anything regarding diacritics at least that is what I see from what a few supporters have said. So he wouldn't be modifying anything that involved diacritics. -DJSasso (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's too bad. It would've been the ideal area for Dolovis' passion. Also, I wouldn't have minded the help. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why should anyone need to engage in editing that involves restricting diacritics, what encyclopedic benefit is there to following such a one-track practice except to spite languages that do use them? It is not a NPOV, it is an Anglo-centric POV, and I don't think MOS will ever change to make removal of diacritics more important than retaining them. From what I gather, more countries use diacritics, especially throughout Europe, than do not. So whether anyone likes them or not, the odds are in favour of their continued use. Removing them should not be encouraged, given that their use is not uncommon. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 19:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a part of WP:HOCKEY's compromise on the usage of diacritics. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's like GoodDay says. On North America-related ice hockey articles, player names with diacritics should be piped like this: [[Nicklas Lidström|Nicklas Lidstrom]]. This is to avoid unnecessary redirecting and at the same time reflect NHL's open policy of ignoring diacritics on player jerseys, NHL web pages, etc. The exception being player articles, where diacritics are to be kept. That is the compromise. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's possible, and there is no strong need for that, since most editors who don't mind diacritics respect the project notice at WP:HOCKEY. And there's always you. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW, the ban as stated looks like it would prevent:
  • Moving pages currently at diacritic titles.
  • Editing redirects currently at diacritic titles.
  • Creating pages - primarily redirects - with diacritic titles.
  • Edits that are similar in nature to the above three.

The concerns I see beyond that which it does not address are:

• Abusing RM for pages with diacritics.
• Posts as per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive734#Controversial moves.

That shouldn't prevent Dolovis from editing the text of articles. They should however be mindful of any consensus, guideline, or policy that applies to that article. Bluntly: If if a Project, consensus, or guideline states should be used in a particular article, removing them would be a bad idea.

It also should not prevent Dolovis from civily and constructively participating in discussions. The keys being "civil", "constructive", and "participate".

- J Greb (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope he'll be allowed to monitor the North American based hockey articles, as I have been doing (for years). GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think he will be, since most NA hockey articles don't have diacritics, with the possible exception of teams (etc) from the Quebec area, where they are French-speakers, and hte French language has several diacritical letters. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that WP:HOCKEY says that all player articles should have diacritics, but when they are mentioned on North American hockey league articles diacritics should not be used.—Ryulong (竜龙) 22:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct, all North American hockey leauge & team articles, shall not have'em. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That seems rather idiotic. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that projects are always at liberty to mandate extra work so as to reduce article quality within their own project - rather like Wikiproject Aviation's removal of citation templates. The real mistake is to extend this outside the project, as Dolovis has been doing and GoodDay appears to be advocating, to then remove diacritics on the player name articles themselves. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to leave the player bio articles to other editors. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Btw...

what's this supposed to be, anyways? Sure ain't Latvian... what's the point of it? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

??? Don't understand the question (insufficient caffeine). Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Dolovis made up his own diacritical version of the name. Looks more like Romanian than Latvian. At any rate, the Latvians seem to write the name entirely without diacritics, so there will be peace in our time—at least locally. Favonian (talk) 13:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, neither of those diacritics appear in the Latvian alphabet. The family name Siksna is written without diacritics in Latvian. Jafeluv (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of the diffs I provided at the top of this section. Dolovis's purpose with first creating a redirect, and then edit it soon after, is to make it impossible move the original article – the one that the redirect is pointing to – over the redirect without the intervention of an admin. Doing so constitutes gaming the system, and that is why Dolovis has a page move ban since some time around July/August 2011. Since he did more such edits a second time around, he no also has a week long edit block.

Śikṣṇa seems to be a Latvian hockey player. Do you think it's misspelled?

HandsomeFella (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edgars Siksna is without diacritics in Latvian (and English), and this redirect is entirely bogus. IMO it meets the criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD#R3). Favonian (talk) 13:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is bogus, completely made up. Might as well go for Édgärs Shį́kśną or whatever... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some points of order in this ANI report

04-Jan-2011: This whole thread about User:Dolovis started with so many invalid or untrue statements. For example, the claim (at top), "Dolovis's pattern of behavior indicates that he will never learn" is an unprovable claim, and I think completely false, and bordering on an outright lie. Above that statement, there is, "Dolovis is set on having his way in wikipedia, no matter what" which is also unprovable, and I think a false claim, and indicates a pattern of character assassination against User:Dolovis by User:HandsomeFella. But let me add some more examples, such as the thread title: "Dolovis gaming the system – again" which is an example of the improper tactic of begging the question ("Are you beating your wife again?").

Also note the unfounded claim (at top): "Dolovis is now back to his old tricks" as another implied insult with no direct evidence, plus the term "old tricks" which would be very difficult to prove, especially since, the evidence I read shows that User:Dolovis has actually been following written policies by creating stubs for WP:Notable subjects and naming those articles with names clearly the most-common name used in many English-language sources, then creating redirects as accented-letter names, where there is no written policy reason to move those articles away from their original WP:COMMONNAME titles (hence any changes to the redirect page are ok because there is no written-policy reason to rename the articles to those redirected name). As for claims that there is some secret pact with WP:WikiProject Ice Hockey to violate policies and title articles with non-WP:COMMONNAME spellings, I do not think that any user should be forced into a policy-violation agreement. This whole situation is similar to a case of duress, in meaning that User:Dolovis is being forced to act in some way to support actions which violate written WP:Policy pages, and consequently, his actions are the result of being forced to deal with people pushing him to aid in the violation of written (not imagined) policies. So then people will argue that the use of diacritics and accented-letter names is not the problem, and insist to only look at what User:Dolovis did, and ignore how other people have forced the situation. Well, I am sorry, but that is not the broader reality: it is not proper to bully someone to act in a way which allows other people easier ways to violate written policies. This whole ANI thread is predicated on unprovable (and insulting) claims, and has side-stepped the reality that some people are trying to force a set of "local consensus" rules for naming articles, or limited edits to redirects, which appear to violate written WP:Policy pages, and trying to blame User:Dolovis because his actions make those policy violations more difficult for other users. I think that says it all. Dismiss this claim against User:Dolovis, but try to get other users to either amend policy WP:COMMONNAME (and rules to deny editing of redirects) or take actions against them for trying to force a user to support their improper actions. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: W77 agrees with what Dolovis has been doing. pablo 09:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replies from User:Dolovis

Copied from User_talk:Dolovis (while edit-blocked)

• In response to being blocked while this ANI thread is discussed:

"Blocks are intended to prevent disruption, and not to be used as a punishment. This is a punitive block. If writing a truthful defense is considered to be “Wiki-lawyering” then Wiki-lawyering should be permitted. I am busy in real life, and so I will not be able to take an active part in this discussion, but I will respond to say that creating valid stub articles for notable athletes is constructive, and my editing has been in full compliance with all of the policies of Wikipedia. I am an English speaking person, and I do not speak or write any other language. The articles I have created are titled according to the sources I have used to create the article. As some of these athletes are born in Europe where non-English spellings are used, redirects have been created (following the instruction of Template:R from diacritics and WP:REDCAT) if I come across a red line for the same name, but with diacritics.

There are editors on English Wikipedia who are dedicated to moving articles to titles with diacritics, without regard for WP:V or WP:COMMONNAME. It is those same editors who have made and supported these complaints against me. As a result of those complaints I am not even allowed to object to a controversial article move - not by WP:BRD (a core principle[9] which I am banned from using) or even by bringing it to the attention of another Admin (as this has been accused of using a MEAT PUPPET)[10]. The result is that I am being punished for being an English speaking editor who follows the policy of Wikipedia:Article titles (which includes WP:COMMONNAME) and I am being held to a higher standard than other editors on Wikipedia. Dolovis (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)" –copied here by -Wikid77 16:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Previous ANI discussion

I recently reported user:JesseRafe here for wikistalking me, after he followed me around reverting my edits and referring to them as vandalism in his edit summaries. It was explained to him during the original discussion here that edits are not vandalism simply because he does not like them. I also posted a notice to his page about accusing other editors of vandalism without good cause. Now, he has gone to the talk pages of 5 different editors (so far) and told them individually that I am a vandal and to keep an eye on the page in dispute (presumably so he can circumvent 3rr by having others undo my edits for him, by misleading them into believing that I am a vandal). This is clearly harassment.

The original notice I posted to his page about not calling constructive editors vandals: [11]

The original complaint about his harassing behaviour: [12]

His recent edits to users talk pages telling them that I am vandalising a page they have contributed to: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on closing comments at previous discussion and Jesse's subsequent behavior, in my view, a block is warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user has refused consensus, compromise and civility, and to boot, has resorted to wiki-stalking me! The charge he or she initially and unfoundedly levied upon me, going out of his or her way to edit articles and undo changes I have made on articles I have years of history editing. This is absurd that I should be the one blocked, look at how unnecessary this user's edits have been and poorly formatted/lazy they are to alphabetize a list, yet they have the time to follow me around the internet. Absurd. JesseRafe (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And you are running all over Wikipedia labeling the editor a vandal after being told not to use that term unless it clearly applied because ...?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting entire referenced sections is not vandalism? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism#Blanking.2C_illegitimate What else would I call it? Notice in the history 1) that many other editors undid the anon IP's edits, and 2) the anon IP's uncivil discourse towards other editors - and I, a trusted, long-time editor should be the one to be banned? Are you serious? JesseRafe (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't deleted referenced material. Only unreferenced material. I'm not being uncivil. You are being uncivil by calling me a vandal and lazy. Other editors only undid my edits after you falsely called them vandalism in an edit summary, giving people the impression that they ought to be reverted. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 01:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not completely accurate. You have reverted material with citations. Here's one example: [18]. --Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you read those links you'll see that nowhere do any of them mention nominative determinism. All they do is mention the existence of the persons listed, they do not say anything about their names leading to their professions, so they are not references for nominative determinism. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said before, if you read the article you would see it said it was a theory that it could be, and thus these were examples, no one ever said it was a fact that their names caused their professions. Just examples of people whom the application of the theory could be applied to. And there mere existence is a primary source, so they belong to be entered on the page. JesseRafe (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that part of policy doesn't support your position. The IP is not removing material without explaining why. Vandalism of that sort is usually clearly destructive (a silent removal of sourced material, for example). Also, I might point out that both you and the IP are edit-warring in the Nominative determinism article, and each of you has already violated WP:3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at the overall issue, but to comment only on the disputed content at the Nominative determinism article - I was looking at that article and I agree with the IPs removal - there is a OR issue there and Jesse is replacing with a reason of self-evident examples of a theory. The article intro states, "a person's name can have a significant role in determining key aspects of job, profession or even character." and then there is a list of uncited names that no one has made this association about in a reliable source. Youreallycan (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, your attitude toward the IP is condescending. First, you continually refer to him as an "anon IP", which is redundant and can only serve to emphasize that s/he is not registered. Second, you call yourself a "trusted, long-time editor", which actually doesn't help you as, if anything, you should be held to a higher standard for understanding Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Finally, although the issues may be interrelated, the block (not "ban") you deserve, in my view, is separate from any possible sanction against the IP, but, thus far, the only thing I see is edit-warring, which you are equally guilty of.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely true, when the IP made the unfounded allegations the other day I stopped out of the 3RR rule. The edits today were new edits, first based on wholesale content removal by IP and then by me with a selective amount of content restored, i.e. I didn't merely undo, but pared the list down. The IP is just continuing to delete on principle. And also, might I add, he or she is ironically enough wikistalking me, randomly undoing some of my edits on other pages, such as Ghost Dog. I'll stop using the label vandal, but is that really the problem here? Not the arrogance of the IP to insult and curse at other editors and ignore consensus? JesseRafe (talk) 01:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was provide a reference for a previously uncited fact in the article... A reference you promptly deleted on the grounds that it was "sloppy". 89.100.150.198 (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's provably false. I undid someone else's unconstructive edit that was in poor style and not well said, and you undid my edit of that (assumedly out of spite, i.e. wikistalking because you had never edited that article before) and you undid that with a citation, but I did not remove the content because it was uncited, but because that information did not belong in the soundtracl area and in fact, already was in the right place of the article in the cast section.JesseRafe (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I count 4 reverts by you today for the purpose of the rule (and there's always edit-warring even without the rule). Stop focusing on what IP has done and focus on what you did before the first ANI topic and then in between the close of that topic and the opening of this one. How could you so quickly ignore the counsel of so many editors not to use the vandal label?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, have you actually looked at the edit history? The IP just says "fuck yourself" to me in an edit summary undoing my edit for the first time (which is what got me to notice the IP in the first place and think he might be a vandal because of the language used) and then you cite IDHT to me to admonish me? I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone. The IP refuses to get the point, because while I was away from wikipedia during the holidays no less than 3 other editors undid IP's edits only for the IP to undo them again. So which of us is not getting the point about the status of this article? And who deserves the ban? I can't believe the IP was able to manipulate this into being about me? Look at my edits, I don't engage in edit warring, but do a lot of work fixing vandalism and making underserved articles much better. JesseRafe (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "fuck yourself" comment is old and was part of the first ANI topic. The IP was admonished not to attack editors during the topic. Yet, the IP has not ignored that admonishment. OTOH, you have ignored the counsel of others.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eh... I told you to go fuck yourself because you referred to my constructive edits as vandalism in an edit summary. How can you possibly claim that it "is what got me to notice the IP in the first place and think he might be a vandal because of the language used". The language was used after you called me a vandal. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 01:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I assume the 2 (which is less than 3) editors that reverted me did so at least partially based on the fact that you called me a vandal, and they assumed that you wouldn't have called me a vandal without first checking to see whether I was or not. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 02:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm more than a little offended this is still happening. Look at the IP's talk page, and how he or she has a history of edit warring and warnings for other articles. Why has no warning been put there for this time? Why am I the only one targeted by the IP's viscous character attack? This is absurd that he or she breaks multiple rules and I try to maintain the integrity of wikipedia, but the IP complains first and loudest and gets what they want. JesseRafe (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're going in circles. I'll let other editors weigh in on your conduct and your self-deflecting complaints.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I commented at the last ANI discussion of this issue (to the effect that the IP is right and that JesseRafe has incorrectly used "vandal"). It is disappointing that JesseRafe shows no signs of understanding what multiple editors have tried to explain, and something needs to happen to ensure the IP is left to continue their good edits unhindered (I haven't checked many of their edits, just enough to see that the IP is at least sometimes correct, and I don't see any credible claims of a bad edit). JesseRafe has unfortunately got a little personally involved in the dispute (hint: adding unsourced examples because they are "self-evident examples" is original research—has a secondary source examined all the people named "Fish" and determined whether an unusual proportion of them are marine biologists?). Can we agree that the matter is too trivial to warrant a formal interaction ban, but there must be no further interference. Johnuniq (talk) 02:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John, this is completely Kafkaesque. As I explained before I was suspicious about the IP when he cursed at me and selectively (not systematically) examined some of the IP edits (because how could I know it was even one person?) and then undid some of his other more spurious edits. Then, the IP began wikistalking me! I have been making edits at the Ghost Dog page for years, and the IP out of spite then begins to undo my edits there. And I long ago apologized for calling him a vandal. I apparently misunderstood that blanking entire sections is not considered vandalism anymore. Also, please note that this IP is the only one who holds this view on ND and that other editors have also undone the IP's edits, and the IP has a history of being warned about engaging in edit wars, whereas I have not. What is the issue? OK, he's not a vandal, but he needs to be blocked from the page (or the page should be protected) because he is ignoring consensus. Let's focus on the big picture and what needs to be done to stop disruption. JesseRafe (talk) 03:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "I was suspicious about the IP when he cursed at me". No. I cursed at you after you called me a vandal in an edit summary where you reverted one of my constructive edits.

• "I have been making edits at the Ghost Dog page for years, and the IP out of spite then begins to undo my edits there". You need to read WP:OWN. I didn't undo any of your edits. You removed some material, which I then tracked down a reference for, and reinserted with the reference. I did not do this out of spite. You then deleted the reference.
• "IP is the only one who holds this view on ND and that other editors have also undone the IP's edits". Other editors reverted my edits (once each) after you falsely marked my edits as vandalism.
• "IP has a history of being warned about engaging in edit wars, whereas I have not". I have warned you for edit warring, and you immediately removed the warnings.
• "he needs to be blocked from the page (or the page should be protected) because he is ignoring consensus". Consensus and "the version you want" are not the same thing. By your logic, you need to be blocked because you ignore WP:OR and WP:CIV. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 04:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the problem, that you completely miscategorize my edits and libel me on these boards and admins who only superficially examine the issue somehow get fooled by your conniving.

1. I labeled you a vandal under a misunderstanding. Previously anyone who blanked an entire section was marked a vandal, and this must have changed. Your edit appeared to be vandalism as it was unexplained wanton deletion. I apologized for this multiple times. Furthermore, one instance of a simple mistake does not warrant being told "to go fuck [my]self" -- that's the most clear and egregious breach of wikipedia policy committed by either of us.

2. Your defense about Ghost Dog is so wrong it's almost funny. You did follow me there, how can you say you didn't? And you did undo my edits. I deleted it because it was spurious unencyclopedic content and I deleted it before I even knew it was the same person (again, you're using an anonymous IP address - how can I know who you are or bother to memorize a long string of random numbers?). I had never interacted with you on the Ghost Dog page before, and had no reason to suspect it would be the same person from Nominative Determinism following me there to undo my constructive edits out of spite. And yes, I removed the reference, because it was a reference attached to a phrase that did not belong in the article at all, as it contributed nothing to the page, was redundant information and was about the cast (where the same information was already listed) and not the soundtrack (because the sentence fragment and reference was about the cast, not the soundtrack).

3. It is conjecture on your part what the motives of the other editors were. But it is still fact that they reverted your edits, which speaks for itself, whether or not they independently found your edits inappropriate (likely) or based on my say-so (which is doubtful, as must editors examine a page's changes before reverting).

4. I don't think you know what consensus means. Other editors have also been undoing your edits. It's the version of the article they want too. You're the only one who doesn't understand consensus is not the version that they themselves want. And the policy on OR is not applicable here because it deals with primary sources that are self-evident, not research. And bringing up CIV? You? "Mr. Go Fuck Yourself"? Too ironic for me to comment on. JesseRafe (talk) 04:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. "I labeled you a vandal under a misunderstanding. ". You called me a vandal at least 9 times, 5 of which were after other editors had explained to you that my actions did not constitute vandalism.

2. "I had never interacted with you on the Ghost Dog page before, and had no reason to suspect it would be the same person from Nominative Determinism following me there to undo my constructive edits out of spite. And yes, I removed the reference, because it was a reference attached to a phrase that did not belong in the article at all, as it contributed nothing to the page, was redundant information and was about the cast (where the same information was already listed) and not the soundtrack (because the sentence fragment and reference was about the cast, not the soundtrack)." How is referencing information not contributing to the page? How is it spiteful?

3. "It is conjecture on your part what the motives of the other editors were. But it is still fact that they reverted your edits, which speaks for itself". The idea that reverts speak for themselves is conjecture on your part.

4. "I don't think you know what consensus means. Other editors have also been undoing your edits." Undoing my edits, once, after you labelled them as vandalism. You are the only one who reverted my edits more than once.

5 "And the policy on OR is not applicable here because it deals with primary sources that are self-evident, not research." The policy on OR is always applicable. Otherwise anyone could decide that the material they wanted to add was "self evident".

6 "And bringing up CIV? You? "Mr. Go Fuck Yourself"? Too ironic for me to comment on.". You called me a vandal before I swore at you. People don't appreciate being insulted.

7 You shouldn't keep referring to my words as "libel". Give WP:No legal threats#Perceived legal threats a read. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 05:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Right, it was a misunderstanding about how the term "vandal" was being defined. I honestly thought your edit constituted vandalism. I then corrected myself. Moot, give it up.

2. You referenced information that was deleted. Once again, read what I said. It was not removed because it was unreferenced, it was removed because it was written poorly, redundant and in the wrong place. What was spiteful was that you had clearly followed me to that page to undo my edits. I.e. wikistalking me.

3. No, it is not. Another example of misunderstanding plain meaning. No matter how you look at it, your position is conjecture based on what you surmise their motives for undoing your edits was, while my position is to merely point to the fact that others have undone your edits to that page not just me. The former is idle speculation, the latter is a verifiable fact.

4. Perhaps I am the only one who has the page on their watchlist. Also, it is the holidays. Either way, irrelevant.

5. Once again, you don't understand the gist of the article and why this is NOT original research. No one ever advocated for including anything under the guise of OR, just that the self-evident in this case means they are primary sources.

6. One was an honest mistake and not an insult - it appeared to be vandalism, a statement, not a pejorative. You knowingly and willfully used obscenities in your edit summary, and your abrasive attitude implies you may be willing to do so again as you feel so justified in having done so.

7. Now you're just grasping at straws. How could I sue you? You're being silly. "Libel" is an objective assessment about you lying about me in printed form. That's libel. There need be no lawsuit or threat of legal action to accurately categorize written lies as "libel". JesseRafe (talk) 05:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Will someone please close this before the hole gets too deep. I have invited the IP to ask my opinion if the view of a third person is wanted on other articles. Johnuniq (talk) 06:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, I'd like to, but there is plenty of evidence that Jesse is badmouthing the IP as a vandal, when clearly (see the previous ANI thread) they are not vandalizing. The "fuck off" comment has been dealt with as well: it was an understandable reaction to being called a vandal. The stalking evidence is more difficult, and I do not have the inclination right now to tabulate and compare edits. I propose the following: each editor stops undoing the other's edits. Plain and simple. Stay away from each other. There is no ownerships of articles; if IP wished to edit Ghost Dog they are welcome to do so--but IP, don't undo Jesse's edits, just for the sake of appearance. Moreover, if Jesse continues to send out notifications of IP's edits, Jesse should be blocked temporarily. Even if Jesse does not use the word vandal in such canvassing notices anymore, the intent is clear: to cast dispersion.

  The phrasing "this vandal's impact" is itself blockable, and if any other admin (following Bbb23's suggestion also) finds it so, they have my blessing. I won't do it right now, since hope springs eternal, but if IP presents any more evidence of being (unjustly) called a vandal, or of the suggestion of being accused of vandalism, just one more time, Jesse should be blocked for a week or more. Err on the side of caution, Jesse--for the life of me, I do not understand why the last ANI thread wasn't warning enough. I hope a few more editors will look at this. Johnuniq, thanks for your continued interest in this unsavory matter. IP, you have my apologies. I trust that Jesse will leave you alone, and if not, I'll block them myself, appearance or not. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Drmies's idea for how to handle this disagreement. Regardless of who is right, a dispute that is constantly taking up space on the admin boards will probably be ended in some way that won't please both of the participants. Self-restraint (by either party) is a good way to head off this outcome. There are two reports open at AN3 right now about this same case. I suggest not closing those reports until we see if Drmies's advice is being listened to by either party. EdJohnston (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is good (I was suggesting the close in the hope that a little face-saving and some time might avert further problems). However, the above comments may give the impression that the IP has a significant responsibility in the issue—it would be fairer to tell JesseRafe to keep away from the IP. Another issue is some silly content being discussed at Talk:Nominative determinism where again JesseRafe is not understanding correct procedure—I am watching that, but have little patience for edit warring, particularly over such silliness, and it would be nice if an admin were to drop a hint that the article is fine the way the IP left it (with OR removed), rather than fully protecting the article as has happened. Johnuniq (talk) 02:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John, I hoped I was being careful enough here, walking a fine line (since "fuck off" is also not really OK, of course). For the sake of clarity: the IP was making constructive edits, lots of them, and no one should call them a vandal. I had a brief look at the discussion but am not knowledgeable enough (or, ahem, interested enough). Perhaps you can leave a note for the protecting admin? This one needs to go to sleep. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy for this to be closed and for the article protection to stay—anything for peace and quiet, and it's likely that a few days of such peace and quiet will produce positive results. Johnuniq (talk) 06:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, didn't know there was such a thing as peace and quiet at Wikipedia, but one can always hope.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – resolved, both users blocked for edit warning --Ta, Chip123456 (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to the page Don2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_2:_The_King_is_Back and its discussion page .

The user Meryam90 (talk) is totally unaware of wikipedia guidelines and the meaning of the word vandalism . She has been warned by many wiki editors in the past about her continuous use of removal of others comments citing vandalism . She is the editor at Don2 page and is so ridiculous that she wants to use a tweet of the worst trade expert in India - Taran Adarsh and his pathetic site "bollywoodhungama.com" for reporting box-office collections . Consensus on the SOLE USE of BoxofficeIndia.com (BOI)- the premier site on box-office collections in India has been made long ago ; and every Bollywood movie (hindi movie ) main infobox uses BOI numbers . So using any other site or especially a tweet on the twitter-networking site from a useless trade analyst is highly unacceptable and lame . Moreover , if you observe the view history of that article closely , you can easily see that the editor is making personal comments on me and using vandalism as a totally unnecessary tool here . I deleted the BO-figures n gross from the info-box and she starts harrassing and attacking me after undoing my edits . She seems to be a huge Shah Rukh Khan( a bollywood actor ) fangirl who wants to control his every film article . So , it happens to be the obvious case here , that the INFOBOX on his 2 latest movies reads box-office numbers from useless sites other than BOI. First , she abused all editors on the Raone discussion page regarding bo figures (btw which are still not according to BOI ) and now in case of Don2 she wants to degrade the standards of Wikipedia by using a lame tweet for box-office figures that too in main infobox .

So , Ra.one and Don2 (both ShahRukhKhan movies ) have now become the only movies in Hindi cinema that are using pathetic and lame sources other than BOI ; whereas all other (THOUSANDS OF )movies use BOI . This is unfair to all those movies .

So , i request an immediate BLOCK for this user for spoiling the integrity of Wikipedia for giving out box-office collections for hindi films FROM FAKE SITES as well as for using vandalism as an unnecessary tool for deleting and undoing others edts plus attacking me .

Thanks .Seeta mayya (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has the user had at least 2 or 3 previous warnings? --Ta, Chip123456 (talk) 08:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You never warned them about this thread. --Guerillero | My Talk 17:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked both of you for edit warring. This seems like a case of WP:BOOMERANG --Guerillero | My Talk 17:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Edit filter created by Reaper Eternal causa sui (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An IP-hopping editor continues to post stuff that refers to someone he fancies as his girlfriend on facebook or some such. The articles he's hit so far have been semi-protected. The talk pages also need to be semi'd. This includes Talk:Claudia Black and Talk:Name-dropping‎. A third talk page, about Rango (2011 film), has already been semi'd short-term. Rango is where this started, in late November or so. That article history has a number of items rev-del'd. Probably ALL of the references need to be rev-del'd on those 3 talk pages. However, they should first be semi'd, the keep the IP from re-adding it. Thank you, all. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Bugs and I have some discussion on my talk page on this but probably better to carry on here. I blocked the IP most recently being used by this vandal for 48 hours, without warnings because of the long history of IP-hopping abuse.) My concern is that he's already shown through his edits on name-dropping that he's a very persistent long-term vandal, so short-term blocks aren't going to help much. And is it really appropriate to semiprotect a talk page on a long term basis? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you've seen, he's had 2 IP's just in the last 10 minutes. And he's also got a tendency to post the Nazi flag, which is why he hit up me and Tenebrae before we had our own talk pages semi'd (which is within the conventional rules). I know they hate to block talk pages, but doesn't real-life BLP concern override that rule? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I at least semi'd the black and name-dropping talk pages for a week, to match the protection already in place for Rango's talk page. That doesn't seem so long as to be particularly harmful to me and should give us time to discuss the issue properly without being distracted by stomping out fires. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, to square with Favonian's protection of Rango. He had expressed the same reservations about blocking a talk page. We need some more heads on this one. If it was gard-variety vandalism, it wouldn't matter. But this is a BLP issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs is correct in his concerns, and only giving the tip of the iceberg. As I noted at Wikipedia:Abuse response/58.178.101.246, he's been blocked five times (though because he's jumped from 58.178 IPs to a couple of other IPs, he evaded censure).

He has vandalized and harassed continually from a 58.178 and 58.179 range including:

• 58.178.101.246
• 58.178.158.6
• 58.178.143.164
• 58.179.151.44,
• 58.178.154.119, and
• 58.179.132.246, as well as 210.50.115.243, [which has made the same distinctive "Angelique Carrington" edits]

He has been blocked at

• 58.178.101.246,
• 58.178.145.167 and
• 58.178.150.189

as well as at

• 203.212.133.140, and
• on Dec. 7, 2011 at 210.50.42.209 [which have made the same distinctive "Angelique Carrington" edits]

As late as December 28, 2011, he was making Nazi-related vandal edits through yet another 58.178 IP, 58.178.158.166.

I hope this raw data helps in reaching a conclusion about the best way to deal with this persistent serial vandal who has shown no sign of relenting even after several months. --Tenebrae (talk) 11:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the magnitude of the problem, I guess we have to semi the talk pages. Given the persistence of this particular pest, we may even have to extend the protection, which I know will rub some people the wrong way, but Bugs is right: BLP trumps the right of IPs to edit freely. Favonian (talk) 11:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with this is that we can't semi every talk page on Wikipedia. Why aren't we just using the abuse filter? causa sui (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that an abuse filter report may be indicated here. Further details in that regard should probably be taken to the appropriate place off-wiki (which unfortunately I don't know exactly what it is) for WP:BEANS type reasons. In addition, although we are trying to use fewer rangeblocks to avoid collateral damage, if it would be useful to explore that possibility, if the abuse-filter approach doesn't work then this possibility can be raised with the checkuser team. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I'm not aware of anywhere to process edit filter requests except WP:EF/R. I'm drafting something there now. causa sui (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user have since he became an editor here on Wikipedia, only contributed to Assyrian-related articles. He have started alot of edit- and revertwars. Just check his last contributes History, he have only been reverting articles, editing articles in order to raise a particular identity. He removes the term "Syriac" or "Aramean" in every article he finds, and replace it with "Assyrian". If the source clearly use the term "Syriac", then he either replace it with "Assyrian" or just adds the term "Assyrian" with the edit-comment "Neutralisation". He have started dozens of edit wars in Syriac related articles, but also in Chaldean-related articles. Just to describe the situation between Syriacs, Assyrians and Chaldeans; Three names for a same group. Some consider themselves "Syriacs" ad trace it roots back to the ancient Arameans. The other group consider themselves "Assyrians" and trace their roots back to the ancient Assyrians. The last group consieder themselves "Chaldeans" and trace their roots back to the ancient Chaldeans. It is an on-going war between them, especially here in Wikipedia in all articles related to this group. User Shmayo is seriously contributing to this on-going war here in Wikipedia, just check his History History and his talkpage Talk, it us full of warnings and debates from alot of users and administrators. He keeps starting editwars, he breaks the 3RR rule, he is guarding articles, he moves page without even discussing them, he is stalking users, edit warring in alot of articles. He keeps removing the name "Aramean" from articles and replaces it with Assyrian even if it was backed up with source he also removes the source, just because that name does not "fit" him 1, 2, 3 just for examples. All his edits can be found in his contribution-history, and all warnings and debates and everything can be found on his talkpage. His recent "contribution" were made on this article Syrianska FC. I was asked in January this year, to remake the whole article about Syrianska FC on Wikipedia, since the team got promoted from Second-division to first-division in Sweden. They wanted an article full with information and sources, and improvements to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. This was the version before i contributed Version 1, and this is the version after my contributions Version 2. I really made a huge improvement for the article, also with help from user Reckless. Then User: Shmayo came to this article and started his editwars. This was his contribution; Contribution. He removed alot from the intro, just becase a specific name did not fit him, without even discussing it on the articles talkpage. I everything backed up with sources on that article. Also, 2 months ago me and two other users on wikipedia agreed on the current version. We had a discussion about some things on the article, and at last we agreed to remove and rewrite some things, and then result was the current version. We did even not to ask for a third opinion notice from an administrator since we all already agreed. But this User: Shmayo, he does not discuss or provide sources, he just vandalize and have been keep doing this for the last two years. I suggest an administrator revert all his recent edits, and maybe time for a permanent ban? SYRIANIEN (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you think they missed Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive733#I_suggest_a_long-block_for_User:_Shmayo, or what is your purpose copy-pasting this just a couple days after? Shmayo (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, i dont know how everything works if an reported incident is being archived. I suggest we let the administrators solve it, if it is wrongly replaced here then an administrator can handle it. SYRIANIEN (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines for how you should do are written under "How to use this page". Shmayo (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okey. Well still waiting for an admin to read. SYRIANIEN (talk) 12:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Admins will have read it, and they've probably just ignored it. This looks to be petty nationalistic editing and content wars; I'd advise you head to WP:Dispute resolution or somewhere else for further attention. GiantSnowman 12:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have an issue on the page [19] where I placed a {{POV}} dispute template on the page as well as a {{coatrack}} template. User user:Jeffro77 deleted the template's without allowing time for discussion after I indicated a few days (December 31st) ago that I wouldn't be able to start addressing the multiple issues with the page for a few days. The template clearly says editors are not to remove the template until the dispute is settled. I would like someone to put it back forthwith and warn the editor that his actions are inappropriate. This editor has already orchestrated the removal of a AFD tag on the page after a matter of only a few hours and now feels he can remove the POV dispute tags as well without discussion. Please address asap...thanks.Willietell (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I restored them, go and start a section on the talk page. This is what you are meant to do immediately upon tagging an article. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That section has already been started, it was started immediately after tagging the article.Willietell (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't talk rubbish. The tag was added on December 30;[20]; only today have you initiated any real discussion about your specific concerns, following repeated requests by other users to explain your motivation. [21][22][23] You have been complaining for weeks that the article is "all lies" and should be deleted and on those occasions too, you have steadfastly refused to detail your concerns so they can be discussed and addressed. Your recent tagging the page as an attack page, and then as a coatrack, gave every evidence of being part of the same strategy -- make an accusation, then run away. People just get tired of your games. BlackCab (talk) 07:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has been claiming for weeks that the article is biased, and has been requested for weeks to indicate the specifics about what he believes to be biased. He refused, repeatedly, even claiming that other editors should just know what he thinks is biased.[24] He was again requested to provide specifics, and he replied that he won't do anything for another week and a half, so I removed the templates.[25]

The editor has also been disruptive, as several anonymous IPs, at Chronology of the Bible. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Spudpicker_01/Archive

Willietell also cited the template use: The template clearly says editors are not to remove the template until the dispute is settled. It seemed entirely appropriate to remove the templates, because no specific dispute had been raised. Now that he's bothered to actually state his concerns with the article (when it's in his advantage to complain about me removing the templates, invalidating his prior claim that he would not be able to do so for over a week), I have no problem with restoring the templates. When I removed the templates in the first instance,I specifically stated that the templates should be re-added once any actual objections were raised.[26]--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

I will be logging off shortly but am in the middle of pulling out some BLP-violating material from both Kevin Gage (actor) and Talk:Kevin Gage (actor) where an editor claiming to be the subject has left a legal threat. Could another admin please take a look and I can pick it back up if need be when I'm back? Thanks, Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To anyone passing by: please don't just blindly block. The subject is clearly acting in good faith, and I think that otrswiki:Response:En-BLP advice for article subjects-style advice might be helpful. NW (Talk) 23:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't blocked him, I have talked to him, but OTRS would be of no help here, as what he wants to add is (a) allegations about a fit-up by the local flics with regard to the hash bust and (b) information about the state of health of the actor's current wife. I note also that around this time last year, an IP editor started adding a heap of unsourced information to the article. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back. Thanks for stepping in Elen of the Roads. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 01:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I was suggesting a response pointing the user towards policies rather than blocking, which you seem to have handled nicely. Looks like we're all set here. NW (Talk) 02:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I misread what you said, thought you were recommending that he contact OTRS, which is of course the correct advice where someone wants something removed from an article about them. Apologies. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copied over from User talk:Protector of Wiki

• I have been blocked for over a year. As shown above, I understand why I was blocked. I will abide by all of wiki policies, guidelines, and community consensus at policy profile pages. I look forward to writing a GA with my mentors: Elena of the Roads, Noformation, Worm That Turned, and Buggie11! Others are welcome! :) :) Protector of Wiki (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Notes:-

• Original unblock request from just before Christmas sparked a discussion on this user's talkpage - it is worth reading the discussion in full.
• User was originally blocked by Peter Symonds following this discussion at ANI. It was an admin block, not a community decision.
• His block appeal came up at AN a couple of weeks later. The community consensus was to keep him blocked, but it wasn't overwhelming.
• He was mentored by Sonia and UncleDouggie, and appealed again in March 2011. This again went to AN where the consensus was again to keep him blocked.
• Noformation, Buggie111 and Worm TT have offered to mentor him if he is unblocked, and he understands that he will be blocked in a heartbeat if he returns to problematic behaviour.

As this has come before the community twice previously, I am bringing it here now for community consideration. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot me! I think Protector has come a long way since last August, and am fully supportive of an unblock. Buggie111 (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, yes I did.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support – geez, that's one hell of a history and he certainly knows how to wind a lot of people up fast. Still, I sense a lot of immaturity ebbing from this guy, and hope his mentors can put him in a better frame of mind. He seems to have a "forum" mentality rather than an encyclopedic one, which needs shaping fast. Given the lengthy block and number of mentors on his case now, and pending reblock if he goes back to his old ways of, basically, pratting about and wasting everyone's time, I support.. dubiously. Umm.. good luck! Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 00:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow, that's quite a battlefield - erm, I mean a User talk page. Considering it's been so long, he has two agreed mentors, and there's a condition of an immediate reblock if there's a return to the old ways, I'd cautiously Support unblock -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Although I am not impressed by POW's persistance in rehashing his/her "mod" arguments, I am willing to restart the assumption of good faith will the condition of an immediate reblock if things go back to the shitter.--Adam in MO Talk 01:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Academic support. I read through the history of this debacle a few weeks back, and suffice it to say that PoW has ample capacity to be a WP:DICK. Despite the time passed, I don't think his unblock request is genuine – whenever he's made "happy smiley" comments in the past it's been nothing more than caustic sarcasm. That said, I'm going to AGF and say give him a shot; there's no reason to deny him another chance. Ultimately I think this is all academic, as I predict he'll be perma-bant again within the month, but hey. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 02:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"AGF ... I predict he'll be perma-bant again"? To quote Inigo_Montoya "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. " Nobody Ent 16:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support - "Support" because of the quality of his mentors, "weak" because I'm dubious about the editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support - on the basis of AGF, not any optimism. We can always block again, should it be needed. If so, it's sure to be quite obvious. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Let me be the bad guy here. The offers to mentor Protector are admirable, and I respect the editors that are willing to help. That all being said, reading the above comments, it seems like it's not a matter of "if" but "when" they will be blocked again. I'll ask the question: Is the project better off having this editor stick around? Wildthing61476 (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, selfishly, per an old boss who refused to OK an interesting project on the grounds that it would turn into a time sink for some valued employees. Support because three admins are willing to give it a go, and I'd like to see how it pans out. From the talk page, I get an overwhelming sense that PoW remains clueless and is only parroting answers after being bludgeoned with advice. PoW tenaciously holds on to "mods" instead of just dropping it altogether. I don't get the sense of a teaching moment or understanding. There are going to be more "mod" rounds down the road. Administrators are secretaries? Tell that to the person who runs NASA. Where is the perspective? Is PoW a teenager? PoW almost seems to be goading Elen with that Elena thing. Too friendly? Cutesy? Bite the hand that feeds? Good luck, but keep the leash handy. Glrx (talk) 05:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC) Glrx (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I had a quick look at the user's talk after the point where the unblock request was posted and the attitude indicates that an unblock will result in another time sink. A gentle suggestion was made that a major problem was a refusal to listen to consensus with one of the issues being referring to admins as "mods" (unfortunately, the comment included the trivial mistake that "mods" is against policy). The reply in full was 'Please furnish a link to the policy that prohibits the use of "mod" for "admins".' (see second comment in this diff)—there was no reply about the central point (listening to consensus). The following discussion demonstrates an inappropriate attitude: yes, "mods" is not prohibited, and we don't care if someone occasionally says "mods", but the community made it very clear that the user was overdoing it in a way that was unhelpful, and an editor seeking an unblock should not make their right to say "mods" their first priority (hint: this is an encyclopedia). If any mentors are looking for work, I'm sure we could find a dozen slightly problematic editors who need just a little guidance (e.g. we see reports here once a week of people inappropriately using "vandalism" when reverting edits—those minor issues need follow up). Johnuniq (talk) 06:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  On that last point - "who to mentor". From experience, an editor who comes to a mentor proactively is more likely to learn from that mentor. I have mentored about 20 people since starting here, and the ones who've come to me have done better than the ones I've gone to or the ones that other editors have suggested to me. What's more, editors who have had a close shave with being blocked, or indeed have previously been blocked have more motivation to improve. The amount of mentoring required is nothing to do with it, I spend a fair amount of time in the -help IRC channel and help randoms who disappear almost instantly - at least focussing on one editor actually gets them somewhere. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Looks like a maturity issue more than anything. I'd suggest a less combative user name and a fresh start. Write some content, lose the drama. Carrite (talk) 09:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as mentor. This chap is quite lucky to have the offer of the mentors he has - including one who has plans to help him learn how to write articles and one who is focussing on how to go about the encyclopedia. Reblocks are cheap, if he starts to get worse again or even if he doesn't show decent improvement, I'm happy to be the one to block. Basically, it's worth a shot. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose He went and did one of the things that got him blocked in the first place right in his unblock request (the one done slightly earlier on this talk page not the one copied here). This shows he has absolutely no intention of improving. As someone else mentioned this doesn't appear to be a case of "if" he screws up again but a case of "when" he screws up again. -DJSasso (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Also shows a complete lack of understanding of WP:INVOLVED. Appears to think that anyone who has ever even looked in his direction is involved with him. -DJSasso (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I don't see any sign that the user really understands what he did wrong or that he is competent enough not to do it again. Youreallycan (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I can't see any net benefit here. This clearly isn't a user whose encyclopaedic contributions justify the drama and I'm not seeing that he is ready to behave in a more consensual way yet. I don't know how old he is, but if he is a minor, he needs to wait some more before trying again. If he is an adult then its probably too late and he should find something more suited to his personality. Sorry... well actually I'm not, we have far too generous an attitude to time sinks and AGF doesn't preclude learning from experience. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - His persistent wikilawyering over this "mods" silliness and other stuff, indicates he's not ready to come back yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - per Worm (reblocks are cheap) Bulwersator (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm inclined to !vote oppose, on the basis of past history. I'd probably support the unblock if (a) the user in question changes his name to a more neutral one, and (b) he makes clear that he understands what the purpose of Wikipedia is, and that his past efforts have run contrary to that purpose. It isn't just a matter of him agreeing to abide by rules - he needs to show evidence of wanting to contribute positively. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, huge time sink. As always, kudos to the mentors for their almost masochistic willingness to devote time to troublesome editors, but I'd rather see your talents be put to better use. Also, PoW's talk page threads do not look promising. As recent as 24 December they claimed it was wrong to block them and they are still rationalizing their use of "mod" instead of "admin". If that's the result of over a year of introspection, then I'd prefer they stay blocked.--Atlan (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment PoW has agreed to these three points. Buggie111 (talk) 14:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And PoW has also stated that they will only stop calling admins "mods" if somebody conjures up a policy that prohibits this. I don't really care about this admins/mods debate, but I find his defiance in the face of community consensus and even an indefinite block disturbing. After making such a big deal about this last year, I don't understand how this suddenly doesn't matter.--Atlan (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It never mattered to me, but I do understand the issue and will be tackling it with him. Worm^TT · (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's easy and maybe trite to say that reblocks are cheap. But they are. So it must be easy, correct and maybe trite. The history isn't encouraging, but we don't know the sincerity of the wish to reform yet. I'd feel very odd to vote for denying these mentors a chance to invest time in this, and I have confidence the community will swiftly bring an end to any return to past behaviour. Begoon ^talk 14:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  @begoon - the problem with cases like these it is isn't just the mentor's time that is wasted if the user relapses. It is all of our time as then we will have to have another ANI discussion as to what is to be done. Syrthiss (talk) 14:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  To some extent - but make a condition of unblock that any admin/mentor can re-block on relapse, and that's minimised a bit. I do respect your opinion - these are difficult calls to which there is probably no "right" answer without a crystal ball. Begoon ^talk 14:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - but under probation, so they can prove they have truly changed. One slip-up and they're gone again. GiantSnowman 14:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but come back under a different username (not just renaming this one - make a new account) known only to mentors, arbcom, and I guess anyone who really wants to know. This seems a good way to nip any potential drama in the bud. And if the drama reappears anyway, then we know it's pretty much entirely the user's fault, not the community's, and then the block decision is easy Egg Centric 15:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Query - is this user competent to perform the tasks for which he's asking to be unblocked? His unblock request centers on a stated desire to work on writing a GA with his mentors. That's a useful thing to do, but I'll be honest—looking through the guy's contribution history (survey), there are only three articles to which he's made more than two non-minor edits, and only one article to which he's made ten or more edits. The largest changes (byte-wise) are more often the insertion of infoboxes or reformatting of references, rather than extensive research and writing. He hasn't previously evinced an interest (or skill) in extended, focused editing of a single article or project, nor has he demonstrated a desire or ability to work collaboratively with other editors in the talk spaces. His constructive contributions have generally been vandalism reverts and wikignoming.

In other words, I can't help but feel that either PoW or his mentors are trying – at least a little bit – to sell us a bill of goods here. The shiny GA bauble is being used for a bit of emotional appeal and distraction—only the heartless would try to prevent a well-meaning editor from writing a Good Article, so how could we refuse to unblock? It would be a bit harsh to suggest that he request is insincere or not credible, but I do believe it's poorly thought out. (His would-be mentors may share some of the responsibility here.) We've been told that he wants an unblock so he can "write a GA"; what we should have been told is which GA he wants to write. What is the topic on which he is passionate, and into which he will dive on his return? What steps have his mentors taken on- or off-wiki to evaluate PoW's potential for writing a GA? Is it a good idea to throw an editor who has a very poor track record on inter-editor conflicts directly into a situation where his writing is likely to be minutely examined and subjected to criticism? What is the rationale for declaring a complete reversal in the type of contribution he would be making? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he has written drafts on his talk that were later added into articles, I think I remember about 5 or so. The article I was thinking of to work on with him is Arctic Ocean, but I was going to ask him for his preferences. Buggie111 (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree with Ten's sentiments here, I don't think it's a good idea that he disclose that info, except possible via email to mentors who can confirm his genuine ambition. Reason being, it could present a psychological COI for !voters, i.e. not knowing, "I'll support him but I don't want him editing in my area of interest" vs disclosure, "Oh shit, he wants to write about things I edit, auto-oppose!!!" Knowing his area of interest might lead to unwanted provocation early in his mentoring (assuming he's unblocked). As I understand, consensus is about strength of arguments, not numbers unless they're clearly overwhelming. Opposers seem to be repeating the same few arguments, whilst supporters have a few varied points. I think closing admin needs to consider the arguments very carefully here. Given how many eyes would be on him, there is little chance of any consequences to disrupt Wiki itself.. just a few editors get worked up and he's gone fast, before disruption spreads. Without a chance, no one knows what difference a year could make. Personally, if I were blocked a year, I'd probably be "new start" socking to disappear... most IPs change in a year, so do personalities, so we should really consider this: he's requesting unblock via a known disruptive account, following policy, rather than sneaking about behind our backs under socks, as far as we know. That's a long time to wait and for us not to AGF. I'm still weak support, as I still have my doubts about his maturity and competence more than anything else.. given his list of replies he plays it like a game for his amusement rather than a community to respect. Needs to learn. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 21:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Took too much work just to have the user consent to stop using the term "mod, " especially since their repeated requests for a policy indicates a lack of understanding of WP:CONSENSUS.Nobody Ent 16:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note It's actually surreal that it's okay to call editors WP:DICKs but not to call admins "mods." Especially since the justification presented on the page as that "no big deal" thing -- if it's not a big deal, why are ya'll sweating what someone calls you, given that's not actually perojorative or offensive? Nobody Ent 16:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The whole "mod" thing is silly. Plenty of people will be watching PoW. Can be re-blocked very easily if necessary. Quinn ^➳WINDY 18:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment PoW has responded on his talkpage to opposes here. Buggie111 (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just curious, what's a 'mod'? GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moderator. -DJSasso (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

and definitely not a rocker! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I don't recall any previous knowledge of or interaction with this user, and I'm sorry if it looks like I'm throwing AGF out the window a bit here, but all I did was read the current version of his talk page where he responds to this ANI section, and I see a combativeness that will not, in my opinion, be solved by mentoring.  Frank  |  talk  19:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I don't see any problem with giving him another chance. He has three respected editors willing to help him out. If there are any problems, he can easily be reblocked. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as a matter of principle. Opposing requests like this gives ammunition for criticism of Wikipedia (of which there's quite enough already) and creates an incentive to sockpuppetry. If there's a problem, of course, reblock.—S Marshall T/C 20:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, the solution to preventing sockpuppetry would be to never block anyone. Right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Off topic, but: No, the solution to reducing rather than preventing sockpuppetry would be to make everyone register, and ditch the anon-IP nonsense, totally. It would probably reduce the bureaucracy on wiki by at least 50% and give us more resources to actually make the project work better. As well as scrap a load of the coding behind what makes Wiki work, and speed it up a little. IMO, communities work better when you shake hands and share names.. not using IP numbers as an identity. I'd rather know someone is User:IamAdick than User:12.34.56.78. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 21:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, Bugs, that would clearly help! But my position is a bit more moderate; I believe in the eventual rehabilitation of offenders. Except in the case of the most egregious offenders, which this character isn't, someone who's been blocked for a year has done their time.—S Marshall T/C 21:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

        The connotation of "Done their time" implies the block was punishment, which it wasn't. I definitely believe in multiple chances; however my opposed (and I infer others) is based on the disruptive behavior the editor is currently demonstrating on their talk page. Nobody Ent 22:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I wanted to support, considering I respect the editor/s who have offered to mentor, and definitely believe in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th chances. But reading the Talk page of the editor, as well as the recent comments made, leads me to believe that this user is a long way off from being able to be helped by any mentor. This seems to be more of a game for him/her, and we are wasting a lot of time and effort better directed in other areas. Quite honestly, I can't see how anyone can read that Talk page, coupled with the recent comments, and support an unblock. If anything, a community ban came to mind for me. Dave Dial (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Allow me to be the bad guy again. I'll be blunt and sorry if this is bad faith but...we're being trolled here folks. It's obvious read the PoW talkpage that he/she is doing this for the "lulz" and unfortunately we're falling for it. Wildthing61476 (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You could well be right, but I have faith that his mentors will pull the plug PDQ if his editing behavior isn't on the up-and-up. I am certain they can see from this discussion that the community doesn't have a great deal of trust in PoW, and will therefore have him on a very short leash, at least to begin with. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, on that article that I created, it has a copyright notice(the one that blanks the whole page) that it is in violation of copyright and to fix with an admin. Only the "Cast" section is in violation and that should be removed. I had no idea until the big notice popped up and when I checked it was right. However, the notice says nothing should be modified until this is cleared up with an admin, so right now I'm requesting that the "Cast" section be deleted and the notice removed. Thank you! P.S. the revision before the cast section is here however, I recommend that it just be manually removed because some typos were fixed in the main section after that. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 02:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've compared the contents of the article to the Discovery website, and Ramaksoud2000 is correct, it's only the "Cast" section which is a copyvio and should be removed. The lede is not even a close paraphrase of the website's "About Show" section, it's a completely new description of the show. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any admin out there? Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 13:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage patience - there's no deadline for anything here. I have edited the pre-copyvio-tagged version, removing the CAST section, as per BMK (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

user Intoronto1125 appears to be participating in persistent vandalism, by adding unnecessary content to the Sri Lanka Armed Forces page after a very clear consensus was established in favor of leaving that content out. Distributor108 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Good faith editing (that is, editing where the user believes themselves to be improving Wikipedia) should never be labeled vandalism. See Wikipedia:Vandalism for what vandalism is. Instead, what it appears you have is a dispute. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard for a good venue to resolve this dispute, alternate methods are also noted at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Jayron32 06:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is vandalism, as you can see from the edit history, He is continuously participating in this behavior without participating in the discussion after a clear consensus was established. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Distributor108 (talk • contribs) 06:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that user Hazard-SJ is a ghost account of user Intoronto1125; as he is immediately participating in the same behavior as Intoronto1125 within seconds of me leaving a warning on user Intoronto1125 page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Distributor108 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Distributor108 was involved in unexplained content removal at Sri Lanka Armed Forces and is warning users with {{uw-delete4im}} (me included) after we reverted the user's deletion.  Hazard-SJ  ㋡  06:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hazard-SJ is not a "ghost account" rather guidance from a very helpful editor on the wikipedia chat service. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 06:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The explation can easily be found on the Sri Lanka Armed Forces talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sri_Lanka_Armed_Forces#Do_not_add_war_crimes_allegation Distributor108 (talk) 06:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A section in which you started (with your opinion) and which resulted in to consensus. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 06:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Distributor108 has been blocked.  Hazard-SJ  ㋡  06:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...by Dark here--Adam in MO Talk

I am trying to work with D108 on his/her talk page to come to an agreement that will bring them back as a useful editor. I would appreciate feedback, help, or any interested eyes there. Am I going down the right track?--Adam in MO Talk 07:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Distributor108 agrees to an indefinite topic ban on all Sri Lanka related pages, broadly construed, a 1RR on ally other edits and a promise not to sock. Should we unblock based on these terms?--Adam in MO Talk 07:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Timeshifter (talk · contribs · email) has made an addition on List of countries by income equality which three people have explained why it doesn't fit, and attempted to discuss on the talk page, with little success. Timeshifter continues to revert [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] instead of engaging in constructive discussion, despite warnings [34] [35]. This has been going on for a month. We need to somehow get him to understand that this is not acceptable and that he needs to start listening to others on the talk page. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like clear edit-warring against several other editors, from an editor who has a block history for edit warring, so I've blocked for 48 hours -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to say, the block history is old, which is why this current block is short -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --OpenFuture (talk) 09:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and I have declined his "admin abuse - if I don't get my way I'm leaving" unblock request. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 01:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fastily deleted article Alexey Pivovarov (he IS notable!) and ignored me and all my arguments on his talk page. He insists on speaking with me only through some strange link. Please revert his vandalism and let me rebuilt this useful and interesting article.--RussianLiberal (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• See Wikipedia:Vandalism - "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page." Bulwersator (talk) 10:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• And you should start with discussion on his talk page rather than create thread here Bulwersator (talk) 10:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." Bulwersator (talk) 10:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I did!--RussianLiberal (talk) 10:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • you never edited User talk:Fastily except information about this thread Bulwersator (talk) 10:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I can see, there have been no discussions between RussianLiberal and Fastily on either editor's Talk page -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I am IP there!
  • Please provide diff with your polite request Bulwersator (talk) 10:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Alexey Pivovarov was deleted using PROD so article will be restored on request. Bulwersator (talk) 10:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• So I request, claim, blame and ask.--RussianLiberal (talk) 10:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No claim or blame is appropriate. A polite request on Fastily's talk page is. LadyofShalott 10:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• He ignored me so I will better not come there - want to insult him--RussianLiberal (talk) 10:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BOOMERANG? Bulwersator (talk) 10:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• He has not ignored you - you have to give people at least a little response time. You never asked him nicely - your first words to him were "revenge for vandalizing the article". I suggest you delete those words, and ask him to restore the article. This thread should never have been opened. LadyofShalott 10:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• See! As an IP I asked him! As an IP! So I will not delete my true words - if you want ban me. I will make Pivovarov again and bite everybody who will attack it again--RussianLiberal (talk) 10:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, you need to show us exactly which edit you made. It's no good just saying "IP" and expecting us to know from that. Now that you have said "Pivovarov", I presume your message was User_talk:Fastily#Alexey Pivovarov. Fastily responded with a link to User:Fastily/E#PROD, which says "This article was deleted via the PROD process. You may request that the page be restored, but you are advised to be ready to improve the article and remedy the problems for which it was originally deleted. Otherwise, you run the risk of having the article deleted again or nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, in which deletion may become more permanent". That's a perfectly reasonable response, and is most definitely not the "vandalism" that you went on to accuse him of. And if you carry on in this beligerent manner, it's *you* who is likely to be sanctioned -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I see you have recreated Alexey Pivovarov now. Please be aware that it currently contains no indication of importance, and neither did the previously deleted version. If you don't adjust it to at least make a credible claim of importance, it is likely to be speedy deleted. And if you do not make it comply with the notability requirements of WP:BIO, it will at the very least be taken to WP:AfD for deletion discussion. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Nobody to write articles, everybody want to delete... bureaucrats--RussianLiberal (talk) 10:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously it is untrue Bulwersator (talk) 10:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• While we are looking at this editor, should something be done about this ? Mtking ^(edits) 10:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I've deleted it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Now Pivovarov is normal? Notable? Is it time to remove ugly shield?--RussianLiberal (talk) 12:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should discuss that on Talk:Alexey Pivovarov, not here. Nobody Ent 12:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I don't actually know whether this is a correct place for such discussion, please forgive if I'm wrong.

There has been a discussion at Talk:Usage share of web browsers about keeping median of the numbers in some tables. The discussion is quite lengthy and occupies almost entire talk page starting at Talk:Usage share of web browsers#Consensus on median in summary. It follows a mediation request ( here) and a similar discussion at Talk:Usage share of operating systems which resulted in the mentioned mediation request.

After a month has been passed, it seems to me and some other editors (diff) that consensus has been achieved: 12 !votes supporting (11 in the poll and User:Schapel who apparently supports it), 5 !votes opposing. The problem is that User:Useerup doesn't agree that a consensus has been achieved: he unilaterally tries to close the poll (diff) and edits the affected article to reflect his vision of consensus while also engaging in an edit war (diff, diff, diff). This follows his previous attempts to close polls with results favouring his opinion (diff, also see similar poll at Talk:Usage share of operating systems) which disrupted the ongoing discussions.

Here I kindly ask two things:

1. An experienced editor or administrator to investigate whether the poll at Talk:Usage share of web browsers#Consensus on median in summary has achieved consensus and indicate the result of the investigation in the talk page (e.g. by putting entire discussion under the banners usually used in deletion/move/rename discussions).
2. Investigate whether User:Useerup has engaged into disruptive editing (specifically WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT) by repeatedly refusing to acknowledge a consensus opposite to his opinion.

Thanks. 1exec1 (talk) 12:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: This has also made the rounds to WP:DRN prior to going to MedCab Hasteur (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing attention to this. When the discussion on the talk page

• came to a standstill and
• the poll had been open for 1 month and
• there still were significant opposing (as in opposing use of the median calculation) editors

It was fairly obvious that there was no consensus. This is not just a content dispute, rather it is a policy dispute where WP:OR and specifically WP:CALC has been designed to require consensus for the inclusion of "routine" calculations specifically to avoid original research. This requirement is set deliberately to keep WP:OR out. While the discussion has been ongoing, editors have edited the numbers and updated the offending calculations. User 1exec1 has entered WP:IDHT with respect to WP:CALC, a core content policy. If I was the only editor who had qualms about the median (and the "correction" of the sources' numbers) I can see how 1exec1 and Daniel.Cardenas could claim that I was a single hold-out and just being stubborn. But the fact remains that we are several editors who still oppose the use of the median, i.e. there is still no consensus. Combined with the very clear requirements of WP:CALC I feel justified in demanding that we continue this debate with the median and other correcting calculations removed until a consensus for re-adding them can be reached. As it is evident during the rounds this debate has taken both at WP:DRN, mediation cabal, RFCs I have shown good faith (and patience) and even suggested alternative representations in order to build consensus without using the median (see my suggested graph). By leaving the calculations in the article until a consensus can be reached is in contradiction to the very clear intentions of WP:CALC: To err on the side of caution when it comes to original research.--Useerup (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with many of your points. Not wanting to start another lengthy discussion I will only point out that consensus does not mean unanimity (second sentence in WP:CONSENSUS), this was pointed out to you before. You still don't accept that opposing party is minority (less than third off the participants in the poll) and push through your opinion. That is what WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is about. But let's wait for a third party to explicitly say whether there is consensus or not. 1exec1 (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then please read the first sentence and the third sentence; not just the second one. I never demanded that we came to a unanimous conclusion, and if I was the only one raising objections the situation would be different. But consensus takes into account all the proper concerns raised and ideally it arrives with an absence of objections. Consensus is not a majority vote, especially not when proponents inappropriately solicited uninformed opinions from visitors. There are still many legitimate concerns: Synthesis across multiple sources selected by editors, "correcting" numbers to allow for comparison, difference in sampling methods, differences in demographics. I believe that it is you who WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT with respect to 1) the very clear policy of WP:CALC and 2) a number of significant objections raised by a significant number of editors. The situation with this article is untenable, as editors continue to update the calculations in dispute. Remember, the WP:BURDEN is on the editors adding or re-inserting content. --Useerup (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Useerup also requested temporary full page protection of the affected article, claiming the usual consensus has not been reached. 1exec1 (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did that when Daniel.Cardenas immediately and repeatedly reverted my edits where I 1) removed the median calculations (per WP:CALC), 2) removed the "corrected" numbers where editors had taken it upon themselves WP:SYN to "reduce" numbers to make a calculation across multiple, disparate sources possible and 3) a graph based on the median numbers. I reverted back and requested page protection. This was before this request on this board was opened (or at least before I was aware of it).--Useerup (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that 2/3s is not consensus. I don't know why this got to ANI because ANI is not part of the dispute resolution process. Consensus is not a simple majority vote. IDHT doesn't apply here. Don't confuse agreeing with hearing. This belongs at the dispute resolution noticeboard, not here. This months-old dispute is really becoming WP:LAME.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have opened an RfC at Talk:Usage share of web browsers so we don't have to argue over this.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Special:Contributions/111.118.183.121. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've issued a final warning - please feel free to give me a shout if you see it happen again, and I'll follow up on it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following user has constantly been reverting edits on only one article since account was created. blanked talk page of warnings, only recently created an account and only edits on C.S. Lewis, also possibly a sock.

See evidence here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C._S._Lewis&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Chairvoyance TheFortunateSon (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe you're looking for WP:AN/EW. Being that the last actions were 2 days ago it's not an immediate need (and likely to be dismissed on grounds of being stale). Hasteur (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Ok thanks, if it happens again then there will be consequences. TheFortunateSon (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that sounds like a threat (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, Bwilkins--let's not start throwing those kinds of threats around. This kind of thing might be more helpful. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A threat? Heavens forbid somebody gets 'threatened' with non-legal, non-violent wikipedia action as a result of their actions..., put the thinking cap on, its a warning, do I need to spell that out for some of you? I can assume that you know what happens to a sockpuppet or an editor who breaks the 3RR? I hope you do anyway, you never know with some admins these days.TheFortunateSon (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And happy new year to you too. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You too, bye now. TheFortunateSon (talk) 17:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Sheodred/FortunateSon is now indef-blocked by EdJohnston for "Long term warring on the nationality of BLP subjects who were born in Northern Ireland." Clairvoyance, meanwhile, has been deemed a likely match to User:Freyno, indef-blocked as a sock of User:PowerSane. That likeliness is good enough for me: I'm blocking them for quacking like Freyno and PowerSane (I've already blocked two IPs this morning). ANI brings out the best in us, doesn't it? BTW, FortunateSon was right about the socking issue! Thanks to EdJohnston and Tnxman307. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello All,

I'd like to inform you about whitewashing of Boris Berezovsky article on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Berezovsky_%28businessman%29

Recently the following paragraph has been added to the article:

In 2000 Klebnikov published a book "Boris Berezovsky: Godfather of Kremlin or looting of Russia" which was a very extended version of the above mentioned article. Berezovsky did not contest the book in court.^[1]

which was blatantly immediately erased by user Collect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Collect). First he claimed the paragraph had not been properly sourced. After the source was provided, Collect erased it again claiming that such phrase cannot be in the article, because of "implying that that fact means it was not the subject of legal action or that Berezovsky does not dispute the contents". Where as the sentences actually only said that the book was published, and that it has not been contested in court, nothing else. I'm not much into Wikipedia regulation and not sure which policies Collect has violated, but think that most likely he violated Vandalism and Deletion policies, by deleting absolutely neutral in point of view and well sourced material. He also engaged in edit warring on Berezovsky page (including discussion page, you can check both. despite multiple warnings on his talkpage, which he repeatedly deleted as well). Please will administrators action this somehow, the justice should be restored in the article.

Just in case, a discussion has started already on BLPN page, which hasn't led to anything: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPN#Boris_Berezovsky_.28businessman.29

Thank you very much anyway! 170.148.198.157 (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that justice has been restored already, with the removal of this obvious attempt to skew the article by insinuation. Collect was absolutely right to delete this, according to WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise how two above sentences violate BLP? 170.148.215.157 (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They violate WP:BLP policy as an obvious attempt to skew the article by insinuation. This has already been explained to you on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't "explain" anything. As two above sentences do not "skew" anything in the article. I would like some other people to comment as well on this. And, in any case, the 1st sentence (that the book was published which was a very extended version of the article) cannot be accused of anything at all, and is just a mere statement of fact.170.148.215.157 (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, a 'statement of fact' can be made in such a way as to insinuate things not borne out by the 'fact', and secondly, the sentence isn't 'factual': it gets the title of the book wrong. And come to that, there is nothing to indicate that this book has been seen as in any way significant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a big fan of WP:AGF, but your particular use of grammar has my spideysense tingling (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deepdish7 the indefinitely blocked user was fixated on these exact same issues. Youreallycan (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The statement of fact is not made in such was as to insinuate anything in this case. The book actually had several versions and titles in the publishing. If the title isn't correct, then please correct it, instead of removing the whole sentence. And the book actually is significant enough to be present in that section of the article. At least it does deserve so. As the fact, that Berezovsky did not contest it in court 170.148.215.157 (talk) 08:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently having a sabbatical for a few days, however, I will post more in this thread in the next 24-48 hours, because both the IP editor and Collect are being disruptive to some extent, and this article needs to be dealt with for once and for all. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 09:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Paul123.123 has been posting messages to various talk pages in violation of WP:NOTFORUM and in a sense WP:NLT. Paul wants to gather support for a notional lawsuit against Dan Savage because of his Google bomb against Rick Santorum, the event we know as the campaign for "santorum" neologism. Paul has been sticking mostly to talk pages but he also posted here in article space, asking for supporters in a "defamation of character" lawsuit to be brought against Dan Savage. The URL he posts is a self-published website in wordpress blog space. The lawsuit is not notable, and perhaps Paul is crossing some line we have against legal threats. Can we block him? Can we blacklist the wordpress URL? Binksternet (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not technically a legal threat. Several editors have given him level-1, -2 and now -3 warnings about using Wikipedia as an advertising medium. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Orange Mike says, the user has been warned not to use Wikipedia for promotion of a cause. If he continues to do so he can be blocked, and he has been informed of that fact. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The mere presence of that article here on wikipedia suggests promotion of a cause. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blah blah blah. Don't derail the discussion of the behavior of a new user. Binksternet (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blah blah blah back at you. The presence of that article is a disgrace to wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles on things that are far more unpleasant, loathsome, and/or disgraceful than a columnist's ten-year campaign to ridicule a politician. The fact that people care about this, and that it's getting a substantial amount of news coverage, means that it's entirely appropriate for us to have an article about it. DS (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there are plenty of agenda-driven editors here who are very happy to keep that garbage here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Santorum shock rise in popularity - Santorum's views are popular and the promotion of them by D Savage has had no apparent detrimental affect on his career. Youreallycan (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find Santorum's politics abhorrant. Nonetheless, that separate article serves no purpose except to further the defamation of Santorum. It's not about Santorum, it's about that Savage character. The article should be changed to a redirect to Savage and be done with it. Its continued presence here is an affront to everything wikipedia supposedly stands for in the BLP area. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think often people overestimate the value of content in a wikipedia article - ( which is the primary reason for the battlefield position amongst editors that currently proliferates here ) although it appears at a high profile in google returns doesn't mean people are reading anything or using what they read here to develop or change their opinions. I have come to see D Savage's attack on Santorum as more detrimental on Savage's reputation than anyone else's.Youreallycan (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And that's why it should redirect to him. It's got nothing to do with the targeted public figure - it's all about the radio guy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that the aticle-in-question will effect Santorum's campaign for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. Having said that, changing it to a re-direct is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 06:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thank you. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the overly long and sometimes volatile exchange on that page last year to get it to the current name, a unilateral move after this brief discussion is far from a good idea Bugs.Heiro 06:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article's existence is a large stain on wikipedia. Putting personal agendas ahead of wikipedia's reputation is far from a good idea. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• - User_talk:Jimbo Wales#Academy of Achievement Contact Information and User:Ebikeguy

It's getting a little messy on Jimmy's talk page. A user is now posting the email one of the employers of User:WWB Too and requesting wikipedia editors to contact them and complain about them using User:WBB Too as a paid editor - I think this has clearly over stepped the mark and is encouraging off wiki WP:HARRASMENT of a wikipedia user. Paid editing is not against policy no matter how much he Ebikerguy or anyone else doesn't like it and encouraging wiki editors to contact the real life, real time, employer of one of our editors is totally out of line imo.User talk:Ebikeguy#your request for_off wiki action I have asked him to retract it but he has refused. Youreallycan (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am putting together a schedule of visits and calls to major PR firms and to people who I can identify as paying for inappropriate behavior at Wikipedia. I think I need not be alone in this. I think members of the general public, including Wikipedians, have every right to enter the public debate by letting people who are funding the subversion of the basic principles of Wikipedia know that their actions are not appreciated and will be exposed, to their likely embarrassment. I would appreciate anyone interested in this issue helping me to identify the worst violators or potential violators so that we can begin to take more systematic action on this issue.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply from Accused Editor - This accusation is utterly without merit. I did publish an email address for a company using paid Wikipedia editors, which I found on their website. I encouraged editors to contact the company and let the company know how they felt about paid Wikipedia editors, but I did not mention any editor by name in my note. Note that Wikipedia defines harrassment as "as a pattern of repeated offensive behavior." While I do not feel my behavior was, in any way, offensive, that is a judgment call. However, my accuser refers to one, isolated event/edit, so it would be nonsensical to associate my edit with a sustained pattern of repeated behavior. Ebikeguy (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ebikeguy's request was to "tell them how you feel". Possibly some editors might love paid editing and be inspired to write to this organization lauding them for their efforts to pay someone to write their wikipedia page. Just sayin'. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The section has been collapsed from view by an administrator with a notice of - "Calls for real life harrassment of a Wikipedian's employer do not belong here" - which I totally agree with and which is an acceptable administrative action to resolve this report. Youreallycan (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No, Youreallycan, it isn't. I doubt an admin will leave him unblocked, since off-wiki harassment of this sort has a powerful chilling effect on other editors. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 20:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I have shown above, nothing I have done constitutes harassment in any form. If any editor, sysop or otherwise, can show me how my post violates any Wikipedia editing rule, I will gladly retract it. Also, your post seems to suggest that a sysop should use a block to punish me. Blocks are not punitive; they are a tool to stop disruptive editing. I certainly do not intend to repost this email address anywhere else, and am avoiding any potentially contentious editing until this matter is resolved, so no disruptive editing on my part is threatened. Ebikeguy (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) - @Jéské - I was just looking for the least drama. I was disappointed the user refused to just retract it. Historically in my wiki experience, such off wiki actions or encouragement to others to take such action has been looked on extremely unfavorably. I notice User:Ebikeguy isn't accepting the collapsing of his off wiki request to other editors and is objecting to the Admin - User talk:TParis#Collapsing Section on_Jimbo's Talk Page - Youreallycan (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid Ebikeguy is singling out one editor, and it's me. As far as I can tell, Ebikeguy has followed me from one article's Talk page to Jimbo's Talk page and now to another article's Talk page. I hesitate to claim I'm being wikihounded but it's certainly heading in that direction (besides his attempt to take this off-wiki). It's worth noting that I've disclosed my COI relationships on every one of these pages, that I have limited my interactions almost entirely to Talk pages, where I have sought to obtain consensus for changes based on reliable sources. What Ebikeguy calls "whitewashing" is my attempt to bring these articles closer into line with Wikipedia's guidelines. It's always my goal is to follow the rules, and it's more than a little dismaying to receive this kind of treatment. Thanks, WWB Too (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another accusation, this time by an editor that makes his living editing Wikipedia articles for paying clients, that is entirely without merit. Note that all the articles he lists have been wikilinked together, and several editors have gone from one to another, following the diverging threads involved in this discussion. To call my participation in these related discussions "Wikihounding" is entirely unreasonable. Ebikeguy (talk) 20:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly looks like hounding to me. Stop this hounding and outing now. bobrayner (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I disagree with your assessment and point out that several different editors have posted at many or all of the pages WWB Too lists, above (as they followed the discussion thread in the same why I did), I have noted above that I will not be making any potentially contentious edits until this matter is resolved. So, in that sense, I am stopping the editing with which you disagree now, and I will not repeat this type of edit if it is shown to be in violation of Wikipedia rules.Ebikeguy (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, Ebikeguy's effort has resulted in at least one angry letter received by the Academy today. WWB Too (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested to see what type of response my reasonable, neutrally-worded post inspired. Please feel free to post the letter here, expunging any personal information. Thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think User:Ebikeguy as the main protagonist needs to clarify if that email was sent by him. It seems quite reasonable assumption that he would email them, considering he was the one that searched for the company email ( which was as he stated, "difficult to find contact information" ) and he was the one that posted in on wiki asking editors to post to that email address that he would post them himself. Youreallycan (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No admin here: Just my 2 pence: I recall a while back it came to light a professor had assigned his students to purposefully insert inaccuracies (i.e. vandalize) Wikipedia. At first their was a lot of support to contact the school's administration to complain, and it seemed like the right thing to do at the time. But then it all just kind of spiraled out of control. Anyway, I know this isn't the same thing, but Ebikeguy is walking a fine line here, and I'd suggest if he has info that an outside entity was abusing Wikipedia's core mission for profit, he should have simply contacted the WM Foundation and let them handle it. Likewise, if WWB Too is violating policies, then Ebikeguy (or me or any other editor) can take action through the proper WP channels. In short, I'm sure he was well intentioned, but probably just collapsing the section and dropping the stick at this point would be the best course forward. Quinn ^➳WINDY 21:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Am I interpreting correctly, that a company's website is or was soliciting paid editing of wikipedia? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An editor openly declared that he was paid to improve a companies article. This is the backlash of that good faith declaration. Youreallycan (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did that editor identify which company he was editing for? If so, I'm unclear where the "outing" charge comes from. At the very least, identifiable paid edits need to be closely scrutinized. The average company isn't likely paying editors to be "objective". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was no outing. - Scrutiny of editors, yes, but that does not involve posting emails details on wiki and encouraging other wiki editors to write to the address you have posted to complain to their employers about it. - Youreallycan (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The user Bobrayner, above, accuses the editor in question of "outing" someone. Canvassing by posting external e-mails does not strike me as being appropriate. However, IF there is a pattern of bias in paid editing, it does strike me that that should be brought to wikipedia's attention. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

Yes, bob was mistaken in his outing comment. Youreallycan (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roger. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roger, Roger Rabbit - Youreallycan (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's your vector, Victor? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment struck through. I had thought at first glance that pushing the email address counted as outing. Obviously, wiser folk than me have disagreed, so I stand corrected. I still think the behaviour is inappropriate but I put the wrong label on it. bobrayner (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs, I hesitate to comment again (I'm also upthread) because all of this has been quite unpleasant, but I'm the COI editor in question. I'm always very open about my efforts, and I look for consensus before going beyond non-controversial edits. I also understand editors' understandable skepticism, hence my cautious approach. I suppose I am not the "average" COI editor. A couple of my articles are a matter of current debate—not all of the criticisms fair in my estimation, but I don't get to make that call—and I think my work will hold up over time. Happy to discuss more. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You walk a delicate tightrope. The company I work for is not even on my watchlist. Editing with a potential conflict of interest is risky business. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That rabbit is working for Warner Bros. Animation and you is a major contributor to the Bugs Bunny biography. - Youreallycan (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dat's right, Doc - dey pay me in carrots. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, you is stealing dem carrots from Elmer Fudd - Youreallycan (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ebikeguy: I don't care if you retract it, but I do want you to stop doing it. This kind of activity will do nothing but encourage people with conflicts of interest to hide their affiliations rather than being open and up-front about it. 28bytes (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, and considering the reaction my edit caused, I am highly inclined to agree with you at this point! Ebikeguy (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear we need a better policy regarding paid editing than "This guy was a jerk, so he can't do paid editing, but these other guys are nice, so they can!" There are many bright line rules, there are other shade of grey rules, but then theres WP:COI, and that's neither. Hipocrite (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing is a threat to Wikipedia's standards. No editor who is paid to work on an article by the subject of the article can be assumed to be editing with a neutral point of view, period. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bad policy makes questionable decision. Rather than having a knee-jerk reaction, go to the root and fix the problem so we don't have to waste so much time on debating who should be sanctioned when we should be improving Wikipedia. And for the record, I'm also against paid editing. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 23:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are paid editors who do edit stealthily, under the radar, with no disclosure and little accountability, and those who announce their COI and accept the scrutiny that comes with full disclosure. The stealthy ones will be with us no matter what. The only thing "cracking down" would do is encourage the "full disclosure" paid editors to stop disclosing their COI. I can't imagine we'd want that. 28bytes (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't pretend that it's okay in the hope that paid flacks will "do the right thing" and declare their COI. What should be happening is that paid flacks should be pursued and banned from the site. This is a fundamental threat to the content of the encyclopedia, every bit as repulsive as political staffers whitewashing their boss and throwing mud at the opposition. Paid editing should be severely dealt with. Carrite (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And yet if you prohibit it, you will just drive it under ground. As long as people are going to edit with a conflict of interest they should be encouraged to disclose it, not punished for disclosing it. causa sui (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. For anyone who considers paid editors to be, essentially, an enemy of Wikipedia's core principles, there's an old saying worth considering. 28bytes (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So: "if we enforce the law, nobody will admit to breaking it, so we won't enforce it?" That's not something I can get behind, no, sorry. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the point is there is no such law that's being broken, and I think before we add more laws we'd be well-served to consider the practical effect of them. We don't need "tough on paid editors" posturing if the net effect is to make paid editing less detectable, and thus more likely to effectively degrade our content. 28bytes (talk) 05:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Was there something actually wrong with the paid edits? Were they factually incorrect, pov-pushing, or whatever? If so, then those edits might deserve a harsh response, just as they would with an editor who made some bad edits for some other motive. If the edits are OK, then the editor was just getting paid for what most of us do for free, and I don't think that is - or should be - punishable. We can't see who is and isn't getting paid for their edits, but we can see the content changes they make, which is just as well, since the content changes should be what we care about. bobrayner (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Talk:Cracker Barrel Old Country Store gives a good sample of views about at least one such article. 28bytes (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Good paid editing is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, just as is all good editing. Promotional or other improper paid editing is not a positive contribution, just as is all improper non-paid editing. Like everyone here, I tend to look very carefully and the quality of declared paid editing, but no more than I am about blatantly promotional undeclared editing. I'm certainly not happy with the article in question overall, both in its state as a promotional article and in the attempt to turn it into an attack article, but I appreciate candidness. I do suggest though, that paid editors might do well to make their edits, but not too aggressively defend them against criticism, but rather see the criticism an attempt to show how to be mote effective. (Certainly they should properly and calmly defend themselves against unjustified criticism, like anyone else.) Attacking a paid editor personally on wiki is like attacking any other editor personally, and cannot be tolerated. Attacking them off-wiki or promoting such attacks is using the encyclopedia for harassment, and justifies a block to stop it. Promotion is bad enough, but harassment is much worse. DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I absolutely comdemn any harassment. But I also hold, absolutely, that a paid editor can not have a neutral point of view, full stop. They might well have the very best of intentions, but we all know the saying about good intentions. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your position fails to take to consideration the masses of users whose upaid and undeclared POV violates beyond comparison anything that this user is claimed to have done - Youreallycan (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not attacked, harassed, or encouraged any harassment of any editor, on or off wiki. None of my edits have violated any Wikipedia rules, in this matter or in any other matter. All of my edits in this matter have been both civil and limited, and I have encouraged other editors to express their thoughts in a civil manner as well. While I now appreciate and understand that many editors feel that publishing off-wiki contact information for companies with Wikipedia articles should be discouraged, and I have no intention of doing so again, I reiterate that I have not, to the best of my knowledge, violated any rules. Note that the contact information I posted was available on the main page of the organization's website and that the URL of the website is published in their article on Wikipedia. If someone can point to a specific rule that I demonstrably violated, I will immediately undo the edit in question and apologize to the community as a whole. Ebikeguy (talk) 02:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• It's supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Articles are supposed to be NPOV, it doesn't mean the individuals writing them are. I owned a Morgan sailboat and created the Charley Morgan article. Does that make the article NPOV? We don't do job interviews for letting writers in, we evaluate whether their edits follow Wikipedia practice. Nobody Ent 03:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Anybody who believes that paid editing isn't commonplace around here -- or that Wikipedia has any control over it -- is a complete idiot. At least this fellow owned up. Just evaluate the edits on their own merits and move along. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Amen, Nobody Ent and Boris; WP:NPA: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Yopienso (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

I'm asking here. I just removed a copyright violation from Ladies vs Ricky Bahl. Is this all that needs to be done? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I revdel'd the copyright violations.--v/r - TP 21:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you did everything right here, including reporting it (so that the copyvio could be deleted from the history). Thanks. causa sui (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IP address 74., Please take a moment and read all of the policies and guidelines people are quoting at you. For reference there is Verifiablity, Reliable Sources, No Personal Attacks, Civility, I didn't hear that, and 5 Pillars of Wikipedia. While Rehevkor was less than civil on a few occasions to you, your continued personal attacks and refusal to stop and understand what good intentioned editors are trying to tell you only pre-disposes other editors to believe other people over you. Please take a break from the current conflict to see if your actions have not been slightly over the top. Hasteur (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[36] I can find no source[37] to back this claim. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The IP editor has put this back into the article 3 times as well. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the IP to stop them for reinserting the information and rev-deleted the blatant BLP violations. Oversight may still be required... --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI, this is a rare case where we can start with a 4im warning. causa sui (talk) 00:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I need to know the authors of the following file and any other relevant information in order to process an OTRS Ticket:

File:EmilymarilynKevinBreak.JPG

Thank you for your time, MorganKevinJ^(talk) 22:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The file was originally created by User:Suzannegawel on October 29, 2011 with the edit summary "Emily Marilyn shot by http://www.KevinBreak.com photography". Is this the information you are looking for? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is all I need for now thank you, MorganKevinJ^(talk) 22:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Purplebackpack89 is attempting to merge this article without consensus to do so. He has himself admitted that it is notable. The article is well sources with multiple non trivial reliable sources in major media. This user has a pattern of nominating articles for deletion simply because they are related to the city of Richmond, California and nearly all of them are kept. This user claims there is a two to one consensus to do so. However the only other commenter simply stated he did not find this topic notable and did not comment on the merge. This user is also merging to a nearby subway station. However this is a neighborhood that is not part of that station, it is simply next to it. I offered examples of the San Francisco Shopping Centre being adjacent to and even connected to the Powell Street Station as being a similar illogical merge. The user ignored this and refused to dialogue on that matter. I mentioned a better target for a potential proposed merge would have been downtown Richmond, Richmond, California. However Metro Walk is in of itself notable. Notability is not shared, and you do not lose it. Therefore I ask that this user be stopped from merging without consensus as a 1-1 draw on the matter is not consensus. Also save us all from a potential edit war here please. What should we do?LuciferWildCat (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFC Nobody Ent 7:50 pm, Today (UTC−8)

Merge the thing because it is not notable according to two of the three editors who commented. You need to remember that merging can be done BOLDly, and articles can be merged regardless of whether they are notable or not. Also, you need to stop dragging me off to AN whenever you don't like the edits I make, and stop treating marginally significant articles as sacred cows. Please, this edit is clearly CLUEless...we're past the point where he can skate by because he's new to WP. He needs to stop dragging me off to ANI every five minutes for the sole reason that he doesn't like my edits. This ain't an ANI issue. Furthermore, Lucifer clearly cannot tell the difference between a merge and a deletion...he has repeatedly tagged this article for rescue, and has also spammed edits about rescuing an article that isn't being deleted Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 04:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs)
User notified on their Talk Page

Over the last 36 hours User:Delicious carbuncle's behaviour towards myself has been very concerning and at the suggestion of an admin who has already tried to resolve one of the problems and I am starting this ANI.

Following an exchange in the BLP noticeboard in which DC questioned edits I had made which were entirely inline with articles for all other British politicians, DC also included completely irrelevant comments about an unrelated article I had worked on concerning a notable racist murder. [38]. I explained that this was inappropriate and although the discussion then largely continued without any problems, ever since I have suffered a significant amount of harassment from DC, and they have behaved in a highly disruptive manner.

Conduct has has included two "time wasting" AFD submissions of articles I created [39][40] (both of which are clearly notable, especially the later) with not one single comment in support of deletion in either case thus far. One of the AFD submissions even included a personal attack falsely alleging racism on my part[41]. Other troubling behaviours have included deleting a fully sourced material from an article.[42] and links to the Parker article.

The straw that has broken the camels back is the creation of a most bizarre request for comment.[43] In it he repeats previous insinuations concerning my editing of the Parker article. DC has shown a rather excessive facination in me by combing though my contributions, and evidence of apparent serious misconduct on my part highlighted in the RFC include diffs such as:

• Adding a Daily Telegraph ref for to support the fact that Ken Livingstone resides in North London.[44]
• Creating redirects.
• An incident resulting from me exposing a network of longstanding sock puppets.
• Adding a British person with six convictions for theft to the category "British people convicted of theft" [45]

In the document DC suggests various bans for myself would be appropriate. Uninvolved parties have so far described the RFC as "obvious and disgusting attempt at a WP:WITCHHUNT".[46]

Not that it should matter in the slightest, but for the record my interests and expertise include the BBC, equality issues, and domestic violence and these are the themes which especially stirred my interest in most of the articles in question and I have a long track record in editing such topics. I'd also note that the article DC seems to object to actually achieved Good Article status mere hours before this all started, mostly all due to my edits. In terms of mistakes I may have made, I have already accepted that one heading I restored to the Qureshi article some times ago needed slight improvement, although it was not my "creation".

To date Delicious Carbuncle has refused to remove the attack on me in the AFD even after being asked to do so by an entirely uninvolved administrator User:Postdlf [47][48] , insisting that "the RFC/U which I hope will deal with the issues". Therefore the admin was forced to remove the attack themselves.[49] Postdlf describes DC's conduct as "disingenuous" and having an "apparent unwillingness to discuss anything maturely".

I believe all the above taken together more than constitutes serious harassment, not to mention a quite astounding lack of understanding of multiple Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I'm not sure what action needs to be taken, but at the very least I'd like an apology and retraction and for the attacks and wikihounding to be brought to a stop please as this disruptive behaviour is completely wasting my time and that of many others. I'd also appreciate it if people could keep an eye on the situation in future. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 04:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Re: "Other troubling behaviours have included deleting a fully sourced material from an article.[50]"--I call BS. Delicious Carbuncle was correct: you confused the wording of the Daily Mail with that of the subject. You should rather apologize for your editorial oversight; claiming that you being corrected is an example of a witch hunt is silly. Drmies (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually even DC has admitted to being in the wrong there, it's a quote and there's no "BS" or case of me being "silly", or need to apologise, try reading the source again, it's a well known quote--Shakehandsman (talk) 04:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you are right: I didn't see the opening quotes, and having been in the US for so long I guess I have forgotten how to read those quotes spread out over paragraphs. Please accept my apologies. Drmies (talk) 05:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I am just sick to death of having to put up with this user's hostility so I'll just report this right away. User:Timbouctou (even after being warned and blocked for a week for exactly that sort of behavior) once again arrived on a perfectly amiable discussion between myself and a third user and immediately started intensely revert-warring, threatening [51], and insulting my intelligence by implying I do not know my own language ("perhaps your Croatian might not be perfect" [52], he of course knows full well I am a Croat). I mean this sort of stuff just ruins the discussion right then and there and you know there is no chance of an amicable agreement from that point on, its one-post instant disruption.

When I asked him to stop, he just replied with "yeah yeah, spare the usual rants". Bearing in mind the two previous ANI reports about this user's flaming [53][54], and my previous experience with him, I don't even want to wait for this to escalate to the point where I'm called a "psychopath". It seems the user "got over" his block and its just business as usual all over again. I honestly feel this person's "out to get me", attempting to provoke me into another one of his conflicts to then try and get me blocked in retaliation. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really interested in commenting your distortions and rants. The matter is explained quite clearly at Talk:Zoran Milanović#Atheism and I would have reported you here for editing against consensus and violating WP:3RR anyway ([55], [56], [57], [58]). And all this in the very same article where you had violated WP:3RR and started an entire drama involving half a dozen editors over which image should be used in the infobox ([59], [60], [61]) two months earlier (and were even accused of harassment over it by the image uploader, twice). Looks like getting blocked eight times for edit-warring did not do the trick. Hopefully a ninth one might send the message more clearly. Cheers. Timbouctou (talk) 05:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Rants", right.. As I said twice before, Timbouctou only ever tries to attack me in response to being reported himself, trying to prove I really do deserve his treatment. This has happened time and time again, and here as well, a discussion is a "drama I started", some new user's uninformed accusation of "harassment" is brought out, as well as everything I might have done over six years on Wikipedia. (As far as I can see, those four edits took place over the course of several days. And while I am sure Timbouctou would not mind to get himself blocked as well only to get me blocked for a longer period, I will point out he neglects to mention he reverted three times [62] [63] [64].) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, DIREKTOR's first three reverts occurred at 13:23, Jan 3, 18:24, Jan 4 and 21:35 Jan 4. Following the third one I reverted warning him that he had no source for his insertion and that he would be reported for edit-warring if he continues. He then simply reverted again on 05:21, Jan 5. And as has been pointed out in the thread at article talk page by User:GregorB and then by me, DIREKTOR's insertion about the politician's beliefs is unsupported by the source provided. DIREKTOR hasn't got a source and he hasn't got consensus. His modus operandi consists of writing up essays on the nature of atheism, and then, not wasting time to wait for a reply, reverting the article back, citing "per talk" in the diff description. I guess that is his idea of a "perfectly amiable discussion". Timbouctou (talk) 05:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For goodness sake. This type of WP:HOUNDING and poor interaction between DIREKTOR and Timbouctou has already been going on for a very long time, and we need somebody to stop this current useless conversation. They have both been involved in several bad situations and now they going out harrassing one another once again. How unnecessary. Minima© (talk) 06:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For goodness sake. This is not a case of WP:HOUNDING at all. User:DIREKTOR has problems with pretty much anyone editing any article he is involved in because of his editing practices and regularly gets into conflicts all over the place. I believe User:Nuujinn is currently drafting a RFC/U about his behaviour. User:Joy also had something to say about his "amiable discussions" last time DIREKTOR dragged me here in mid-December, but was ignored. User:Fainites had topic-banned him back in April but it seems it didn't work because Fainites' assessment of his behaviour is true today as it was back then. Timbouctou (talk) 06:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Minima. Excuse me, but I do not think the harassment can possibly be characterized as mutual. I believe you'll find I've been going well out of my way to avoid having any contact with Timbouctou whatsoever. I do not find him pleasant company. On the other hand here's another recent example (in addition to the previous ones listed in past discussions) where I am having a normal amicable discussion with others only to have Timbouctou arrive to oppose me. Its like a weird reverse of "if you have nothing good to say say nothing at all": he basically "reviews" what I do, and if he feels my reign of terror needs to be curbed, he joins in to oppose my position, and, often enough, to attack me. If I'm not seeing Timbouctou appear in a discussion, its likely because he can't think of a way to oppose me.

As I said in the previous two discussions [65], and even after being told by others to focus on his own actions, all this user does is try to paint me as a menace and a troublemaker whenever he is reported. This is my perception, but I see this not only as irrelevant in justifying his actions (along the lines of "he deserves it"), but as personal attacks. And yet again in this thread as well, he's justifying his harassment - with more harassment here on ANI. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be quite fair, DIREKTOR is not only edit warring with Timbouctou, but also with GregorB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). And in terms of edit warring, it seems to me that DIREKTOR's hands are less clean, with as many reverts as he has (not that Timbouctou is at all guiltless). I'd be inclined to block DIREKTOR over this, especially given his already extensive block log, but would also consider a block of Timbouctou, since he's also got a history of this offence. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And to be even fairer, I am, as usual, only restoring the status quo. Gregor was bold, I reverted him and we had a standard, amicable discussion on the talkpage. Then Timbouctou arrives and we basically end up here. My problem is that I carefully avoid edit-warring to push new edits (per WP:BRD I discuss when my new edit is reverted), and so I can't stand it when people try to push new edits through edit-warring. "Force over reason" is how I perceive it. My block log is extensive because I edited a lot less appropriately years and years ago (when I was really just a kid :)). My point is, why block anyone over edit-warring? The edit-war is over, WP:3RR has not been violated, and to do so is just punitive.

Also, as I said, I strongly believe it was (and is) Timbouctou's intention to provoke edit-wars and then report me with my longer (ancient) block log, banking on me getting a much longer block. I mean the guy dislikes me that much. Its likely his idea of "retaliation" for being blocked for a week after a string of personal attacks, and that strategy appeals to his perception of me as a "troublemaker" ("you're a menace and now you'll pay for it"). It wouldn't be the first time either. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The status quo enjoys no protected status at Wikipedia, for the simple reason that the status quo sometimes contains factual errors, POV etc. Therefore such reverts have no exemption. And as for your block log being ancient, I wouldn't call 8 October 2011 ancient by anyone's definition. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's a partial response isn't it? :) No, the most recent one isn't of course. Look I'm not saying I am blameless with regard to the tiny edit-war (and its about as tiny as they get), I'm saying that 3RR was not really violated by either party, that its over, and that it would be punitive to block anyone. But I'll say it once more: this is Timbouctou switching the subject away from himself over to the user he is harassing (as he does every time, edit war or no edit war). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking both of you to stop you both from engaging in your silly bickering war would be certainly not qualify as punitive, it would be palliative.--Adam in MO Talk 09:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gorba (talk · contribs) is making strange 'threats' that he will not continue to support Wikipedia financially if he doesn't get his way when editing articles.[66][67] See Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses#Scriptural_references.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gorba is free to contribute financially or not, just as he chooses, but financial contributions will not give him any additional say in content disputes, so those remarks on the talk page are pointless. There is nothing here that requires admin action. JohnCD (talk)